The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-05-1993 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. a 400 AGENDA IT EM MEETING DATE: JANUARY 5, 1993 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS "�, SUBJECT: Saratoga Avenue Sidewalks, Capital Project No. 961 - Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the project. Report Summary: All work on the Saratoga Avenue Sidewalks, Capital Project No. 961, has been completed by the City's contractor, Joseph J. Albanese, Inc., and accepted by the Public Works Inspector. The final construction cost for the project was $75,777.75 which is 13.5% above the awarded contract amount of $66,758.50. The additional costs were due to replacement of extra curb and gutter within the limits of the project and additional work required to restore landscaping at certain properties in front of which the new sidewalk was built. In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one. year maintenance /warranty period, it is recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. 'Further; it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the contract so that the requisite 30 day Stop Notice period for the filing of claims by subcontractors or material providers may commence. Fiscal Impacts: The ten percent retention withheld from previous payments, made to the contractor will be released 30 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion assuming no claims against the contractor are filed with the City. The adopted budget contains sufficient funds in Project No. 961, to cover the cost of the project, including the executed change orders. The City will be reimbursed for all expenses incurred on the project through TDA Article 3 funds which were approved for the project. Follow Up Actions: Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the project and will release the contract sureties and retention amount thirty days thereafter. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete. CONTRACT SUMMARY PROJECT: Saratoga Avenue Sidewalk Project - C.I.P. #961 CONTRACTOR: Jos. J. Albanese, Inc. CONTRACT DATE: 05/19/93 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $66,758.50 C.O. AUTHORITY: $10,000 CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 01/05/94 TOTAL C.O. AMOUNT: $9,019.25 FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $75,777.75 PERCENT +/- FROM ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: +13.5% SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.. . 43 MEETING DATE: JANUARY 5, 1994 AGENDA ITEM 86 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS P.4A4 SUBJECT: Hakone Gardens Water System, Capital Project No. 981 - Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the project as complete and authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the project. Report Summary: All work on the Hakone Gardens Water System has been completed by the City's contractor, John Clay Landscape, and accepted by the Public Works Inspector. The final construction cost for the project was $113,752 which is 15.5 percent above the original contract amount of $98,450. The additional costs were due to underground utility conflicts encountered during the installation of the water main and the installation of the irrigation system to the bamboo gardens which was not a part of the original contract. In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one year maintenance /warranty period, it is recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the contract so that the requisite thirty-day Stop Notice period for the filing of claims by subcontractors and material providers may commence. Fiscal Impacts: The ten percent retention withheld from previous payments made to the contractor will be released thirty days after recordation of the Notice of Completion assuming no claims are filed with the City against the contractor. The adopted budget contains sufficient funds in Project No. 981, Account No. 4510 to cover the cost of the project, including executed change orders. Follow Up Actions: Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the project and release the contract sureties and retention amount thirty days thereafter. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The project will not be accepted as complete and staff will notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete. CONTRACT SUMMARY PROJECT: Hakone Gardens Water System - C.I.P. #981 CONTRACTOR:, John Clay Landscape CONTRACT DATE: 06/16/93 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $98,450 C.O. AUTHORITY: $17,500 CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 01/05/94 TOTAL C.O. AMOUNT: $15,302 FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $113,752 PERCENT. + /- FROM ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: +15.5% Recording requested by, and to be returned to: Saratoga City Clerk 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed to be performed under the contract mentioned below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and the Contractor mentioned below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Owner on the 5th day of January, 1994. Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: June 16, 1993 Contractor's Name: John Clay Landscape Contractor's Address: 778 Marin Ave., Hayward, CA 94541 Description of Work: Hakone Gardens Water System.- C.I.P. 981 This notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code offthe State of California. The undersigned certifies that he is an Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing Completion and knows the contents therec true of his own knowledge, except as to therein stated on information or belief, that he believes to be true. officer of the City of Notice of Acceptance of f; and that the same is those matters which are and as to those matters I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on , 19 CITY OF SARATOGA BY: Larry I. Perlin Director Of Public Works ATTEST: Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk Gov. Code 40814 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z a-- AGENDA ITEM V/ MEETING DATE: JANUARY 5, 1994 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS do" ,- SUBJECT: Recommendation from Public Safety Commission to Remove Stop Signs at the Lynde Ave. /Lynde Ct. Intersection Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing the removal of stop signs at the Lynde Ave. /Lynde Ct. intersection. Report Summary: In response to the attached petition from residents of Lynde Ave., Lynde Ct. and Deerpark Ct., the Public Safety Commission reevaluated the designation of the Lynde Ave. /Lynde Ct. intersection as a three -way stop intersection. You may recall that this intersection was designated as a three -way stop by the Council at your meeting of August 24 (see attached Staff Report) . The Council adopted Version 1 of the two Motor Vehicle Resolutions which were presented to you. At their December meeting, the Public Safety Commission reconsidered the creation of the three -way stop after listening to testimony from several residents of the immediate neighborhood who suggest that the inconvenience of the three -way stop to area residents outweighs the traffic safety benefits provided by the multi -way stop signs. The Commission then voted 6 -1 (Commissioner Dowdy opposed) to recommend to the Council that the three -way stop be abandoned, and that the intersection be returned to its original state, i.e. remove the stop signs on Lynde Ave., and retain the stop sign on the driveway exiting from the school parking lot in its present location. While staff is.not keen on the idea of installing and then removing stop signs, staff does support, the Commission's recommendation in this instance. Staff believes that the residents' concerns about the inconveniences and other nuisances caused by the stop signs are justified, and that the intersection can function as safely with the one stop sign as it does with the three stop signs. Please recognize however that neither the Commission nor staff support the alternative of having only one stop sign on the Lynde Ct. approach to the intersection (Version 2 of the MV Resolution attached to the August 24 Staff Report). 411-VA-P-4 �1_j -It-0 A-) Fiscal Impacts: Approximately $300 in staff time and materials to remove the two stop signs and obliterate the pavement markings. Sufficient funds exist in Program No. 33 (Traffic Control) to accomplish this work. Follow Up Actions: A work order will be initiated to remove the two stop signs and obliterate the pavement markings. A centerline marking will also be established in the intersection to indicate to motorists that Lynde Ave. actually curves to the east, rather than heading north into the school parking lot. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The intersection will remain as a three -way stop. RESOLUTION NO. MV- RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. MV -214 The City. Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1. Resolution No. MV -214, passed and adopted on August 24, 1993, is rescinded. The intersection of Lynde Avenue shall no longer be designated as a three-way-stop intersection. Section 2. The following' intersection in the City of Saratoga is hereby designated as a.stop intersection: Name of Street Description Lynde Avenue All vehicles travelling southbound, from Foothill School, on Lynde Avenue shall stop at the point where Lynde Avenue turns 90 degrees to the east, before proceeding onto eastbound Lynde Avenue, or continuing southbound onto Lynde Avenue. The above shall become effective at such time as the proper signs and /or, markings are removed and /or installed, as the case may be. PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 19 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City. Clerk FOpTH /L L EX! S T/A/gS` J 0P Z; TO REMai4 Q W 0 z a v EX /ST /,V$ --1*727P lei DRAWN By ey APPROY y 6'a"i- S7-po ro L i 7-0 8� REMo YEP R CITY OF SARATOGA STANDARD DRAWING co 0 . 000, f �l . "= 60' �.G .� fX I, W SCALE HOR. 1" VERT. 1 = DATE /iis i Q e Mr.. Larry Perlin Engineer - City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale.Avenue Saratoga; CA 95070 Dear Mr.- :Perlin: We, the residents of Lynde Avenue and'Lynde Court, realize that the City's efforts to reduce the epee on Lynde Avenue near Foothill School . resulted in the placement of three stop signs where there has not been an accident in over thirty (30) years. If these three stop signs are indeed necessary, could you please add to the sign on Lynde Avenue at the intersection of Lynde Court a sign that says right turn OK without stopping. M+ cilla�l L �; 2,_D53) Saw-�9 o-- iw Mr. Larry Perlin Engineer' City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue:.... Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr..- .Perlin: We, the residents of . Lynde Avenue and Lynde Court, realize that the City's efforts to reduce the speed on Lynde Avenue near Foothill School resulted in .the-placement of three stop signs where there has not been an .accident: -.in over --thirty. {30) years. -- If these three stop signs are indeed necessary, could you please-add to the sign on Lynde Avenue at the intersection.oflyXe Court a sign that says right turn OK without stopping. N ADDRESS { Ape Nom— 11-11 RAA - l` P9 3 ". Ne SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: August 24, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works - AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. SUBJECT: Miscellaneous traffic matters R: commended Motion(s): Move to adopt two Motor Vehicle Resolutions to 1) Prohibit parking on a portion of Johnson Avenue, and 2) Designate the intersection of Lynde Ave., and the Lynde Ave. extension into the Foothill School property as a three -way stop intersection. ftsQ,rjt. Summary: Attached are two Motor Vehicle Resolutio conce affic issues which have recently been rev' Public Safety sion. The first resolution co sight distance problem for motorists exiting Broo on son Avenue. The resolution would prohibit g on Johnson Ave. in 52 feet of either side of t ersection of Brook Lane. Bo and the Public Safe mmission support the proposed parking rest ' ns and it ecommended that the Council adopt the attached reso1 The second resolution deals with the intersection of Lynde Ave. and what I will call the Lynde Ave. extension into the Foothill School property (the public street actually extends back towards the school property for a short distance before it ends and becomes the school's private driveway). As you may recall, Councilmember Anderson suggested that the stop sign placement at this intersection be modified to reflect the apparent through movement at the intersection. As a result, you referred the matter back to the Public Safety Commission for additional review. In my August 5 memo to the Public Safety Commission attached, I attempted to explain why I felt that the only prudent option for changing the current stop sign configuration was to create a three - way stop intersection. At the time I wrote the memo however, I was unaware of the fact that the public street actually extends back a ways towards the school property until it ends and becomes the school driveway. When this fact was then revealed to the Commission at their meeting, it provided the basis for considering the through traffic movement as between Lynde Ave. and the Lynde Ave. extension. As a result, the recommendation from the Commission was to move the stop sign from the school driveway (Lynde Ave. extension) and to place it on the Lynde Ave. /Lynde Ct. leg of the intersection. Since the Commission's meeting, I have been reconsidering their recommendation to you and believe that the Council should instead move to create a three -way stop as I originally recommended to the Commission. My primary reason for this recommendation is the general concern I have about traffic safety in the vicinity of the school. It is my opinion that all traffic approaching the intersection should be required to come to a complete stop before proceeding through the intersection, rather than allowing some traffic to move uncontrolled through the intersection, to avoid the inherent vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. which usually occur close to schools. Captain Wilson of the Sheriff's Dep It. echoes the same concern and agrees with this recommendation. If the Council also agrees with this recommendation, then you should adopt version one of the attached resolution. If instead you agree with the recommendation formulated by the Commission, then you should adopt the attached version two of the resolution. Either way, the changes will be implemented prior to the start of the. new school year. Fiscal Impacts: Depending on which combination of resolutions you adopt, $200 - $400 to implement both actions. Follow Utz Actions: A work order will be generated and the changes will be implemented. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The changes will not be implemented. yt vggs/0^j J. -* RESOLUTION NO. XV- RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTION OF LYNDE AVENUE AS A THREE -WAY STOP INTERSECTION The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1. The following intersection in the City of Saratoga j�9 hereby designated as a three -way stop intersection: Name of Street Description Lynde Avenue All vehicles traveling northound on Lynde Avenue shall stop at the point where said Lynde Avenue turns 900 to the east, before proceeding onto eastbound Lynde Avenue or continuing northbound on Lynde Avenue. Lynde Avenue All vehicles traveling westbound on Lynde Avenue shall stop at the point where Lynde Avenue changes direction to north/ south, before proceeding onto northbound or southbound Lynde Avenue. Lynde Avenue All vehicles traveling southbound, from. Foothill School, on Lynde Avenue shall stop at the point where Lynde Avenue turns 900 to the east, before proceeding onto eastbound Lynde Avenue or continuing southbound on Lynde Avenue. The above stop signs shall become effective at such time as the proper signs and /or markings are installed. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 1993, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR FOpTiy /L L scyo o � EXIST /iyG Q W 0 z a Ex /sTiv� srpp DRAWN By iJa�sey APPROY Y v[--Ks I �.l PRO,aosED . roa Q i - JTO,O R CITY OF SARATOGA STANDARD DRAWING. sc G /000" G i10" 1 ,� EX .tTc W SCALE HOR. 1" sL� VERT. 1 _ !! DATE V15i�SiON ,Z RESOLUTION NO. X7_ RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTION OF LYNDE AVENUE AS A STOP INTERSECTION The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1. Th(• following intersection in the City of Saratoga is hereby designated as a stop intersection: Name of Street Description Lynde Avenue All vehicles traveling westbound on Lynde Avenue shall stop at the point where Lynde Avenue changes direction to north/ south, before proceeding onto northbound or southbound Lynde Avenue. The above stop signs shall become' . effective at such time as the proper signs and /or markings are installed. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of , 1993, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK [�!su O 33 sMP Ol' DRAWN BY Z)a.sey APPROVED BY * y�RSioN Z, W - pRD,oIDS�� .STOP 0� t Lo Ei0 R CITY OF SARATOGA STANDARD DRAWING SC.4LE: "= 60' GI G� To Az r4 fToP �C oc SCALE MOR. 1" VERT. 1 = /7 DATE Aug•, 19 3 (SSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. � 7 O AGENDA ITEM: FL-11 MEETING DATE: January 5, 1994 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development APPROVAL SUBJECT: DR -93 -030 & V -93 -026 - Ebrahimoun; 15170 E1 Camino Grande Appeal of Design Review approval limiting the size of a new two -story residence and denial of a Variance to allow the proposed structure to exceed the site's maximum permitted floor area. Recommended Motion: Deny the appellant's request and uphold the following Planning Commission decisions: 1. Approval of Design Review request to construct a new residence with the condition that the size of the proposed residence be reduced from 6,277 square feet to 5,685 square feet. (Passed 5 -0) 2. Denial of Variance request to exceed the site's,maximum permitted floor area of 5,688 square feet by 589 square feet. (Passed 4 -1) Report Summary: Planning Commission Review: This proposal for a new single - family residence at the corner of E1 Camino Grande and E1 Camino Senda was presented to the Planning Commission at the November 22, 1993 public hearing. The proposal includes a request for Design Review approval to allow the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new two -story 6,277 square foot residence. Variance approval was also requested to allow the proposed residence to exceed the maximum permitted floor area of 5,688 square feet by 589 square feet. Initially the Planning Commission denied the applicant's requests for Design Review and Variance approval. The Commissioners were supportive of the overall design of the residence and felt they could make the necessary Design Review findings. However, since the Design Review approval was contingent on the Variance application being approved and the could not make the findings to support the Variance, both requests were initially denied per staff's recommendation. Later in the meeting under Oral Communications, the applicant's representative requested the Planning Commission to reconsider their decision. He stated that the applicants would like to present their original plans to the Planning Commission, which conformed to the maximum permitted floor area requirements and did not require Variance approval, and move forward through the process. The Commission voted 5- 0 to reconsider the vote and again denied the Variance request (4 -1). Ebrahimoun Appeal DR -93 -030 & V -93 -026 January 8, 1994 Page 2 However, the Design Review request was approved (5 -0) with the condition that the proposed floor area be reduced to conform with the City's requirements., Appeal Letter: The applicants are now appealing the Planning Commission's decision. In their letter dated December 7, 1993, the applicants state several reasons why they feel they should be granted a Variance to exceed the site's maximum permitted floor area. Each of these reasons are summarized below followed be staff's response. • Desire to enlarge underground garage by 225 square feet. Staff's Response: The applicants do not feel this area should be counted as floor area since it is not visible from the exterior of the house. However, the ordinance requires that all underground area be counted as floor area unless no portion of the room is more than two feet above grade. Desire to increase the thickness of exterior walls from six inches to 12 inches to provide energy efficiency. This also complements the proposed "Mediterranean" architectural style of the home. Staff's Response: Section 15- 06.280 states that floor area shall be measured to the outside surface of exterior walls. Requirement to round -up the average slope calculation of 19.3 to 20 percent for the floor area slope adjustment requirement. The applicants feel they were penalized since the average slope was rounded up, which requires the net site area to be reduced by 30 percent versus 28 percent (if they were permitted to round down). Staff Response: Section 15- 45.030 states where the average slope is a fractional number, it shall be rounded up to the next whole number. All applications are reviewed under this provision. Therefore, the applicants were not penalized. • Fact that an adjacent property was permitted to build a larger home than the applicants are proposing on a parcel smaller than the applicants'. Staff's Response: The subject residence was approved in 1983 prior to the adoption of the current floor area standards. In addition, the average slope of the adjacent property is less than 10 percent which exempts it from the slope adjustment requirement. The majority of the Commissioners felt that the applicants should have taken into consideration the requirement for a garage and their desire for thicker walls earlier in the planning process. The Planning Commission could not make the findings necessary to support the applicants' Variance request. Fiscal Impacts: None Follow -up Actions: None Ebrahimoun Appeal DR -93 -030 & V -93 -026 January 8, 1994 Page 3 Consequences of Not Acting on Recommended Motions: The applicants would be permitted to construct a house larger than allowed by City Code. Attachments: 1. Appeal letter 2. Resolutions DR -93 -030 & V -93 -026 3. Planning Commission minutes date 11/22/93 4. Staff report dated 11/22/93 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" Date Received: [,L A-3 Hearing Date: Fee: 450 !/ I Receipt No.: �-� 7 / -- APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: Jean Ebrahimo Address: 15170 El Camino Grande, Saratoga.,. CA 95070 Telephone: _354 -7601 Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: Project File Number and Address: v_on?(�_�5i 7c, i eam; nn1 =ran3e Decision Being Appealed: yes I Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): See Attached i . %Appellant's Signature ✓ *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. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN ( 5) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. i i December 7, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Saratoga _ 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: 15170 El Camino Grande Variance V93 -026 Honorable. Mayor and Members of the City Council: . The purpose of this letter is to appeal the Variance V93 -026 by the City Planning Commission, although the Staff and Planning Commission highly supported the design of the home. The reasons we and our neighbors believe we should be granted the variance are as follows: Years of study and planning went into our home as preserving all our natural surroundings were our major concerns. We decided to invest a considerably larger amount of money to convert an otherwise, crawl space into a two car, underground garage rather than having a detached, two car garage. This decision saved us from cutting any oaks and also, reduced bulk considerably. This additional square footage of 224.5 square feet will NOT be perceived from the exterior elevation but will provide us with an adequate garage we can comfortably park two cars. With a home of this size we really need to take into consideration energy efficiency. This 238.5 square feet will NOT allow us additional liveable square area but provide enormous energy conservation in addition, to architecturally provide deep set fenestration typically found in our chosed "Mediterranean" architectural style. We should not be penalized for wanting to conserve energy! The 18" we are requesting on our bedroom wing would allow us 126 square footage. According to mathematics a 19.3 slope should be rounded to 19 instead of 20. As a result we were penalized 78 square feet. Again, I can only elaborate our lot is unique and this 18" will have no impact on bulk in our special circumstance. I have enclosed information from our immediate neighbors whom were granted additional square footage beyond what the city ordinances allowed on a lot size less than ours at 51,400 sq. ft. Our secluded and unique parcel of land with the grove of redwoods and numerous, manicured, mature oaks provides us isolation from everywhere.. There is not another lot in Saratoga hillside, like ours. Our natural environment took precedence overall our planning and design. Direct contact was made with ALL our neighbors whom all favored the design along with our moderate variance. This included more than 30 supportive neighbors. We are extremely happy to finally be able to contribute to our neighborhood by preservation of all our natural environment, by planting more trees and making Saratoga a more beautiful place to live. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours truly, David & J6dn Ebrahimoun RESOLUTION NO. DR -93 -030 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION .STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ebrahimoun; 15170 E1 Camino Grande WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,277 sq. ft. two -story home and pool and demolish an existing residence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the associated Variance application to exceed the allowable, floor area was denied and the Design Review approved with a condition that the floor area not exceed 5,685 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: -The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the design of the proposed residence utilizes varied roof heights and lines to minimize the building areas of maximum height and bulk. -The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. and undeveloped areas, in that the applicant's are providing replacement trees for the trees proposed. to be removed per the City Arborist's recommendation and the proposed grading will not impact any of the surrounding properties due to the isolation of the subject property. -The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the design of this residence is well massed and articulated to avoid the perception of excessive mass. -The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent DR -93 -030; 15170 El Camino Grande properties to utilize solar energy, in that the areas.of maximum roof height are limited and are - stepped back well in excess of the minimum required setbacks and the structure is located a signifi- cant distance from the nearest adjacent residence. -The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. -The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055. -The proposed two -story residence is located within a neighborhood where there is a predominance of two -story structures which supports the request for an exception to the floor area reduction requirement. 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 EBRAHIMOUN for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and designed as shown on Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, revised plans shall be submitted for Community Development Director approval indicating that the floor area has been reduced to no more than 5,685 sq. ft. No additional floor area shall be.permitted unless a Variance application is approved to do so. 2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, the following shall be submitted to Planning Department staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Three (3) sets of complete construction plans incorporat- ing this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. One (1) set of engineered grading and drainage plans (including erosion control measures) , also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. C. All applicable requirements /conditions of the Resolution _:(e.g. modifications to plans) and requirements/ conditions of the City Arborist (e.g. tree protective fencing) shall be noted on the plans. DR -93 -030; 15170 El Camino Grande 3. No retaining wall shall have a height that exceeds 5 ft. measured from either the existing natural grade or the finish grade, whichever is greater. In addition, no fence or wall shall exceed six (6) feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard or within any required exterior side yard of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three (3) feet in height. 4. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 5. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtain- ing a Tree Removal Permit except for tree #2, #12, #13, and. #18 as described in the City Arborist Report dated 8/31/93. 6. All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated 8/31/93 shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Provide supplemental irrigation as described in the above referenced report. Four weeks prior to the start of grading all trees in the vicinity of construction shall be irrigated weekly. Verification that this has been completed shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. b. Install chain link protective fencing around each tree that is to be retained as described in the above referenced report. Planning staff shall inspect all fencing prior to the issuance of any permit. c. Prior to zone clearance, the locations for trenching required to.install any utilities line shall be indicated on the site plan. Trenching must be planned to avoid travelling beneath tree canopies. d. Sub- surface fertilize on -site trees per the direction of the City Arborist prior to the issuance of a zone clearance. e. Remove the paving surrounding tree #4 prior to issuance of a building permit. Verification that this has been completed shall be submitted to the Planning Department. f. Install pervious paving in the area indicated on the City Arborist's exhibit near tree #9 and #10. This shall consist of either interlocking pavers or bricks on gravel and sand. Prior to zone clearance, this shall be indicated on the site plan. 7. Prior to zone clearance, the applicant shall submit to the City in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director security in an amount of $6,500 pursuant to the City DR -93 -030; 15170 E1 Camino Grande Arborist's report. The security will be released to the applicant once construction is completed and a. final inspection by the City Arborist has been conducted and it is determined that the protective procedures outlined in the Arborist report and the above conditions have been followed. 8. Landscapinq- per the Landscape Plan in Exhibit A and irrigation shall be installed prior to final occupancy. 9. All driveways have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one ft. shoulders. 10. Provide automatic fire sprinkler protection throughout per the Uniform Fire Code and Central Fire District's requirements. 11. Early Warning Fire Alarm 'System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga. 12. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. 13. Driveways: All driveways have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one ft. shoulders. a. Slopes from p 11$ to 15$ shall b surfaced using 2.5 inches of A. C. or better on a 6 inch aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. b.. Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4 inch PCC concrete rough surfaces on a 4 inch aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. 14. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and .expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 15. 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 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. DR -93 -030; 15170 El Camino Grande Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. - Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section S. The applicant sbtt-11 affix a copy. of this re volution 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 Commis- sion, State.of California, this 22nd day of November, 1993 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Asfour, Caldwell, Jacobs, Kaplan & Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Moran & Murakami Chairperson,,Plannin4 Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date RESOLUTION NO. V -93 -026 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ebrahimoun; 15170 El Camino Grande WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for the Variance approval to allow the proposed residence to exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area of 5,688 square feet by 589 square feet. 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 not met the burden of proof required to support his said application, and the Planning Commission makes the following findings: (a) Special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings do not exist which 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 the applicant's own desire to build a larger house then permitted does not constitute a special circumstance. (b) That the granting of the variance would 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 no special physical circumstances exist applicable to the property to support a Variance and the floor area formula specifically takes into account the size and topography of each parcel. 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 Ebrahimoun for Variance approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 22nd day of November, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Asfour, Caldwell, Jacobs and Kaplan File No. V -93 -026; 15170 El Camino Grande NOES: Commissioner Wolfe ABSENT: Commissioner Moran and Mur Chairpe on, Planning Commission. ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Planning Re: Design Review. 93-030,15170 El Camino Grande Ebrahimoun Residence - Variance Dear Planning Commissioners: November 15, 1993 We are residents at 15280 El Camino Grande. We have reviewed their plan, in addition to their variance and it complies with our neighborhood. We are very much in favor of this neighborhood improvement, t Yours truly, Mr. & Mrs. Dixon l CITY OF SARAtM% PLtf " IM, 0C rtlSSZGY STAT r-.--OF CALI OR\ JA -WERE5, the City of Saratoga Planning C='ission hu rmeivW an, splIC&I 0 -for Design Review Approval of a ';rcond story addit i,jn stor �structure at 19208 , Panorama Drive 1near Vii g istrict MAS, the applicant (has) (kascaet) met the burden of prop! rw*drrd to "'�pport his said application, N0141 MW'EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful co=Ld& Lio>A at t!r site --plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits ��tudola go was - tion with this matter, the application of M I CIIAE1. 1- 1.111:lt • -.for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (granted) (jss" MA)oCt I* the following conLUtions: I • I Per Staff Report dated April G, 1983 and 1:x1Iillit. ••N•• �� ••,�« "PASSED AM ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Castissi"t. UAW of California, this 13th day of April �0= by Ow folio• -•ing roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fllava, McGoldrick, Xrlltx, ti�t,aefcr an.l —NOES: None .ABSEZ: Commissioners Bolger and CI- owther ATTEST. /, crrta� , :uvlinZ a;unisslon -,t 1:4;-- !�li�:!'r�':�l.!•: :��l:�c�!•: �.�lt.�'I,)t::� �•.�l.ih��lt�l.� ,.,,,... OFFICE: Community Development April 14, 1983 Mr. Michael Elder 19208 Panorama Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 i RE: Tentative Building Site Approval SDR -153S and Design Review A -862 Dear Mr. Elder: At its meeting of April 13, 1983, the City of Saratoga Planninj Commission gave consideration to your request for Tentative Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval to construct a second -story addition to an existing single story structurQ at 19208 Panorama Drive. After careful review of this request, the Commission grantoJ approval to application SDR -1535 per the Staff Report JatoJ February 6, 1983 and Exhibit "B ". The Commission also grantoJ approval to application A -862 per the Staff Report and Exhibit* "B" and "C ". Copies of the Staff Report and Resolutions SDR- 1535 -1 and A -862 -1 are enclosed for your records. These decisions arc subject t,o a 10 -dav (calendar) appeal period, during which time you may appeal,, and a 15 -d3y appeal period during which the City Council may appeal the decisions. The Tentative Building Site Approval for SI)R -1535 is valid for •lgh1#041 (18) months. Before a building permit can he issued iIndl A ro. of the ma must e o taine from tic {t.v ounc r� -A the ouncil or Final pprova can a ma e r en have ca the Td you here wet the conditions established by the Planning Commission, or whon•you hs.v posted the necessary bond or cash deposit with the City to Ku.tsatee that the conditions will be met. If you have any questions concerning t1lis matter. ploa.o Jq not hesitate-to contact our office. Very truly you, s, obert S. Shook Director of Community Development RSS:cd Enclosures - cc: Oscar Sohns, 253 Almendra Ave.. Los G&tos, CA 1 W J4 0Z MC) &A,905 & REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City 'Revised: 9/28/4) NATI . 9/16/93 co, ,"W, 004609 9128/t3 SUBJECT: A -907 - Mr. & Mrs. Winvick, 19174 Panorama Drive REQUEST: Design Review Approval for additions which exceed the standard allowable tlow area and expand the second floor of an existing two -story residence. PLANNING DATA: PARCEL SIZE: 1.02 acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Strgle 166111 ZONING: R -1- 40,000 SITE DATA: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential SITE SLOPE: 8.6% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Level NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The existing residence it located on tA1 14"1 /W040 of a lot which has a downhill slope in the rear yard. there err *4.Pvr A W wh 1FW4 on site, including a large specimen oak near the proposed bulldinj area, otw. wove oak trees, cedar, walnut and various fruit trees. SETBACKS: Front: 30 ft. Rear: 150 ft. Right Side: 27 ft. Lg!j I1At: 41 •t HEIGHT: _Zo SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing Floor Area (incl. accessory structure); l.ei• �� •t. Proposed Additions: 1st Floor - 1.458 sq. It. .2nd oor - 478 sq. ft. 972 sq. ft. attic •ems• ewe east rlh TOTAL FLOOR AREA: '6.674 sq. ft. (6.200 diston "view tlao"04) NOTE: Area of the attic space was calculated by floor rrasurer+tt. h test fit. space -wi 11 be approximately half this amount and rMn araswe*C to toll way. awaW result in a residence of 6,202 sq. ft. t11�b Report to Planning Commi; 9/16/81 A -907 - Winvick, Panorama Drive Page 2 IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 27.8% (35% maximum allowed) COLORS b MATERIALS: New additions will match existing white stucco exterior with wood trim and cedar shake roofing._ RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES:. There are single story residences to the south and west, and two -story homes across the street and to the east. Numerous trees sere" the applicant's residence from homes on either side and from the residence at a lower elevation to the south. PRIVACY IMPACTS: The applicant is proposing two new second story decks on the pack o the residence and new second story windows on all four elevations. The privacy impacts of these additions are minimized by distance and by existing trees on this and neighboring properties. PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: The proposal meets height, setback and impervious coverage requirements for the zone. The floor area is greater than the 6,200 sq. ft. design review standard when including a measurement of the attic floor, but approximately equal to this standard when counting only the usable living space in the attic area. POTENTIAL CONVERSION OF ATTIC TO LIVING SPACE: The west wing, with attic space, Is i ft. high with a second story dormer window on the front elevation and a small window an tAe west elevation. Conversion of this attic space to living space would be difficult t0 monitor in the future. Staff recommends either approving the attic space as living space with this appllcatlea or requiring the applicant to modify the building plans in order to preclude use 91 the attic space as living space. This could be accomplished by reducing the root height M eliminating the windows. If the attic were used as living space, the privacy impacts would be •IM01te4 by tr"S along the western property line. FINDINGS: 1. Interference with Views and Privacy The proposal does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of adjacent prWeSIe; due to the distance between the residences and existing trees which scree" Inc additions. 2. Preserve the Natural Landscape The applicant is not proposing additional grading and no Significant trwt will to removed. The "40 inch oak" is an important natural featur* and will be vwtrctM as a condition of approval for this application. 3. Excessive Bulk and Compatible Bulk and Height The floor area and height of the proposal is compatible with other rN Idewcah 1• I** area and in the same zone. The perception of bulk Is Ginislied by lame try r the site and the changes in depth on the front elevation. Solar or *4184p•t properties will not be affected. op Report to Planning Comniss,.,n Few lyy A-907 - Winvick, Panorama Drive ' *RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the staff report dAted 9/161139 :AIM N 'Wand C' and subject to the following conditions: *1. Any modification to the size or addition of windows to the attic sped will rMIA additional Design Review Approval. 2. The applicant shall have a certified tree specialist prepare reca"" ^.dews M protecting and preserving the "40 inch oak" indicated on Exhibit *I* *"r the west wing. These recommendations shall be submitted to the Permit hevlgw Olvltlr for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. *3. Attic space is not to be converted to other uses and shall not be attested by e permanent stairway, unless building site approval is obtained or five (tj >►�n time has lapsed from Final Building Approval. *4. If the proposed additions exceed a 5D% expansion of the existing resldewte %V purposes of building site approval, then the applicant shall either rr#ce the square footage of the proposed additions so it is under a SO% eapantleo M WWI an application for Building Site Approval. Approved 1 ^ �i• �� .�L�r.LI!!, j. l n Leutre Planner LL/ ,sc P.C. Agenda: 91128/83 Qq 0 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION C!7 cf Saratccc ' DAT1, 1/6/81 4/13/83 SusJECT' SDR -1535, A -862, Mr. & Mrs. Michael Elder, 19208 Psnorasw psi ------------------------ REQUEST: Building Site and Design Review Approval to construct a first and second story addition to an existing single story dwelling which to more than a 508 expansion. OTHER APPROVALS: None PLANNING DATA: PARCEL SIZE: 46,194 square feet ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential NOTICING: Notice of this project has been posted on site, statlod to surrounding.property owners and advertised in the 8ardtcq& hors, SITE DATA: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residenti41 SITE SLOPE: 9.18% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 5% GRADING REQUIRED: CUT: 200 Cu. Yds. FILL: 200 Cu. Yd• CUT DEPTH: 3 Feet FILL DI:P T11 1 ) roe t SETBACKS: Front - 41 ft. Rear - 128 ft. Right 5idu - 20 ft. Left Side - 3j ft. HEIGHT: 2816" IMMOWN iPort to Planning Commission ' SDR -1535 4/6/83 Page 2 SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor Existing - 3,688 square foot First Floor-{New) - 1,980 suare feat Second Floor (New) - 876 square feet Total 6,544 square foot FLOOR AREA: 6,200 square feet is allowed by ordinance IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 31.38; -37 %. is al lnwe =l by`ordinanco COLORS & MATERIALS: Brick veneer with white window shutters will be used for the exterior. Roofing materials will be heavy shako. SOLAR: None proposed LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING: No landscaping plans have boon roquired with t — app ication.. PROJECT STATUS: Said Project complies with all ojoctivos of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A (Categorical Ememption) was preated and was to be f- led with the Count Of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental is+e i Of this project, if approved under this application. Said dotorst }natloA date: February 24, 1983 The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for (Exhibit "B" filed February 4 1983 subject to the following Drkliti Y ) J I. GENERAL CONDITIONS g cOMlttioAS/ Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordift"Go No. 600 including without limitation, the submission of a R&QOrd of Survey or parcel mapl paymp_nt of storm drainage fee and p and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect stthe time of final approval; submission of eneineerod improvoawnt for any street work; applicnd compliance wit tePPulcable Ilaalth 00"rts re ul iire Department. Reference Control of reg atlon• and tr0&wAN! for further particulars. Site a r °yuinance approval in no wayocxcusosd Ordinance with Saratoga 's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with ashy other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto Y otA°� with the folowing Specific Conditions which�arcnha�ebt shall ��'�"'blr .and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance ro`�vlt. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • sQ� A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtatntnq V&ftal Approval. RePort to Planning Commissi SDR -1535 on 4/6/83 B. Submit "Parcel Map Page 3 (Pay required checking City for Checking a Checking and Recordation shown on existing map of record, submit ). (If Parcel is prints.) three (3) to -scale C. Deferred Improvement Agreement (Improve Panorama ma to City D•' Construct Storm Drainage Drainage Plan" g System as shown on tho •astor needed to convey storm runoff and as directed by the Ci Mty Enginoors, as Watercourse. to Street, Storm Sower or E• Provide adequate sight distance view as required at driveway Q,, and remove ob9tru6tions.pf Y d access read intersections. F. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will chap retard or precept flow. 0e. G• Protective Planting required on roadside cuts and fills. H• Enter into "Deferred DImprovemen w improvements marked " I t Agreement for the required Quired III. DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES 8• Geotechnical investigation and re fessional port by liconsad pro- 1• Foundation B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing; 1• Grading (limits of cuts, existing and fills; slopes, cross- soctions, Proposed elevations, earthwork quant•itiei). 2• Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, loea etc.) tion, 3• Retaining structures including for walls 3 feet or highter. design by A.I.A. or M.C.R. 4• Standard information to include titleblock using record data, location plot l nos_, owner's name, etc.P, north arrow, sheot °n IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PERMIT REVIEW 1• Design Review Approval required on pro]oct r V for to permits. o Report to the Planning Commission 4/6/83 ,... :. SDR -1535 Page FINDINGS: 1. Avoid Unreasonable Interference with Views t Privacy Staff noted no interference with the viewshed of neighboring parcels. The dwellings across Panorama Drive are situated at a higher elevation than the subject site so that there view is not impaired. The views of the adjoining parcels to the west and east have their view oriented toward the south so that their view is also not impaired. Staff also noted no significant privacy impacts-to the adjacent neighbors to the west and south. The property to the is located at a lower elevation than the subject structure so that their rear yard is already visable from the subject lot Therefore, the second story does not significantly increase the impact. Some screening to the property to the roar is provided by existing fruit trees.as well as vegetation on the neighboring site. Similarly, the property to the west In also situated at a lower elevation and is fairly well &crooned with its own landscaping consisting of evergreen shrubbery and a mature (60' tall -) evergreen oak. 2. Minimize Perception of Excessive Bulk and Compatible Bulk • "olght The structures immediately adjacent to the subject structure are one story, however, there are four other two story dwellings on Panorama Drive which put them in close proximity to the aub)ect structure. It appears to staff that the structure will be compatible with the neighborhood in terms of bulk and design, s'ce there is a mix of one and two story homes. Staff has i1s0 c_.,sidered that the.2nd story addition is to be constructed over a small portion of the existing structure and will have a relattwl1f low elevation. 3.. Infills: Compatibility, Views, Privacy and Natural ro4turao Staff has noted no significant privacy or visual 1wV4Cta to the adjacent properties or the nighborhood. Staff also !volt tho project is compatible in terms of design and bulk with the svtto.4p41At homes. - RECOMMENDATION: Approve per Staff report dated 4/6 /g) and tahibit• B & C" subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to the issuance of building permltst 1. Minor modifications to the approved olovations rv•luiry thw review and approval of the Permit kavlow Division. 2. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be revio%ma aws approved by the Division of Inspection i.orvices Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page .5 JACOBS/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:49 P.M. PASSED 5 -0. JACOBS /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR -93 -006 PER THE RECOP,J'MENDA" IONS OF THE STAFF-REPORT INCLUDING THE,NEWLY ADDED CONDITION #8. Commissioner Caldwell explained that even though she was not present fooFthe August 11, 1993, review of this project, she had reviewed the initial staff report, visited the site, reviewed the minutes of. the last public hearing and is .prepared to vote on the application. Chairperson Asfour thanked the applicant and architect for following the direction of the Commission during the last review, of the project. THE MOTION PASSED 5 -0. 3. DR -93 -030 - Ebrahimoun; 15170 Ell Camino Grande, request for V -93 -026 - Design Review approval to construct a new two - story 6,277 sq. ft. residence and a swimming pool per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The existing residence is proposed to be demolished. Variance approval is also requested to allow the proposed residence to exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area of 5,688 sq. ft. by 589 sq. ft. The subject property is approximately 51,400 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 40,000 Zone district (cont. from 11/10/93 at the applicant's request; application expires 3/29/94). ------------------------------------------------------------ Planner Walgren presented the Report dated November 22, 1993, and answered questions with regard to the project. ACTING CHAIRPERSON ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:52 P.M. Gene Zambetti, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant had not yet arrived and asked if the Commission could move on to the next application and then come back to this application when the applicant arrives. At this time the applicant arrived and Mr. Zambetti was requested to proceed with his presentation. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 6 Gene Zambetti, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the application. He submitted pictures of the subject lot and used a transparency to aid in his presentation. Mr. Zambetti explained that the lot has a 19.3% slope, but when \ calculating the allowable floor area the code requires the slope of the lot to be rounded up to 20 %. He explained tAat floor area was lost due to this code requirement and presents the applicant with an undue hardship. He stated that there are other homes in the area built on a sloping lot and exceeding the allowable floor area. Mr. Zambetti explained that the structure would have 12 inch walls opposed to the standard 6 -inch walls. He stated that the floor area calculation is taken from the outside of the walls and not from the inside. He stated that this also reduces the floor area and that the thickness of the walls takes up some of this allowable floor area. He noted that the neighbors are in support.of this project and have written letters expressing their support and the absence of any concern with regard to potential impacts of the project on their properties. He also stated that the neighbors do not feel that granting the variance would be a granting of a special privilege. Mr. Zambetti explained that the lot is well screened and is unique because of its slope and because of the location of the proposed home (on the lot) due to the existing gorge on the property. He discussed the placement of the garage in the basement and other architectural /design features of the proposed home. He urged the Commission to approve the project and answered questions from the Commission with regard to the project. Planner Walgren, in response to questions from the Commission, explaine64 the. requirement to round -up the slope percentage was consistent with the code requirement implemented in 1987. He also explained that the square footage of the garage is required by code to be counted in with the allowable floor area. He stated that all applicants are subject to this regulation. Planner Walgren stated that another letter was received this evening from Mr. and Mrs. Comport supporting the applicant's request. Jean Ebrahimoun, applicant, spoke in favor of the applications. She stated that the design process has taken three times as long as expected. She explained that they had many issues to address. such as bulk and that the garage was purposely placed underground to lessen any perception of bulk. She stated that she and her family were interested in maintaining a one story home and retaining much of the existing vegetation. With regard to the extra thick walls, she explained that these were chosen for their energy- efficiency. She stated that she feels the lot is unique and noted that the neighbors are in support of the project. Dave Ebrahimoun, applicant, urged the Commission to approve the applications. He explained that many .different options /design were looked at and, in consideration of the City codes and the needs.of his family, the design proposed is Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 7 the one which best meets these needs and is within the spirit of the code. He explained that much effort had been spent on trying to minimize mass and bulk. He explained that due to the requirement to round the slope of the lot up to 20% he is penalized. He stated that because of this requirem(:nt, he would be forced to reduce the size of the master bedroom. and reduce the thickness of the walls. He stated that he feels the lot is unique and that the variance would not adversely impact anyone in the vicinity. Maurice Camargo, project architect, 3953 Yellow Drive, stated that in designing the proposed structure he tried to balance the owners wishes while working with the City codes. He explained that he had tried to design a suitable home without the need for a variance, but because of the uniqueness of the lot was unsuccessful. He discussed various features such as the thickness of the walls, the proposed square footage, and the underground garage. He expliineld_::that originally the house was designed with only a carport,but due to thohCit�i's =.- requirements for two fully enclosed parking areas the applicant was forced to add a garage. He explained that the garage was added underground. He again urged the Commission to approve the applications and stated that the lot is fairly isolated and the granting of the variance would not impact other residents in the area. Mr. Camargo also answered questions from the Commission. Ann Bogan, 12228 Morella Drive, stated that she is a local real estate agent and spoke in favor of the application claiming that the new structure would enhance the area. She stated that the easement would not be visible to anyone in the area. Gene Zambetti, stated that all the neighbors were in support of the application and that the granting of the variance would not grant the applicants a special privilege. There was no one else wishing to-speak. CALDWELL /KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:23 P.M. PASSED 5 -0. Commissioner Caldwell verified that there was no easement on the subject property. Planner Walgren stated that there was no easement on the property which effects the proposal. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 8 Commissioner Caldwell noted that the Commissioners had been given some written information (the same diagrams /transparencies presented by Mr. Zambetti during his presentation) when they had visited the site earlier in the day. She asked if Commissioner Jacobs had also been given this information. Commissioner Jacobs thanked Commissioner Caldwell and stated that he had visited the site on his own and had indeed received the written information. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she .felt staff did an excellent job on the staff report and that she agrees with staff's recommendation. She stated that she could not make the variance findings. She stated that the applicants should have taken into consideration the requirement for a garage and their desire for thicker walls earlier in the planning process. She stated that she could find no` special circumstance that would warrant the need for a variance. She stated that she would not be voting in favor of the applications. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he was impressed by the out pour of letters from the neighbors in support of this application. He noted that the neighbors found nothing wrong with the design. He stated that the fact that the house was designed with energy saving walls is environmentally conscious and saves energy. He stated that the variance is no more than about 5% of what would be allowed on the property when the "peculiar" calculation (of the slope and floor area) is not taken into consideration. He stated that he found the design acceptable and the variance request reasonable. WOLFE MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTIOWFOR APPROVAL OF DR -93 -030 AND V -93 -026 AS PROPOSED. COMMISSIONER JACOBS SECONDED THE MOTION SO THE ISSUE COULD BE BROUGHT TO A VOTE. Acting Chairperson'Asfour stated that he would like to continue discussions on the application before voting. He explained that a vote could be taken at this point or discussions could continue and Commissioner Jacobs could withdraw his second so the motion would die for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER JACOBS WITHDREW HIS SECOND. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Commissioner Jacobs stated that on one hand he is in agreement with. Commissioner Wolfe - he feels the design is an excellent design. Commissioner Jacobs explained that although he liked the design, he could not support the Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 9 variance because he could not make the findings. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he did not feel that the square footage allowed for this lot deprives the applicants of enjoyment of the lot. He read the required variance findings aloud and stated that the site would be an empty site and he does not find any physical constraints that would force the applicant to build a house which exceeds the allowable floor area. He explained that there is nothing topographical about the lot itself which warrants a variance. He explained that if the variance was granted based on the fact that the design is nice and because everyone likes it, the Planning Commission would be violating the code. He stated that he feels he has no choice but to vote against it. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she .seconded the comments made by Commissioner Jacobs. Acting Chairperson Asfour commended the applicants and the architect on the design. He stated that even though the design is excellent, it does not change the requirements of the code. He stated that the applicants should have taken into. consideration the special design features (thicker walls and etc.) earlier in the planning process. He stated that he could not make the necessary findings and therefore would not be supporting the applications. KAPLAN /CALDWELL MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DR -93 -030 TO DENY THE APPLICATION. PASSED 4 -1 (WOLFE OPPOSED). Commissioner Caldwell asked about a motion regarding the variance application. Acting Chairperson Asfour stated that he thought the applications were to be voted on together. KAPLAN /CALDWELL AMENDED THEIR MOTION (ABOVE) TO INCLUDE BOTH DR- 93 -030 AND V -93 -026 - ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS DR -93 -030 AND V -93 -026 FOR DENIAL. THE VOTE WAS THEN RETAKEN AND PASSED 4 -1 (WOLFE OPPOSED). Mr. Zambetti asked about the time line for resubmitting plans for another design review. Commissioner Caldwell stated that it is her recommendation that the denial be without prejudice. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 10 COMMISSIONER KAPLAN INDICATED THAT A DENIAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION WAS ACCEPTABLE TO HER. COMMISSIONER CALDWELL, AS SECONDER OF THE MOTION, STATED THAT DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE WOULCi= ALSO EE HER PREFERENCE. THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS FOUND THIS TO BE ACCEPTABLE. 4. V -93 -023 - Onn; 13770 Beaumont Dr., request for Variance approval to allow a six foot high fence to be constructed on top of a two foot high retaining wall, effectively creating an eight foot tall fence. Chapter 15 of the City Code limits fences and walls to six feet in maximum height. The subject property is approximately 12,000 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zone district.``�� -------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the Report dated November 22, 1993. Planner Walgren announced that staff had received a letter from the adjoining property owner to the south requesting that the hearing on this issue be continued until the first meeting of December .so that the neighboring property owner can be present. Planner Walgren explained that the applicant had been informed of this request. Planner Walgren explained that the Planning Commission could either open the public hearing, take testimony- and act on the application or open the public hearing, take testimony and then continue action on the item until the 1st meeting in December when the adjoining property owner can be present. Planner Walgren also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the application. Acting Chairperson Asfour and Commissioners Kaplan and Wolfe expressed a desire to proceed with the application and resolve the issue at the current meeting. Acting Chairperson Asfour and Commissioner Kaplan stated that they felt that the adjoining property owner(s) had been given enough time to at least submit a written detail expressing their concerns. Commissioners Jacobs and Caldwell expressed their preference to continue the application to the 1 st Planning Commission meeting in December so that the adjoining property owner could be present. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:40 P.M. BY ACTING CHAIRPERSON ASFOUR. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 15 Commissioner Caldwell stated that she would check with the City Attorney with regard to the use of the language she suggested (and used on two of the variance approvals) therefore, pending the City Attorneys opinion on the use of this language there may not need to.be a discussion at a worksession. Commissioner Caldwell stated that if thE. City Attorney agrees that this language should be used, the language can simply be incorporated into the standard "boiler plate language used when approving variances. The Commission agreed with Commissioner Caldwell's suggestion. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Notices for the 1 2/8/93 public hearing Oral Gene Zambetti, 14510 Big Basin Way, representing the Ebrahimouns, applicants - DR -93 -030 and V -93 -026, stated that in talking with the applicants, they expressed a desire to take their original plans that were previously placed on the consent calendar (prior to making the modifications which were reviewed earlier in the evening) and moving those plans through the process. He asked if this evening's denial without prejudice would allow the applicants to take the original plans back through the process without having to re -pay the application fee. Planner Walgren explained that technically the denial closed out the original application and therefore a new application would need to be made and andt- application fee would need to be paid.► :f Commissioner Caldwell asked if the Planning Commission could re- consider applications at the same meeting at which the application had originally been voted on. Planner Walgren stated that he thought that re- consideration could only take place when there is a tied vote. He stated that he would look at the code to make sure . his understanding was correct. Commissioner Caldwell stated that if the applicant wishes to have the Commission review the design (as it was prior to making the modifications which required the variance), she feels that it would be within the Planning Commission's capacity to approve the design review with the condition that it conform to the original design or that the applicants remove the three elements that require the variance. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 16 She stated that a reconsideration would be a simple matter instead of having the applicant re- submit the same design, re -pay an application fee, and then wait until the new application can come up on the Planning Commission agenda. Commissioner Kaplan expressed agreement with the comments made by Commissioner Caldwell. Acting Chairperson Asfour stated that he did not know whether the Planning Commission could re- consider the item. Planner Walgren suggested that the Commission take a. brief break to allow him time to check the Code to see if the Commission could re- consider the action taken. AT 9:07 P.M. ACTING CHAIRPERSON ASFOUR RECESSED THE MEETING. THE MEETING WAS THEN RECONVENED AT 9:14 P.M.' CALDWELL /KAPLAN MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE TAKEN ON DR -93 -030 AND V -93 -026. PASSED 5 -0. KAPLAN /JACOBS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION V -93 -026 (DENIAL QF,. VARIANCE REQUEST) PASSED 4 -1 (WOLFE OPPOSED)... °<, ASFOUR /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR -93 -030 WITH THE CONDITION THAT,, ;ar. THE DESIGN BE MODIFIED TO MEET THE CITY REQUIREMENTS AND ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE, BUT THAT THE NEW DESIGN BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO THE DESIGN PRESENTED THIS EVENING. THE MOTION PASSED 5 -0. Planner Walgren asked if the Design Review Resolution was being adopted based on the design review findings that were expressed during ,the original discussion in support of the design. Commissioner Caldwell explained that the Design Review Resolution was indeed being adopted based on the design review findings expressed during the original discussion in support of the design and on the findings made in the staff report. Commissioner Caldwell explained that normally the Planning Commission would move to direct staff to draft a resolution for approval of the design review application and that resolution would then come back before the Planning Commission at the next public hearing on the consent calendar. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 17 Planner Walgren stated that he felt that the Commission should'take this action (explained by Commission Caldwell above) instead of trying to provide language to make all the necessary findings this evening. ASFOUR /KAPLAN MODIFIED THE MOTION AS FOLLOWS: THAT TAE PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION TO BE PLACED ON THE DECEMBER 8, 1993 CONSENT CALENDAR TO APPROVE DR -93 -030 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE DESIGN BE MODIFIED IN A WAY WHEREAS TO MEET THE CITY CODES AND ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE AND STILL BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO THE DESIGN PRESENTED THIS EVENING. . THE MOTION PASSED 5 -0. COMMUNICATIONS (continued) City Council ADJOURNMENT + At 9:20 p.m., Acting Chairperson Asfour adjourned the meeting to 7:30 p.m. on - December 7, 1993; in the Senior Day Care Center, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA. Andrea M. Chelemengos. Minutes Clerk REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: DR -93 -030 & V -93 -026, 15170 E1 Camino Grande Applicant /Owner: EBRAHIMOUN Staff Planner: Lynette Stanchina Date: November 22, 1993 APN: 39.7 -08 -089 Director _Approval: %' File No. DR -93 -030 & V -93 -026; 15170 El Camino Grande EXECUTIVE SDMMY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 08/17/ -93 Application complete: 09/29/93 Notice published: 11/10/93 Mailing completed: 11/11/93 Posting completed: 11/04/93 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,277 square foot two -story residence and a swimming pool per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The existing residence is proposed to be demolished. Variance approval is also requested to allow the proposed residence to exceed the -site's maximum allowable floor area of 5,688 sq. ft. by 589 square feet. The property is approximately 51,400 square feet and is located within the R -1- 40,000 zone district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the Design Review and Variance requests by adopting Resolu- tions DR -93 -030 and V -93 -026. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions DR -93 -030 and V -93 -026 3. Correspondence 4. Arborist Report dated 8/31/93 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" File No. DR -93 -030 6 V -93 -026; 15170 El Camino Grande STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) PARCEL SIZE: 51,400 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 19.3% GRADING REQUIRED: .576 CUT ft. 1st Floor: FILL House 307 cu. yds. 0 cu. yds. Driveway 546 cu. yds. 177 cu. yds. Landscape 233 cu. yds. 508 cu. yds. TOTAL 1,086 cu. yds. 685 cu. yds. Maximum Depth 7 ft. (basement) 5 ft. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior plaster finish with a clay tile' roof and cast stone balustrades per the submitted material board. The material board includes three different color schemes all of which are acceptable to staff. LENGTH OF STRUCTURE: 130 ft. (including the carport /terrace) WIDTH OF STRUCTURE: LOT COVERAGE: HEIGHT: SIZE OF 55 ft. PROPOSAL 24% (12,379 s.f.) 26 ft. STRUCTURE: Garage: .576 sq. ft. 1st Floor: 4,128 sq. ft. 2nd Floor: 1,573 sq. ft. TOTAL: 6,277 sq. ft. CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 30% 26 ft. 5,688 sq. ft.* Basement: 1,391 sq. ft. (not included in floor area) Carport: 880 sq. ft. (not included in floor area) * This is the allowable floor if the exception to the floor area reduction requirement for structures over 18 feet in height is granted by the Planning Commission per Section 15- 45.030 of the City Code. File No. DR -93 -030 is V -93 -026; 15170 E1 Camino Grande PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 33 ft. Rear: 20 ft. Exterior Side: 25 ft. Exterior Side: 25 ft. Interior Side: 115 -ft. Interior Side: 20 ft. PROJECT DISCUSSION: M Site Characteristics: The subject property is located on El Camino Grande at the corner of E1 Camino Senda. There is an existing mediterranean style house on the property which is proposed to be demolished. The site has a moderate slope downhill towards the rear of the property. There are several ordinance size trees on- site as well as other mature vegetation.. Due to the site's topography and the amount of existing vegetation the property is well screened from surrounding properties. Design Review: The applicants are requesting Design Review approval to demolish an existing two -story home to construct a larger two -story residence in its place. The proposed residence is 6,277 sq. ft. The design includes a full basement, a carport, and several terraces which are not included in the floor area calcula- tions. Staff's initial review of the proposal revealed that the proposed design satisfied the required Design Review findings in terms of being compatible with the neighborhood, minimizing the perception of bulk and mass, and not impacting the views and /or privacy of surrounding properties. The proposed design of the residence is also consistent with the design policies and techniques outlined in the Residential Design Handbook. During the initial review of the project staff was concerned with the following items: • Amount of grading proposed for the new driveway that accesses.the carport and garage. • Number of areas, such as the carport and patio terraces, which contribute to the mass and bulk of the building, but are exempt from the floor area calculations. • Proposed removal of six trees. However, after visiting the site and seeing the amount of mature vegetation and the orientation of the property in relation to surrounding properties, staff's concerns were minimized. `In File No. DR -93 -030 6 V -93 -026; 15170 E1 Camino Grande addition, the City Arborist visited the site and evaluated all of the significant trees. He stated that only two of the trees proposed to be removed had a dollar value higher than zero and recommended that six trees (two each of 36" box, 24" box, and 15 gallon) be planted to provide replacement value for the two trees in good health. These replacement trees are included on the proposed landscape plan. He also recommended the standard tree preservation measures and a preservation bond for the existing trees to remain. VARIANCE REVIEW: Background: Just prior to the previous public hearing, which this item was scheduled for, the applicant submitted a request to increase the proposed floor area to 6,277 which exceeds the allowable floor area by' 589 sq. ft. Therefore, the item was continued and the applicant submitted the Variance fee and application and the item was renoticed as a request for Variance and Design Review approval. The applicant's reasons for the additional square footage include the following (see the attached letter): Desire to enlarge the garage by 225 square feet. The appli- cant's do not feel this area should be counted as floor area since it would not be visible from the exterior of the house. However, the ordinance requires that all underground areas be counted as floor area unless no portion of the room is more than two feet above the natural grade. Increase all exterior walls with openings from 6 inches to 12 inches thick to complement the proposed "Mediterranean" architectural style. This would require and additional 245 sq. ft. without impacting the proposed living space. Add 18 inches to the bedroom wing of the house. Variance Findings: These revisions did not significantly change the appearance of.the house. However, since these changes did make the proposal exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area, staff cannot be supportive of these revisions and recommends denial of the Variance based on the findings in Section 15- 70.060 of the City Code. No special. circumstance applicable to the property exists which would support the granting of a Variance to the maximum permitted floor area. Granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in File No. DR -93 -030 & V -93 -026; 15170 $l. Camino Grande the vicinity and classified in the same zone district in that the formula for calculating the maximum permitted floor area is based on the size and slope of each individual parcel. Staff has encouraged the applicant to reduce the proposed floor area, so that a Variance would not be necessary. The Variance findings were explained to the - applicants and they were told that staff would not support their request since the all of the Variance findings could not be made. Summary: Staff believes the Design Review findings can be made to support the proposed residence. The project complies with all applicable zoning regulations with regard to allowable structure height, required setbacks, grading and maximum permitted lot coverage. However, since the Design Review approval is dependent on the Variance application being approved, and the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support the Variance, staff recommends denial of both the Design Review and Variance requests. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the Design Review and Variance requests by adopting Resolu- tions DR -93 -030 and V -93 -026. October 26, 1993 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Attn. Lynette Dias, Assist. Planner 1377': -1~ruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: Design Review 93 -030; 15170 El Camino. Grande Honorable Planning Commissioners, We are formally requesting minor modification to our above submitted Design Review application, as follows: Enlarge underground garage from .19.5' x 19.0'( 351.5 sq. ft. ) to 24.0'x 24.0' (576.0 sq. ft. ) or add 224.5 sq. ft. Add 6" to all exterior walls with openings which are now a nominal 6" wall in order to have 12" thick exterior walls. This will require an additional 245 sq. ft. Add 18" to the bedroom wing of the house to enlarge the rooms to our desired size without compromising the other living areas of the house. This will require an additional 126 sq. ft. Our allowable square footage is 5688 sq. ft. and we are requiring an additional 595.5 square feet as per above or a total of 6283.5 sq. ft. Please note that counting 12" thick walls as 6" walls will allow us to retain the living space as designed, but architecturally will provide for deep set fenestration typically found in our chosen "Mediterranean" architectural style. In addition, we would also like to enlarge the underground garage without penalty of deduction to living space square footage as proposed. Its enlargement will clearly not be perceived in the exterior. Please be also aware that we have lived in our Home in Saratoga for the last 13 years and have planned to build this Home for the past 7 years. During this time the City Ordinances have reduced the allowable square footage's. Our current submittal compromises the sizes of the Master bedroom and bath as well as our children's bedrooms from our original design. Please find attached a list of signatures we have gathered from our neighbors who support our proposed additional square footage design proposal. Our property is hardly visible from any of our neighbors. We are located towards the end of El Camino Grande Road which has very little traffic. We have submitted our plans to meet the current ordinance and followed up with this letter in order to best demonstrate our requirements and to stay on schedule to start construction in the spring of 1994. We appreciate your consideration for these minor modifications and suggest a " „pecial study” of our Project's above mentioned additional proposed requirements. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call us, or our Architect, Maurice Camargo, AIA. Sincerely yours; 'Jean and David Ebrahimoun EBRAHIMOUN RESIDENCE 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE Monday, November 1, 1993 We the undersigned have reviewed the proposed design plan exhibits dated June, 1993 and the attached letter dated October 26,1993 and support the approval of this Project. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE 77 1Z 00, z"L- X". W71 AN/ ,,Z�� r•LI L r� f *o C.L CalWitL G -'l` 0 t 7 EBRAHIMOUN RESIDENCE 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE Monday, November 1, 1993 We the undersigned have reviewed the proposed design plan exhibits dated June, 1993 and the attached letter dated October 26,1993 and support the approval of this Project. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE /J)4 A2 Z,- IS�3f Z-7 �4FVVO i�4 r-J C-a"I'4z' C' November 16, 1993 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. _ Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Design Review 93 -030, Ebrahimoun Residence 15170 El Camino Grande, Saratoga Honorable Planning Commissioners: Enclosed please find an additional list of neighbors correspondence. We have received approval from more than 30 supportive neighbors and only positive comments regarding the variance. Many years went into planning for this .home to accommodate our needs as well as complying with our neighborhood. We have been a resident for 13 years, and under our special circumstances, the parcel itself is only surrounded by beautiful, mature trees which allows us total isolation from everyone. All we are asking is to remain comparable with our neighborhood. We trust that after visiting our property you will be convinced about the uniqueness of this special parcel and will justify your approval of this modest variance. Thank you for all your time and your consideration. Yours truly, David & Jean Ebrahimoun Y EBRAHIMOUN RESIDENCE 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE Monday, November 1, 1993 We the undersigned have reviewed the proposed "design plan exhibits dated June, 1993 and the attached letter dated October 26,1993 and support the approval of this Project. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE JOAN A oo 6 150 Yl? 61 CA" o� i u G-/ C4 � Z �j I- l R C +i�D. �j1U,i, de- C 4�Gp- 1 i'SIi 2 'W_- so,( A ,t . EBRAHIMOUN RESIDENCE 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE Monday, November 1, 1993 We the undersigned have reviewed the proposed design plan exhibits dated June, 1993 and the attached letter dated October 26,1993 and support the approval of this Project. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURK FA EBRAHIMOUN RESIDENCE 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE Monday, November 1, 1993 - We the undersigned have reviewed the proposed design plan exhibits dated June, 1993 and the attached letter dated October 26,1993 and support the approval of this Project PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE op 0 r- sl s C f /` ol o ^4 !l•�ESLiC }��f,lU 13So CL CAM i00 GPA 0 L / � November 15, 1993 CITY OF SARATOGA. PLANNING COMMISSION Attn: Lynette Dias, Assist. Planner 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Design Review 93-030, 15170 E1 Camino Grande Ebrahimoun Residence Honorable Planning Commissioners: we are neighbors to the Ebrahimoun's'at 15042 E1 Camino Senda. They have been in the neighborhood for well over 13 years and have been planning their new home for many years. They are very isolated in their corner lot with all the mature trees and the way-the topography of the land exists. Many large estates exist in this neighborhood well over 6,000 square feet. We are in favor of the variance and this will greatly improve our neighborhood. Yours truly, a /AA C Mr. & Mrs. Clayman November 11, 1993 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNIrG COMMISSION - Attn: Lynette Dias, Assist. Planner 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Ebrahimoun Residence, 15170 El Camino Grande Dear Planning Commissioners; We have reviewed the Ebrahimoun's plans dated June 1993 along with their variance of an additional 595.5 square feet. We are in support of their variance. This is a great neighborhood improvement! Yours truly, 11AU I qj�A Mr. & rs. Reid Residents of 15125 Via Colina November 5, 1993 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Attn: Lynette Dias, Assist. Planner 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Design Review 93-030,15170 El Camino Grande Ebrahimoun Residence Honorable Planning Commissioners: We have reviewed and formally given our approval of the Ebrahimouns's new home. We feel this lot is exceptional because it is not visible from neighbors and the mature oaks and redwoods camouflage the home. The home was designed to compliment the area using the topography of the land. We are in favor of this positive neighborhood improvement. Yours truly, Kay & Martin Thompson November 11, 1993 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Planning Commission Dear Commissioners: We are neighbors of the Ebrahimoun's and reside at 15100 El Camino Grande. We have reviewed their plans and are very supportive of their variance. There are exceptions to all rules and in this circumstance to request additional square footage is not a special privilege when many homes in our area exceed 6,200 square feet. It's great to see design in which massiveness has been eliminated using underground parking and also this home will be perceived as a one story home from the exterior. What a great neighborhood improvement Yours truly, Mr. & Mrs. Tsai M :.- November 5, 1993 CITY OF-SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Attn: Lynette Dias, Assist. Planner 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Design Review 93-030,15170 El Camino Grande Ebrahimoun Residence Honorable Planning Commissioners: We have reviewed and formally given our approval of the Ebrahimouns's new home. We feel this lot is exceptional because it is not visible from neighbors and the mature oaks and redwoods camouflage the home. The home was designed to compliment the area using the topography of the land. We are in favor of this positive neighborhood improvement. Your ruly, Mr. & Mrs. Moore BARRIE D. C' kTE and ASSOCIA'. Horticultural Consultants 408- 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 TREE SURVEY AT THE EBRAHIMOUN PROPERTY 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA On August 31, 1993, our firm surveyed the trees at the Ebrahimoun residence, 15170 El Camino Grande, Saratoga. A new home is proposed to be constructed, to replace the existing home which will be tom down. Six trees are proposed to be removed. Four of these trees are in poor condition, and should be removed. Only tree #6, a Spanish Fir, i s inp sapo, and tree #18, a Coast Live Oak, Que rc s rifoli , were given a dollar value higher than zero. The total value of these trees is $3,750.00. The equivalent dollar value of nursery stock should be planted to replace it: (2) 36" box trees (2) 24" box trees (2) 15 gallon trees A tree protection bond in the amount of $6,500.00 is recommended (see enclosed worksheet). All trees on site which were over 12 inches at two feet above grade, or 10 inches at 2 feet above grade if a Quercus species, and which will be affected by construction activities, were numbered and tagged. Trunk locations were already located on the plot plan which was provided to us. The species of each was identified, and D.B.H., height and spread were estimated. Health and structure were rated. All of this information was recorded on the enclosed map and charts. In addition, text was used for further clarification. GENERAL COMMENTS Irrigation Before and After Root Destruction Any tree which has had excavation occur within its dripline, 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 -1- TREE SURVEY AT THE EBRAHIMOUN PROPERTY 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA 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, T 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 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 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 -2- TREE SURVEY AT THE EBRAHIMOUN PROPERTY 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA 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. 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. SPECIFIC TREES Tree #1, Blue Oak, Quercus douglasil This tree should be relatively undisturbed, assuming that this section of driveway is not removed and replaced. It should receive supplemental irrigation and be fertilized as described under "General Comments ", because of Its low vigor. Trees #2 & 3, Douglas Fir, Pseudotsupa menziesii These two trees have very sparse canopies, and are in poor health. They should be removed, to lessen the competition with neighboring trees. Tree #4, Blue Oak This tree's trunk is surrounded by paving. The paving should be removed immediately around the trunk, to a distance of 12 inches, and any fill soil which may have been placed against the trunk should be removed carefully with hand tools. Tree #5, Coast Live Oak, Quercus agrifolia This is a large healthy tree in good condition. This tree should be relatively undisturbed, assuming that this section of driveway is not removed and replaced.. Tree #6, Spanish Fir, A i s einsapo This is a mature specimen of this species. Unfortunately, specimens of this species are not very attractive, not matching our expectations of what a coniferous tree should look like. -3- TREE SURVEY AT THE EBRAHIMOUN PROPERTY 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA It has been proposed for removal. A dollar value has been placed on this tree on the enclosed charts. Tree #7, Valley Oak, Quercus lobata This healthy tree is growing to the west of the grove of Redwoods (see #8). It should be relatively unaffected' by construction activities. Tree #8, Coast Redwood, Sequoia sempervirens This grove of Redwoods will have minor impact on its rootzone on the east side. It should receive supplemental irrigation as described 'under "General Comments." Trees #9 &10, Coast Live Oak Pervious paving should be installed in the area shown on the enclosed map, to reduce the root destruction within the driplines of these two trees (see enclosed detail). Where paving will cover more than 30% of the area within the dripline of a tree, it should be composed of pervious paving within the dripline. This could consist of brick or interlocking pavers on gravel and sand. The soil beneath the pervious paving should be compacted to no more than 80% compaction. Tree #11, Blue Oak Approximately 25% of the area within the dripline of this tree will be covered with paving when the driveway is constructed. This tree should receive supplemental irrigation. Tree #12, Coast Live Oak This tree is in fair health, and has a poor structure. It should be removed. Tree #13, Incense Cedar, Calocedrus decurren_3 This tree is in very poor health, and should be removed. It has died back over the years as a result of infection from Botryosphaeria fungi. Tree #14, Coast Live Oak This tree is in good condition. A retaining wall will be installed on the west side of the tree. A temporary construction period fence should be erected at the location shown on the enclosed map. -4- TREE SURVEY AT THE EBRAHIMOUN PROPERTY 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA Trees #15 & 16, Blue Oak This tree is in good condition. A retaining wall will be installed on the west side of the tree. A temporary construction period fence should be erected at the location shown on the enclosed map. Tree #17, Monterey Pine This tree is in fair condition. It should. receive supplemental irrigation, and be fertilized, as described under "General Comments." Tree #18, Coast Live Oak This is a young Coast Live Oak, in good health, but with only a fair structure. It is proposed to be removed. Its value has been assessed on the enclosed chart, and replacements have been recommended under "General Comments." Please call our office if you have further questions. TEW:Ia Enclosures: Pervious Paving Detail Evaluation Chart Bond Chart Map -5- Sincerely, Terence E. Welch, Associate Barrie D. Coate & Associates BARRIE D. COATE &ASSOCIATES '? z _ 0 u? o N r :I- r- al 5 - -$36.00 -9 Horticultural Consultants w p r Z w cr sn >- Q ,� w z ,^n w __, I-- tr w O cc p 15- gak$120 24box- --$420 (408) 353 -1052 ^ t g � . -, to a Cr ,- w cc z o r �" U w ,- ... � 3 r. w w cc F- Q o z � a c w f- Urn w wcc yC H ¢ cn 3 rn N N 2gg > 48bo $5: 00 F `" CO coaaw w> 0- w = oc !-w w 200 i-- w O> � �- w w ? w w< w cn o w -j m a 0 w w w w > p O U 1 w w O 2' w z S cc 52 box = $7,000 72" box = $15.000 Key Plant Name om o o = cn cn z ¢ cc u U z z ac cc ¢ a COMMENTS Sparse canopy. 20 28 4513513 3 3 Leader removed @ T above grad 1 sq.in X $27 sgAn = $ x sp. class() =$ x cond {) _ $ x loc () _ Final Value 14 16 15512014 3 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 X 2 sq.in X $27 sq/In = $ x sp. class ( %) = $ x cond %) = $ x loc ( %) _ 0 Final Value $ nni ins, Fir 1 113 1351151 4 1 3 11 X 3 .. sq.in X $27 sgAn = $ x sp. class( x cond 0 = $ x loc {) = 0 Final Value $ Surrounded y Rif 1P Oak- 9 X 7 7 15 35 30 3 3 pavement. 4 sq.in X $27 sgAn = $, x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) = $ x loc Final Value $ q-qf I iyA Oak 22 28 40 5511 1 2 5 sq.in X $27 sgAn = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) _ $ x loc Final Value $ panigh Fir 10 12 1 401121 2 1 2 6 sq.in 78 X $27 sgAn = $2,120 x sp. class ( 60 %) = $1,272 x cond (70 %) _ $890.40 x oc o = Final Value $ JOB TITLE: Ebrahlmoun/EI Camino Grande JOB # 08- 93-277 DATE: 8/31/93 Sq. in. is determined with e formula: Sq. In= ( DW12A 2 Page 1 of 4 1 west 5 =worst Total Value This Sheet = $890.00 BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES �n z (3 p H 5-gal= $36.00 Horticultural Consultants n r z w¢ 3 u Q n 6� "' '� w p ¢ t 5- ga�$120 24"box =$420 (408) 353 -1052 w ¢ ,- w OC z p U w z '' (n 1 w w F= cc f a p z ¢ a ¢ a. c E c c w p H W w 8¢ �[ v Cn 0 w �' % >> c9 48'box =$5 000 M D coo o +- m O a i 7 w w a� J L) Fes- p w z o 2 F- w 0 0 Z. cr w z w w W o I� O w o Q x w 0 w z 0 0 w w 0 w z 520 box- $7,000 w box�15,000 Key Plant Name o o � = rn rn ¢ ¢ U -- U z cc ¢ ¢ a COMMENTS 20 22 35 30 2 2 7 X $27 sq/in = $ �1•� �n x sp. class () =$ x cond Q =$ x loc ()= Final Value 14- 17/ 35 20 1 1 a v. gr . 40,18,21,24,28 35 40 60 60 23,32,17 inches f3 sq.in X $27 sq/in = x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond %) _ $ x loc ( %) _ (35,16,19,20,24,20,29,14 inches) Final Value $ 11 13 2512212 1 9 sq.in X $27 sq/in = $ x sp. class O _ $ x cond Q = $ x loc O _ Final Value $ . . for clearance. 11 X 11 9 1 1 15 1301301 111 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41s;c. other cuts 10 3' sq.in X $27 sq/in = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) _ $ x loc Final Value $ p resent Rhip Oak 19 X 14 .30 45 50 3 2 rnam ajor limbs. 11 sq.ln X $27 sglin = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) = $ x loc Final Value $ 15 17 22 20 3 4 1 1 11 1 1 4 1 1 1 X 12 sq.in X $27 sq/in = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) = $ x loc Final Value $ JOB TITLE: Ebrahlmoun Property /15170 El Camino Grande Sq. in. is determined with the formula: JOB # 08 -93 -277 Sq. In = ( QDW27r DATE: 8131 /93 2 Page 2 of 3 1=best 5=worst Total Value This Sheet= BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES �n z p Cc N H 5- gau,$36.00 Horticultural Consultants w p •'- 2 w 3 ,� >- a �„ ,n z ,r^, w Q _j H a: w ¢ O ¢ p 15 -gal =4120 24box,4420 (408) 353 -1052 .. 40 w .., m a � T" w z z z = V w = 3 �, w w F- a o z iz a a 36box= $1,320 O ov w !C H¢ w czn LL 2 a Q 48box= $5,000 _ m = o— °� N W cc W _ °C o w > 0 O> cc° Z=) �- c (n ? 0 a w C6 fl o W w M rn w z o w 2 >> 002 CC > w ? = F 52- box=$7,000 720 box=,$15,000 Key Plant Name o o z rn z z COMMENTS Veto thin 20 21 50 20 4 3 X canopy. 13 sq.in X $27 sgln = $ x sp. class O _ $ x cond Q = $ x loc O = 8 Final Value 18 18 15 25 1 1 14 sq.in X $27 sq/in = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond %) _ $ x loc Final Value $ Rh ip Oak 14 X 6 24 16 35 1 1 15 sq.in X $27 sq /in = $ x.sp. class O _ $ x cond 0 = $ x loc O _ Final Value $ 13 151 16 20 1 1 16 sq.in X $27 sq /In = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) _ $ x toc - Final Value $ ne -sided 18 20 1 50 30 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 canopy 17 sq.in X $27 sgln = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) _ $ x loc ( %)=$ Final Value $ 15 151151 20 1 1 3 18 sq.in 176 X $27 sq in = $ 4,771 x sp. class (100%) _ $4,771 x cond ( 60% %) = $2,862 x loc ( 100 %) = $ 2,860 Final Value $ JOB TITLE: Ebrahlmoun/15170 El Grande JOB N 08-93 -277 DATE: 8131/93 Sq. In. is determined with the formula: Sq. in= ( QUH)2ir 2 Page 3 of 3 1 =best 5 =worst Total Value This Sheet= $2,860 BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants . (408).353-1052 ISA EVALUATION CITY OF SARATOGA VALUE OF TREES WHICH WILL BE AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION BH sq/ " (n r2) Value per sq. inch . Basic Value Adjustments Total Species Condition ` Location Key # Genustspecies/ciass $27.00 1 Blue Oak 20 314 $27,00 $8,482 100% 40% 1000/0 $3,390 4 Blue Oak 7/ 7 102 $27.00 $2,754 100% 40% 1000/0 $1,100 5 Cnag I ivp Qak 22 380 $27.00 $10,263 100% 80% 100% $8,210 9 Coast bgs Oak 11 95 $27.00 $2,565 100% 80% 1000/o $2,050 10 Coast ius Onk 11/ 9 126 $27.00 $3,423 100% 90% 100% $3,080 11 Blue Oak 19/ 14 360 $27.00 $9,730. 1000/0 500/0 1000/0 $4,865 14 Coast Live nak 18 254 $27.00 $6,870 100% 900/0 100% $6,180 15 16 168 $27.00 $4,536 1000/0 90% 1000/o $4,080 JOB TITLE: Ebrahimoun /15170 El Camino Grande TOTAL VALUE THIS PAGE $32,955 JOB #: 09- 93-277 DATE: 8131/93 SUGGESTED BOND $6,500 Pg 1 of 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ,`' AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: JANUARY 11, 1994 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS ' SUBJECT: Establishment of Weight Limit Restriction for Pierce Road Bridge Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the urgency ordinance. Report Summary: In response to the recommendations in the attached Supplementary Bridge Report on the Pierce Road Bridge, staff has prepared the attached urgency ordinance which, if adopted, would establish a ten ton weight limit for the bridge. I have discussed the contents of the report with staff at Caltrans Division of Structures and concur with their findings and recommendations. The scouring which has occurred in the vicinity of the southerly (easterly) abutment is threatening the stability of the bridge and the ten ton weight limit for vehicles is a prudent precautionary measure to take since the reliable factor of safety for the bridge has been reduced below its design level. Most vehicles will not be affected by the weight limit restriction. Transporters of heavy construction equipment will be forced to use alternative routes to avoid the bridge. However fire engines will be affected and it appears that Saratoga Fire District will adjust their response routes as needed to avoid the bridge while Central Fire will need to use the emergency access through Quarry Road to respond to incidents in the Mt. Eden Rd. /Garrod Farms /Stevens Canyon areas. Additionally, staff will develop a scope and cost estimate to perform the work in recommendations no's. 1 and 2 although it may not be possible to perform this work at this time. The recommended monitoring will be performed by City staff and I will be sending the report to Caltrans Local Streets and Roads along with a request to hasten the environmental clearance process for the bridge replacement project (Project No. 953) since that is what is preventing the City from moving ahead with the project. Fiscal Impacts: Approximately $500 to post the necessary signage to effect the weight limit restriction. Sufficient funds exist in Activity 33 (Traffic Control) in the current budget to perform this work. Follow Up Actions: The necessary signage will be installed. Saratoga and Central Fire Districts will be formally notified of the weight limit restrictions, and residents along Old Oak Way and Villa Oaks Lane will be notified of the possible intermittent emergency use of the Quarry Road emergency access by Central Fire. A letter will be sent to Caltrans Local Streets and Roads requesting expedition of the environmental clearance process for the bridge replacement project. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The weight limit restrictions cannot be imposed. ORDINANCE NO. _- AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM WEIGHT LIMIT FOR CALABASAS CREEK (PIERCE ROAD) BRIDGE 1. The Calabasas Creek (Pierce Road) Bridge ( "Bridge ") is scheduled to be replaced with an entirely new bridge in the Spring of 1994 and that project is.currently in the design stage. 2. A Supplementary Bridge Report from the State Department of Transportation has determined that the Bridge in its current condition should be subject to a maximum safe load capacity of 10 tons per vehicle until the Bridge is replaced. 3. The Director of Public Works concurs in this determination and recommends that such a restriction be placed on the Bridge. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1. A maximum weight limit of 10 tons per vehicle is hereby temporarily established for the Calabasas Creek (Pierce Road) Bridge and the Director of Public Works is directed to erect suitable signs at all entrances to the Bridge. SECTION 2. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to authority granted by California Vehicle Code Section 35754. SECTION 3. This ordinance is an urgency ordinance and shall become effective immediately upon adoption. The above and foregoing ordinance was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 1994, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST:- City Clerk mnrsw \273 \ord \weight.msr MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bridge No. 37C -0293 SUPPLEMENTARY BRIDGE REPORT DS•M1WREVA -90) Location 04- SCl -FAU C139 -Sar Dbt.,ca,Rte.,PM,citr Date of Investigation 9/21/93 Name CALABAZAS CREEK (Pierce Rd.) RATINGS: 58 Deck 5— 59 Superstructure _5 60 Substructure 2 71 Waterway Adequacy 5 61 Channel & Channel Protection 3 62 Culvert _jam 72 Approach Rdwy Align. 3 TYPE OF INVESTIGATION/REPORT Biennial X Group A Other Damage Underwater Office WORK NOT DONE Nothing has been done to address the scour problems at Abutment 1. CONDITION OF STRUCTURE, As previously - reported, scour has cut the channel bank at Abutment 1 into a 7' vertical face below the footing. The left 10' of the footing is undercut by up to 6 ". The soil is loose, granular, and very susceptible to erosion. Undermining on the right side of the abutment has been prevented by tree roots which retain and stabilize the soil. Photographs and written reports suggest that there has not been significant change in the support condition since 1983, notwithstanding the heavy rainfall in 1986 and 1993. There is a very large erosion gully downstream of Abutment 1. It is 4' deep and unstable. The deck soffit has many rusty transverse and longitudinal rebars showing through. Where it has.not spalled off, the cover appears to be only 1/4" to 1/20 thick. The PCC barrier rails have been repeatedly hit by traffic. The end 12° at Abutment 1, left, has been sheared off. The other three end posts have large spalls, with rebar exposed at Abutment 2, right. A 2' gap has been cut halfway through the section of the right rail at midspan. S R See Condition of Structure, above. Scour under Abutment 1 is a threat to induce either bearing or slope stability failures if left unchecked: Continued loss of material under the footing could result in the collapse of the structure, despite the supplemental bent near Abutment 2. The failure may be catastrophic under live load. Given the unpredictable nature of scour, mitigation of this hazard is essential before the site sees high flows. The upstream (West) channel section was measured. SAFE. TOAD CAPACITY The foundation condition at Abutment 1 governs the safe load capacity of the structure. Erosion has removed contact area and soil normally mobilized by the bearing pressure. This reduces the reliable factor of safety below its design value and.risks a bearing failure under gravity loads. The vertical face and granular soil under Abutment 1 also present a slope stability hazard. At this time, the tree roots mentioned above are reinforcing the slope. The reliability of this vegetation is uncertain at best. 9 BRIDGE NO. 37C -0293 SHEET 2 1 DATE 9 -21 -93 SAFE. LOAD CAPACITY runt Live load surcharge increases the probability of both failure modes. To limit the surcharge, a safe load capacity of 10 tons per vehicle is recommended until the foundation is rehabilitated. RECOM LIMED POSTING Assigned: 10 TONS PER VEHICLE WORK RECOMN=ED 1. Restore the embankment at Abutment 1 with compacted fill and then protect the channel at both abutments with heavy riprap. The recommendation is also made for Abutment 2 because protective measures to one bank would constrict and divert the flow, increasing the scour potential'at the other bank. 2. Backfill and protect the erosion gully downstream of Abutment 1. 3. Patch the spalls in the barrier rail end posts and the cut in the right rail. It is the responsibility of the City of Saratoga to monitor this structure for any changes to the foundation condition at Abutment 1, and to notify OSM &I promptly if particularly after these significant events: 1. Water flows in the channel from bank to bank. 2. An earthquake. 3. Heavy or enduring rainfall saturates the soil. The inspection should take into account changes in the footing exposure, measured settlement, and the condition of the soil under the footing. DIALOG On 11/5/93_,1 spoke with John Cherbone and Erman Dorsey, Engineers for the City of Saratoga, by telephone. We discussed my investigation and the content of this report. Mr. Cherbone informed me that this bridge is scheduled for replacement in the spring of 1994 and is currently in the design stage. Restrictive environmental permits and regulations have become a major obstacle in project development. ON R CO L �0.. Q NO. 51002 E)P. 09/30/97 Jason P. Lynch Registered Civil Engineer JPL /pfa SARATOGA.CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 40 J AGENDA ITEM &A MEETING DATE: JANUARY 19, 1994 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: Annual Review of Pavement Management Program Recommended Motion(s): Receive report and file. Report Summary: Section 5- 30.140 of the City Code prescribes for an annual review of the revenue raised by the Utility Users Tax at a public hearing each January. The Council determines the need for the revenue generated by the tax based upon past expenditures and future costs. Since all of the revenue raised by the tax is used to support the City's Pavement Management Program, this report reviews the past and future performance of the program. The attached spreadsheet shows the six year forecast for street maintenance revenues and expenditures beginning with FY 90 -91. Street Maintenance revenues come from the four primary state gas tax subventions and traffic safety fees. Additional locally generated revenues also help to support street maintenance expenditures. Current policy allocates $35 from every business license, interest from the sale of the Cox Ave. property, 80% of the Transient Occupancy Tax and the Utility Users Tax for street maintenance purposes. Street Maintenance expenditures include Congestion Management activities and general maintenance of streets., sidewalks, medians and traffic control devices. Additional items funded by the above revenues include portions of various capital projects and the Pavement Management Program. Over the five year period ending in FY 94 -95, total available revenues average approximately $1.55 million annually, while total expenditures average approximately $1.45 million annually. The trend towards a modest annual surplus in recent years allows for the program to remain solvent during periods of dry financing, and also helps to support capital' project expenditures for which federal or state reimbursements are claimed but not received, typically a six month lag time. Pavement Management Program expenditures are averaging approximately $770,000 per year and are offset quite nicely by the revenues generated from the Utility Users Tax. Even at this rate of expenditure however, the program is unable to fully sustain the City's street maintenance system at a constant level. Over the same five year period, on average, the system is still depreciating at an approximate rate of $200,000 per year. However, this is a relatively small amount when compared to the system's total replacement value of approximately $40.6 million and should tend to correct itself over time if the current Pavement Management Program is continued. The spreadsheet also shows what will happen when the current Utility Users Tax expires at the end of FY 94 -95. Assuming no other revenue source replaces the utility tax, large annual deficits will begin to occur and the results will gradually become evident by the general deterioration of the City's street system. This also assumes of course, that the state legislature does not reinstate the Maintenance of Effort requirement which, for Saratoga, means that the City would need to expend at least $861,577 in non - restricted funds per year for street and highway purposes to continue to remain eligible to receive Section 2105 Gas Tax money. In summary, the current Pavement Management Program adequately addresses the City's street maintenance requirements, and the Utility Users Tax provides ample funding to support the Pavement Management Program. Beyond the sunset date of the tax however, the City's ability to adequately maintain its streets would be severely hampered without replacement by an equivalent amount of revenue which the tax generates. Fiscal Impacts: As noted in the report. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: The public hearing was noticed with an advertisement in the Saratoga News. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: N /A. Follow Up Actions: None required. Attachments: 1. Spreadsheet of Street Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures. 2. Pavement Management Program for FY 93 -94 and 94- 95. STREET MAINTENANCE REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES 1/12/94 FY 90 -91 FY91 -92 FY92 -93 FY 93 -94 FY 94 -95 FY 95 -96 REVENUES 2105 Gas Tax $86,486 $121,261 $131,255 $154,412 $188,100 $188,100 2106 Gas Tax 138,569 135,109 127,020 131,519 132,177 132,837 2107 Gas Tax 245,295 235,521 221,829 231,662 232,820 233,984 2107.5 Gas Tax 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 2126 Gas Tax 0 0 2,452 0 0 0 FAU Exchange 21,445 81,620 78,052 0 0 0 Allocated Interest 0 0 53,480 0 13,977 14,023 Traffic Safety Fees 121,685 50,739 25,419 60,000 62,400 64,896 Sub -Total $619,480 $630,250 $645,507 $583,593 $635,474 $639,840 Business License Tax $78,188 $79,068 $82,231 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 Interest - Sale of Cox Property 94,780 94,780 67,700 54,160 54,160 54,160 Transient Occupancy Tax 80,802 78,099 ------------------------------------------ 76,000 96,000 107,520 120,422, Sub -Total $253,770 $251,947 $225,931 $220,160 $231,680 $244,582 Utility Users Tax 611,708 634,057 735,562 719,677 762,858 0 Total Revenues $1,484,958 $1,516,254 $1,607,000 $1,523,430 $1,630,012 $884,422 EXPENDITURES 2029 Congestion Management 3031 Street Maintenance 3032 Sidewalks and Trails 3033 Traffic Control 3035 Medians and Parkways Sub -Total Capital Projects Pavement Management Program Total Expenditures Surplus /(Defecit) CASH FLOW MODEL $0 $0 381,792 434,059 21, 519 16,630 128,708 124,486 80,255 75,497 ' $612,274 $650,672 $16,390 $17,490 $18,040 $18,942 397,333 332,548 324,852 341,095 6,115 35,509 35,509 37,284 123,398 137,845 137,845 144,737 90,105 . 113,411 110,350 115,868 $633,341 $636,803 $626,596 $657,926 $142,761 $16,436 $87,200 $500 $29,460 $64,045 $625,287 $816,907 $877,339 $740,309 $782,341 $768,437 $1,380,322 $1,484,015 $1,597,880 $1,377,612 $1,438,397 $1,490,408 $104,636 $32,239 $9,120 $145,818 $191,615 ($605,986) Beginning Balance ($244,730) ($140,094) ($107,855) ($98,735) $47,083 $238,698 Revenues Expenditures 1,484,958 1,516,254 1,607,000 1,523,430 1,630,012 884,422 Ending Balance 1,380,322 ($140,094) 1,484,015 ($107,855) 1,597,880 ($98,735) 1,377,612 $47,083 1,438,397 $238,698 1,490,408 ($367,288 PMPRPT.94 01/10/94 City of Saratoga PAGE 3 RECOMMENDED FULL PM PROGRAM BUDGET 1993 -------- - - - - -- ----------------- P- R- O- G- R- A- M---------------- -PM_ AREA UNIT COST LANE BUDGET -- I- M- P- A -C -T -- ADDED TREATMENT ----------- -------------------------------------- SQ. YDS. $ /SgYd MILES ESTIMATE - - - - -- LIFE --------------- RESTORED SQYD -YRS OIL TREATMENT 0 $ .40 .00 $ 0 3 0 OIL SEAL 0 $ .70 .00 $ 0 4 0 SLURRY SEAL 326,375 $ .55 34.85 $ 179,506 5 1,631,875 CHIP SEAL 0 $ 2.20 .00 $ 0 6 0 THIN OVERLAY 82,623 $ 6.00 8.51 $ 495,738 9 743,607 MEDIUM OVERLAY 0 $ 8.00 .00 $ 0 10 0 HEAVY OVERLAY 1,118 $12.00 .19 $ 13,416 11 12,298 RECONSTRUCTION 0 $17.00 .00 $ 0 20 0 STRESS -LAYER (2) 204,222 $ .00 21.92 $ 0 PREP. REPAIRS (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- $ 51,649 **- TOTALS - * *---- - - - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- 410,116- -------------------------------------------- 43.55 $ 740,309 2,387,780 Loss of 1 Year Pavement System Life (Total Asphalt Pavement) Net Increase or Decrease in SYSTEM LIFE (SgYd- Years) Total System Re lacement Value Recommended Bud et for F.Y. 1993 PM Programs Recommended Pro ram as per -cent of System Value 1.82% Total Area of System Streets (S Yds Area (SgYds) Included in F.Y. 1J93 �M Programs Recommended Program as per -cent of System Area 16.81% Notes: - 2,439,523 - 51,743 40,688,051 740,309 2,439,523 410,116 (1) Agency determined repairs needed prior to surface treatments are 7.500 of the program cost, not including reconstruction and stress layer. (2) $udget esnImate for Stress -Layer is the only figure from that item that is included in the TOTALS. Stress -Layer yarda e and i mileage are included n the areas covered by the PM treatments. PAGE NO. 01/10/94 1 City of Saratoga SLURRY SEAL - 1993 STREET NAME RT.# From To ..SQ YDS... EST COST 1590.0 ALCOTT WY 1804 992 MANTECA DOLPHIN 40.0 ALLENDALE AVE 1973 1085 PORTOS DOLPHIN 50.0 ALLENDALE AVE 329 181 CAMINO BARCO DOLPHIN 70.0 ALLENDALE AVE 3684 2026 CAMINO BARCO SERRAOAKS 80.0 ALLENDALE AVE 1316 724 SERRAOAKS CHESTER 1720.0 ALLENDALE AVE 4331 2382 HARLEIGH YERBA SANTA 1730.0 ALLENDALE AVE 1696 933 YERBA SANTA FRUITVALE 10.0 ALLENDALE AVE EB & WB 1696 933 FRUITVALE YERBA SANTA 20.0 ALLENDALE AVE EB & WB 4331 2382 YERBA SANTA HARLEIGH 30.0 ALLENDALE AVE EB & WB 5372 2955 HARLEIGH 1901W /PORTOS 35.0 ALLENDALE -AVE EB & WB 971 534 190 W /PORTOS PORTOS 510.0 AMBLESIDE DR 885 487 WOODBANK END 2640.0 ANSLEASTO 930 512 N END 4450.0 ARDEMILL 516 284 ER END 4260.0 ARDMMIELCT 522 287 END 9900.0 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO 2158 1187 WARDELL VERDE MOOR 9920.0 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO 1690 930 VERDE MOOR HILLMOOR 9940.0 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO 1505 828 HILLMOOR KREISLER 9960.0 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO 1570 864 KREISLER ST JOAN 9980.0 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO 1316 724 ST JOAN LOWENA 10000.0 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO 1447 796 LOWENA NORADA 10020.0 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO 736 405 NORADA RR TRACKS 10220.0 ASHLEY WAY 1452 799 01%10%94 2 9YoSEALrat1993 SLi STREET NAME RT_# From To__- COST _--- - - -_ -- __SQ_YDS___ __EST JEPSEN 10240.0 ASHLEYYLWAY 1170 644 JEPSEN ASHLEY CT 10260.0 ASHLEY WAY 1126 619 ASHLEY CT CARNIEL 4440.0 ASHTON CT 1047 576 END 8980.0 BAINTER AVE 3403 1872 CITY LIMITS REDBERRY 2303.0 BAYLpOR 555 305 PURDUE 2306.0 BAYLQRITO 4720 2596 PURDUE VILLANOVA 8950.0 BOUNTIFUL ACRES 2106 1158 END 3820.0 BROCKTONILN 1455 800 HOMES RODONI 3840.0 BRO.CKTON IN 1107 609 RODONI BACH COURT 3860.0 BROCKTON IN 1401 771 A BCH MILLER 7250.0 CALLE TACUBA 1448 796 SARATOGA VISTA MERRICK 7270.0 CALLE TACUBA 2988 1643 MERRICK CAMINO RICO 7280.0 CAMINO RICO 1452 799 MERRICK SARATOGA VISTA 7290.0 CAMINO RICO g65 476 CALLE TACUBA MERRICK 7300.0 CAMINO RICO 1049 577 HERRIMAN CALLE TACUBA 4410.0 CANDY CT 1017 559 ER END 10290.0 CARNIELLAVE 1254 690 ASHLEY WARDELL 4137.0 COLBSCULLY 1305 718 END 3230.0 COUNTRY SQUIRE CT 543 299 R END 3210.0 COUNTRYSQUIRERWYL 543 299 CNTRY SQUIRE IN END 2870.0 COX AVE 3363 1850 SARATOGA SARATOGA CREEK 5727.0 CUMBERLAND DR 1209 665 WINTER MALLORY PAGE NO. 01/10/94 3 City of Saratoa SLURRY SEAL - 19g93 STREET NAME == =# From To____ COST = =RT = = == ----- --- - -- = =EST 5730.0 CUMBERLAND DR. 1184 651 BLYTHE MALLORY 5733.0 CUMBERLAND DR 1.258 692 WELLINGTON BLYTHE 5737.0 CUMBERLAND DR 1792 986 GARNETT WELLINGTON 5740.0 CUMBERLAND DR 563 310 5030.0 ANK DE SA AVE GARNETT 1427 785 5200.0 CHERRY DE SANKA AVE SEA GULL 2491 1370 KNOLLWOOD SEA GULL 10470.0 DEBBIE LN 540. 297 THELMA RUSSELL 2950.0 DEHAVILLAND DR 576 317 2960.0 DEHAVILLAND DR SHUBERT E END 3128 1720 SHUBERT E. END ANZA 3000.0 DEHAVILLAND DR 1045 575 DEHAVILLAND CT SHUBERT W. END 3010.0 DEHAVILLAND DR 649 357 SHUBERT W END COX 1600.0 DOLPHIN DR 2109 1160 ALCOTT HARLEIGH 1610.0 DOLPHIN DR 1110 611 ALLENDALE ALCOTT 4640.0 DORCHESTER DR 785 432 2670.0 MILLER EASTON PL CAMBRIDGE END 1200 660 8760.0 EL PUENTENWY 1940 1067 VERSAILLES FARWELL 4210.0 ELISA AVE 2673 1470 8770.0 SCULLY FARWELL AVE TERRENCE 1104 607 EL PUENTE WILD OAK 8780.0 FARWELL AVE 1432 788 FRUITVALE EL PUENTE 9300.0 FOURTH ST 660 363 BIG BASIN END 7160.0 FRANKLIN AVE 2171 1194 JIMS 8420.0 FRUITVALENAVE NB 1215 668 8430.0 BURGUNDY FRUITVALE AVE NB SAN MARCOS 1959 1077 01%10%94 4 SLURRYoSEALrat1993 STREET NAME RT_# From To EST COST __SQ_YDS... SAN MARCOS DOUGLASS. 8440.0 FRUITVALE AVE NB 5835 3209 DOUGLASS MONTAUK 8450.0 FRUITVALE AVE NB 2280 1254 MONTAUK ALLENDALE 8010.0 FRUITVALE AVE SB 2280 1254 ALLENDALE MONTAUK 8020.0 FRUITVALE AVE SB 5835 3209 MONTAUK DOUGLASS 8030.0 FRUITVALE AVE SB 3174 1746 DOUGLASS BURGUNDY 7080.0 GLEN BRAE DR 1573 865 BEAUMONT BRIAR 7100.0 GLEN BRAE DR 1137 625 ALDER 7120.0 GLENBBRAE DR 1232 678 HAMMONS 7620.0 GLEN BRAE DR 1254 690 -VIA GRANDE VIA ESCUELA 7630.0 GLEN BRAE DR 3046 1675 VIA MONTE VIA GRANDE 5050.0 GOLETA AVE E. END 4193 2306 SEA GULL GOLETA CT 5070.0 GOLETA AVE W. END 2121 1167 GOLETA CT SEA GULL 7130.0 HAMMONS AVE 1899 1044 GLEN BRAE THELMA 7140.0 HAMMONS AVE. 1254 690 FRANKLIN THELMA 2750.0 HARGRAVE WY 1496 823 SARATOGA CRK DR EASTON 9550.0 HILL AVE 2026 1114 MONTALVO MENDELSOHN 6010.0 JACCARANDA CT 1014 558 END 10230.0 JEPSENNCTAK 630 347 SH END 7180.0 JIMSAWYLEY 1089 599 FRANKLIN LEXINGTON 3320.0 JOHNSON 910 501 PROSPECT BROOK 3330.0 JOHNSON 2658 1462 BROOK BROOKHAVEN 3340.0 JOHNSON 667 367 BROOKHAVEN CITY LIMIT PAGE NO. 5 City of Saratoga 01/10/94 SLURRY SEAL - 1993 STREET NAME RT_# From COST ----- ---- ---- --To_-- _--- - -_--- __SQ_YDS___ __EST 9145.0 JUNIPER LN 1050 578 LOVELAND SARATOGA 9150.0 JUNIPER LN 1207 664 BARKSDALE LOVELAND 6780.0 KILBRIDE DR 964 530 GLASGOW MILJEVICH 6100.0 LA VISTA DR 1170 644 LA VISTA CT VIA ESCUELA 4470.0 LADERA CT 1062 584 LE END 6970.0 LANARK 5694 3132 GLEN BRAE SCOTLAND 7200.0 LEXINGTON CT 1247 686 JIMS 7210.0 LEXINGTONTCT 2200 1210 HERRIMAN CHALET S. 9400.0 LOMITA AVE 1034 569 VICKERY ALOHA 10920.0 LYNDE AVE 1709 940 LYNDE CT DEERPARK 4390.0 MABEMILL 1017 559 ER END 1560.0 MANTECA WY 1019 560 HARLEIGH TWAIN 1580.0 MANTECA WY 1118 615 TWAIN ALCOTT 650.0 MARILYN LN 609 335 END 660.0 MARILYN LN 1313 722 MARSHALL RAVENWOOD 640.0 MARSHHALL LN 4738 2606 MARILYN 10060.0 MAUREENTWY 4646 2555 MEADOW OAK VIA RONCOLE 2330.0 MCCOY AVE 2766 1521 VILLANOVA QUITO 10050.0 MEADOW OAK RD 3795 2087 VIA RONCOLE MAUREEN 2740.0 MELLON DR 1716 944 SARATOGA RADOYKA 7260.0 MERRICK DR 2042 1123 CALLE TACUBA CAMINO RICO 10990.0 MICHAELSEDR 1848 1016 DOY END 9520.0 MONTALVO RD 2505 1378 PAGE NO. 01/10/94 6 City of Saratoga SLURRY SEAL - 1993 STREET NAME RT_# From To EST COST HILL MONTALVO HGTS D 9530.0 MONTALVO RD 2484 1366 MONTALVO HGTS D END 8505.0 MONTAUK DR 39 21 END 8630.0 NUTWOODSLN 904 497 DO END 9270.0 9270.0 OAK 1280 704 SIXTH LOMITA 9275.0 OAK ST 661 364 LOMITA ST CHARLES 4160.0 OAKHAVEN DR 3301 1816 VIEWOAK SCULLY 6445.0 PIERCE CT 1000 550 END 6440.0 PIERCEERDE 1050 578 WOODMONT PIERCE CT 1300.0 PORTOS DR 1517 834 WENDY RONNIE 1450.0 PORTOS DR 304 167 PORTOS PL WENDY 1455.0 PORTOS DR 1266 696 PORTOS PL BUCKINGHAM 1460.0 PORTOS DR 1126 619 BUCKINGHAM WESTOVER 1480.0 PORTOS DR 1390 765 WESTOVER MYREN CT 1500.0 PORTOS DR 1644 904 HARLEIGH MYREN 2700.0 RADOYKA DR 2640 1452 MELLON ANSLEY 2800.0 RALEIGH PL 1161 639 SARATOGA CREEK END 670.0 RAVENWOOD DR 728 400 END 10480.0 RUSSELL 2713 1492 DEBBIE MANDARIN 10490.0 RUSSELL LN 1570 864 MANDARIN RUSSELL COURT 10510.0 RUSSELL LN 1970 1084 RUSSELL CT SARA VIEW 10520.0 SARA VIEW DR 757 416 RUSSELL SARA VIEW CT 10540.0 SARA VIEW DR 1027 565 SARA VIEW CT SURREY PAGE NO. 01/10/94 7 City of Saratoga SLURRY SEAL - 1993 STREET NAME RT.# From To ..SQ YDS... EST COST 10710.0 SARAHILLS DR 2369 1303 VERDE VISTA SARA VIEW 7230.0 SARATOGA VISTA CT 1566 861 SARATOGA VISTA CAMINO RICO 7240.0 SARATOGA VISTA CT 2354 1295 CAMINO RICO CALLE TACUBA 7355.0 SARATOGA VISTA CT 1052 579 HOWEN BEAUMONT 7670.0 SCOTLAND DR 1723 948 SARATOGA TWEED 7680.0 SCOTLAND DR 1628 895 TWEED BRAEMAR 7685.0 SCOTLAND DR 2389 1314 BRAEMAR GLEN BRAE 4133.0 SCULLY AVE 605 333 COLBY PROSPECT 4140.0 SCULLY AVE 1049 577 VIEWRIDGE COLBY 4180.0 SCULLY AVE 1393 766 OAKHAVEN VIEWRIDGE 4190.0 SCULLY AVE 1393 766 VIEWOAK OAKHAVEN 4200.0 SCULLY AVE 1137 625 SARAGLEN VIEWOAK 3030.0 SHUBERT DR 1437 790 DEHAVILLAND E. COLUMBINE 3050.0 SHUBERT DR 1063 585 COLUMBINE NEWHOUSE 3070.0 SHUBERT DR 1034 569 NEWHOUSE SHUBERT CT 3090.0 SHUBERT DR 986 542 SHUBERT CT DEHAVILLAND WAY 4530.0 SOMERVILLE DR 1096 603 WALDEN TERRENCE 5570.0 SUMNER DR 1118 615 MCCARTYSVILLE FREDRICKSBURG 10560.0 SURREY LN 3217 1769 SARA VIEW PIERCE 5100.0 TED SEA 1019 560 GULL END 7330.0 THELMA AVE 1336 735 SARATOGA VISTA BEAUMONT 10460.0 THELMA AVE 674 371 SARATOGA -SUNNY DEBBIE 3110.0 TITUS AVE 946 520 PAGE NO. 8 City of Saratoa 01/10/94 SLURRY SEAL - 19g93 STREET NAME _ -RT_# From To EST COST BROCKTON VENDURA 3130.0 TITUS AVE 1151 633 VENDURA TITUS COURT 3150.0 TITUS AVE 637 350 TITUS CT BELLWOOD 1570.0 TWAIN CT 933 513 END 8235.0 VALLEYNVISTA DR 1741 958 700' E. OF MONT END 8750.0 VERSAILLES WY 3179 1748 WILD OAK EL PUENTE 6110.0 VIA ESCUELA DR 3362 1849 LA VISTA GLEN BRAE 6120.0 VIA ESCUELA DR 1705 938 LA VISTA TEN OAK 6130.0 VIA ESCUELA DR 1676 922 TEN OAK CUMBERLAND 7540.0 VIA GRANDE DR 895 492 ST ANN CHARTERS 7560.0 VIA GRANDE DR 2688 1478 ST ANN VIA BLANC 7580.0 VIA GRANDE DR 1118 615 VIA BLANC VIA GRANDE CT 7600.0 VIA GRANDE DR 997 548 VIA GRANDE CT GLEN BRAE 10025.0 VIA RONCOLE 1102 606 RR TRACKS GRANADA 10040.0 VIA RONCOLE 941 518 GRANADA MEADOW OAK 10070.0 VIA RONCOLE 888 488 MEADOW OAK RITANNA 10080.0 VIA RONCOLE 1583 871 RITANA MAUREEN 10090.0 VIA RONCOLE 1131 622 PROSPECT 4150.0 VIEWOAK 1279 703 VIEWRIDGE OAKHAVEN 4170.0 VIEWOAK DR 3614 1988 OAKHAVEN SCULLY 4143.0 VIEWRIDGE DR 1669 918 VIEWOAK SARAGLEN 4147.0 VIEWRIDGE DR 3223 1773 SCULLY VIEWOAK 2312.0 VILLANOVA 319 175 BAYLOR END PAGE NO. 01/10/94 9 City of Saratoa SLURRY SEAL - 19g93 STREET NAME RT.# From To ..SQ YDS... EST COST 2314.0 VILLANOVA 612 337 - BAYLOR PURDUE . 2317.0 VILLANOVA 602 331 PURDUE VANDERBILT 2320.0 VILLANOVA 633 348 VANDERBILT CLEMSON 2323.0 VILLANOVA 612 337 CLEMSON SWARTHMORE 2326.0 VILLANOVA 610 336 SWARTHMORE MCCOY 10180.0 WARDELL RD 1398 769 CARNIEL WARDELL COURT 7830.0 WILLIAMS AVE 1741 958 ALTA VISTA SARATOGA- SUNNY. 6150.0 WINTER LN 2734 1504 CUMBERLAND CHATEAU 480.0 WOODBANK WY 1727 950 UITO RANCHO LAS CIM 490.0 WOODBANK WY 1922 1057 RANCHO LAS CIM AMBLESIDE 500.0 WOODBANK WY 649 357 AMBLESIDE END 6550.0 WOODCHATEDR 944 519 END 3490.0 WOODSIDE DR 703 387 PROSPECT MELLOWOOD 3510.0 WOODSIDE DR 4115 2263 MELLOWOOD MELLOWOOD 3530.0 WOODSIDE DR 1270 699 MELLOWOOD BROOKVIEW 10750.0 WOODWAARD CTH 1980 1089 END 10210.0 YOLO DR 737 405 WARDELL ASHLEY * ** Total * ** 326375 179506 PAGE NO. 01/10/94 1 City f Saratoa OVERLAY THIN - 19g93 STREET NAME RT.# From To ..SQ YDS... EST COST 6910.0 ANGUS CT 1245 7470 CUMBERLAND END 970.0 ASPEASPET 563 3378 I END 1050.0 ASPESI DR 1848 11088 SPRINGHILL RIVERDALE 1060.0 ASPESI DR 2009 12054 RIVERDALE END 1110.0 CASA BL AZAWAN 826 4956 LA END 1120.0 CASA BLANCA LN 1973 11838 LA PAZ WAY BONNET 1510.0 HARLEIGH DR 1188 7128 PORTOS DOLPHIN 1520.0 HARLEIGH DR 2249 13494 DOLPHIN MANTECA, 1530.0 HARLEIGH DR 1439 8634 MANTECA FORTUNA 1100.0 LA PAZ WY 1082 6492 ASPESI CASA BLANCA 10890.0 LACEY AVE 1414 8484 TRINITY REID 9157.0 LOVEJLAANDCT 837 5022 END 950.0 LYONS CT 700 4200 END 10790.0 MALCOM AVE N. 2882 17292 SEATON TRINITY 10840.0 MALCOM AVE S. 2183 13098 TRINITY SEATON 9505.0 MONTALVO RD 216 1296 CALLE MONTALVO BONNIE BRAE, 9510.0 MONTALVO RD 1071 6426 BONNIE BRAE HILL 9690.0 MT EDEN RD 4482 26892 PIERCE CITY LIMITS 2250.0 PASEO CERRO 3441 20646 BUCKNALL PASEO PICO 2253.0 PASEO CERRO 3297 19782 PASEO PICO QUITO 2256.0 PASEO FLORES 2105 12630 UITO PASEO PICO 2260.0 PASEO FLORES 3441 20646 PASEO PICO BUCKNALL 2276.0 PASEO OLIVOS 3005 18030 PAGE NO. 01/10/94 RT.# 2 THINtMVERLAYratl993 STREET NAME From To-- __-- __ - ---- __SQ_YDS___ __EST COST 10830.0 TRINITY AVE UPPER HILL 10850.0 TRINITY AVE MALCOM 10860.0 TRINITY AVE PONTIAC 10880.0 TRINITY AVE TRINITY CT 8330.0 VIA COLINA SARATOGA -LOS G 1270.0 WENDY LN RONNIE 1290.0 WENDY LN PORTOS 7980.0 WOODVIEW LN SHADOW OAKS * ** Total * ** QUITO BUCKNALL 2266.0 PASEO PICO PASEO FLORES 2286.0 PASEO PUEBLO 24888 PASEO PRESADA 2283.0 PASEO TIERRA UITO 10125.0 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA -SUNNY 1260.0 RONNIE WY 22932 WENDY 2190.0 SARATOGA AVE PARK PLACE 2193.0 SARATOGA AVE ORCHARD 2200.0 SARATOGA AVE 3552 LUTHERIA 2216.0 SARATOGA AVE SHADOW OAKS E. 2220.0 SARATOGA AVE ROSSMERE 10795.0 TRINITY AVE 5598 MALCOM 10830.0 TRINITY AVE UPPER HILL 10850.0 TRINITY AVE MALCOM 10860.0 TRINITY AVE PONTIAC 10880.0 TRINITY AVE TRINITY CT 8330.0 VIA COLINA SARATOGA -LOS G 1270.0 WENDY LN RONNIE 1290.0 WENDY LN PORTOS 7980.0 WOODVIEW LN SHADOW OAKS * ** Total * ** QUITO 1122 6732 PASEO CERRO 4148 24888 QUITO 3597 21582 PASEO PRESADA 3822 22932 VIA RONCOLE 1503 9018 END 592 3552 ORCHARD 1 148 6888 LA PALOMA 933 5598 SEAGRAVES 5323 31938 ROSSMERE 1369 8214 CRESTBROOK 2 960 17760 UPPER HILL 1616 9696 MALCOM 843 5058 PONT IAC 1213 7278 TRINITY COURT 1213 7278 LACEY 1502 9012 MONTE VISTA 2622 15732 OAHU 1701 10206 OAHU 1900 11400 END 82623 495738 PAGE NO. 1 01/10/94 City of Saratoga HEAVY OVERLAY - I993 STREET NAME RT.# From To ..SQ YDS... 9745.0 PIERCE RD 1118 Total QUARRY OLD OAK * ** * ** 1118 EST COST 13416 13416 01/10/94 City of Saratoga PAGE 4 RECOMMENDED FULL PM PROGRAM BUDGET 1994 -------- - - - - -- --------------- P- R- O- G- R- A- M---------------- -- I- M- P- A -C -T -- -PM- AREA UNIT COST LANE BUDGET ADDED RESTORED TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------------- SQ. $ /SgYd MILES ESTIMATE - - - - -- LIFE --------------- SQYD -YRS OIL TREATMENT 0 $ .40 .00 $ 0 3 0 OIL SEAL 0 $ .70 .00 $ 0 4 0 SLURRY SEAL 331,359 $ .55 33.76 $ 182,247 5 1,656,795 CHIP SEAL 0 $ 2.20 _ .00 $ 0 6 0 THIN OVERLAY 40,780 $ 6.00 4.56 $ 244,680 9 367,020 MEDIUM OVERLAY 0 $ 8.00 .00 $ 0 10 0 HEAVY OVERLAY 22,374 $12.00 2.33 $ 268,488 11 246,114 RECONSTRUCTION 0 $17.00 .00 $ 0 20 0 STRESS -LAYER (2) . 154,322 $ .00 16.22 $ 0 PREP.-REPAIRS (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- $ 86,926 - - - - -- ** TOTALS ** --- - - - - -- 394, 513------ - - - - -- 40_65- $ - - - - -- 782,341- - - - - -- 2,269,929 Loss of 1 Year Pavement System Life (Total Asphalt Pavement) Net Increase or Decrease in SYSTEM LIFE (SgYd- Years) Total System Replacement Value Recommended Budget for F.Y. 1994 PM Programs Recommended Program as per -cent of System Value 1.92% Total Area of System Streets (S Yds)) Area (SgYds) Included in F.Y. 1894 PM Programs Recommended Program as per -cent of System Area 16.17% - 2,439,523 - 169,594 --------- - - - - -- --------------- 40,688,051 782,341 2,439,523 394,513 Notes: (1) Assume repairs needed rioro surface treatments are 12.5% of the program cost not �ncluding reconstruction and stress layer. (2) $udget estimate for Stress -Layer is the only figure from that item that is,includedin the TOTALS. Stress -Layer yardage and i mileage are included n the areas covered by the PM treatments. PAGE NO. 01/07/94 1 City of Saratoqa SLURRY SEAL - 1994 STREET NAME RT.# From To ..SQ YDS... EST COST 1930.0 AFTON AVE 1505 828 KEVIN MONTROSE 1940.0 AFTON CT 744 409 MONTROSE END 9390.0 ALOHA AVE 2040 1122 FOREST HILLS KOMINA 7815.0 ALTA VISTA AVE 842 463 WALNUT WILLIAMS 120.0 APRICOT HILL CT 1086 597 END 6205.0 ARGONAUTTCT 487 268 ARGONAUT END 6210.0 ARGONAUT DR 3289 1809 ARGONAUT CT REGAN 6200.0 ARGONAUT DR W. 1133 623 CHATEAU S. ARGONAUT CT 8970.0 BAINTER AVE 399 219 AUSTIN C.L. @ CREEK 11290.0. BANK MILL RD 3588 1973 STONERIDGE HAYMEADOW 6810.0 BLAUER DR 533 293 7410.0 REGAN BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA -SUNNY MERRIBROOK OLD TREE 939 516 7420.0 BRAEMAR DR 1390 765 MERRIBROOK E. LOMOND 7440.0 BRAEMAR DR 1303 717 7480.0 LOMOND BRAEMAR DR MERRIBROOK W. MERRIBROOK E. CRESTBROOK 1028 565 7490.0 BRAEMAR DR 1991 1095 7510.0 CRESTBROOK BRAEMAR DR MORAY COURT BRAEMAR CT MORAY 1353 744 7530.0 BRAEMAR DR 964 530 BRAEMAR CT SCOTLAND 3800.0 BROCKTON LN 1414 778 BROOKGLEN HOMES 3870.0 BROCKTON LN 1881 1035 3880.0 MILLER BROCKTON LN CAMBRIDGE 1045 CAMBRIDGE PLYMOUTH DRIVE 575 3760.0 BROOKGLEN DR 1328 730 GUNTHER BELLWOOD 3780.0 BROOKGLEN DR 1217 669 PAGE NO. 2 01/07/94 C't SL ZKYoSEALrat1994 STREET NAME RT.# From To EST COST __SQ_YDS___ GUNTHER BROCKTON 3540.0 BROOKVIEW DR 1151 633 WOODSIDE PALMTAG 3550.0 BROOKVIEW DR 1209 665 PALMTAG BROOKGLEN DR 3660.0 BROOKVIEW DR 3174 1746 WOODSIDE TITUS 6940.0 BUCKHAVEN LN 3758 2067 SCOTLAND SCOTLAND. 6170.0 CHATEAU CT 486 267 END 6160.0 CHATEAU 507 279 WINTER CHATEAU CT 6180.0 CHATEAU DR 3111 1711 CHATEAU CT SHADOW MTN 6560.0 CHATEAU DR N. 3173 1745 WOODMONT WINTER 160.0 CHESTER AVE 1607 884 TEN ACRES VIA TESORO 3200.0 COUNTRY SQUIRE LN 2856 1571 TITUS CNTRY SQUIRE W 2090.0 COX AVE 9120 5016 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA 6510.0 CRAIGEN CIRCLE 3896 2143 REGAN 6145.0 CUMBERLAND DR 1533 843 VIA ESCUELA WINTER 1180.0 DAGMAR DR 1122 617 SARATOGA FONTAINE 1310.0 DAGMAR DR 1114 613 RONNIE CHRISTIE 1800.0 DEVONNUAVE 1254 690 MC FARLAND 7940.0 DOUGLASSOLN 3348 1841 DURHAM SHADOW OAKS 3972.0 DOVER CT 729 401 NORTHAMPTON END 3940.0 EDINA LANE 1683 926 SOLANA DRIVE LARCHMONT AVE 8710.0 FARWELL AVE 1049 577 SARATOGA -LOS G FARWELL COURT 8730.0 FARWELL AVE 3244 1784 FARWELL CT WILD OAK 11120.0 FOURTH ST 126 69 SPRINGER PAUL PAGE NO. 3 City of Saratoa 01/07/94 SLURRY SEAL - 19g94 STREET NAME RT.# From To ..SQ YDS... EST COST 5600.0 FREDRICKSBURG CT 540 297 FREDRICKSBURG END 5610.0 FREDRICKSBURG DR 2119 1165 FREDRICKSBURG COX 8800.0 GLEN UNA DR 3478 1913 SARATOGA -LOS G PEPPER LANE 830.0 HARLEIGH DR 3718 2045 END 11300.0 HAYMEADOWODR 179 98 BANK MILL DEEPWELL 11310.0 HAYMEADOW DR 966 531 DEERWELL LUMBERTOWN 9010.0 HORSESHOE DR N. 5648 3106 SARATOGA -LOS G HORSESHOE CT 9015.0 HORSESHOE DR S. 1866 1026 HORSESHOE BELLA VISTA 9030.0 HORSESHOE DR S. 583 321 BELLA VISTA SARATOGA -LOS G 7710.0 JERRIES DR 1784 981 GERNEIL HERRIMAN 7730.0 JERRIES DR 2397 1318 JUNE 6050.0 JUNIPEROEWY 1349 742 END 5170.0 KIRKDALEIDRA 2006 1103 KIRKMONT KNOLLWOOD 5165,.0 KIRKMONT DR 1862 1024 ATRIUM CIRCLE KIRKDALE 5363.0 KIRKMONT DR 3022 1662 KIRKBROOK KIRKDALE 9230.0 KITTREDGE RD 555 305 END 5190.0 KNOLLWOOD DR 1209 665 DE SANKA KIRKBROOK 6060.0 LA VISTA DR 829 456 JUNIPERO PALERMO 6080.0 LA VISTA DR 1595 877 PALERMO LA VISTA CT 8990.0 LANCASTER RD 389 214 AUSTIN C.L. @ CREEK 7910.0 LANNOY CT 790 435 END 10130.0 MANOR DR 2460 1353 SARATOGA -SUNNY GREENMEADOW 5250.0 MARILLA CT 1430 787 PAGE NO. 4 01/07/94 C't SLURRYo SEAL rat1994 STREET NAME RT_# From To--- COST __SQ_YDS___ __EST END 1760.0 MCFARLAND AVE 3227 1775 SARATOGA DEVON 1770.0 MCFARLAND AVE 1365 751 HEATH 1780.0 MCFARLAND AVE 3478 1913 HEATH PASEO PRESADA 1790.0 MCFARLAND AVE 4543 2499 PASEO PRESADA DEVON 9620.0 MENDELSOHN LN 2328 1280 SARATOGA -LOS G PIEDMONT 7450.0 MERRIBROOK DR E. 2053 1129 BRAEMAR MERRIBROOK CT 7470.0 MERRIBROOK DR W. 5911 3251 MERRIBROOK CT BRAEMAR 4250.0 MILLER AVE 933 513 ASCENSION ARDMORE 4270.0 MILLER AVE 958 527 ARDMORE ERIC 4280.0 MILLER AVE 596 328 ERIC PROSPECT 4360.0 MILLER AVE 1110 611 MELINDA S. END BROOKVIEW 4370.0 MILLER AVE 1036 570 MELINDA S. END MABEL 4400.0 MILLER AVE 1151 633 CANDY 4430.0 MILLER 1028 565 ARDEN ASCENSION 4460.0 MILLER AVE 900 495 BAVE LADERA 4480.0 MILLER 859 472 LADERA SOMERVILLE 4490.0 MILLER AVE 917 504 SOMERVILLE CANDY 4550.0 MILLER AVE 1394 767 NORTHAMPTON MILLER 4580.0 MILLER AVE 1410 776 MILLER BROOKVIEW 4630.0 MILLER AVE 1229 676 NORTHAMPTON DORCHESTER 4740.0 MILLER AVE 4777 2627 DORCHESTER BROCKTON 390.0 MONTE WOOD DR 5720 3146 QUITO MONTE VISTA 01%07%94 5 SLURRYoSEALrat1994 STREET NAME RT.# From To ..SQ YDS... EST COST 3910.0 NEEDHAM LANE 1899 1044 PLYMOUTH DRIVE LARCHMONT AVE 3968.0 NEWPORT CT 708 389 NORTHAMPTON END 4540.0 NORTHAMPTON DR 3648 2006 MILLER LARCHMONT 2580.0 OBRAD DR 4111 2261 E END @ KOSICH W END @ KOSICH 7380.0 OLD TREE WY 4371 2404 BRAEMAR 3740.0 PALMTAGED R 4811 2646 BELLWOOD BROOKVIEW 2830.0 PALO OAKS CT 1567 862 SARA END 10400.0 PARAMOUNTODR 4257 2341 SARATOGA -SUNNY STEWART 10410.0 PARAMOUNT DR 1056 581 STEWART RICE 840.0 PEREGO WY 1793 986 END 4040.0 PLUMASRDRIGH 840 462 PAMPAS PROSPECT 2346.0 QUITO RD 882 485 BAYLOR PASEO LADO 2350.0 QUITO RD 1152 634 PASEO LADO DEVON 2353.0 QUITO RD 2873 1580 DEVON CLEMSON 2356.0 QUITO RD 1419 780 MARTHA 2360.0 QUITOLRDSON 2687 1478 MARTHA MCCOY 2363.0 QUITO 4702 2586 MCCOY YORKTON 7880.0 RIVER RANCH CIR 1738 956 END 10500.0 RUSSELLRCTAN 550 303 END 10530.0 SARARVIEWLCT 1058 582 VIEW END 2160.0 SARATOGA 2884 1586 WOODELL MELLON 2163.0 SARATOGA AVE 1136 625 SARATOGA GLEN MELLON 2166.0 SARATOGA AVE 1164 640 PAGE NO. 6 01/07/94 RT.# 2170.0 2173.0 2140.0 2243.0 7310.0 7320.0 4765.0 4780.0 4800.0 4810.0 4830.0 10770.0 10775.0 10785.0 5670.0 3920.0 4220.0 5110.0 5120.0 210.0 7215.0 7220.0 STREET NAME City of Saratoa SLURRY SEAL - 19g94 From To ..SQ YDS... SARATOGA GLEN PALO OAKS SARATOGA AVE 1496 1052 PALO OAKS COX 2434 SARATOGA AVE 8400 Cox S.P. SARATOGA AVE NB 1011 6380 BUCKNALL COX 568 SARATOGA AVE NBND 2127 Mr VAPT.nun nnv SARATOGA VISTA AVE SARATOGA VISTA SEA GULL WY Cox SEA GULL WY YUBA COURT SEA GULL WY SEA GULL CT SEA GGUURLNL WY SEA GULL WY PUENTE SEATON AVE TAMWORTH SEATON AVE TAMWORTH SEATON AVE SEATON SHERIDAN CIR FREDRICKSBURG SOLANA DRIVE LARCHMONT AVE SOMERVILLE CT TERRENCE TED AVE SEAGULL TED AVE TEN ACRES CT TEN ACRES THELMA AVE SARATOGA -SUNNY THELMA AVE SARATOGA VISTA _�a.. 1871 THELMA 596 YUBA 1496 SEA GULL COURT 2434 KARN S. END 1307 PUENTE 1011 GOLETA E. END 568 END 2006 SEATON COURT 1521 MALCOM 561 END 2053 EDINA LANE 585 END 1612 ZORKA 761 LEUTAR COURT 1457 END 5258 HAMMONS ' 2467 HAMMONS EST COST 579 4620 3509 1170 2408 1029 328 823 1339 719 556 312 1103 837 309 1129 322 887 419 801 2892 1357 PAGE NO. 01/07/94 7 City of Saratoga SLURRY SEAL - 1994 STREET NAME RT.# From To ..SQ YDS... EST COST 3190.0 TITUS AVE 4099 2254 CNTRY SQUIRE SO CNTRY SQUIRE NO 3250.0 TITUS AVE 633 348 CNTRY SQ LN N PROSPECT 11370.0 TOLL GATE RU 480 264 BOUGAINVILLEA END 10650.0 VERDE VISTA LN 637 350 SARATOGA -SUNNY PRUNE BLOSSOM 10660.0 VERDE VISTA LN 1139 626 PRUNE BLOSSOM VERDE COURT 10670.0 VERDE VISTA LN 1184 651 VERDE COURT TAMWORTH 10680.0 VERDE VISTA LN 2668 1467 TAMWORTH VERDE VISTA CT 10700.0 VERDE VISTA LN 1192 656 VERDE VISTA CT SARAHILLS 5820.0 VIA ARRIBA CT 378 208 VIA ARRIBA END 5810.0 VIA ARRIBA DR 1320 726 VIA CRECENTE VIA ARRIBA CT 5830.0 VIA ARRIBA DR 2933 1613 VIA ARRIBA CT VIA RANCHERO 5840.0 VIA ARRIBA DR 1137 625 VIA RANCHERO VIA MONTE 8260.0 VIA COLINA 1684 926 7640.0 PANORAMA VIA MONTE DR EL CAMINO GRAN GLEN BRAE VIA MADRONAS 2171 1194 7650.0 VIA MONTE DR 2561 1409 VIA MADRONAS VIA ARRIBA 7660.0 VIA MONTE DR 1151 633 VIA ARRIBA SARATOGA 5850.0 VIA RANCHERO DR 2710 1491 5770.0 VIA ARRIBA VIA REAL DR VIA RANCHERO GLEN BRAE VIA MADRONAS 2878 1583 5780.0 VIA REAL DR 1390 765 VIA MADRONAS VIA RANCHERO 5790.0 VIA REAL DR 1272 700 VIA RANCHERO VIA CRECENTE 4520.0 WALDEN CT 921 507 SOMERVILLE END 7790.0 WALNUT AVE 424 233 VICTOR SARATOGA -SUNNY 7810.0 WALNUT AVE 520 286 PAGE NO. 01/07/94 8 City SLURRYoSEALrat1994 STREET NAME RT.# From To ..SQ YDS... EST COST VICTOR ALTA VISTA 10170.0 WARDELL RD 2611 ARROYO DE ARGUE CARNIEL 10200.0 WARDELL RD 2635 WARDELL CT YOLO 10300.0 WARDELL RD 571 SARATOGA -SUNNY YOLO 8740.0 WILD OAK WY 1947 FARWELL VERSAILLES 8745.0 WILD OAK WY 583 VERSAILLES END 5580.0 WILLIAMSBURG LN 4822 FREDRICKSBURG E FREDRICKSBURG W 6570.0 WINTER LN 1640 END 6540.0 WOODMONTEDR 1720 CHATEAU PIERCE 3700.0 WOODSIDE CT 1113 WOODSIDE END 3670.0 WOODSIDE DR 2592 BROOKVIEW WOODSIDE CT 3710.0 WOODSIDE DR 2993 WOODSIDE CT BELLWOOD 5130.0 ZORKA AVE 2997 * ** Total TED * ** SEA GULL 331359 1436 1449 314 1071 321 2652 902 946 612 1426 1646 1648 182247 PAGE NO. 01/07/94 1 Cit THIN of Saratoga MVERLAY - 1994 STREET NAME RT.# From To ..SQ YDS... EST COST - 2395.0 LOLLY CT 1875 11250 KO END 9340.0 OAK ST 344 2064 ST CHARLES KOMINA 630.0 POLLARD RD 889 5334 QUITO C.L. @ SAN TOM 5370.0 PROSPECT RD 1860 11160 SARATOGA -SUNNY ATRIUM 5373.0 PROSPECT RD 2828 16968 ATRIUM COVINA 5380.0 PROSPECT RD 1244 7464 ARD SARAGLEN 5383.0 PROSPECT 4880 29280 SARAGLEN SCULLY 5387.0 PROSPECT RD 4072 24432 SCULLY MILLER 5390.0 PROSPECT RD 3792 22752 MILLER KRISTE 5393.0 PROSPECT RD 2464 14784 KRISTE TITUS 560.0 QUITO RD 1285 7710 WOODBANK MONTCLARE 570.0 QUITO RD 2635 15810 MONTCLARE VESSING 590.0 QUITO RD 1640 9840 VESSING CL @ SAN TOMAS 600.0 QUITO R 2053 12318 SAN TOMAS SOBEY 610.0 QUITOLR 1160 6960 SOBEY N. END POLLARD 620.0 QUITO RD 1080 6480 POLLARD MARSHALL 625.0 QUIT 1080 6480 MARSHALL POLLARD c 740.0 QUITO RD 1488 8928 MARSHALL QUITO OAKS 760.0 QUITO RD 352 2112 UITO OAKS RAVENWOOD 765.0 QUIT RD 540 3240 RAVENWOOD W. RAVENWOOD E. 770.0 QUITO RD 1143 6858 RDNWOOD E. ALLENDALE 903.0 QUITO 1038 6228 ALLENDALE ESPADA 910.0 QUITO RD 1038 6228 PAGE NO. 2 City of Saratoa 01/07/94 THIN OVERLAY - 19g94 STREET NAME RT.# From To ..SQ YDS... * ** Total * ** ESPADA MONTPERE E. EST COST 40780 244680 PAGE NO. 01/07/94 1 City of Saratoga HEAVY OVERLAY - 1994 STREET NAME RT.# - From To ..SQ YDS... 8360.0 FRUITVALE AVE 1882 SARATOGA -LOS G ALONDRA 8370.0 FRUITVALE AVE 948 ALONDRA VALLEY. VISTA 8380.0 FRUITVALE AVE 973 VALLEY VISTA THREE OAKS 8390.0 FRUITVALE AVE 2713 THREE OAKS CRISP 8400.0 FRUITVALE AVE 5122 CRISP FARWELL 8410.0 FRUITVALE AVE 1607 FARWELL BURGUNDY 2186.0 SARATOGA AVE 2028 SARATOGA -LOS G PARK PLACE 2196.0 SARATOGA AVE 3324 LA PALOMA LUTHERIA 2210.0 SARATOGA AVE 2092 SHADOW OAKS W. HERRIMAN 2213.0 SARATOGA AVE 1685 HERRIMAN SHADOW OAKS E. * ** Total * ** 22374 -_EST COST 22584 11376 11676 32556 61464 19284 24336 39888 25104 20220 268488