HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-03-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAw
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO: zoq,
Initial:
Dept. Head:,
DATE: February 3, 1982 City Atty
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services City Mgr_
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
SUBJECT: City's Participation in FEMA Program
Issue Summary
In order for the City to be eligible to participate in the Federal Emergency Management
Assistance Program for disaster relief, and to qualify for Federal funds to assist with
the necessary repair of Wildwood Park, the Council must adopt a resolution approving the
City's participation. In doing so, the Council must also agree to abide by the regulations
of the Federal program which includes such things as non - discrimination clauses, use of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, maintenance of that property which is repaired and meeting
applicable safety and building codes.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. approving City's participation in the Federal Emergency Management
Assistance Program.
Fiscal Impact
If the City's participation in the Program is approved and we obtain an approved project,
funds will be available on a 75% Federal, 250 local basis. Park Development Fees may be
used for the City's 25% share.
Attachments /Exhibits
Resolution, Conditions of Participation.
Council Action
2/3: Watson /Clevenger moved to adopt Resolution 1053. Passed 5 -0.
',ili�S�t`se�!f'YJfi WAH�!!rw'wY+?,C•S,"r�"fi
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING CITY PARTICIPATION IN
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. By City Council of the City of Saratoga that J. Wayne Dernetz,
City Manager is hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of the
City of Saratoga, a public entity established under the laws of the State
of California, this application and to file it in the appropriate State
office for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial assistance
under the Disaster Relief Act (Public Law 288, 93rd Congress) or otherwise
available from the President's Disaster Relief Fund.
2. That the City of Saratoga, a public entity established under the laws of
the State of California, hereby authorizes its agent to provide to the
State and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for all matters
pertaining to such Federal disaster assistance the assurances and agreements
attached hereto.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting
of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1982,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
I, Grace E. Cory, duly appointed and Deputy City Clerk of the City of Saratoga,
do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution
passed and approved by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the
day of 1982.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ity Attorney
APPLICANT ASSURANCES
The Applicant hereby assures and certifies that he will comply with the FEMA regulations, policies, guidelines, and requirements including
OMB's Circulars No. A -95 and A -102, and FMC 74.4, as they relate to the application, acceptance and use of Federal funds for this Federally -
assisted project. Also, the Applicant gives assurance and certifies with respect to and as a condition for the grant that:
I. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant, and to finance
and construct the proposed facilities; that a resolution, motion or
similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act
of the applicant's governing body, authorizing the filing of the
application, including all understandings and assurances contained
therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the
official representative of the applicant to act in connection with
the application and to provide such additional information as
may be required.
2. It will comply with the provisions of: Executive Order 11988,
relating to Floodplain Management and Executive Order 11990,
relating to Protection of Wetlands.
3. It will have sufficient funds available to meet the non - Federal
share of the cost for construction projects. Sufficient funds will
be available when construction is completed to assure effective
operation and maintenance of the facility for the purpose
constructed.
4. It will not enter into a construction contract(s) for the project or
undertake other activities until the conditions of the grant pro-
grams) have been met.
5. It will provide and maintain competent and adequate architectur-
al engineering supervision and inspection at the construction site
to insure that the completed work conforms with the approved
plans and specifications; that it will furnish progress reports and
such other information as the Federal grantor agency may
15. It will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act which limit
the political activity of employees.
16. It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours
provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as they apply to
hospital and educational institution employees of State and
local governments.
17. (To the best of his knowledge and belief) the disaster relief work
described on each Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Project Application for which Federal Financial as-
sistance is requested is eligible in accordance with the criteria
contained in 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 205, and
applicable FEMA Handbooks.
18. The emergency or disaster relief work therein described for
which Federal Assistance is requested hereunder does not or
will not duplicate benefits received for the same loss from
another source.
19. It will (1) provide without cost to the United States all lands,
easements and rights -of -way necessary for accomplishment of the
approved work; (2) hold and save the United States free from
damages due to the approved work or Federal funding.
20.
6. It will operate and maintain the facility in accordance with the
Minimum standards as may be required or prescribed by the
applicable Federal, State and local agencies for the maintenance
and operation of such facilities.
7. It will give the grantor agency and the Comptroller General,
through any authorized representative, access to and the right to
examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the 21
grant.
8. It will require the facility to be designed to comply with the
"American Standard Specifications for Making Buildings and
Facilities Accessible to, and Usable by the Physically Handi-
capped," Number A117.1 -1961, as modified (41 CFR 101 -17-
7031). The applicant will be responsible for conducting in-
spections to insure compliance with these specifications by
the contractor.
9. It will cause work on the project to be commenced within a
reasonable time after receipt of notification from the approving
Federal agency that funds have been approved and will see that
work on the project will be prosecuted to completion with
reasonable diligence.
10. It will not dispose of or encumber its title or other interests in
the site and facilities during the period of Federal interest or
while the Government holds bonds, whichever is the longer.
11. It agrees to comply with Section 311, P.L. 93 -288 and with
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 83 -352) and in
accordance with Title VI of the Act, no person in the United
States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity for which the applicant receives Federal financial as-
sistance and will immediately take any measures necessary to
effectuate this agreement. If any real property or structure is
provided or improved with the aid of Federal financial assist-
ance extended to the Applicant, this assurance shall obligate the
Applicant, or in the case of any transfer of such property, any
transferee, for the period during which the real property or
structure is used for a purpose for which the Federal financial
assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the
provision of similar services or benefits.
12. It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using
their positions for a purpose that is or gives the appearance of
being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or
others, particularly those with whom they have family, business,
or other ties.
13. It will comply with the requirements of Title II and Title III of
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acqui-
sitions Act of 1970 (P.L 91 -646) which provides for fair and
equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result of Federal
and Federally- assisted programs.
14. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the Federal
grantor agency concerning special requirements of law, program
requirements, and other administrative requirements approved in
accordance with OMB Circular A -102, P.L 93.288 as amended,
and applicable Federal Regulations.
I
This assurance is given in consideration of and for the purpose of
obtaining any and all Federal grants, loans, reimbursements, ad-
vances, contracts, property, discounts of other Federal financial
assistance extended after the date hereof to the Applicant by
FEMA, that such Federal Financial assistance will be extended in
reliance on the representations and agreements made in this as-
surance and that the United States shall have the right to seek
judicial enforcement of this assurance. This assurance is binding
on the applicant, its successors, transferees, and assignees, and the
person or persons whose signatures appear on the reverse as au-
thorized to sign this assurance on behalf of the applicant.
It will comply with the flood insurance purchase requirements of
Section 102(x) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,
Public Law 93.234, 87 Stat. 975, approved December 31, 1973.
Section 102(a) requires, on and after March 2, 1975, the purchase
of iflood insurance in communities where such insurance is
available as a condition for the receipt of any Federal financial
assistance for construction or acquisition purposes for use in any
area that has been identified by the Director, Federal Emergency
Management Agency as an area having special flood hazards. The
phrase "Federal financial assistance" includes any form of loan,
grant, guaranty, insurance payment, rebate, subsidy, disaster
assistance loan or grant, or any other form of direct or indirect
Federal assistance.
22. It will comply with the insurance requirements of Section 314,
PL 93.288, to obtain and maintain any other insurance as may be
reasonable, adequate, and necessary to protect against further loss
to any property which was replaced, restored, repaired, or con-
structed with this assistance.
23. It will defer funding of any projects involving flexible funding
until FEMA makes a favorable environmental clearance, if this
is required.
24. It will assist the Federal grantor agency in its compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended, (16 U.S.0 470), Executive Order 11593, and the
Archeological and historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
469a -1 et seq.) by (a) consulting with the State Historic Preser-
vation Officer on the conduct of investigations, as necessary,
to identify properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic places that are subject to adverse
effects (see 36 CFR Part 800.8) by the activity, and notifying
the Federal grantor agency of the existence of any such proper-
ties, and by (b) complying with all requirements established by
the Federal grantor agency to avoid or mitigate adverse effects
upon such properties.
25. It will, for any repairs or construction financed herewith, comply
with applicable standards of safety, decency and sanitation and
in conformity with applicable codes, specifications and stan-
dards; and, will evaluate the natural hazards in areas in which
the proceeds of the grant or loan are to be used and take ap-
propriate action to mitigate such hazards, including safe land
use and construction practices.
STATE ASSURANCES
The State agrees to take any necessary action within State capabilities
to require compliance with these assurances and agreements by the
applicant or to assume responsibility to the Federal government for
any deficiencies not resolved to the satisfaction of the Regional
Director.
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO S
DATE: 2/2/83
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
--------------------------- - - - - --
Initial:
Dept. Hd. (�
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT': V -572, Philip &:'Martha Sanfilippo, Argonaut Shopping Center
Issue Sunuary The applicant requested variance approval to construct a 6,914 sq. ft. bank
in the Argonaut Shopping Center parking lot which did not meet ordinance requirements for ;}
the number of parking'spaces. This variance was granted by the Planning Commission on
March 10, 1982 subject to the four conditions as listed in-the staff report. Applicant has
appealed all four of the conditions. pry.
The major condition appealed by the applicant requires him to agree to an access easement
between his, property and the site to the north. Staff believes such a connection between {'s
the two properties is feasible and met with the Council on January 15th to explain the various
access options. Per that meeting, staff recommends that Conditions #1 & #3 be modified as
follows:
1. If upon development of property north of shopping center, the City determines that
mutual• access between the two properties is appropriate, applicant shall enter into
a joint access agreement with the owner of the adjacent property. Prior to issuance
of building permit, applicant shall enter into a written agreement (in a form capable
of recordation) with the City to confirm his obligation to participate in said joint
access agreement. Said joint access will be placed in a location approved by the
City Planning Commission.
3. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" and provide bond for payment of pro rata
share (25% of share) of traffic light for Blauer /Brandywine /Shopping Center entrance.
Agreement of bond to run 5 years after completion of all on -site public improvements
prior to issuance of building permits.
Additionally, the Council requested staff to review the conditions on improvements and main-
tenance-of-the landscaping. After discussion with the City.-Attorney, staff recommends that
Condition #4 be left as is. The applicant is working on providing the information related to
the benefits the bank would provide the City.
3
Recommendation 1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal.
2. Determine the merits of the appeal.
3. Staff recommended denial of the variance.
Fiscal Impacts None noted
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Letter of Appeal, with subsequent letter withdrawing appeal.
2. Staff Report dated 2/19/81 and Addendum dated 3/4/82.
3. Planning Committee Minutes of March 10, 1982 and February -10, 1982.
4. Exhibits B -1, C and D.
5. Resolution
6. Correspondence received on the project.
Council Action
4/21: Consensus to hold study session 5/11. Jensen /Clevenger moved to continue to de novo
hearing 5/19. Passed.4 -1 (Callon opposed).
5/19: Consensus to discuss at June study session.
11/23: Discussed at study session. (Report dated 11/19 attached.)
1/5: Consensus to hold field trip 1/15.
1/19: Moyles /Fanelli moved to continue to 2/2. Passed-3-0 (Callon, Mallory removed from
discussion'.-- � x
2/2: 'Fanelly /Ybyles moved approval of appeal per this agenda bill with changes as attached.
Passed 3 *-G'"(Callon, Mallory not participating).. Informal public hearing set for 3/16
nn lncatinn of cirmal_
Amended Conditions to V -572 shown on Agenda Bill 257 (a) for
Meeting of 2/2/83
1. If upon development of property north of shopping center, the City determines
that mutual access between the two properties is appropriate, applicant
shall enter into a joint access agreement with the owner of the adjacent
property. The cost of construction of such joint access shall not be
borne by the applicant. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant
shall enter into a written agreement (in a form capable of recordation)
with the City to confirm his obligation to participate in said joint
access agreement. Said joint access will be placed in a location selected
by the City Planning Commission.
3. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" prior to issuance of building
permits and provide bond for payment of 25% of traffic light for Blauer/
Brandywine /Shopping Center entrance. Agreement of bond to run 5 years
after completion of all on -site public improvements.
AGENDA BILL NO.
.2tS''7
CITY OF SARAZOGA
Initial: A 6�
Dept. 1-1d.
DATE: 4/21/82 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: V -572, Philip & Martha Sanfilippo, Argonaut Shopping Center
Issue Summary The applicant requested variance approval to construct a 6914
sq. ft. bank in the Argonaut Shopping Center parking lot which did not meet
ordinance requirements for the number of parking spaces. This variance was
granted by the Planning Commission on March 10, 1982 subject to the four
conditions as listed in the staff report. Applicant has appealed all four of the
conditions.
Recommendation
1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal.
2. Determine the merits of the appeal
3. Staff recommended denial of the variance
Fiscal Impacts
None noted
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Letter of Appeal , with subsequent letter withdrawing appeal.
2. Staff 'Report dated 2/19/81 and Addendum dated 3/4/82
3. Planning Committe Minutes of March 10th 1982 and 2/10/82
4. Exhibits B, -1, C and D
5. Resolution
6. Correspondence received on the project
Council' Action
4/21: Consensus to hold study session 5/11. Jensen /Clevenger moved to continue to de
novo hearing 5/19. Passed 4 -1 (Callon opposed).
5/19: Consensus to discuss at June study session.
11/23/82: Discussed at study session. (Report attached dated 11/19/82
1/19: Movles /Fanelli noved to continue to 2/2. Passed 3 -0. (Callon, llory abstained.)
AGENDA BILL NO. 257
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 4 -16 -82
COUNCIL MEETING: 4-21-82
SUBJECT: V -572 - P. Sanfilippo - Argonaut Bank
For your information I am including a copy of a letter dated
October 19, 1981 relative to the State's financial position on
the Brandywine signal.
I
Ro er S. Shook
Director of Community Development
RSS:cd
Attachment
C �
Robert S. hock
Director of Pu'ti.1s_
'City of Saratoga
7'7
Saratoga, CA 95010
Lear Mr. Shook:
04- SCI -:3; -? 1 .84/ i -,.0
vcu- ?eetina c :; 1981 With Ken Berner of my staff
CSIC -- d abo = 0Co iundinC for traffic S_yyi aiS
a.; ong .route �>>. S; ._.....:....�.i1`_,`, you were interested in a signal
at ?ierce XC) Srs ;:;:•ter fine Drive, or Blauer Drive.
As was discussed 'Hirt.:, you at 'hat
,. L.. ra i tad :
iian7 ccm.- pitted proj,ec_E whose Costs
available for this of oro-;ect
enable to fund a �_--_ _rot av ore of
f'oreseeable futu re .
tine, State funds for projects
4.` +2 have a list of approved
already exceed the funds
As a result, We would be
these intersections in the
rile possibility for _ ^'�ecrs of this .nature to proceed to con-
struction is thrcuc_l, l .3cal agency financing. The City would
r3ave to be will i: e rovide 100 percent of the construction
funds. The State's --- _i___ Gl__ would be limited to pr`1i3ni-
nary and cons!r;:ct.
Please let us :noel if L City would Want to proceed on the
basis of local `i::r..:.. was mentioned my July 28,
letter to you., •e .i1i take no further action until we
1.7017 '-"" Y:..
hear frori the City.
1` you have any r_ues�_i ;n s, please contact Mr. Berner at ( 415 )
757-3609.
.._ nc relv yours;
J `ii - 'NEST
District Direct.,_
L AL
J. :i . WAI! SON*
..l:i °f� 'Ira ilC
1 1 1 ti:f.
E, I �: C
May 6, ].982
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale.Ave.
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Please be advised that we are abandoning our appeal of the four cond --
itions imposed by the Saratoga Planning Commission on March 10, 1982 in
file number V1572.
We feel we can work with- the city staff on alternatives and solutions
to their problems and resolve these conditions.
Sincerely yours,
Robert G. Egan, Bank Director
for Philip and Martha Sanfilipo
April 5, 1982
1' 7 FRU 1TV UAL 5070
(408) 867 -3438
Mr. Robert G. Egan
12900 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Egan:
We have received your letter dated March 19, 1982, on behalf
of Mr. and Mrs. Philip Sanfilipo, regarding an appeal of the
conditions of the parking variance granted by the Planning
Commission on March 10, 1982 (file #V -572). We have also
received your check #253 for the $30.00 appeal fee.
The public hearing on this matter has been set for April 21,
1982. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten
minutes during the public hearing for your presentation on
this appeal.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact our office.
Very truly yours,
Robert hook
Director of Community Development
RSS:cd
cc: /Mr. Philip Sanfilipo, 18200 Almaden Rd., San Jose, CA 95120
eputy City Clerk
March 19, 1982
RECEIVED
..MAR-1'9 1982•
City of Saratoga COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
13777 Fru-itvale . Ave. ' . .
Saratoga, CA: 95070
On March 109'1982 the Saratoga Planning Commission approved our
parking variance, file number V -572 Philip and Martha Sanfili.po,,to•-
construct a bank at Argonaut Shopping Center..
We would like to'appeal.to•.;the City Council-. the four conditions
recommended by the staff.for the following.reasonle...
10 The joint access easement agreement with the property to' the
north APNs 391 -3 -.282, we would like clarification on the
improvements associated with the access in the,area bf,
possible costs('to the landowner; liability and maintenance.
This access has nothing to do with the parking problems or
traffic flow in the Argonaut Shopping;Center. This will
only add, traffic into the Genter and take away parking spaces,
The property.to.the North is also 12 feet to 14 feet =below
the' grade of the shopping center., also "causing:,a 'major.
problem for access onto that property.
2. Widen road on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road to' provide acceleration,
and..deceleration lanes. We would like clarification as to the
length and location of said lanes and if there is -a need for
such lanes if a signal is provided,
Providing a left turn channelization and median.on
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. There is currently a left. -turn,
lane into the Shopping Center and onto'Brandywine St
We do not understand the need for any additional turn
lanes and would like clarifications from the City.
3. 'Provide 'a 5 year bond for a "Deferred Improvement Agreement"
for a traffic signal on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. This is
asking for a blank check.and does.not really tie down the
amount or exact percentage you are requesting. We.would-like
to know the approximate date this signal would be installed.
The signal would have to be- installed at Brandywine if it,.
was going to have any effect on the ;traffic, flow into the
Shopping Center, as indicated by prior.studies by the city
and state.
IV ,
r
4. The review and approval of the redesign of the landscaping
and parking needs clarifing as to what areas and designs
are they talking about. This does not need appealing if
you are talking.about the landscaping and parking around
the bank.
We would like to be on the agenda of April 21st and hope to
resolve all of the conditions with the Oity Staff prior to this date.
We will be making every effort to work out alternatives and solutions
to these problems.
Thank you for your considerations,
a6'64 -d
Robert G. Egan, Bank Direc or
for Philip and Martha Sanfilipo
I 11GS"Ar
REPORT TO PLANN NG COMMISSION
ify of �::�-a�a,�a
DATE: 3/4/82
- - - - - -�- "Commission Meeting: 3/10/82
SUBJECT= Addendum to V -572, Sanfilippo
As a result of the hearing on this item at the Planning Commission meeting
of 2/24/82, the issue of parking lot circulation surfaced as the primary
concern. Subsequently, at a second Committee -of- the -Whole meeting mitiga-
tion measures were discusse.
Circulation
To help alleviate the poor traffic flow i.n
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, a redesign of this
would eliminate 10 parking spaces but would
It was also suggested that a "NO LEFT TURN"
for drivers exiting the shopping center.
Parking Spaces
and out of the entrance on
area was proposed. The proposal
allow for better traffic control.
sign be installed at the entrance
The applicant has provided a site plan (Exhibit "B -1 ") which utilizes compact
spaces along the western and northern boundaries. In addition the applicant
has deleted the six spaces at the side of the proposed bank and landscaped
this area. This proposal will leave 2 ordinance -sized trees,which were
scheduled to be removed, intact. Currently the total number of parking spaces
proposed equals the number that is currently provided. As modified, the
parking variance the applicant is requesting is for 35 spaces. (Computed
1-space per 200 sq.-ft. of gross floor area)
Approved:
I
SL:jd
P.C. Agenda: 3/10/82
_AA.V V,eirt�-7--
Sharon Lester
Planning Aide
C
N i A a
IE b A
or:
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City cf Saratogq *Modified
A"F`G''�'� DATE: 2/19/82
_/Commission Meeting:
2/24/82
SUBJECT V -572, Philip and Martha Sanfilippo
Argonaut Shopping Center
---------------------------------------
REQUEST: Variance approval for parking requirements for the construction of a
new bank building. Note: Staff has determined that this project does not
require a variance for height, due to the method by which height is measured
for commercial structures.
t
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
project.
PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been noticed by advertising in the newspaper,
posting the site and mailing notices to 95 property owners in the vicinity.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial
ZONING: C -N
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
SITE SIZE: 8.628 acres.
SITE SLOPE: 2%
Single family residential
HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 20' to midpoint, 29' 6" to peak
SIZE OF STRUCTURE:
BUILDING COVERAGE:
Basement: 1,400 sq. ft.
2nd Floor: 598.5 sq. ft.
25.3% (60% permitted)
Main Level: 4,916 sq. ft.
Total: 6,914.5 Sq. ft.
SETBACKS: Front: 102' Right side: 40' Left side: 640' Rear: 250'
Report to Planning `,_,- inmission 2/24/82
V -572, Philip Sanfilippo Page 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION /STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to construct
a new bank in a separate building at the existing Argonaut Shopping Center
located on Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road and Blauer Drive. Before submitting for
Design Review for the structure, the applicant is seeking approval of a
variance for parking requirements.
The bank is shown to be located near the southwest corner of the property in
the existing parking lot, where it was conceptually shown with previous
applications SDR -1103 and Design Review A -431.
Parking
Currently, a total of 425 parking spaces are provided for the existing
shopping center. At the time . design review for Long's Drug Store was
approved (A -578), the required number of parking spaces was recalculated for
the Argonaut Shopping Center (5/6/77 study) The calculations showed that
the center had reached its capacity.with the required number of spaces
equalling 492 spaces. See Exhibit "D ". However, the applicant has collected
a count of employees per shift employed at the center which reduces the
total by 28 spaces, bringing the total number of parking spaces required
down to 464. The bank or any other addition could not be allowed on this
site without providing additional off - street parking.
Floor plans for the new bank indicate a total area of 6914.5 square.feet
which includes 4916 square feet on the main level, a 1400 sq. ft. basement,
and a 598.5 sq. ft. second floor community conference room and attic space.
The parking requirement fortthis building is one space per 200 gross square
feet which in this case equals 35 spaces. With the bank, the total parking
requirement would be 499 spaces. The applicant proposes to add 57 spaces to
help replace the 36 that would be deleted to construct the bank; for a total
of 21 additional spaces. Therefore, the proposed total number of spaces would
equal 446 increasing the existing parking space deficit of 39 to 53 spaces.
However, Staff has notedthat some of the proposed spaces are not acceptable as
indicated on Exhibit "B ". The 23 spaces to be placed along the rear property
line are located within the 30 foot rear yard setback which does not comply
with ordinance requirements. (No spaces are located there presently). The
rear yard is not suitable for parking due to the proximity to adjacent
residential properties, and the space available is not adequate for both
parking and truck loading and unloading.
In addition the 6 spaces to the rear of the proposed bank would interrupt
traffic flow because they would be required to back out into oncoming cars
exiting and entering from Blauer. An option might be to landscape this entire
area. At the Committee -of- the -Whole meeting on February 16, 1982, it was
suggested that the bank be moved to the west and at least 2 spaces relocated.
The eleven proposed spaces along the southwestern boundary near the bank
would need to be enlarged to meet ordinance requirments for length. In addition
the single spaces circled on Exhibit "B" are not viable in terms of vehicle
manueverability.
Report to Planning Commission 2/24/82
V -572, Sanfilipo Page 3
Parking Survey
The applicant has provided a parking survey of the shopping center taken _.
on 5 consecutive weekdays in December 1981 between the hours of 9 am and 4
pm. During the Committee -of- the -Whole meeting on this project, it was deter-
mined that another study should be provided in order for all uses to be in
operation during the study.
Ci milatinn
Parking lot circulation was another issue discussed at the Committee -of-
the -Whole meeting. Of primary concern is the traffic flow into and out of
the shopping center from Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road. This intersection has been
warranted for a traffic signal. The warrant which indicates the number of
car trips entering and exiting the center over a 12 hr period including peak
times, shows that the intersection significantly exceeds the minimum allowance
of trips which would warrant a signal.
Landscaping
In terms of parking lot landscaping, 3 islands containing 3 ordinance sized
trees would need to be removed to construct the proposed bank and parking.
As indicated on the landscape plan submitted by the applicant, 3 liquid ambers
would be planted at either ends of the bank. The landscape plan includes
various flowering and non- filowering bushes and groundcover to be installed
around the entire bank.
Overall, the appearance of the center with it's low- pitched flat roofs
has a lower, one story appearance. Across Bl.aur there are two commercial
structures which are 18' and 22' in height. Although these structures are
in a P -A zone which allows a maximum height of 30'.
Size
The overall size of the bank (6.914 sq. ft.) is significantly larger than
other-banks in Saratoga. Imperial Saving 4,250 sq. ft., Wells Fargo 5,470 sq.
ft., and Security Pacific is 5,200 sq. ft. The footprint (4,916 sq. ft.) of
the proposed bank is smaller than either Wells Fargo or Security Pacific.
FINDINGS: Parking
1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardships: There are
no physical problems associated with the property in terms of its size,
shape, location, or surroundings (it complies with ordinance requirements)
which would preclude compliance with the ordinance.
2. Exception Circumstances: As indicated above, there are no physical
problems associated with the site which do not generally apply to other
properties classified in the same zoning district.
3. Common Privilege: Granting of this variance would be an uncommon privilege
since variances for parking in the commerical zoning districts have not
been previously granted. Ordinance regulations for parking are not being
applied more stringently for this project than is normally required.
Report to Planning Commission 2/24/82
V -572, Sanfilipo Page 4
4. Special Privilege: Approval of this variance would 'be a grant of
special privilege since there are no exceptional circumstances assoc-
iated with the site which would warrant a variance.
5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare: There is an existing traffic
flow problem into the center which would be increased. The proposal
may be materially injurious to properties or imporvements in the
vicinity since the use may utilize public parking that is meant to be
shared by other commerical uses.
The three finding related directly to parking are as follows:
6. That neither present nor anticipated future traffic volumes generated
by the use of the site or the uses of sites in the vicinity reasonably
require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation.
As indicated in the Staff Analysis, it is anticipated that if the use is
allowed to locate on the subject site it will increase the existing parking
deficit form 14 to possibly 44 spaces. In addition, the traffic problem at
the entrance from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Raod would also be increased, making an
already problem situation worse.
7. That the granting of the variance will not result in the parking or
loading of vehicles on public Streets -in such a manner as to interfere
with the free flow of traffic on the streets.
The traffic flow into the parking lot is already a problem. The addition
of the banking traffic would increase the problem because more cars would
be entering the center.
8. That the granting of the variance will not create a safety hazard
or any other condition inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning
ordinance.
The addition of this use could increase an existing safety hazard.
RECOMMENDATION: Deny per staff report dated February 19, 1982.
If the Commission wishes to approve this variance Staff recommends the following
conditions to minimize and allow revisions of the findings necessary for the
parking variance:
* X. If upon development of property north of shopping center, the City
determines that mutual access between the two properties is approp-
riate, applicant shall enter into a joint access agreement with the
owner of the adjacent property. Prior to issuance of building permit
applicant shall enter into a written agreement with the City to confirm
his obligation to participate in said joint access agreement.
2. Widen road paving on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to provide additional
shoulder width as well as acceleration and deceleration lanes, together
with 6" AC Berm as determined by Director of Community Development.
Report to Planning Commission }. 2/24/82
V -572, Sanfilipo Page 5
2. (Cont.)
Provide left turn channelization and construct median on Saratoga
Sunnyvale Road as directed by Director of Community Development and
CalTrans.
* 3. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" and provide bond for
payment of pro rata share (50% of share not funded by State) of
traffic light for Blauer /Brandywine /Shopping Center entrance. Agreement
of bond to run 5 years after completion of all on -site public
improvements prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Staff design review and approval shall be required for the redesign and
landscaping of the parking and prior to issuance of building permits.
�I
Approved-
Sharon Lester, anning Aide
SL: It
P. C. Agenda: February 24 ,;1982
*Modified by Staff 2/24/82 P.C. Meeting
1. Vehicle Trips /Day
Blauer and Saratoga /Sunnyvale
Peak total trips in:
Peak total trips out:
Total in:
Total out:
Brandywine and Saratoga /Sunnyvale
Peak total trips in:
Peak total trips out:
Total in:
Total out:
A. M. 7:15 -8:15
38
52
1 ,179
1 , 095
A. M. 7:15 -8:15
30
24
1 ,625
1,506
P.M. 6:30 -7:30
151
123
12 hour period
6:30a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
P.M. 6:30 -7:30
195
202
2. Proposed total parking with compact spaces: 424 (Same as existing)
3. Required parking for bank when basement is deducted: 27
* 4. According to a traffic study prepared by the City of Cupertino, during the
peak hour of 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. approximately 28 one -way trips would
be generated by the proposed bank.
.aC,SA /SyyP ?1�� �lra�xx�. � �SOA l6y6�'
APAP)6 ZL
a c' aol a
iS /4 R G z `iP /_SOir? S82 P
9nL(o
ass/.
Ir
r��P 3Csr,4/vPx �'"
1 r
'No 7CNP.�IR ol�.
P _/c9 -' !
.2 IAD `\� fH t .4r `
h , y G L
a `
/2firGr✓�- .�o�.crT Q Ctiocicc� By
`EGEN D
TIME DATE
OOOA• AM PEAK o�;Z "oars - - F.L_�W DIAGRAM
OOOP PM P AK /6.3 0 -/730 6--V-950
p r ESTRIAN.
- — INT EF,,E �TION OF
AD ADULTS
.CH CHILDREN
OOAD OOCH AM PK
OOAD OOCH PM Pat _isa� �HoQ 6 - S/ -S±')
NO 8 GALE 04—SCI- -8 3 .
3t
1; %3)7
�_.r>
.aC,SA /SyyP ?1�� �lra�xx�. � �SOA l6y6�'
APAP)6 ZL
a c' aol a
iS /4 R G z `iP /_SOir? S82 P
9nL(o
ass/.
Ir
r��P 3Csr,4/vPx �'"
1 r
'No 7CNP.�IR ol�.
P _/c9 -' !
.2 IAD `\� fH t .4r `
h , y G L
a `
/2firGr✓�- .�o�.crT Q Ctiocicc� By
`EGEN D
TIME DATE
OOOA• AM PEAK o�;Z "oars - - F.L_�W DIAGRAM
OOOP PM P AK /6.3 0 -/730 6--V-950
p r ESTRIAN.
- — INT EF,,E �TION OF
AD ADULTS
.CH CHILDREN
OOAD OOCH AM PK
OOAD OOCH PM Pat _isa� �HoQ 6 - S/ -S±')
NO 8 GALE 04—SCI- -8 3 .
C:ALC L ��._— DATE D
01ST CG RTr. PM CHK �" �^ DATE
Major St: `�/%'fitTr�C:;rl —�'''.�,f!✓.$f_c�r, �'�ritical Approach Speed mph
Minor St: �''? ' /+� J /�"✓ qty Critical Approach Speed _ mph
Critical speed of major street traffic 40 rlph - - - - - - - . - -- _
In built tlp area of isolated community of < 10,0W pop. -------- oR RURAL (R) 0
p URBAN (U)
WARRANT 1 — Minimum Vehicular Volume
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 1000/c SATISFIED Yes E] No 0
sO . %NOWN IN BRACKETS? 80% SATISFIED Yes ❑ No []
U R U R
' AP ?ROACH 1 2 a more 10-11111-"2.11z,0 Hour
LANES
9vth Al;rchs. %0 350 600 j 42 r—
Major Street (400) (200) 1400) 1(1335 1397 /G Z000 zellL
Highest Aprxch 150 105 200 140
IBe> (160) 112 72 -00 .
254 FJ0 ,�- 3. "leAAInor Street ' (12x)
`NOTE: Heavier of left turn movement trom Major Street included when LT-phasing is pronosad
WARRANT 2 — Interruption of Continuous Traffic
MINIMUM REQUiREWNTS 100% SATISFIED Yes Nob
(80`. SHOWN IN ®4ACKETS)
U R u I R 800/. SATISFIED Yes ❑ No ❑
APPROACH 1 2 or nvxe /d -// 111-12117-1:? Hour /3'/ i/ / j� ,!'sy � ita�/J ff /c�
LANES
Both Apprchs. 750 525 VIX ^ /
Major Street (6W) 1420! (711.0)) (504 � 7 ; /L�7 / /°%/ /,� /C� : /i' /.`J c G'D� 7�•�t�.
Highest Apprch 7s 53 10'0 ?0
Minor Street • 160R 142) (00) I16) 4�frs � �?� i 30� 7f�� �5D
• NOTE: Heavier of left turn movement from Major Street included wtxan I- 7-phasing is prgx>gad 0
WARRANT 3 — Minimum Pedestrian Volume
100 ° /f SATISFIES?
Yes ❑
No ❑
ra /E ft SIY!1ft
hUNIMUM REQUIREMENTS
80°� SATISFIED
Yes [j
No ❑
(80'. SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
f4601
i3361
I U
R
/ / l /
/ /
/ Hafx
Both Appreha.
600
420
1% Feat
ra /E ft SIY!1ft
Yes ❑ No ❑
No Mr•cfian
A,t3jor street
f4601
i3361
Volume R Hi :ee
1000
700
Ped's On HivrH l Volume
1:>io
105
X -Walk Xi Sfreat y�
(1201
(94)
11 WPOOLOC.K SIC 04AL PROPOSED
U
?X144. }"YaL<I_I f: {f: t'4'.?%T
U15TAPiCC ?O NE A4•'.ESTCiU_3i l'i tt£O C.:V ;VLR.
OF -A _
F'W. rlll_ ". C:�w
1% Feat
ra /E ft SIY!1ft
Yes ❑ No ❑
14JtIPRANT 4 — School Crassings
4- TR -430 V 9 !'(70 ) Rfw.
Not Applicable 0
See Sch<XOl Crossings Warrant Sheet
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT 5 — Progressive Movement.
Saficfiarl Vlac t 1 ron M
MINIMUM REQUIREML "!iT5
DISTANCE TO NEARes'r SIGNAL
a FULFILLED
> 1000 it
N — - , 5 . } t , E - -'f t_W - ---- f t
Y "EsIo No {1
ON ISOLATED ONE WAY ST. OR ST. WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE ADJACENT SIGNALS
ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING 6 SPEED CONTROL WOULCJ BE LOST
f ATI Sf IfD
ON 2-WAY 5T. tvMERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING a -
J
SPEED CONTROL. PROPOSED SIGNALS T:OULD COHSSTITUTE A PROGRC.5SIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM
L n a_IJI7
WARRANT 6 — Accident Experience
Satisfied Yaa P11 MA rl
REQUIREIA!:NT
WARRANT
_ FULFILLED
FULFILLED
ONE WARRANT
WARRANT I - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
f ATI Sf IfD
WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TFC
to%
-Uq- - _ -_ - -. -_ .- __- "_____ ________ _
WARRANT 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME �
,
YES
NO ❑
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW
0
ADEOUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACC. FRED.
ACC WITHIN A 12 MON. PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORK. 6 INVOLVINGINJURY OR>S200DAMAGE
- -
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT `NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS -
-.
.❑
of
sORMORE•
( �B-JD -79 ;•hYw Sr- 9-' "?
NOTE: Left turn accidents can be included when LT - phasing is ,Dro�osed
MINIMUM VOLUME
REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES J FULFILLED
DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAR HOUR
800 VEH /HR - - _ _ _ VEH /HR
DURING EACH OF 4,NY 5 MRS Of A SATURDAY ANWOR SUNDAY
YESL„J NO ❑
CHARACTER IST 1CS OF MAJOR ROU'i ES MAJOR ST MINOR ST
PART OF HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TFC
CONNECTS AREAS OF PRINCIPLE TRAFFIC GENERATION ` w
RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY
HAS SURFACE STRCET FWY OR EKPWAY RAMP•TERMIMAL! --
APPEARS AS MA..R ROUTE ON AN OrrICIAL PLAN
ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS IAET, @.0TH STS. ❑
WARRANT 8 — Combination of Warrants
(Used it no orrD warrant satisfied 100,Y) Satisfied YPA ri mn r-1
REQUIREMENT WkRRANT . ~�
_ FULFILLED
TWO WARAAWr; I - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME _
SATISFIED A - IATEMt UP'T1" OF CO0.7'IRIu0US TRAFFIC '
�x 3 -- Mt!Ca IrJA'/HI P[.^i3TRIAq VOLUME
YES [2, NO
TA* .swisiarton oW s ererrxrrt is rrc.Yt rrec�qssarily iustification for Signals. Delay,
COMW9fiOn, ccnfullresn " oftw evidence of than rx+ed for right of way assignment
must be sf)rWn. ,
4 -TR- 4309 f W rd) FO6a.
Planning Commission Page: 1
Meeting Minutes - 2/24/82
Specific Plan (cont.)
W
- 4
.-... .- _ -:TES'^ • A4':1.°v. .. 'T•�:� .... u , t r�A:, }'•� •�J_lrt .. .. .. .. _. -, .. `j - � .
the Specific Plan can be amended should be determined. Discussion
followed, and Commissioner Monia stated that he would recommend that
it be written in the ordinance that the Commission review no more than
:._:..
once per year any changes to the Specific Plan. The Deputy Cit,,
- "• -- -
Attorney stated that the State law has a restriction on the number of
- °'
amendments to a General Plan, and probably the Specific Plan, as being
an element of the overall plan, would be subiect to that limitation_
lie added that he would take the position that if, in the future, there
was some amendment to the Specific Plan, thereby one of the three amend-
ments for the year is used up. He indicated that if that amendment
necessitated a corresponding change in the Zoning Ordinance to bring it
_
into conformity, then there would have to be a change in the Zoning Ordi-
nance as well. Commissioner Monia stated that he felt it would be appropri-
ate, because of the sensitivity and involvement, to limit amendment to
the Specific Plan to once a year.
-
Commissioner Crowther was requested to put his changes in writing for
-
the study session on March 2, 1982. It was directed that these items
be continued to the regular meeting on March 10, 1932.
Break 9:15 9:30 p.m.
6. A -806 - Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review approval for the
construction of a two -story family dwelling on Lot 21, Congress
Lane; continued from February 10, 1982 -
Staff reported that the applicant had requested that this item be con-
-
tinned to the meeting of March 10; 1982. No one appeared to address
'-�*" -- — ° = - = - --- - "-
the Commission. It was directed that this item be continued to the
_;;,;.;;: " ^� -� :;•_
meeting on March 10, 1982.
7. A -810 - Parnals Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval to con -
struct a two-story single family residence on a hillside lot on
Vintage Lane; continued from February 10, 1982
Staff reported that the applicant had also requested that this item be
continued. No one appeared to address the Commission. It was directed
-.
that this item be continued to the meeting on March 10, 1982.
8a. Negative Declaration - V -572 - P. Sanfilippo
- -
81). V -572 - P. Sanfilippo, Request for a Variance to reduce the parkin,
requirement(s) for a bank to be constructed at the Argonaut
-
Shopping Center on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; continued from
February 10, 1982
Staff described the proposal, stating that there has been a clarifica-
tion that a variance is not needed for the height requirement on this
item, since the height in commercial zoning is measured to mid- point, and
::::,:;, .;,;z :;.;;.;- „;;;;;,:;•:.; ..::.,;::.;.::,....._:
it thus complies with ordinance requirements. Staff noted that Condition
3 in the Staff Report should read: "Enter into Deferred Improvement Agn e-
ment and provide bond for payment of pro rata share (SO” of share not
funded by State) of traffic light for Blauer /Brandywine /Shopping Center
entrance. Agreement of bond to run 5 years after completion of all on-
`
site public improvements prior to issuance of building permits.
The public hearing was opened at 9:35 p.m.
Bill hron, one of the primary organizers of the hank, gave a presentation
and discussed the charter of the bank. Fie indicated that the conferenc
`.
room of the bank is really a loft, and if it were removed, it would not
lower the height of the building.
Bob Egan, one of the directors of the bank, discussed the vehicle Study
that had been done. A discussion also followed on parking.
Jack Chewn.ing, 20330 Chateau Drive, spoke in opposition to the bank. 11e
asked that the Commission reject the variance because (1) the an;)earance
of the building does not fit into the overall general plan or appearance
of the shopping center, and (2) the variance for parking spaces should ?e
W
- 4
.-... .- _ -:TES'^ • A4':1.°v. .. 'T•�:� .... u , t r�A:, }'•� •�J_lrt .. .. .. .. _. -, .. `j - � .
Planning Page S
Commission ® ®
Meeting Minutes - 2/24/32
V -S72 (cont.)
rejected because the parking plan is such that quite a few of the
parking spaces will be unusable because of their location, or they will
be used by cars which will pull in at such an angle that they will take
up two spaces.
Dane Christensen, 20141 Pierce Road, stated that he did not know whether
he was for or against the bank project at this time. He indicated that
he had just learned about it and would like more time to review the
- proposal. He added that he felt the people in the Argonaut area should
be advised about it, and possibly the Homeowners Association review
it.
M..LeFevie!,12851 Woodmont, stated that his initial thought had been that
this seemed like a good idea in principle; he is not against a bank in
Argonaut. However, he added, he is not convinced that this is the best
answer. He requested that the neighborhood be able to make an intelligent
presentation for or against the proposal. Mr. LeFevre stated that he did
not believe there was a parking problem, but he thought the condition of
the public roadway at.Blauer and Saratoga - Sunnyvale perhaps would be
impacted with the increased traffic flow. He added that that intersec-
tion, without a signal, is particularly dangerous during heavy traffic
hours.
Shelley Williams stated that his office was one of the first in the center.
He commented that he did not feel there was a parking problem. He added
that he felt the bank should be more centrally located in the center,
and he is in favor of a bank in the center. He discussed the traffic
conditions and stated that he feels it was a mistake for Pierce Road to
have be closed off at the center. He indicated that the opening of this
entrance to the center should be considered for the long term best traffic
movement around the entire shopping center. Mr. Williams added that he
felt the Argonaut main entrance to the center is where the stop light
should go.
Mr. Christensen and Mr. LeFevre both opposed the opening up of Pierce Road
to the shopping center.
Jerry Kocir, 12855 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, stated that he felt the bank
should be on the corner. He added that he believes this is an opportune
time to resolve a problem of ingress and egress over the overflow creek
which divides the shopping center and the vacant land between that creek
and Cox. He stated that he feels an easement or right -of -way should be
negotiated for convenient traffic flow for either pedestrian or vehicle
in preparation for future development of this land. Mr. Kocir spoke in
favor of the bank in that location because it is on a flow of traffic
and there is ample parking.
Neal Cabrinha, one of the organizers of the bank, reiterated their desire
to work with the City on this project. He discussed the proposal and
the findings that must be made for the variance. Mr. Cabrinha stated
that they were all concerned with the circulation of traffic and discussed
the parking. Regarding the condition for the applicant to join into a
joint access easement with the property that lies to the north, he
stated that this creates some very practical problems. He explained that
Mr. Wong's plans are not known at this time. He indicated that he feels
that that condition could be imposed on Mr. Wong at the time he came in
with plans to develop his property. Mr. Cabrinha added that he feels
it would be untimely and unpractical to impose that condition at this
time.
Commissioner Laden stated that she felt, with that condition, that Staff
was looking for a future ability to have a circulation pattern adjoining
that piece of property, if it is so deemed when that land is developed.
Commissioner Crowther commented that, regarding the additional traffic
generated by the proposed use, banker's hours are such that they are
unlikely to create a traffic peak at the time when traffic is normally
peaking at the shopping center.
Commissioner 2ambetti commented that perhaps the C -N district has now
become the center of the sales community over the years, rather than
- 5 -
ilCi
Planning Commission C
Meeting Minutes - 2/24/82
V -572 (cont.)
Page 0
the C -C district. lie explained that, even though there are no parking
districts in the C -N districts, we may have developed an area that is
the center of the community, and yet we may be doing a disservice to
the parking by not using the ratio that has been used in the parkin,
districts. He suggested that perhaps the ordinance should be reviewed.
Staff clarified that banks are not considered commercial structures, and
therefore the storage area has been computed in the parking. Commissioner
Monia commented that he would like to have Staff recompute the parking
and consider the storage area, since the storage area of a store is not
considered in the parking. He suggested that perhaps a condition that
might be imposed is the restriping to accommodate smaller cars.
Commissioner Laden also recommended that the 1400 sq. ft. of storage
area be subtracted in the consideration of usable space. She added that
perhaps the Deputy City Attorney could reword the condition about the
easement, so in fact a delineated easement is not required, but.some
access to the northerly property at a time when it may come in for
development.
Commissioner Bolger expressed his concern about the traffic flow, stating
that he would like the traffic count at Brandywine and Blauer.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he did not feel that parking is a major
issue. Ile commented that he felt the Commission should look at some of
the other issues, which he feels are the real issues related to this
proposal.
Commissioner King suggested that the applicant look at the ingress and
egress features of the traffic flow in regard to the main and secondary
entrances of the center.
It was directed that this item be continued to a study session on
March 2, 1982 and the regular meeting of March 10, 1982.
9. SDR -1511 C. Neale, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for
2 lots in the R -M -4,000 Zoning District at 14230 Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road; continued from December 9, 1981
Staff described the proposal. It was determined that Item II -B of the
Staff Report, regarding the turnaround, should be deleted, since Staff
does not feel that it is necessary because there is an emergency access
to walnut. It was clarified that the existing structures on both parcels
will have to be brought up to code.
The public hearing was opened at 10:40 p.m.
Mr. Neale, the applicant, discussed bring the building up to code. lie
indicated that he has permits from the City showing that the duplex on
the one parcel is up to code. The easement which he has given to the
Flood Control was discussed, and also the conditions of the Staff Report.*
- - Charles Reed submitted a letter which he had written in opposition to
the project. Mr. Reed stated that he feels a handsome looking building
is needed on the property, and what is now there is a terrible eyesore,
and it is only 80 ft. from where he lives. He discussed the cul -de -sac
and the number of homes on it. Mr. Reed added that the water district
hill is somewhere between 19% and 20% slope. He indicated that the
creek is a real probiem -in that location. He expressed his opposition
to the houses on the lot.
.4 v
The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the houses that are on the lot
were houses removed from the church property that was developed. 110
explained that the situation there is that they were perhaps salvagable
and Mr. Neale had an arrangement with the church to acquire the houses
for possible use on this site. A written agreement was pr0nared and
executed between the City and the applicant, which provided that Iw had
permission to temporarily place the houses on this site, with the very
clear understanding that, by doing so, the City was not approving the
homes; that he would have to comply with all building codes, with design
review. He added that, if at that time the City determines the homes are
not suitable, for one reason or another, then he will be required to
°'"S"+= "- "t'' =':• ..- "Vice- Chairman Kin; reminded
.�..r...,<< at the study session that he
=*'+�, :��� }°'�:.� "" ?'• Staff Ren_o_rt.
Ii4`r�`'lNYilt. .r.: w.•K.•y.....; �.'�- vt�r�v.J.� �i� �. �...��r...� ,
Mr. Neale several times that he had indicated
understood and agreed with the terms of the
Staff Concerns on V -572, P. Sanfilippo
I. Parking
1. Existing Parking: 423.;spaces
2. Parking required for existing shopping center: 492 (5/6/77 study)
Calculated by using a total shopping center area of 90,156 square
feet minus 17% storage space, divided by an average parking ratio
of 200 plus 118 spaces for employees.
90,156 sq. ft. 74,829 374 spaces
17% 200 + 118 spaces
74,829 sq. ft. 374 spaces 492 spaces
3. Parking required for bank: 35 spaces (at 1 space /200 gross sq. ft.
for a customer service use)
4. Total required parking: 527 spaces
5. Proposed parking: 445 spaces. However, Staff has noted that 30
of proposed spaces may not be acceptable.
6. Parking space deficit: 8.4 spaces (Possibly 1'12 spaces)
7. Compact spaces: The use of compact spaces could increase the
amount of spaces that could be provided.
8. Parking circulation: Staff has noted that the parking lot circulation
could be improve .
II. Shopping Center Entrance
The entrance /exit from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road is not controlled by a
traffic signal and poses traffic safety problems. Options are available
with this application to 1) redesign the parking lot, particularly the
entrance. (Which may include moving the fire hydrant) 2) requiring
a joint access easement with the adjacent property to the north if it
were to develop commercially.
III. Design
1. Height.
a. 20' is the maximum allowed in this zoning district. 30' is
proposed. The existing shopping center is 21 -23' in height.
2. Size.
a. The overall size of the bank (6,914 sq. ft.) is significantly
larger than other banks in Saratoga. (Imperial Savings which
is among the largest approved is 4,250 sq. ft.)
Staff Concerns on V -572, P. Sanfilippo
3. Parking Lot Landscaping
The site plan indicates that 3 landscaped
3 ordinance -sized trees will be removed.
partial removal of 2 other landscaped are
ordinance -sized trees.
Page 2
islands which include
The plan also includes
as which includes 2 -3
FILE NO: V -572
USOLUIZON NO. V -*5'7 2 - 1 _
CITY OF SAT'uMCA PLANNING Ca1.,USSI0v
STATE OF CALIFOR1411
1-MET.EAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Ca�nission has received the
application of P. SANFILiPPO for a _ Variance to reduce the
n'arkiniz requirement(s) for a bank to be constructed at the and
Argonaut Shopping Center on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road
I- MREAS, ME applicant (has) .(ftcxmoct�) met the burden of Proof
required to support his said application;
hM-7, Ti11 REFDRE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful' consideratiou of
naps, facts, ez:hibits and other evidence submitted is this matter, the
.application for the Varian be, and the same is hereby (granted)
1 � .
Cvt d�c z1, subject to the folio-,- ng conditions-:
Per Exhibit "B - -1 ", the Addendum dated March 4, 1982 and
the conditions of the Staff Report dated February 12, 1982,
as modified.
BE 1T FiJI TITER 1=OLC1I,D that the Report of Findings attached hereto
-bo approved and adopted, and the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to
notify Lhe parties affcctcd by this decision.
1'!:S ;Ell 10,N)
ADOPTED by the
City of Saratoga Plaluiing
Cc=jissior-, State
of Cdi:Lfozzu_a,
this 10th_day of
March , 1.9 82 , by
the follo;oing troll
C,LZ1 ,,0 e:
AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther,.King, Laden, Schaefer and
Zambetti
E01:;;: None
ArISL \T: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Monia
ATT E T : /}
Secretary, -Plahni g Commission
�:;21.1� °aI], 1:111111: l,O::Ja.`;ti1.G7]
File No. V -S72
FINDINGS:
1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardships: There
is physical hardship in that the or inance oesn't speak to
today's needs (with respect to shopping centers) and the
circulation pattern that has already been established in the
past.
2. Exceptional Circumstances: This is an exceptional circumstance,
in that, with the required mitigating condition to redesign the
parking lot to improve the circulation, the parking is no longer
a problem and banking hours do not correspond with the peak
parking on the site.
3. Common Privilege: Granting of this variance would be a common
privilege in that the privilege has already been granted since
the site is existing with deficient parking.
4. Special Privilege: Granting of this variance would not be a grant
of special privilege, in that the public testimony states that
the parking provided is sufficient, and the existing parking on
site is deficient.
S. Public Health, Safety and-Wel'fare: The proposal would not be
materially injurious to pu 1 c ealth, safety and welfare, in
that, given the condition to. redesign the parking lot with
traffic safety in mind, the proposal will not cause a substantial
hazard.
6. The traffic volume will be increased but not substantially so as
to cause a hazard.
7. The variance will not result in parking or loading of vehicles
in public streets.
8. The grant of a variance, as conditioned, would improve the safety
situation on site and it would not create a traffic hazard or other
conditions inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordi-
nance.
r
WARREN B. HEIR AIA
A N D A S S O C I A T E S
A R C H I T E C T S • P L A N N E R S
1 4630 BIG BASIN WAY . P.O. BOX 14 . SARATOGA . CALIFORNIA 95070 • 867 -9365
SQUARE FOOTAGE TAKE -OFF
BANK BUILDING FOR
SARATOGA NATIONAL BANK
SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD, SARATOGA, CA.
The following information is presented as the square footage,
of the proposed bank giving the working areas for 12 bank
personal plus.the circulation, storage, and support areas for
these people. The area for the public is basically in the
working area except for circulation to the Community Conference
Loft above the banking area.
The building is basically a one story building except for the
Loft and basement for storage and support.
First Floor 'Area
Working Area 3,783.0 sq.ft.
Storage /Circulation 1,133.0 sq.ft.
Basement F1'o'or Area
Support /Storage /Cir.
Second F1'oor' L'of't Area
Support Area
Storage /Circulation
1,400.0 sq.ft.
330.0 sq.ft.
2,685.0 sq.ft.
The circulation area, consisting of stairs and elevator are
really only one area of the building for all floors, however
they are presented in this manner as they are shown on each
floor plan.
C-'
. :J� � ✓.ae`ua�rd
12900 SARATOGA -SUNNYVALE ROAD • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867.4122
REPORT ON DAILY PARKING COUNT
ARGONAUT SHOPPING CENTER
SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD AT BLAUR DRIVE
SARATOGA, CALIFORPIIA
The following-information is presented as the empty parking
spaces out of the 425 parking spaces available, as counted
by L. Parsley of R. Egan at Argonaut Shopping Center, on
date and time as logged.
Date:
Thurs.
Fri.
Mon,
Hour:
2/18/82
2/19/82
2 /22/82
9:00
329
324
349
11:00
245
247
284
12 :00
250
224
253
2 :00
243
224
232
4:00
220
196
,238
. .
REPORT ON DAILY PARKING COUNT
ARGONAUT SHOPPING CENTER
SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD AT BLAUER DRIVE.
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
The following information is presented as the empty parking spaces out
of the 445 parking spaces available, as counted by H. Parsley of R.
Egan at Argonaut Shopping Center, on date and time as logged.
Date:
Tues.
Wed.
Hour:
12/15/81
WARREN
13-
HEIR
AIA
11:00
A N D A S
S
O C I A
T E S
256
A R C H I T E C T
S
. P L A N
N E R S
201
1 4630 BIG BASIN WAY .
P.O. BOX 14 . SARATOGA
. CALIFORNIA 95070 . 867 -9365
REPORT ON DAILY PARKING COUNT
ARGONAUT SHOPPING CENTER
SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD AT BLAUER DRIVE.
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
The following information is presented as the empty parking spaces out
of the 445 parking spaces available, as counted by H. Parsley of R.
Egan at Argonaut Shopping Center, on date and time as logged.
Date:
Tues.
Wed.
Hour:
12/15/81
12/16/81
9:00
359
369
11:00
260
230
12:00
246
256
2:00
247
220
4:00
201
206
Thurs.
Fri.
Mon.
12/17/81
12/1 % /81
12/21/81
362
359
354
237
229
214
226
225
213
197
233
204
174
210
205
! SARATOGA NATIONAL BANK'
(IN ORGANIZATION)
POST OFFICE BOX 2400
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
Variance Application for
Parking Requirements for Saratoga National Bank
Argonaut Shopping Center, Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, Ca.
Owner: Philip S. Sanfilippo
Applicant: Saratoga National Bank (In Organization)
Date: January 5, 1982
The following information is presented in support of the application of Sara-
toga National Bank for a variance in the number of parking spaces required at
the Argonaut Shopping Center for the proposed bank building.
1. There is a physical hardship associated with the land in that 476 total
parking spaces are required, but only 467 parking spaces can be pro-
vided in the area available. Additional spaces can be provided only by
cutting down mature trees. A study of existing parking conditions sug-
gests there is no need for 476 parking spaces.
2. There is an exceptional circumstance which applies only to this property
in that a bank has been shown as a future use on this site at this area on
previous applications. An exhaustive economic survey submitted to the
Comptroller of the Currency with applicant's charter application indicates
the feasibility of locating a new national bank in this vicinity. Pre-
liminary charter approval has been granted, but the Comptroller has con-
ditioned final approval on the bank's location in this vicinity.
3. The denial of the variance would deprive the applicant of the right to
develop the property similar to others classified in the same zoning
district. At present there is a banking institution located in the Quito
Shopping Center which is also zoned CN.
4. The granting of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege as
parking variances have been permitted by the City of Saratoga in other
appropriate circumstances. As noted above, ample parking would continue
to be available at the Argonaut Shopping Center were the variance granted
and the proposed bank built.
5. The use will not be detrimental to the Community or injurious to prop-
erties in the vicinity as the site is zoned for this use, the building
will have a Community Room available to the public, and the style of
architecture-is compatible with the residential use surrounding the com-
mercial center.
C.
6. Neither present nor anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the
use of the site or the uses of the sites in the vicinity reasonably re-
quire strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation. As demonstrated by the parking study submitted herewith,
there is ample parking for the proposed banking use. This will be the
final structure built in the Argonaut Shopping Center, as shown on pre-
vious applications.
7. The granting of the variance will not result in the parking or loading of
vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free
flow of traffic on the streets because there is ample parking in the
Argonaut Shopping Center.
8. The granting of the variance will not create a safety hazard or any other
condition inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. The
proposed use does not change the major traffic patterns.
-2-
This to advise you I have reviewed the plans of the
proposed new bank building to be located in the Argonaut
Shopping Center. It is my opinion, that the banks• building
design &'architecture will not detract from the shopping
center but rat0er enhance it.
The heigth & design of the building appear to be of good
architectural design & style.
The bank will remove some parking spaces from the center
increase the traffic in Argounant & in turn increase the
possibilities of minor traffic accidents. However, the overall
value of a bank in the shopping center far outweigh the
negative aspects. We have needed a bank in this center for many
years & it is particulary gratifing not only to have the
facilities of a bank available but also to have a loally
owned Saratoga Bank with concerned citizens as its owners.
Y
20 February, 1982
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Attn: Saratoga Planning Commission
R cco���o
FEB 2 21982
Ref: Request by an organization called the SARATOGA NATIONAL BANX— n- - "buiTcl-an
locate at the Argonaut Shopping Center
My wife and I vehemently reject any additional building(s) in the Argonaut
Shopping Complex and certainly not any structure that exceeds the nominal,
single -story building height constraints indigenous to the ARGONAUT residential
area.
Some three years ago, this Shopping Center was in such disrepair that paper and
other trash were blowing all over our property and others in the neighborhood.
Two separate requests to correct this condition were made to the Saratoga
Government, Cole Bridges, with ZERO response. These letters included
photographs of the trash in our yard as well as our neighbors' and the Shopping
Center. Mr.- Sanfilippo replied to none of our phone calls or letters (see
enclosure with 40 some signatures noted below). The same letter, with the
pictures, was then sent to to the President of SAFEWAY. 48 hours later,
enclosed containers were installed to contain the trash and the cleanup of the
whole area, sponsored by the SAFEWAY Store manager, was initiated and welcomed
by the whole neighborhood. Atfterall, we all want to be good neighbors.
Beside the weekly sweeping of the parking surface, no maintenance of the area
C " has been in evidence until two or three weeks ago. The parking surface is still
not maintained and is full of holes too,deep for shopping carts to negotiate.
Trash and weeds have abounded all through the planted areas since the last
cleanup noted above which was in June, 1980 and which was performed by SAFEWAY
personnel. The correction of this condition has also started.
If we accept this building plan, will we have to wait another two years for the
next minimum of maintenance activity?
If you doubt any of the above statements, please take a look and convince
yourself. Remember, this Shopping Center was originally proposed to be a
"close copy" of the architecture of the EL RANCHO SHOPPING CENTER of Palo Alto
with its artistic plantings, parking layout, etc. - - -
Summarizing, since Mr. Sanfilippo has shown no regard to the neighborhood's
requests nor even the curtesy of an answer to what we felt was a need, we
strongly recommend that any building modifications to the site known as
ARGONAUT SHOPPING CENTER be rejected if Mr. Sanfilippo has anything to do with
this piece of property, directly or indirectly.
Sincerely,
r. & N(rs. Mira eau C. Towns, Jr.
13035 Regan Lane
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Encl: Copy of letter to Mr. Sanfilippo dated 6/25'80 with some 40 signatures.
June 25, 1980
Mr. Phillip Sanfilippo
18200 Almaden Road
San Jose, CA 95120
Dear Mr. Sanfilippo:
We are writing to apprise
Argonaut Shopping Plaza.
lately, you cannot imagine
the last year or so.
you of the condition of the
If you have not visited it
how it has deteriorated in
The weeds have just about taken the planted beds over.
There is so much debris at the curb area of the main
entrance that it is curb high. One of the trees,where
they are overhanging the street,has had a branch just
hanging where a.high vehicle had broken it off. It
really looks dreadful and it could be a safety hazard.
Also there is a large hole at the corner of Shelley
Williams Real Estatte one could lose a wheel in -in the
asphalt.
The families in the area behind the shopping area and
adjacent areas work very hard to keep their property
in good repair and their yards also. It is very dis-
heartening to have such an eyesore at the entrance of
these homes.
We would greatly appreciate your taking the time and
responsibility,as the owner of this center,to investigate
and correct this situation.
Thank you, p
The Homeowners on Regan Lane
and Blauer Drive:
J c
_��JJ
Q,
�o�bo lov Q,r Or. Sa yqa„
19
1 Z9
203 r) �J, Scva tl)
--4
Cx• - - --,
},11 iq.0 r °� N'�� {r 1• c�' J l �, Jl,,. ly��,� �. J�1j �/j��� ,�
(; r' 177
May 10, 1982 !A
Ay 12 1982
Mayor Callon and Members of the City Council
City Offices
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mayor Callon and Members of the City Council,
My husband and I attended the City Council Meeting of Wednesday,
April 21, 1982 with great interest and concern. It was brought
to our attention by a group of alarmed neighbors that there was
some talk of opening Pierce Road through to the Argonaut Shopping
Center and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road.
In March of 1978, we purchased our present residence. At that
time the foremost consideration in our minds whether to purchase
the home centered around any possible future plans to change the
existing dead -end of Pierce Road since our two young children's
safety was of paramount importance. Our real estate agent, my
husband as well as myself all checked with the appropriate people
at the Saratoga City Hall and were reassured from all sources that
there were absolutely no future plans to change what currently
existed'
My husband and I were really quite dismayed to think that any
consideration would be made to open Pierce Road for two major
reasons: first, the street at our end of Pierce Road would become
a thoroughfare for large delivery trucks going into and out of the
shopping center (a condition that existed when the road was open),
and secondly, temptation for cars to speed through the parking lot
and not reduce to an appropriate speed when entering Pierce Road would
be an ever present danger.
The increased traffic and congestion caused by the building of
a bank on the corner of Blauer and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road must
be carefully examined. We trust the City of Saratoga reaches
agreement so that Pierce Road can remain closed as it is at present.
We would be very amenable to answering questions or addressing our
concerns.
Sincerely,
JcLe 0 0
Sara Jane Vinson
20379 Pierce Road
Saratoga, California 95070
�.
U�/U d � .
`
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 11/19/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 11/23/82
Status of Appeal of Conditions of V -572, Philip & Martha Sanfilippo,
SUBJECT Request for a Variance to Reduce the Parking Requirements for a Bank
to be Constructed at Argonaut Shopping Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
On March 10, 1982, the Planning Commission approved a variance for required
parking spaces for a bank to be placed in the Argonaut Shopping Center subject
to the following conditions:
1. If upon development of property north of shopping center, the City
determines that mutual access between the two properties is appropriate,
applicant shall enter into a joint access agreement with the owner of
the adjacent property. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant
shall enter into a written agreement with the City to confirm his obli-
gation to participate in said joint access agreement.
2. Widen road paving on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to provide additional shoulder
width as well as acceleration and deceleration lanes, together with 6" AC
Berm as determined by Director of Community Development. Provide left turn
channelization and construct median on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road as directed
by Director of Community Development and CalTrans.
3. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" and rovide bond for payment of
pro rata share (50% of share not funded by State of traffic light for
Blauer /Brandywine /Shopping Center entrance. Agreement of bond to run 5
years after completion of all on -site public improvements prior to issuance
of building permits.
4. Staff design review and approval shall be required for redesign and land-
scaping of the parking and prior to issuance of building permits.
The applicants appealed all four conditions per their letter of.March 19, 1982,
attached. The City Council considered the appeal at several meetings (minutes
attached), discussing the location and funding for the traffic signal on Sara-
toga- Sunnyvale Road and the joint access agreement at length. The public hearing
was continued indefinitely, delaying the matter, while the applicant provided
information on the location of the traffic light and sales tax. Since then,
the item has been continued with the agreement of the applicants. (Renoticing
of the appeal will be necessary prior to placing the item on your formal agenda).
Report to Mayor and
City Council - Re: V -572
11/19/82
Page 2
Currently, the appeal on the variance for parking spaces, is before the Council.
Action on this item can only be done after the Council makes the five findings
required for a variance and three additional findings required for parking var-
iances as listed in the Staff Report or as made by the Planning Commission.
Additionally, CalTrans has verbally indicated today that they would fund their por-
tion (50 %) of a stop light where it is warranted (at Brandywine) in the 1983 -84
fiscal year and that a letter to this effect has been mailed to the City. This
letter should be available for your meeting.
Rob rt S. Shook
Director of Community Development
RSS /kk /dsc
Attachments
r
OFFICE
110
Qq §&):a&1x00 oz
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
Community. Development COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
February 7 1983 Virginia Fanelli
y � John Mallory
David Moyles
Mr. Philip Sanfilippo
18200 Almaden Road
San Jose, CA 95120
Dear Mr. Sanfilippo:
The Saratoga City Council, at its meeting on February 2, 1983,
approved your variance request #V -572 for parking requirements
for the construction of a new bank building at the Argonaut
Shopping Center on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. This approval is
per the Staff Report dated February 19, 1982, with Conditions
No. 1 and 3 amended and Condition No. 2 deleted. A copy of the
amended Staff Report is enclosed for your file.
If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please
do not hesitate to contact our office.
Very truly yours,
Robert Sho
Director of Community Development
RSS:cd
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Robert Egan, 12900 S. Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, CA
95030 w /enclosure
Mr. Neal Cabrinha, 12901 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070
w /enclosure
Deputy City Clerk
G
CITY OF SARATOGA
A=A BILL NO. p � Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: 2/3/82 C. Atty.
DEPARTM=: Community Development C. Mgr.
Ste, Request to exclude "small" homes from the requirement of Building Site
approval for Over -50o Expansions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Summary The Council has requested staff to review exclusion of additions to small
homes from the building site approval process. Building site approval reviews and con-
ditions for safety and improvements on a subject lot. Presently no other City process
has similar authority for conditioning although potentially the scope of design review
could be broadened to include such powers. The Deputy City Attorney has reservations about
such -a broadening.
If Council were to allow such additions to small homes to become an exception to the Building
site approval process they would be relinquishing some of the City's power to insure the
public health, safety and welfare on problem lots. However there may be a potential to
define non - problem sites and allow exceptions for 50% expansions on these lots.
Recommendation
Determine the merits of the request and direct staff appropriately.
Fiscal Impacts
None noted.
Exhibits /Attachments
Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Keenan
Staff Report
Council Action
2/17: Consensus to consider at a later date, after Keenans have been notified of report.
3/3: Jensen /Clevenger moved to table. Passed 5 -0.
John Keenan
22215 Mt. Eden Road
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
September 22, 1981 V, rL.
nt
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear Council Members:
We live in a very small house in Saratoga and have recently
experienced a great deal of frustration in attempting to bring it
up to the standards of the city. The very standards that are
intended to guarantee quality homes in the city are themselves
preventing us from that purpose.
Section 21(c) of Article 3 of the Saratoga City Code man-
dates that any addition greater than 49% of the existing house
requires site approval. This site approval guaratees the city;
a) a stable site (in the geological sense) and b) that the site
meets the city standards.
Since our house is extremely small by Saratoga standards,
1344 sq. ft., this means that the addition that we are permitted
without site approval is very small indeed. (The mean house sold
in Saratoga in 1980 in the upper 75% quadrant was 3535 sq. ft.,
plus a 400 sq. ft. garage - from a June 1981 study..) ',ghat we
are requesting would only bring our house to 2048 sq. ft. plus a
three car garage. We are not asking to overburden the lot either;
we have 2.96 acres.
We feel that to go through site approval is overly burdensome
in cost, is completely open- ended, and fails to provide the city
with any further guarantee that the site is geologically stable,
(the site was graded in 1963 and the existing house was built in
1974.) The expansion plan calls for no modific-tion to this sit-
uation, since no grading is requested. An informal look by the
city engineer indicates that the existing house is on solid bedrock.
The other guarantee provided by site approval is the aesthetic
issue of land use. A simple imspectLon of what we are requesting
compared to what exists today will leave no doubt about the improve-
ment value.
Saratoga City Council
Page 2
When we first bought this house 5 years ago, it was known to
the city building department as the candidate most likely to need
"fixing up ". Before we even placed an offer on it, I callc-.d the
city to see if we would be able to expand and we were assured
that that was possible.
We are requesting that the city review the subject ordinance
and amend it accordingly to provide for the case such as ours; the
very small house on a large lot. I believe the result can only be
very positive in encouraging, rather than discouraging people to
improve their homes. This is particularly important in these
times of high house prices and mortage rates.
Sincerely,
YJohneenan
��? "• CITY of = � ' ATOGA
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 11 -23 -81
COUNCIL MEETING:. 12-02-81
SUBJECT: Request to exclude "small" homes from the requirement
of Building Site approval for Over -50% Expansions.
REQUEST: On September 22, 1981 John Keenan of 22215 Mt. Eden
Road requested the Council to review the Subdivision
Ordinance with respect to requiring site approval for residential
expansions exceeding 50 %. He felt that, in his case, with a
1,344 square foot home, that the requirement was burdensome in
cost, open- ended, and fails to provide the guarantees with which
the City is concerned for geology and aesthetics.
BACKGROUND: Section 21 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires
site approval for single sites and additions to the
main structure which increase the "floor space under roof by 50%
or more" within a 5 year period if the lot no longer has a valid
site approval. Accessory structures are exempted from these
requirements.
In an attempt to shorten the processing time and reduce the fees
for these site approvals, the City Council approved an alternate
process in 1978 for non- problem lots and deleted the park and
recreation and storm drain fees and.allowed for deferred street
improvements at Staff discretion. However, the concept of site
approval for a 50% expansion of an existing structure was left
intact in order to review and condition the safety of the lot
and proposed improvements (i.e. geology, topography, water,
driveway slope and turnarounds, sewers, street improvements,
parcel maps, etc:). Under the alternate procedure if the lot
does not have any major problems, the process is not cumbersome
(except possibly for the requirement of a Parcel Map) but it
does require an engineered map and 2 to 3 months.
BODY OF REPORT: The City presently has a 4- pronged approach to
development within the City. The Building Site
Approval process causes review of the subject sites and allows
Page two
for conditioning to bring a site and its improvements (existing
and proposed) into conformance with City and the responsible
agencies' requirements. The Use Permit process allows for
conditions which generally restrict the uses of a site rather
than its physical characteristics although conditioning for
,physical improvements has been done through this process.
The Variance process allows for conditioning of a specific_
proposal that is not in conformance with current ordinances
and seldom includes conditions for improvements necessitated
by unrelated site concerns. Finally the Design Review process
reviews and conditions the aesthetic impact of a proposed
structure on the area.
This request would add a further exception to the building
site approval process for Over -50% expansions to "small" homes,
possibly including criteria that they be on large lots (as
suggested verbally by the applicant). This would reduce the
requlatory authority of the City that it may need to exercise,
unless that authority were picked up elsewhere. The Deputy City
Attorney felt this authority might possibly be placed in an.
expansion of the purposes of design review although this would
raise the question of what the scope of design review ought to
be. He feels more comfortable with the authority now placed in
the. building site approval process.
Review of the building site at the time of a 50% expansion
allows the City to condition problem lots. The Keenan lot, as
an example, with a driveway that does not conform to.Fire District
Standards (slope and radii) and which overlays an area with a
PD designation on the City Geologist's map, is difficult to
consider as a non - problem lot (although, the main structure
appears to be located on a stable bedrock). Repositioning the
authority to regulate their lot into the Design Review Ordinance
may still require geotechnical work to be done prior to issu
ance of a permit as well as replacement of the driveway. By
allowing "small" homes as an exception, as requested the City
would lose its power to regulate the lot at the time of expansion
of the home.
As an alternative suggestion, staff would suggest allowing
homes which are located on non - problem lots (conforming with
City and agency requirements) to be excluded from the building
site approval process at the time of a 50% expansion. An example
would be a two - story addition in the Triangle area with the
roadway improved and /or dedicated and no storm drainage concerns.
This criteria would be based on the lot or site concerns rather
than the square footage being added. To create criteria for
requiring building site approval based on square footage clouds
the issue of site concern and would create inconsistency through-
out the City.
obert S. 'Wook..
Director of Community Development
nj
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO: X/V
Initial: r
Dept. Head:�i,../ s
DATE: February 3, 1982 City Atty
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services City Mgr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
SUBJECT: Request for Run -A -Thon
Issue Summary
The City has received a request to allow the Title Insurance and Trust Company to conduct
a Run -A -Thon in Saratoga to benefit the Special Olympics. Staff analysis of the route
indicates no streets will have to be closed but coneing of the running area must be done
for safety purposes. The sponsor has agreed to pay for coneing, Sheriff's Officers to
control traffic, to perform necessary clean -up and to provide insurance liability coverage
for the City.
Recommendation
Authorize the Run -A -Thon to be conducted by Title Insurance and Trust Company on Saturday,
April 17, 1982, 9 - 11 a.m. with the Maintenance Services Department to oversee that
requirements are met.
Fiscal Impact
The sponsoring company will absorb and cover all costs.related to this function.
Exhibits /Attachments
Report to Director of Maintenance Services.
Letter from Title Insurance and Trust Company.
Map of route.
Council Action
2/3: None required.
uguw @:T O&M&ODO&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES
FROM: ASST. DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES
SUBJECT: RUN- A -THON
DATE: JANUARY 27, 1982
Transmitted herewith is Title Insurance and Trust's letter to the City Council
requesting permission to hold a "Run- A -Thon" in the City to benefit Special
Olympics. I have gone over T.I.'s proposal with them and hopefully we have
resolved all problems.
For the most part the route will be along major streets (Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga Avenue and Allendale Avenue) which have wide
shoulders or pathways. On these streets runner safety can be provided by simply
coneing off the necessary running area. Some traffic delay will be required
on Fruitvale Avenue since runners will be crossing it. It is our opinion that
the runners will be so spread out by the time they reach the residential streets
of Chester Avenue and Short Hill Court they will not present a hazard or a
nuisance to the residents. Participants will be directed to the campus parking
so as not to clutter City streets.
T.I. has agreed to provide all required traffic cones and markings. They will
also pay in advance the cost of providing three (3) off -duty or reserve Sheriff
Officers to control traffic. Further, they have assured me they will clean the
total race course of all race originated debris when the race is completed.
In addition, they will provide a Certificate of Insurance covering the City,
its employees, officers, etc. as required by the City for any liability incurred.
Since this will benefit the Special Olympics, I recommend the City Council approve
the request.
With Counc' approval and autho ization I will contact CalTrans for their
permis 'on t utiliz ato Los Gatos Road as part of the route.
Dan Trinidad, Jr.
Assistant Director of Malintenance Services
CC
TITLE INSURANCE
AND TRUST
January 26, 1982
City Council of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Gentlemen:
Title Insurance & Trust Company is proud to present you with our
program for our 1st Annual Run- A -Thon for Special Olympics. This
worthy fund raising event will benefit Special Olympics in Santa
Clara County, who are dependent upon donations from the community
to maintain their program. Special Olympics is a program which
provides an opportunity for mentally retarded adults and children
to participate in sports training and competition. Our funds
will be used to provide awards, state games, travel /lodging, T-
shirts, equipment and material for the events. Most importantly
it provides these special athletes with the opportunity to be in
an environment of competition of doing their best and feeling
great about it.
In order for us to raise as much funds as possible we have devised
a sponsorship program where any Runner can get a pledge per mile
donation, in this way everyone can participate. There will be
a entrance fee to the Runner of $5.00 which includes T- shirt.
Expenses incurred in setting up race will be deducted from the
entrance fees all remaining proceeds will be to Special Olympics.
Sponsorship funds go entirely to Special Olympics. Title Insurance
and Trust Company will not receive any profits.
Our race is depending upon the City of Saratoga's approval to
permit the race course as scheduled. We would begin from the top
of the West Valley College track (approval has been given by the
College) and cross over to Fruitvale to Hwy. 9 towards Saratoga
to Saratoga Ave., turning onto Fruitvale, then onto Allendale turn-
ing onto Chester Ave., to Short Hill Ct. thru a gate onto West Valley
College parking lot to track for finish. This course is approx.
6 miles. Our race date is set for April 17, 1982, Saturday with
registration starting at 7:30 A.M. and race beginning at 9:00 A.M.
We agree to pay for police patrol to control traffic as necessary
and provide cones along portions of route as police patrol requires.
Parking will be directed to the West Valley College parking lot thru
our registration forms and signs on race day. Participants will be
limited to 500 -700. We also agree to clean -up course route after
race. Our Company will provide a Certificate of Insurance to the
City as required.
Our special event of the day will be our closing ceremonies to
present awards which start at 11 :00 A.M., we would like to extend
our invitation at this time to have someone represent the City
Title Insurance and Trust Company Suite 105 The Towers — Pruneyard— Campbell, California 95008 408 371 4100
Continued
ATICOR COMPANY
.: -I , continued City Council of Saratoga
of Saratoga to attend.
January 26, 1982
Please join us in our determination to overcome all handicaps.
Sincerely,
TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST COMPANY
4IA SY MENDEZ
Run- A -Thon Coordinator
��pv •.y -
•
OR DA
LOWENA To $�
ST. JOA
�= ANOR
N KREISLER CTm POROON
_VIE E MOOR a°
u ad
eQ ELL Rr IL`
Ac N [ap
v� 4 y sue' WY
ELLO
k v _.>
A APOLLO NP
( WAY
_L
<
SEVI `� y EL DO ADO
FRANKILII
0�
MTICULTURAL 4Q' Si HALE
7UNDATION >'
>SAR
R VISTA' • L LN
o
YCE x
OODWARD�
W m
z
M RRICI
r N
o <
~
11i PAW 0. a
foorHlu >DEE PARK
nman
��`�
E
SARATOGA
df
TRINITY V
=
t� v WILLI
ScpS'
¢
dpE S W OWOOOD WAY RD
L
-d..." ' I U)
�R OAK�a A ToNGT
p s > A K OR L
R MER ILL,E..
r�A,�ERRENCE E AA *"I sry I mW
CHN ROOK
SmCr
r 4 c
a b
IN
o RE 9ROOK \Ltd
ea T oliwn WOONVtrr
CIR %fi`Jp�`�I -NN 'Cr- P�% - T i8 LL OOD Gam'. 4* fY O` 7f
4.V
La
Ct� �9j74�1OLY0KE r CT ♦ C,♦
3�11/� pG LL 9� d9.ICT - m . V np" GUN C ( =0 AV O°EL( ° S �O N
4�eAP9,�vy Vfq " CT- 6e EEO" MA J C�~ � c, o� cP C 54 °l, 0 IV(
�OO 18 QT-, �apONICA B > BROCKTOR � OCKT�,,ON[yyoYr Q♦ �O
_ < A AVE - LN , ci �_ao I.o,� 8A,'!i 1'V7rcNAA �t° PS
c�c E rl W .ut mz
WNEL INGTONCt o Bra@ E x o X� vPq L OUTLAND A I R A
IU17Lf LFAdtf to UfIfIDI ♦ -45i E R 5 ,� qNS pQR:
fNW v CT t;IJUNIPE bl • m st 0 v CT '. tut PAS PUEB <
BLYTHE
R: jf R ♦ �Y11LANfTs MA kRYCT PALEMO CTo IGPA&T .irPARK
V
SS
♦ Q. • Q ' AY
WINTER LN ocIJACCAR_ANDA ' PA GS ♦ 4:5 e y/ 'Y C7P P21 EO ADO
ATEAU�/ v UELA CTS LL OR VigOe °r, }� !'Np �� � � VON cI AV I
ARpONAHi �� ° iiW -- DR C �l9 i �,_ Ar 4 P "'
< i CT �i�A_GRANDE DR_ A yP PAUL MASSON r' 0 A
c II A `t ST NMN z v +te ,/ VI ♦e . ,r I /NERY n MA AV
G�$ m Nq J! VI, j ErCT E'CEN �, J1A ` H W W
DR C V m MADRpNAS / m IA GT O .z = -+ CCO
DR ` R J� SOT AN > T -iIRRI F P 9 S PL
AVmi 6%, -cI a`
o OCKNP 06i CT ♦ ��� ec vi 10 °` e<
IRGN DR z ♦ V� B �l O; ! t! B ♦' 4 • ' teat oa jW MON o °
NNIE Q 7 UST s �! O'p N •yA °UN m`-' �- _ J J
Oq 9> Q .� COQ RQ Q T .�� t9,t�DE AVE�� �I N I DAL g
� A W JJJ
p�1P c� o K„"YEt'm Y 0�J c WY
�AV z BRAEMAoR OP T x'1.4 l! l�$0�� j�\Oer \ lyApl �,S RKT fP
c o ` 1 =� ♦ . 4 O " N ��i . �� A rtli TERR 2
u
I �� d z OJ ° A.-w• 3 NNOEROSA TE
VI« A T 1° P U & �° !y �� `�E` NER ASPESI scapR EZ E4 �srrl WESTMONT
O K - m t g TWAIN T=-.'' LE! ti
is (N r __ ALC TT v F'IW '*1 J/ P
d ALLENDALE A rr p a i z zl> - 00
m �rjl 'P
CITY NAIle
P� J= o z s MY z'
�
R RA N y °v< ' ALl m p o VE PAD C t,
�-/o�` West Vallee
ESQ 9 { Tq CAR LN COIIIIIIUOIt lam m° AV ELM OR °
Op GN FOR GARON College a t
o g ro QOITO WAY r.t ": J
� W f'�ADOWo
VELpN O 1 �y0 a < x ♦ C� c+r IDA D
MARSH
T �00 f! ��ARCPO \APP
gARKSDALE 'c9fJ O >C� 3 o E ILL E 91
�p Rd
a /�' u� ' DONNA LN 25 = o CTS �K c^ 't �0 �° -z Rincon do +PL CAME' T
(y,ASS z "' m LN a i P
5 ° troro D o I A EL -+ ALt
.Q (0 RD A I CT VIA C - Q
az A 'VISTA DEL - J
RSAIILES -W-Y1 cam_, ~' EVANS IN EL ALTILLL s� Do, c QQ
W �9UR ,.HAB`�CT �1.0.0.F. HOME r4 �V SSIN RD E rA 0� ARP > �/
!FA Y LL J AV OLL a pKS LOA VI q o
eqF ` i W CT 11 /pN J NNADA
Co VISTL g
° VI t PAN c RAE r Cj r MON CLA�
tt _> a PINNq WOODS 1'a DA
(te FARWELL J LN ' cLECT I LA QO ( 4R E
IIS� P ARBOLDO WY
E - N ti S; c' P m NOTRE DAME NOVITIATE RAWF RANCHO ,, \ LO
UI P m HIRE�t
L AV N '� N THREEbAKS r �° v OP P W v r o o f ATHI
Fa L7 MONTESSORI �c o ? d ` Q �Q' SPE Y LN W -' ` f
F > \WINN RD�� P RKO 2 h Q� °�� cr �r °S WAY ,tom J cW o BI
m 4b L A« ° °q W r ,�
p Creek` ^a / S PARK DR z ORA Ff hr c^ ?� c� tiQ
S� DR AUDE AV N r' ONTE ER[NQ
EK `, z .p WLtu� O N W o G
MONT ALVO �G� 4� N WY �a Av PANONAM i y �b 3 l� l _ I
y\TTRIDO! ■ > o al
'WOq, Oq A o �° J RO
ti l A K WY < TWI ......�
W Ci o O DR f r URN ` IA w
AI
VILLA SUNSET DR GLEN UNA J cq%� / RONTE +1000 UR o�"� �•
Y O SUNNYSIDE DR < Q ;
�y� y SKyop S♦. i- �Ci � � c.
MONTALV
�1A"! ARBORS UM..F ojst�`0G OR ��wAV * \ ► O� r
V`~ < RD 0 aV o - p x
r Q° °L ut AVE TiT 4 .,
`�+I`w3,. CO NTY ,i; QEOH� Q. oOjRP \OO�NRIvI 5~ w 3QON° D N WUT�ON A O.
CQ t o 0 "4�4 `t p m e N !F W o
ARK Yfr _ RAVE rr W o o `A Rp0U7 o c! AV r o
c'F1E' .,� =.
rE '�r - _ °\ OR DECQ'
nN DR
CITY OF SARAT M
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. .7-11(o Dept. Hd.
DATE: February 3, 1982 C. Atty
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
------------------- — ---------------------------------------------- --/ ------------
SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR -1311, FOX, BOHLMAN ROAD
Issue Summary
The public improvements required for the subject Building Site have been
satisfactorily completed.
Recommendation
Authorize release of the attached described bond.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Memo describing bond.
Council Action
2/3: Jensen/Mallory moved to approve. Passed 5 -0.
@ ce ���Uem&
44 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
►,:.., Y. 008) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager DATE: December 31, 1981
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR -1311
Location: Bohlman Road
The one (1) year maintenance period for SDR -1311
has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected.
Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted
into the City system.
Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve-
ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be
released. The following information is included for your information and
use:
1. Developer: Gregory T. Fox
Address: 14340 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070
2. Date of Construction Acceptance: September 17, 1980
3. Improvement Security: .
Type: Maintenance Bond
Amount: $10,600.00
Issuing Co: Insurance Co. of North America
Address: One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94120
Receipt, Bond or
Certificate No.: KO 07 15 104
4. Miles of Public Street: 0
5. Special Remarks:
RSA /r ?gy m Robert S. Shook