HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-1984 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. (P3 Initial: 1 Dept. Hd.
DATE: May 8, 1984 (May 16, 1984) C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. 1E
SUBJECT: FINAL MAP APPROVAL, TRACT 7495, WILSON DEVELOPMENT, TRICIA WOODS/
SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD (9 LOTS)
Issue Summary
1. The Tract 7495 is ready for final approval.
2. All Bonds, fee and agreements have been submitted to the City.
3. Requirements of City Department and other agencies have been met.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No.1'489-- 02.attached, approving the Final Map for
Tract 7495. Authorize execution of contract for the improvement
agreement.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No,, 1489 -02
2. Report to the Planning Commission
3. Location Map
Council Action
5/16: Approved 3 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. 1489 -02
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF
TRACT 7495
M
WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of TRACT 7495
TRICIA WOODS having heretofore been filed with this City
Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and
easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completed,
and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require-
ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of
California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of
approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save
and except as follows:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
(1) The aforesaid final map is hereby conditionally approved. Said
approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final
upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth
immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance
with Section (3) hereof.
(2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said
final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by
the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected
pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the
State of California.
(3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept-
ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted,
and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and
releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter
into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and
sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of the
MC
r
V:
f .. -. 'I
estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public
ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS-60
as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently
on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form
and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be
as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City
Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe-
cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city.
(4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require-
ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and
with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized
and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map
and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced
and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day
of 19 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
1
RESOLUTION NO. 1489 -02
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF
TRACT 7495
WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of TRACT 7495
TRICIA WOODS having heretofore been filed with this City
Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and
easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completed,
and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require-
ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of
California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of
approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save
and except as follows:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
(1) The aforesaid final map is hereby conditionally approved. Said
approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final
upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth
immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance
with Section (3) hereof.
(2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said
final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by
the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected
pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the
State of California.
(3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept-
ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted,
and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and
releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter
into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and
sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of the
-1-
estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public
ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS -60
as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently
on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form
and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be
as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City
Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe-
cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city.
(4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require-
ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and
with the provisions of Section,(3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized
and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map
and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced
and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day
of 19 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
,f
r
estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public
ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS -60
as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently
on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form
and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be
as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City
Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe-
cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city.
(4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require-
ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and
with the provisions of Section,(3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized
and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map
and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced
and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day
of 19 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
r
(c
Nei
1A.V01,16-11
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
* Amended 5/13/83
DATE: 5/8/81
commission Meeting: 5/13/81
SUBJECT SD -1489 Butler and Wilson, Inc. Saratoga- Sunnyvale and
Tricia Way, Tentative Subdivision Approval -
-=---------------- - - -1-0 IQt§ ---------------------------------------- - - - - --
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 4 acre site
district
of Tricia
Sunnyvale
on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road in the R- 1- 12,500 zoning
into 10 lots. The lots are shown to take access from an extension
Way with a gated emergency access road connection to Saratoga -
Road.
The site has a slope of 3.05 %. Numerous large trees (oaks, peppers, firs
and redwoods) exist on the site, some of which are to be removed with the
extension of Tricia Way. The two residences and accessory structures are
also to be removed with the subdivision.
Several concerns have been raised with the proposed subdivision.
Since the site.is located on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, a noise study was
required with the environmental information. The recommended mitigation
measures include a 6' high barrier wall along Saratoga - Sunnyvale and a
wall, to be continued at the same height along the northern border of Lot
6. (The second study specifies 8' but the intent was a continuous fence
height per a conversation with Mr. Pack on May 7, 1981.) Additionally,
Mr. Pack's report specifies 6' high walls along the emergency access
road, however the alternative of an air - impervious gate for the emergency
access road would also satisfy the condition (5/7/81). The fencing is
conditioned for Design Review Approval prior to Final Map Approval. Any
fencing over 6' in height on Lot 6 requires a Use Permit.
A second concern is access. The proposal would create 19 units on a
cul -de -sac with an emergency access to Saratoga - Sunnyvale. The Subdivi-
sion Ordinance states:
"Not as a mandate, but as a statement of future policy on all
matters concerning the design and improvement of site and
subdivisions the following shall generally not be approved:
C. Cul -de -sac, dead -end, or other streets not having a
means of secondary access, where such street services
more than fifteen lots or building sites."
Report to Planning C4 .mission
SD -1489
The General Plan states:
"For safety, every new or developing residential area in the
City with more than 15 housing units should have a primary
and secondary (or emergency) access."
5/8/80
Page 2
Since the cul -de -sac exceeds 400' in length, the Subdivision Ordinance
also requires a finding that is.. "the only feasible method of developing
the property ". An option does not exist with this proposal to create
public access and limiting the number Hof units on a cul -de -sac, however
good traffic engineering would minimize the number of intersections on a
high volume roadway.
Finally, at the Committee -of- the -Whole and on site inspection, the
Commission expressed concern about the landscaping along Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Road and the transition of the pathway at the northeast corner of the
project. The applicant's engineer has submitted a blow -up of their
proposed transition and a letter in response to these concerns.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974
General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of
Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this
project, if approved under this application. Said determination date:
April 10, 1981.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SD -1489
(Exhibit "B" filed March 10, 1981) subject to the following conditions::
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60,
including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or
parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park:and recreation fee as
established by Ordinance in effect at the.time of final approval; sub-
mission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance
with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control
regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby
made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no
way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor
with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall
comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and
set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
A. Standard Engineering Conditions.
' f
Report to Planning Co . ssion
SD -1489
5/8/81
Page 3
B. Street improvements on 50 ft. right -of -way to be 33 feet.
C. No direct access allowed onto Saratoga Sunnyvale Road from Lots 6 - 10.
D. Construct Emergency Access Road to conform to minimum access road
standards.
E. Provide pedestrian walkway along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Subject
to additional requirements of Planning Commission and /or Design Review.
F. Provide decorative wall or fencing, including tree planting within
lots along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Subject to additional require-
ments of Planning Commission and /or Design Review.
G. Landscape area between fence and highway. Subject to additional
requirements of Planning Commission and /or Design Review.
H. Construct storm line as per'Master Drainage Plan and as directed by
the Director of Public Works.
I. Remove the existing temporary turn around on Tricia Way and construct
standard street section.
:II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional for:
1. Foundations, prior to issuance of building permits.
B. Detailed on -site impeovement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing
and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope outfall, location, etc.)
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for
walls 3 feet or higher.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed.
5. Erosion control measures.
6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record data, location map, north arrown, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
C. Bonds required for removal of existing structures including wells and
septic tanks.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with
Report to Planning C #ssion 5/8/81
SD -1489 Page 4
requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District as outlined in letter
dated March 19, 1981.
B. Annex to Cupertino Sanitary District prior to Final Approval.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for
fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire
hydrants.
B. Developer to install 1 hydrant that meets Saratoga Fire District's
specifications. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of
building permits.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and
connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewerw of the
Cupertino Sanitary District. Prior to final approval, an adequate
bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of
sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled to County Standards.
A.$400.00 bond to be posted to insure completion of work.
D. Seal well in accordance with County Standards. A $300.00 bond to
be posted to insure completion of work.
'II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the.
location and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara
Valley Water District for review and certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. Design Review Approval. required on project prior to issuance of
permits. The residences shall be built in accordance with the
recommendations of the Noise Assessment Study dated April 8, 1981 on
the project.
* B. No two -story residences shall be constructed within the subdivision.
C. Individual structures shall be reviewed during Design Review to
evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall
provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating
or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site.
Report to Planning CoC`ssion 5/8/81
SD -1489 Page 5
D. Applicant shall landscape all portions.of the public right -of -way and
the landscape easement that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping
(including fencing) and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for design review and approval prior to Final
Map Approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be in-
stalled and established within 90 days of completion of the right -of-
way improvements.- Fencing shall be in accordance with the recommenda-
tions of the Noise Assessment Study dated April 8, 1981, and the
stated alternatives.
E. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with
the City for those landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and
easements. The applicant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a
minimum of one year after which the homeowners association shall be
responsible for maintaingin the landscaped areas.
F. All individual lot owners shall be required to become members of a
homeowners association for the express purpose of maintaining all
landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and easements. The
C, C, & R's of the homeowners association shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department, prior to final map approval.
* G. Dedicate a 4 ft. landscape easement (in addition to right -of -way) along Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road to City (to be included in CC & R's amended only with City per-
mission and enforced by City of Saratoga.) The adjacent trees are to be saved
and located on the future homeowner's side of the proposed soundwall.
* H. Two (2) of the ten (10) lots are to be combined into a single lot.
Approved:
Kafhy A s, Assistant Planner
KK /clh
P. C. Agenda: 5/13/81
JOAN cr. W' `_
?O
An A f
3 PAAN
z DR �! A ••, [ T4
K
H
19 Eq T r r � u
O RDON V !~ YL •
/ a �
/
AVE G 9y 3 U
w � <
w
SOFT r
u
ARDELL � ` • A. •
/ G G r4 GQO Rq CR u
u v
W L 14M 3ltVR• .
J t
•
/ 4Y ,
O
4 co.
w U
to O V O
O t GAl/RNEETT}
° ` O �./C
1
ic
I(
w t y r •
°
W PIERC[ O
U J }
J ^°, cN4T[nU u
O 4 W t
r
o ,ac• a 3 a
t c.
Vt2 �
I , �tinlot MAC
OR. F O NLn UC:a
H° •
N T 2 APO LO
�
O
7 C vE p
f
�
WIN,
l
z 4R OpNAUT
t., Cr+AT4AU 1}
u
t
Q t
•/ NILL3 WAY °
'JA 4 CT
3
• cu 3
D pl.' o
ti •
L I LORI � \�'•
L
CT a` y —
f
LC N
c a
C O
� 4
LOCATION MAP OF
T R A C T 74-95
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL N0: (Da . Dept. Head:
DATE: May 7, 1984 City Atty
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance City Mgr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- �W- --- - - - - --
SUBJECT: Acceptance and Acknowledgement of Donation of Koi Fish for Hakone Garden
Issue Summary
David and Rebecca Boone of Saratoga have donated ten koi fish for the pond at Hakone
Garden. These fish have a value of approximately $600.
Recommendation
Accept and acknowledge this donation by way of a letter from the Mayor.
Fiscal Impact
These koi fish are valued at approximately $600.
Exhibits /Attachments
Koi Donation List.
Council Action
5/16: Approved 3 -0.
I I
t
May 7, 1984
KOI DONATION LIST
The following is a list of the Koi fish donated by David and Rebecca Boone
of Saratoga. These fish were donated for the pond at Hakone Garden. The
amounts listed are a close approximation of their value.
One Rosie Koi
One R6ckie Koi
One Carrot Top Koi
One Blue Koi
i
Two Red Cap Koi ($50 ea)
One Golden Sun Koi
I
One Orange & Blue Koi
One Orange & Black Koi
One Tangerine Koi
TOTAL
100
100
50
50
100
75
50
25
50
$ 600
CITY OF SARAT'OGA
AGENDA BILL NO. CO J
DATE: April 27, 1984
DEPAR`T`MENT: Community Center
SUBJ`ECI': Saratoga Rotary Club Donation
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
KT
C. Atty,
C. Mgr.
Issue Summary
The Rotary Club of Saratoga donated $1073.34 for the purchase and installation of
drapes for the Community Center Multipurpose room.
Recommendation
Accept and acknowledge this donation by way of a letter from the Mayor.
Fiscal Impact
The drapes, costing $1073.34, are replacing the original drapes that were worn and
unattractive. The new drapes make the center more appealing for rentals, classes
and lectures.
Council Action
5/16: Approved 3 -0.
04�
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. �� J
DATE: May 8, 1984 (May 16, 1984),
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C.
C. Mgr.
FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL, SDR -1560, BOB BRAMLETT
SUBJECT: OAK PLACE ( 1 LOT)
Issue Summary
1. The SDR -1560 is ready for final building site approval. This is an
over 50% expansion to existing house.
2. All requirements for City and other agencies have been met.
3. All fees and Bonds and Agreements have been submitted to the City.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 1560 -2 attached,.approvina the final building site
for SDR -1560. Authorize execution of contract for the improvement
agreement.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attaciu ents
1. Resolution No. 1560 -2
2. Report to the Planning Commission.
3. Status Report for Building Site Approval
4. Location Map
Council Action
5/16: Approved 3 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. 1560 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF BOB BRAMLETT
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1:
The 0.655 acre land as shown on the Record of Survey recorded
in Book 97 of Maps at page 35.and submitted to the City Engineer,
City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual building site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
meeting held on the day of. 19
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
RESOLUTION NO. 1560 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF BOB BRAMLETT
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1:
The 0.655 acre land as shown on the Record of Survey recorded
in Book 97 of Maps at page 35-and submitted to the City Engineer,
City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual building site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
a
meeting held on the day of. 19
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
r �.
REPORT TO
PLANNING COMMISSION
rC.I :, a
*Revised: 3/14/84
_.I'�, DATE: 3/6/84
Commission Meeting: 3/14/84
SUBJECT: SDR -1560, A -938 - Mr. Bob Bramlett, 14440 Oak Place
ACTION REQUIRED: Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval to expand a two -story
residence by over 50% with a second story addition and floor area which exceeds the standard
for the zone.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final Building Site Approval and Building Permit.
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION:
ZONING: R -1- 10,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
SITE DATA:
Residential: Medium Density Single Family (M -10)
PARCEL SIZE: 31,189 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES AND VEGETATION: The site is level with numerous large oaks and
redwoods, small trees and shrubs.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Level
SDR -1560 - BUILDING SITE APPROVAL
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all
requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the
public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.
A Categorical Exemption was prepared relative to the environmental impact of this project.
Said determination date: January 31, 1984.
ter.
Report to Planning Commissidc 3/6/84
SDR -1560, A -938 - Bramlett, Oak Place Page 2
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1560 (Exhibit "B"
filed January 20, 1984) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60,
including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel
map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established
by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered
improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health
Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and require-
ments of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for
further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's
Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In
addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions
which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance
No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Construct standard driveway approach.
B. Dedicate and improve Oak Place to provide for a 25 foot half- street including
* curb, gutter and sidewalk. {f3efered- 4r►e+�i- A�rr►et) -__
C. Convey drainage water to street, storm sewer or watercourse as approved by
the Director of Community Development.
D. Engineered improvement plans required for street, and storm sewer con-
* struction
E. Bond and inspection fee as determined from engineered plans to be posted and
* paid.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES.
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
1) Foundation
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewer service has been provided to this project.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Construct driveway 14 ft. minimum width, plus one ft. shoulders using
double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base
from public street or access road to proposed dwelling.
B. Provide -15 ft. clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building
site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
Report to Planning Commission,' 3/6/84
SDR -1560, A -938 - Bramlett, Oak Place Page 3
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the lo-
cation and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and
certification..
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits.
VIII. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM,;, DIRECTOR
,_QF_.,.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1560., BOB BRAMLETT
(have) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on3 -14 -84
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required
items:
Offer of Dedication yes
Record of Survey or Parcel Map Existing
Storm Drainage Fee N/A Date Submitted
All Required Improvement Bonds $6000 Date
All Required Inspection Fees 900.00 Date
Building Site Approval Agreement yeS. Date
Park and Recreation Fee N/A Date
Date Submitted 5 -4 -84
Date Submitted -
-- Receipt # --
Submitted 5 -3 -84 Receipt#
Submitted b-3-64 Receipt #51 99
Signed 5 -4 -84
Submitted -- Receipt# -
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(Conditional) (Final) Building Site Approval for Bob Bramlett
SDR -1560 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Condition(s) Reason for Non - Compliance
Robert S. S o0
Director of Community Development
<`.
ILL,
M• n
w J Z
w 'i a
4
> jESTERLEE
� o
O J �� NY /� S • '� '
t
T T
i(
P Z
• ))C r0 •!_ �� e•T
h
W
S1.
qo�•
Q C�„pwl.E'J *O
pIME`n v!'4 V �
Grp
yo'*
r°
V T�
X
u
i
Ma
r E /Gh
oR.
LOCATION MAP OP
SD R 1560
C
CITY OF STJI J)MX
2
AGENDA BILL NO. V �l 3
DATE: May 2, 1984 (May 16, 1984)
DEPARTMENT: Communitv Development
---------------------------- - - - - --
SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR -1452
Initial: ��� QQ
Dept. Hd. -�
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
----------------------- - - - - --
Issue Summary
The one year maintenance period for the subject tract has expired and all deficiencies
have been corrected. At this time, the City must take action to accept the streets and
easements offered on the Tract Map and release the Improvement Bond.
Recom-n-endation
1. Adopt Resolution 36 -B-
2. Authorize release of the attached described Improvement Bond.
3. Authorize release of the attached described Monument Bond.
Fiscal Impacts
The City assumes future maintenance responsibility'of the street and storm drains.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Res.- .36-B=210
2. Memo describing tract and bond
3. Memo describing Monument Bond
Council Action
5/16: Approved 3 -0.
RESOLUTION NO 36 -B-
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS
It appearing that on or about March 16, 1983 , the street, storm drain and other
improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to subdiviison map and on approved
improvement plans therefore were completed and thereafter were maintained by the sub-
divider for a period of not less than an additional year from date of satisfactory
completion.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
That portion of the City's previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain
streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision
map:
Map of S DR No. 1452 recorded in Book 499 of Maps, at Page25 & 26 , in the
office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California
on April 27, , 19 82
and as set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby rescinded and the
previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted, except the
following:
None
and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby de-
clared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the following described improvement bond or bonds are hereby ordered released:
That certain. Improvement Bond No. 552582 dated April 6, 1982 , and
issued by Surety Insurance Company of California
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the day of
19 at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
14
f�1Vi1114 RANDt1�►UI
uguw o2 0&M&U09&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
. TO: City Council DATE: 4/20/84
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR -1452
Location: Cunningham Place
The one (1) year maintenance period for SDR -1452
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. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu-
tion 36 -B- which accepts the public improvements, easements
and rights -of -way.
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: Wilson Development, Inc.
Address: 14370 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA.
2. Date of Construction Acceptance: March 16, 1983
3. Improvement Security:
Type: Suretv
Amount: 45,000
Issuing Co: Surety Insurance Company of California
Address: Box 2430
La Habra, CA.
Receipt, Bond or
Certificate No.: 552582
4. Miles of Public Street: 0.03
5. Special Remarks:
RSS /dsm
Robert S. Shook
Date: May 8, 1984
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MONUMENT BOND, SDR= 1-452-
Monuments in the above tract have been checked and
found to be acceptable.
It is recommended that Bond No. 552583 ,
issued by Surety Insurance Co. of C . in
the amount of $ 500.00 , be released. Developer
of the above tract is: i son Development
RSS /dsc
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
K
V
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO
DATE: Mav 7. 1984
63
DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services
------------------------------ - - - - --
SUBJECT: Proposed change in Community Center rental rates
Issue Summar
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Staff has reviewed the present Community Center rental rates and would like to recommend
a fee increase. Taken into consideration were the fees charged by other cities and or-
ganizations for similar facilities and, also, the opportunity to increase revenues.
Fees were last increased January 1, 1982.
Recommendation
Approve the attached resolution effective September 1, 1984
Fiscal Impacts
To determine the overall effect of the rate increase; staff took eight actual building
rentals from this year and applied the new rates. On this basis it is estimated overall
increases and rental revenue will be approximately 16 %. The recommended fees will increase
revenues by $4800 in FY 1984 -1985.
Exhibits /Attachments
Current Rate and Proposed Rate Schedule
Resolution No.
Council Action
5/16: Approved 3 -0.
SARATOGA COMMUNITY CENTER RENTAL RATES
PRESENT AND PROPOSED
Proposed Rate
Effective Sept. 1, 1984
Res. /Non -Res.
same
same
same
$35/45 per hour
$45/55 "
$25/30 "
$45/55 "
same "
same
$50 /day
$40 /day
$20 per hour
$ 7 per hour
$ 8 11 11
Present Rate
Res. /Non -Res.
A.
Processing
Fee
$ 25.00
B.
Security
Deposit
1.
Function without alcohol
$100.00
2.
Function with alcohol
$200.00
C.
Room
Rates
1.
Community Center Multipurpose
Rm.$30 /40 per
hour
2.
Senior Center Large Room
(includes kitchen)
$40/50
"
3.
Snack Bar Area
$20/25
"
4.
Multipurpose Rm.& Snack
Bar Area $40/50
"
5.
Meeting or Arts & Crafts
Room $12/15
"
6.
Kitchen(without dishes &
utensils) $25 /day
7.
Kitchen(with dishes & utensils)
$40 /day
8.
Backyard
$35 /day
D.
Additional
-Fees
1.
Set up & Clean up time
(minimun of two hours)
$15, per
hour
2.
Building Supervisor Fee
Before midnight
$ 6 per
hour
After midnight
$ 7 "
"
Proposed Rate
Effective Sept. 1, 1984
Res. /Non -Res.
same
same
same
$35/45 per hour
$45/55 "
$25/30 "
$45/55 "
same "
same
$50 /day
$40 /day
$20 per hour
$ 7 per hour
$ 8 11 11
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ALTERING FEE SCHEDULE FOR
COMMUNITY CENTER RENTALS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1: The following schedule of fees is hereby established for payment
to the City of Saratoga on application for each of the following uses of the Community
Center. This fee schedule shall become effective September 1, 1984, and shall be
applicable to all applicates utilizing the Community Center from and after the
effective date.
Resident /Non - Resident
Multipurpose room and snack bar area
Backyard
$45 /hr.
$55 /hr'
Multipurpose room only
40 /1:,,rJn 40 /hrrJ -7
Snack bar area
35 /hr
45 /hr
Meeting room
25 /hr
30 /hr
Arts & crafts room
12 /hr
15 /hr
12 /hr
15 /hr
Kitchen use
With dishes and utensils
without dishes and utensils
X50 /day
25 /day
Backyard use with other facility
40 /day
Fee for set -up and clean -up time
20 /hr
Fee for Building Supervisor's time
day and evening
after midnight (City Holidays - depending upon availability
7 /hr
8 /hr
minimum charge will be double)
The above and foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
1984,
by the following vote:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
MAYOR
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO: ) Dept. Hea
DATE: May 7, 1984 City Atty
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance City Mgr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
SUBJECT: Rate Increase - Signal Maintenance Contract
Issue Summary
We have recently received a request from Signal Maintenance, Inc. for an increase in the
rate which they charge monthly to perform the routine maintenance on our traffic signals.
Our contract with them provides that an adjustment "may be negotiated each year following
the anniversary date of this agreement. These negotiations will be based upon the
Consumer Price Index, San Francisco, and will be subject to'.the approval of the City."
The request points out that the C.P.I. increased 4.8% for the month of February 1984
and that their liability insurance has risen 24% in cost. Applied to the current rate
of $65,40, this equates to a $3.27 per month, per intersection.increase.
The request is that the new rate take effect on the anniversary date of July 1, 1984.
Recommendation
Council should approve the requested rate adjustment.. This increase has been anticipated
and is reflected in,the 1984 -85 budget.
Fiscal Impact
This increase is reflected in the 1984 -85 budget, which has.been increased by $235.44 annually.
Exhibits /Attachments
Letter from Signal Maintenance with attachments.
Council Action
1
J
MM
April 30, 1984
SIGNAL
MAINTENANCE
INC.
Mr. Dan Trinidad, Jr.
Director of Maintenance
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
RE: TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Dear Mr. Trinidad:
Pursuant to your letter of April 20, and our subsequent
telephone conversation, this letter is to confirm our
concurrence to extend our Agreement through June 30, 1985.
As discussed, and in keeping with the terms of that agreement,
I must request a five percent (5%) increase to the rate
structure to become effective on the anniversary date, July 1,
1984. Applied to the current rate of $65.40, this adjustment
is therefore in the amount of $3.27 per month per intersection.
A copy of the Labor and Equipment Schedule reflecting the
5% is attached.
As you know, the last such adjustment became effective on
November 1, 1982 based on the Consumer Price Index for the
month ending June of that year. Enclosed is a copy of
the most recently available CPI Report indicating an increase
of 4.8% for the month ending February, 1984. I'believe it
to be a safe guess that the CPI will exceed 5% by the end
of June.
Notwithstanding, this adjustment is no more than to help
defray increases in our service overheads including a 24%
increase in the cost of liability insurance alone.
Main Office: Regional Office:
2720 E. Regal Park Dr, Anaheim, CA 92806 3395 Viso Ct., Santa Clara, CA 95050
(714) 630 -4900 (408) 988 -5541
Mr. Dan Trinidad, Jr.
April 30,1984
Page 2.
I will appreciate your advisement on this matter, please
feel free to call if there are any questions.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
SIGNAL INTENANCE, INC.
William C. Sondergard,
President
WCS:rms
cc: R. Hudson
Santa Clara Regional Office
Encl.
CONSUMER PRICE INDEXES
PACIFIC CITIES AND U. S. CITY AVERAGE
ALL ITEMS INDEXES
(1967100 unless otherwise noted)
FEBRUARY 1984
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS
PERCENT CHANGE
INDEXES YEAR TWO MONTHS MONTH
ENDING ENDING ENDING
FEB JAN FEB JAN FEB JAN FEB FEB
1983 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984
U. S. City Average ........... 293.2 305.2 306.6 4.1 4.6 0.7 1.0 0.5
Los Angeles -Long Beach - Anaheim 286.8 299.1 300.2 4.7 4.7 0.9 0.8 0.4
San Francisco - Oakland ...... 297.3 - 311.7 - 4.8 - 1.4 -
Honolulu, Hawaii ............. 270.4 - 280.7 - 3.8 - 0.8 -
San Diego, California ........ - 346.6 - 6.7 - 1.3 - -
Portland, Oregon ............. - 295.1 - 3.0 - 0.4 - -
Seattle - Everett, Washington. - 311.1 - 4.6 - 0.5 - -
Anchorage, Ak. (Oct. 1967 =100) - 271.5 - 5.4 - 0.4 - -
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS
PERCENT CHANGE
INDEXES YEAR TWO MONTHS MONTH
ENDING E14DING ENDING
FEB JAN FEB JAN FEB JAN FEB FEB
1983 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984
U. S. City Average ........... 292.3 302.7 303.3 3.6 3.8 0.4 0.6 0.2
Los Angeles -Long Beach - Anaheim 290.1 297.9 299.0 3.4 3.1 0.0 -0.3 0.4
San Francisco - Oakland ...... 293.9 - 308.7 - 5.0 - 0.8 -
Honolulu, Hawaii ............. 274.8 - 284.3 - 3.5 - -1.4 -
San Diego, California ........ - 329.6 - 5.1 - 1.8 - -
Portland, Oregon ............. - 289.5 - 2.8 - 0.0 - -
Seattle - Everett, Washington. - 299.4 - 2.7 - 0.1 - -
Anchorage, Ak. (Oct. 1967 =100) - 264.0 - 5.3 - 0.0 - -
- - - -- ----- ----------------- IMPORTANT NOTICE - -- ------------------------
Beginning with indexes for 1987, the BLS will publish some local CPI's less
frequently. Los Angeles and San Francisco will continue to be published as
currently. The remaining published areas in the Pacific Region are among 12
areas now published bimonthly which will be published twice a year as
semi - annual average indexes. These changes are part of an updating of the
CPI and are required to make the national index as accurate as possible.
Additional information is available from BLS and will be provided in next
' month's Pacific Cities release.
---------------------- - - - - -- IMPORTANT NOTICE ----------------------------
Bureau of Labor Statistics - San Francisco, CA 94102 March 23, 1984
City of Saratoga
i
ADJUSTED LABOR SCHEDULE
OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT
All repair il�ork, both field and lab, subject
to his approval and direction. Available for
advice and opinion as covered by specifications
(Plan, Job inspection, etc.).
ENGINEERINGITECHNICIAN
Provides liaison, assists traffic engineer
on systems and provides technical data.
LEAD MAN
Primary responsibility to guide and assist
field tecllnlcians and signalmen in the
designated section area.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICIAN - FIELD
Primary duties are to field troubleshoot and
repair field wiring, cabinet wiring,
controllers 11 and perform routine duties
of preventative maintenance.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICIAN - LAB
SCHEDULE A
STRAIGHT OVERTIME
TIME RATE
$28.96/Hr. $44.29/Hr.
$25.33/Hr
$22.92/Hr.
$22.32/Hr.
$22.45/Hr.
Performs complete repair and maintenance of
all controllers, detectors and associated devices
which are brought from the field for repairs.
TRAFFIC SIGINALMAN
Primary duties are as directed by lead man in
assisting flield technicians and accomplishing
preventative maintenance procedures as
directed. Traffic signalman assists field
technicians as demand is made and assists with
knockdowns and associated repairs.
TRAFFIC SIGNALMAN - APPRENTICE
Primary functions are to assist and receive
training from traffic signalman.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LABORER
Primary duties are to assist the signalman
and crew in knockdown repairs and field
modifications as directed.
$22.32/Hr.
$20.81 /Hr
$19.30 /Hr
$38.75/Hr.
$35.09/Hr.
$34.14/Hr.
$34.38/Hr.
$34.14/Hr.
$31.83/Hr.
$29.52/Hr.
ADJUSTED LABOR SCHEDULE -2- SCHEDULE A
Most of the work performed under extraordinary maintenance will be,
as has been in the past, performed at traffic signalman rate and /or
traffic signalman apprentice.
(These rates for contract customers only.)
NOTE: Straight time rate applies for the hours between 8:00 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and from 8:00 a.m. to
12:00 Noon Friday.
SCHEDULE B
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
Pickup Truck $ 6.02 /Hr.
Service Ladder Truck $ 6.02 /Hr.
Boom Truck $18.06 /Hr.
Saw Truck $38.39/Hr.
Compressor & Tools $18.06 /Hr.
Hydraulic Man /Lift $18.06 /Hr.
$ 45.17 /Day
$ 45.17 /Day
$120.44 /Day
$263.48/Day
$112.91 /Day
$120.44 /Day
ANY EQUIPMENT ITEMS USED, BUT NOT ON THE ABOVE LIST,
WILL BE AT THE LOCAL PREVAILING RATE SCHEDULE.
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. 1pj {o
DATE: May 8, 1984 (May 16, 1984)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBdEC'T: Blauer Drive /Sara.toga - Sunnyvale Signal Cooperative Agreement
Issue Summary
City and State have agreed to construct traffic signal at subject inter-
section. State has prepared Cooperative Agreement defining the respective
roles of each agency.
Recommendation
Approve agreement and auth.ori.ze Mayor to. execute..
Fiscal Impacts
Not to exceed $43,0.00
Exhibits /AttachTents
1. Staff Report. dated May 8, .19.84
2. Cooperative Agreement
Council Action
5/16: Approved 3 -0.
O
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: S --8 -84
COUNCIL MEETING:. S-16-84
SUBJECT- B.lauer Drive /Saratoga -- Sunnyvale Road Signal
Cooperative Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
The State has submitted the attached Cooperative Agreement for
this signal installation and for the continuing maintenance of
same. Provisions of the agreement are follows:
1. State will act as the administrative agency for this
project.
2. State to pay 66.70 of signal construction and 1000
of wheelchair ramps and pavement markings, with a
total obligation of $68,000 unless further approval
is given.
3. State will pay 66.70 of the maintenance and operating
costs.
4. City to pay an amount equal to 33.30 of the signal
cost plus preliminary and construction engineering,
for a total share of $39,000. City share not to
exceed $43,000 unless approved.
S. City to contribute 33.3% of the maintenance and
operation.
6. State has authority to award contract if bid is no
more than 10% over estimate.
7. If prior to award of contract project is terminated,
State and City will bear the same percentage of
costs incurred to that point.
8. Mutual hold harmless clauses are included.
Report to Mayor
Blauer Drive /Saratoga =- Sunnyvale
Road Signal Cooperative Agreement
9., Terms of agreement shall
acceptance of project by
if contract to construct
RSS:cd
Attachments
May 8, 1984
Page 2
terminate upon completion and
State.or on December 31, 1985
project has not been awarded.
o er S. Shook
Director of Community Development
�l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
04- SCl -85 PM 11.9
04332 - 208711
Dist. Agmt. No. 4- 0904 -C
Document No. SC1 -43-
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO ON , 1984, is
between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its
Department of Transportation, referred to herein as STATE, and
CITY OF SARATOGA,
a body politic and a municipal
corporation of the State of
California, referred to herein
as CITY.
RECITALS
(1) STATE and CITY contemplate installing a traffic
control signal system, safety lighting and wheelchair ramps at
the intersection of Blauer Drive with State Highway Route 85
(Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road), referred to herein as PROJECT, and
desire to specify the terms and conditions under which such
systems are to be installed, financed and maintained.
SECTION I
STATE AGREES:
(1) 'To provide plans and specifications and all
necessary construction'engineering services for the PROJECT and
to bear STATE's share of the expense thereof, as shown on
Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part of this agreement.
(2) To construct the PROJECT by contract in
accordance with plans and specifications of STATE.
(3) To furnish and install, at STATE's sole expense,
all traffic striping and pavement marking required for PROJECT.
uf, ►,ra..,, �I -1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.22
23
24
25
1trnRno 11
(4) To pay an amount equal to 66.7 percent of the
electrical construction costs and 100 percent of the wheelchair
ramp construction costs and costs of striping and pavement
marking; but in no event shall STATE's total obligation for
construction costs under this agreement exceed the amount of
$68,000; provided that STATE may, at it sole discretion, in
writing, authorize a greater amount.
(5) To maintain and operate the entire traffic
control signal system and safety lighting as installed and pay
an amount equal to 66.7 percent of the total costs.
SECTION II
CITY AGREES:
(1) To deposit with STATE within 25 days of receipt
of billing therefor (which billing will be forwarded immediately
following STATE's bid advertising date of a construction
contract for PROJECT), the amount of $39,000, which figure
represents CITY's estimated share of the expense of preparation
of plans and specifications, construction engineering and
construction costs required to complete the PROJECT, as shown on
Exhibit A. In no event shall CITY's total obligation for said
costs, under this agreement exceed the amount of $43,000;
provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in writing,
authorize a greater amount.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
-2-
01
E
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(2) CITY's share of the construction costs (estimated
to be $29,300), shall be an amount equal to 33.3 percent of the
actual electrical construction cost including STATE - furnished
electrical materials, if any, as determined after completion of
work and upon final accounting of costs.
(3) CITY's share of the expense of preparing plans
and specifications (estimated to be about $4,400), shall be an
amount equal to 15 percent of CITY'S share of the actual final
electrical construction cost. Said 15 percent includes payment
for all applicable overhead charges.
(4) CITY's share of the expense of construction
engineering (estimated to be about $5,300), shall be an amount
equal to 18 percent of CITY's share of the actual final
electrical construction cost. Said 18 percent includes payment
for all applicable overhead charges.
(5) To reimburse STATE for CITY's proportionate share
of the cost of'maintenance and operation of said traffic control
signal system and safety lighting, such share to be an amount
equal to 33.3 percent of the total cost.
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
(1) All obligations of STATE under the terms of this
agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the
Legislature and the allocation of resources by the California
Transportation Commission.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(2) STATE shall not award a contract for the work
until after receipt of CITY's deposit required in Section II,
Article (1).
(3) Should any portion of the PROJECT be financed
with Federal funds or State gas tax funds all applicable
procedures and policies relating to the use of such funds shall
apply notwithstanding other provisions of this agreement.
(4) After opening of bids, CITY's.estimate of cost
will be revised based on actual bid prices. CITY's required
deposit under Section II, Article (1) will be increased or
decreased to match said revised estimate. If deposit increase
or decrease is less than $1,000, no refund or demand for
additional deposit will be made until final accounting.
(5) After opening bids for the PROJECT and if bids
indicate a cost overrun of no more than 10 percent of the
estimate will occur, STATE may award the contract.
(6) 'If, upon opening of bids, it is found that a cost
overrun exceeding 10 percent of the estimate will occur, STATE
and CITY shall endeavor to agree upon an alternative course of
action. If, after 30 days, an alternative course of action is
not agreed upon, this agreement shall be deemed to be terminated
by mutual consent pursuant to Article (8) of this Section III.
(7) Prior to award of the construction contract for
the PROJECT, CITY may terminate this agreement in writing,
provided that CITY pays STATE for all costs incurred by STATE.
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(8) If termination of this agreement is by mutual
consent, STATE will bear 66.7 percent and CITY will bear 33.3
percent of all costs incurred by STATE.
i
(9) If existing public and private utilities
conflict with the construction of the PROJECT, STATE will make
all necessary arrangements with the owners of such utilities for
their protection, relocation or removal. STATE will inspect the
protection, relocation or removal of such utilities. If there
are costs of such protection, relocation or removal which STATE
and /or CITY must legally pay, STATE will bear the entire cost of
said protection, relocation or removal.
(10) In the construction of said work, STATE will
furnish a representative to perform the usual functions of a
Resident Engineer, and CITY may, at no cost to STATE, furnish a
representative, if it so desires; said representative and
Resident Engineer will cooperate and consult with each other,
but the decisions of STATE's engineer shall prevail.
(11) Upon completion of all work under this agreement,
_ownership and title to all materials, equipment and
appurtenances installed will automatically be vested in the
STATE and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer
ownership to the STATE.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mi:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1., -a^-
(12) The cost of any engineering or maintenance
referred to herein shall include all direct and indirect costs
(functional and administrative overhead assessment) attributable
to such work, applied in accordance with STATE's standard
accounting procedures. However, STATE's share is accounted for
in a statewide account and is not shown separately on each
project's cost breakdown.
(13) Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof
shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by
reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or
Iin connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated
to CITY under this agreement. It is also agreed that, pursuant
to Government Code Section 895.4, CITY shall fully indemnify and
hold STATE harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as
defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of
anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
CITY under this agreement.
(14) Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof,
shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by
reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under- Or-
in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not
delegated to CITY under this agreement. It is also agreed that,
pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall fully
indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any liability imposed for
-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
h - - C) - -
injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring
I
by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under
or in connection with work, authority or jurisdiction not
delegated to CITY under this agreement.
(15) The execution of this agreement by CITY grants to
STATE the right to enter upon CITY -owned lands to construct the
PROJECT referred to herein.
(16) The terms of this agreement concerning the
construction of PROJECT shall terminate upon completion and
acceptance of PROJECT by STATE and upon final accounting of
costs, or on December 31, 1985, if a contract to construct
PROJECT has not been awarded by then. The terms of this
agreement concerning ownership and maintenance and any other
terms not referable to the construction of PROJECT, shall remain
in effect until terminated or revised in writing by mutual
agreement if the PROJECT has been constructed.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
Transportation District 4
BURCH C. BACHTOLD
District Director
By
Deputy District Director
-7-
CITY OF SARATOGA
0
Attest:
Mayor
City Clerk
04- SC1 -85 -11.9
04332 - 208711
Dist. Agmt. No. 4- 0904 -C EXHIBIT A
ESTIMATES OF COST BREAKDOWN
Total STATE's CITY's
Description Cost Share Share
Wheelchair ramps $ 2,000 $ 2,000 -0-
Electrical Work (including
Traffic control and 88,000 58,700 $29,300
construction signing)
Construction Costs Totals $90,000 $60,700 $29,300
Preliminary Engineering (15 %) * 4,400
Construction Engineering (18 %) * 5,300
Total CITY's Share = $39,000
* STATE's share is accounted for in a statewide account and
is not shown separately on each project's cost breakdown.
AGENDA BILL NO. 63-7
CITY OF SARATOGA
DATE: May 7, 1984 ( May 16, 19 8 4 )
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: ALLENDALE AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
V,
*540
C. a
•
Issue Stminary
On Wednesday, April 11, 1984 Bid were opened on the above project.
The low bid was submitted by Calhoun Bros. of Santa Clara in the
amount of $59,600.00. The Engineer's Estimate for this project was
$42,695.40. The City's share for the project would come to $17,343.78,
and the Postal Services's share amounts to $42,256.22. We have
received a verbal approval for the increased amount from the Post
Office (written approval is forthcoming).
Recommiendation
Award the Project to Calhoun Bros. for bid amount of $59,600.00.
Fiscal Impacts
The City's share of $17,343.78 to be.paid for out of the Gas Tax
Construction Fund (45- 4522 - 942 -72)
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Bid Summary
2. Breakdown tof City/Post-Office-Share
Council Action
5/16: Community Development Director withdrew item in order to negotiate further with
Post Office.
6/20: Approved Contract and modification to supplementary letter of agreement 4 -0.
x.
l:
DATE : Aori / 11 ,198 4
TIME : OO P.M.
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
SaJMPvlAR Ilk
.Sheet / of /
PROJECT
AG [. ENDAL E AVENUE
IMPROVEN14EA1 TS
ENGINEERS
EST /MATE
CA[HOUN 81205.
R415CH CONSrR_
DVATT /S
/1/ORMAAI NOIIGE
/IQCCAQ7"HYtSPlFSM
P /AZZ�i
Ite
Description
Quantity
Unit
ni
i
it
Amount
nit
Amount
nit
Amount
it
Amount
Unit
Amoun�
nit
�
Amount
/
C /eo�ir/Gruf�bin
Lain Sum
Z. S.
-
8 462Q
-
9,405.
-
34/5.0
-
7,250.
-
2
6,-qd, . nq
ZLIMIO Sam
L.S.
-
13ZD.
-
6,06a
-
5,000.o0
-
14700
-
12 900.
10 3W Co
-
8,600.00
3
71p, 1 Curb In /eE
/
Ea.
550
550.
1000.00
Z,WO
2000,00
890
890-00
125C
1,250.
1363
36340
850
850.00
4
Curb ondauf /er
430
G.F.
9.9
4,Z57.00
12.00
5,160.00
16A
6,886100
13.80
5,934.610
11.70
5,031.00
1,?.5'4
5,383.6
r3.
5590,617
5
Sidewalk
2030 ,
S.F.
2.7S
5,562.
2.0 0
4-060.CC
3• SC
7,105.00
J.
7105.00
Z.X
5,Z78-00
2.90
5,684.
I5O.07
6
D,-;vewaY
35o
S.F.
3.8
/, 347.5'0
4Q0
/ 40.7
5.00
1, 750.00
4.25
1,497.6-0
2.'?C
1 o15.0O
3.28
1,148.
5.5-0
1,925.00
-7
A.sphalf Cantorm
900
5.F.
0.44
396.00
Zoo
1,900.60
3.60
2700.00
3.50
3,150.00
/,DO
900.00
0.85
765-CO
6.00
4500,LID
8
!D" re afe Base Ala
7950
S.F.
0.99
7,870.5
1.
9 0.CO
D7
556560
0.84
6,678.06
1.18
9,381.00
0.92
7,314.00
/.SO
l/ 9ZS.Gb
9
3.5" As half Loncrefe
7110
5.F
.O.661
4692.6
1.5-0
16,665LY0
130
9,243.06
1.13
8,034-.30
/.70
12,087.00
2.181
15499
1.5-61
/0 66540
/0
6 ",4ap17411 Concrete
165
5. F.
1.10
181.504.60
660.00
2.00
3.3000
3.00
495.00
5.o0
825100
3.091
50985
/6-.
2475.CO
/I
2"x 6 " Rec1-odIleader
32
L.F.
3.30,
105.6
5.00
160, 00
3.00
96.0012.66
384.0c
10.00
320.00
/0.3c
329.60
MOO
384.00
12
Double Ye/ %v Sfr:pe5 •
Z70
L.F.
1-951
445.6-0
1.X
27.000
1.ZO
3Z4 -.X
0.35
94.5
/.00
270.00
0.57
153.96
0.6C
162.00
13
Direcf.on Xtrows
S
Ea.
.5,Z9z
2 75.00
30.
/50.07
30.
150.
22.
/10.00
20,06
/00.00
14.81
74.05
15.
75.00
14
W&rle Tal/!c Sfripes
410
L.F.
a771
315.70
2.Co
R20ZO
l
410.00
0.30
123.00
0.761
307 50
0,73
299.30
0,6
266.50
15
Se na% tease
Sum
L.S.
-
l 980.
2 500 -CO
-
2,4X. 60
-
2,200
-
2 26.00
`--
2,266.00
-
2, coo. CO
16
se z• -6" 6'
u Sur,
L. S.
-
3,360.
3 5M
6"00.00
-
3,300-00
--
3,400.
3,3 99. O
3 OQ0,o0
17
R__ /oca /ionor5, n
/
Ea.
220
220.
150
150.
/00
100.00
200
200.00
3647
360.00
237
237•
ZSO
25000
/8
Nn fe � / ec oe n s
ZD
Eo.
3.3C
66.00
Z 5d
150.0
12.0
240.617
4.00
80.00
Z.
4-0.60
7.41
148.ZC
7.00
140.00
/ 9
Qe sfve �X /s ��g
Lu n Sum
L. S,
-
880,
-
8�
-
SGb.
-
750,00
-
/ 00.
6 82.
-
576.60
ZD
T
660
660.00600
56
600
600.00
3ZO
3 ZO.00
350
3SO.co
340
340.
300
300. GC
Z/
r, C c 6 " eG „
3
Ea.
4100
3,360-W
800
2,400.a
I000
30cCL
750
2,250.00
2,3781
2378.
7
2,379.
700
2,100.00
22
"OA/LY" Oal,�Ifd
2
Ea.
165
330.
50
100.0
30
60.
Z1,
43.00
25
50,00
14.8/
Z9., 4z
-14.06'
T�TA / S -
AA2
fit 59.E
.Y` 62.466_
5$` 65.5 79.. -
0 72.732. sd
t 73,864.92
177997_.se
m
Shore
/cm
Descr"'01107
Uld
Qa,h/j
4Mo17f:
pr e
�4,�q
i
; I
Own&
4(n I I(I
A-nowil
AVoanl-
1
Cleal-1'17g -16rUbbi'17
Z. 5.
4ZC%
z �? 9. /Z
47.6Y
..:
S4il"
I i4,476.7,3
2 7 -7. -- C
103.6
67�24Y.
z'-'a
54fll
'5 12,420. 88
1
6-2.4Z
1 54(1"
929.22
�-2,570-7-3403.4
2
6ra&in _q
-6-49. 1Z
-41.'. .
2,*4 96-60
94.�8
'354.5
�518.4,
1 7 �6:88-
5A 4y�
z__Ia
3, Soo.
+2,733.12
35-4-1
3
T,71--Z
5,50
.550-00
4, i
/'000-00
-F 450.00
1+
4
5
Curb f� 6u
Sidewalk- - - - ^ --
ide Lya Ik
L.F.
5-c
186
9.90
1,841.40
186
12.00
12 23Z.00
-f 390.6-0
+21.2
244
9.120
2,4165. i6a' ;0
244-
12AL
2,928.00
4- 51 Z. 4
14 ZI. Z
1,302
2.75
3,580-50
1,30Z
2.00
2,,6 04, 00
7,6. 5-0
27.3
77-8
2'75
002.6
7Z8
2.00
/,456. CC
546, oc
I -Z 7.3
6
D,-,*.,-- vvax
S.F.
240
3.85
:.924-.60
240
4.00
160.00
-f- 3 60
± 3.9
Ito
3.85
423.
1/0
4.
440.
j-16. 5 C
+ 3.9
7
1,4,,,Iall -onfo,-"7
3. F.
900
0.44
3%.00
900
2,00
1,960-00
t %,404,00
+354.'
500.0c
15.00
/.D
o�45'0
0.99
16,3 85. Sk�:
44 50
1.60
6,450.CC
-F
1.6
9
3.5 ",4�5,ohall erbn--rcle
S.F.
/,,;/0.
0.66
1,060-6C
1,610
1.50
7,415,00:
(,352.40
-'1Z7-3
j 5,500
0-661
.3,620-00
5,500
1.6c
8,250.
4- 462.00
127.3
10
6 "A:�robalZ &�D-e-efZe
S. r.
/65
/• /0
181.50
165
4.60
660.oc
+ 478.50
263.6
3.30,
105,460
32
5.0C
160.001+
54.4(
12
Double /C//O-
Z.A.
270
1.6
445-50
270
J.00
270,
75-50
39.4
13
Dirccel-an Arrows
Ea.
S I
SS
275.00
5
3
50.(x
I Z5.oc
45.,q
14
W/,"/-- F-a{�c -iYr:pe-5
Z-IC
410
0-771.
315,70
00%,
2.
8ZOXI�j
2, 50a CC
5-04.3
+ 520.00
+159-7
'Z6-3
Si �zaal Base 2'X,39,
L. S.
1,980.goo
16
terra/ ga5e Z'� xal)
Z. S-
17
OYC S15?n
_47a
P
220
22 O.00
1150
l -5-0. 0 C
70- CC
-31.8
18
A6,7,-eAec1,';,,f AlhIeZall6as
S-a•
20 ':
3.30
66.00
20
7.5 C
150-OC
-t- 84• 00
'IZ7.3
19
Remove z7xl:yl':19 SfrgOirr9
L. S.
j j
/00)�
"I'
'580.00
/00 Y'
"
'5 oaoo
- Saco
-'g.
?o
660
660.00
I
SOO
5,00-00
- 4�0-co
-24.2
tits a/ 6',< 40 ' 7,-yaer C
3
//00
'J'o
3,30CtO
Soo
Z4 C0.00
49 00-CC
Z-7-3
'2
'�OVZ Y" Par;,fed
Ea.
Z
165
:330.400
2
50
"-�O. 00
69.7
7-40 7-A L Sli*
1"'11,823.2411
17,34 3.78
1+46.1',PL
8 72. Ir,
56. ZZ
�42, -2
CITY OF SARATOGA
p
AGENDA BILL NO. (- 3 0 Initial: Dept. Hd.
DATE: May 8, 1984 (May 16, 1984) C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT:_ Community Development C. Mgr.
---------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - --
SUB, EC.'T: A -950, PARNAS.CORP, SARATOGA HEIGHT COURT ( TRACT 6665, Lot #4)
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING DESIGN REVIEW A -950.
Issue Suinnary
The applicant is appealing .a Planning Commission decision to deny
Design Review.Approval.for a 2 story residence in the Parnas
Subdivision. The rectangular 2 story residence would be located
at the top of a steep, barren hill and would be highly visible
from the valley area.along Pierce Road. Because of this the
Commission could not make finding #3 concerning the perception
of excessive bulk and voted 4 -2 to deny the application.
Recommendation
1. Determine the merits of the appeal, make the necessary findings
and approve or deny Design:Review A -950.
2. Staff recommended denial of Design Review A -950.
Fiscal Impacts
N/A
Exhibits /Attachmnts
1. Appeal Letter.
2. Staff Report for A -950
3. Resolution No. A -950 -1
4. Minutes Dated 4/11/84
5. Exhibits B,C and D.
Council Action
5/16: Appeal denied 5 =0.
RECEI V ELo
APR 17 1994
;^,' "" "UNITY DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL APPLICATION
Date Received: - 17-If
Hearing Date: S— 49
Fee '
CITY USE ONLY
J - /
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of Applicant: YCU4 V%CL -S CIZ, rte
Project File No.
Project Address: ���a��, C, p� -A.� 4. ,
Project Description:�,����
Q �r
Decision Being Appealed: ��o, �., \ ^,A
Grounds for.the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
�.r
Appellant's Signa
Rs lag
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
J
LAW OFFICES
McKEEHAN, BERNARD 8 WOOD
2450 PERALTA BOULEVARD, SUITE 211
FREMONT, CALIFORNIA 94536
(415) 794 -1900
April 27, 1984
The City of Saratoga
City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attention: Kathy Dunlap
Re: A -950 - Parnas Corp., Saratoga Heights Court
(Tract 6665, Lot #4)
Dear Ms. Dunlap:
APR 30 al'
"QTY DEVELOP''
This letter shall confirm that the appeal in the above -
referenced matter is presently scheduled for May 16, 1984, and
that the applicant appeals from the resolution of the City of
Saratoga Planning Commission of April 11, 1984, on the following
grounds:
(1) The resolution of the Planning Commission was
arbitrary, caprious and whimsical in that the appellant has
clearly met all of the ordinances and requirements of the City of
Saratoga. The only finding that was not met by the Planning
Commission involved "excessive bulk." This term is clearly
subjective and cannot be used as a basis for the denial of this
application.
(2) The action of the Planning Commission was in viola-
tion of appellant's contractual rights entered into at the time
the litigation over this parcel tract was terminated.
(3) The Planning Commission has approved homes much
larger in size on adjacent lots.
Please be advised that appellant is appealing this
Planning Commission's decision in order to exhaust all of its
administrative remedies. If.any council member desires further
explanation for the grounds of the appeal, please advise me prior
to May 16th.
SMB /gf
cc: Parnas Corporation
Sincerely,
McKEEHAN, BERNARD & WOOD
STEVEN M. BERNARD
k
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSI ®N
DATE: 4/4/84
Commission Meeting: 4/11/84
SUBJECT: A -950 - Parnas Corp., Saratoga Heights Court (Tract 6665, Lot #4)
ACTION REQUIRED: Design Review Approval for a two story single family residence on a
hillside lot.
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION:
ZONING: NHR (Subject to HC -RD per the negotiated settlement)
GENERAL PLAN: Residential: Hillside Conservation Single Family
SITE DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 1 Acre
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The subject site has been previously graded. There
is a level building area in the front of the lot and steep downsloping topography to
Pierce Road in the rear. The site is covered with native grasses and there are no
trees.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 20%
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Less than 5%
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 20 Cu. Yds.
Cut Depth: 1 Ft.
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE:
0
Fill: 40 Cu. Yds.
Fill Depth: 2 Ft.
SETBACKS: Front: 41 Ft. Rear: 187 Ft.
Left Side: 50 Ft. Right Side: 55 Ft.
HEIGHT: 27 Ft.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 8.5% (25% maximum allowed)
Report to Planning Commission
A -950 - Parnas Corp., Saratoga Heights Court
SIZE OF STRUCTURE (Including Garage):
First
Floor:
2,413
sq.
ft.
Second
Floor:
1,804
sq.
ft.
Total
Floor Area:
4,217
sq.
ft.
4/4/84
Page 2
COMPLIANCE: The residence complies with the standards for the HC -RD zone.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
Site Characteristics: The building site is located on the top of a hill which slopes
steeply down to Pierce Road at the bottom of the lot. The proposed residence will be
highly visible from Pierce Road and from the homes in the valley to the north. Due to
the location of the building site and driveway, there is no room for landscaping to
help mitigate this impact. Moving the house forward will only have a nominal impact,
particularly until landscaping has matured, and will intensify the two story mass from
the front.
Design Considerations: The residence will be finished in light grey stucco with con-
crete tile roofing. It has strong vertical elements with little horizontal relief to
break up the high sheer walls. While this gives a stately impression, it may be in-
appropriate for a barren hilltop which will accentuate the height.
FINDINGS:
1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Priva
There are no homes constructed or approved on lots adjacent to the subject site,
therefore, there are no'present privacy or viewshed impacts and future impacts
cannot be fully accessed.
2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape
Only minimal grading is required on the site and no trees will be removed.
3. Perception of Excessive Bulk
The proposed residence will appear massive due to its location on the edge of a J
hilltop which is highly visible, the two story construction and the lack of mature
trees on the site or room for landscaping. Staff cannot make this finding.
4. Compatible Bulk & Height
The residence is similar in height and size with homes in the same zoning dis-
trict and is within the floor area standard. It will not impair the solar access
of adjacent properties.
5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards
The project meets Saratoga's grading and erosion control standards.
Report to Planning Commission 4/4/84
A -950 - Parnas Corp., Saratoga Heights Ct. Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial having been unable to make Finding #3. If
the Commission wishes to approve the project, the necessary findings are required and
staff would recommend the following conditions:
1. The residence shall be moved forward 10 ft. in order to provide area in the rear for
landscaping.
2. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted with the building plans for the review
and approval of the Permit Review Dept. These plans shall indicate landscaping,
including large trees, to be planted in the rear of the house and to be installed
prior to,final building approval.
3. The project shall conform to the adopted 1979 "Uniform Fire Code and Amendments" in-
cluding fire retardant Class A or B roofing, keying for roadway or driveway gates
and chimney spark arrestors. An early warning fire reporting system is to be installed
throughout the residence as required by the Saratoga Fire District.
Approved:
L nda Lauzz
Planner.
LL /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 4/11/84
Wm
'
o
j v �'
DESIGN REVIEW FILE NO: A-950
RESOLUTION NO. A -950 -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga. Planning Commission has received an
application for Design Review Approval of 2 -story single family residence
on Saratoga Heights Court, Lot #4, Tract 6665 and
WHEREAS,'the applicant (ham) (has not) met the burden of proof required
to support his said application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of
the site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits
submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Parnas
Corporation
for Design Review ?approval be and the
same is hereby () (denied) subject to the following conditions:
per the staff report dated 4/4/84-
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 11th day of-- April 19 84 by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Harris,_Hlava, Mc Goldrick, and Siegfried
NOES: Commissioners Peterson and Schaefer
ABSENT: Commissioner Crowther
Chairman, Planning Co ission
ATTEST:
cretary, Pla ning Commission
• Planniing Commission ( Page 5
Meeting Minutes 4/11/84
C -206 (cont.)
..during the preliminary and final site approval.
Stephen P x, the applicant, addressed the property. He commented that they
do not know how many units they would be proposing. It was pointed out to the
applicant hat the Commission is concerned about the need for variances, etc.
It was the onsensus that if the rezoning is granted, it will be understood
that it is n t granted for 12 units. Chairman Schaefer added that it appears
that the Com ission is in favor of the rezoning. However, they do not want
to give varia ces on this development or have anyone think they are going to
get the maxim possible yield to the detriment of any neighboring property.
She stated tha if something came up in the future and it looks reasonable,
it might be co idered, but it is not the Commission'.s intention to give
variances.
The City Attorne commented that the Commission does not have to make a
judgment on the ole project at this time. He explained that the ordinance
allows the Commis ion to conditionally rezone it, and the condition being
that the use to which the property has been reclassified is established within
a certain period o time. He stated that the Commission can determine that by
.making the conditio theirapproval of the Site Development Plan, which will
show what the build gs are, where they are, and if variances are required.
He commented that if the Commission does not approve the development plan,
they can then in eff ct nullify the reclassification for the zoning. He.
.added that he feels, 'n view of the language in the ordinance, the Commission
should specify a time by which a Building Site Approval has to be submitted
and approved, and it c n be extended if necessary.
Commissioner Hlava move to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick
seconded the motion, wh ch was carried unanimously.
The City Attorney indica ed that the resolution would have to be changed and
the section of the code s ecifically referenced, to make sure that it is clear
to the applicant what the condition is he has to satisfy, which is the con-
ditional reclassification. There was a consensus to approve the rezoning and
it was determined that thi item should be put on the Consent Calendar for the
"next meeting on April 25, 1 84.
7. C -207 - City of Saratoga Consideration of amendment of the text of the
Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the minimum site area requirement
of Section 4A.4, larifying Section 4A.3(b) to allow second -story
structures only w en specifically approved by the Planning Com-
mission, and other minor modifications per Ordinance NS -3, Article
18 (Planned Commun t District)
,•'•It was directed that this matte be continued to April 25, 1984.
-:.8. A -947 - Parnas Corporation, R quest for Design Review Approval for a two -
story single family re idence on Saratoga Heights Drive, Lot V,
Tract 6665 in the NHR oning district
Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Cc
indicated that the house will be to e
ble from anywhere. Commissioner Diego
.indicated that they would be willing`
Staff described the proposal. The pu
one appeared to address the Commissio
the public hearing.
mmittee report, describing the lot. She
r than the street and will not be visi-
ldrick added that the applicant had
to change the color.
�lic hearing was opened at 9:50 p.m. No
. It was moved and seconded to close
Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A -977, per the Staff Report dated April
3, 1984 and Exhibits "B ", "C" and "D ", th the added condition that the house
not be stark white, that it be off white�or medium earthtone. Commissioner
McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
9. A -950 Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval for a 2 -story
single family residence on Saratoga Heights Court, Lot fi4, Tract
6665 in the NFIR zonine District
The proposal was described by Staff. They stated that they were recommending
denial, not being able to make the finding relative to perception of bulk.
- 5 -
Planning Commission / Page 6
Meeting Minutes 4/11/84
..A -950 (coat.)
Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. She
stated that the house was definitely going to be visible from Pierce Road and
pretty well across the valley. She indicated that the design has no archi-
tectural relief and there is no stepping down the hill.
Commissioner Peterson agreed that this house is massive, but it appeared to
him that the house is sitting back far enough from where it comes down the
hill, so that from almost anywhere that you drive up Pierce a good portion of
the house is not going to be visible.
The public hearing was opened at 9:55 p.m.
Mac Kamingar, representing Parnas, gave a presentation on the house. Commis-
sioner Harris expressed concern regarding the height and bulk.of the house and
the fact that it would look very massive from down below. Commissioner
Siegfried commented that he thinks the problem is that the lot slopes so
steeply down to Pierce; therefore, you look up a slope at a house that just
rises rather dramatically, and that is the bulk the Commission is concerned
about. He added that the location of the house is right on the slope.
Mr. Kamingar stated that the house could be moved forward. Commissioner Harris
commented that the homes to the north of Pierce are also going to be looking
out and seeing this massive house.'
Commissioner Hlava noted that this is a very large flat pad and a big single
story house could be built on this, and it would still not come close to
covering the flat part of the top. She stated that she has a problem with this
two -story in this location, adding that it will look huge from Pierce and from
virtually anywhere in the valley up and down Pierce.
Mr. Kamingar commented that there will be other lots in this project coming
to the Commission, and the project should be looked at as a total unit rather
than individual lots. He indicated that if they can move the house forward
and take away from that bulk with which the Commission is concerned, they will
be happy to do it and it can be done. However, they would like the Commission
to consider this as a total package.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that she is concerned with bulk and height
all over the City, but she feels that on a lot like this, sometimes a two -story
home can give less appearance of bulk than some of the single stories that
are approved that are only 5 ft. less in height and spread out a great deal.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he does not disagree with that. However,
the problem with this house is that it needs to be a two -story or some com-
bination of one and two stories set into the hill. Discussion followed on
the design and the location of the home.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to deny A -950. Commissioner Harris seconded
the motion. The applicant was asked if he would like to come to a study
session with other suggestions. Mr. Kamingar commented that if the Commis-
sion would just like the house moved forward, that can be remedied. However,
he added, their client wants the design and they would like to keep it. There
was a consensus of the Commission that major changes would be needed, in addi-
tion to moving it forward. The vote was taken, and the motion was carried
4 -2, with Commissioners Peterson and Schaefer dissenting. The City Attorney
clarified that the vote is based upon the findings in the Staff Report plus
additional comments made by the Commission members. The 10 -day appeal period
was noted.
10a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1564 - Pero Glumac
10b. A -948 - Pero Glumac, Request for Design Review Approval. for a 2 -story
10c. V -633 - single family residence on an infill site,.Vari.ance Approval
10d. SDR -1564 - for a building height exceeding 30 ft. and Building Site
Approval for a single lot at 14975 Quito Road
Staff explained the project, noting that this home replaces one that burned
down. They commented that they are unable to make the findings for the
Variance or the Design Review and are recommending denial of those applications
- 6 -
.,.?'ye
I
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. & -3q
DATE: May 9, 1984 (May 16, 1984)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. lid.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: C -208, REVISION TO ORDINANCE NS -3, SUBSECTION 13A.7(a)(7), DESIGN REVIEW OF
_ -------- RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES
Issue Summary
Proposals to expand second stories.of existing multi -story structures for areas less
than 100 square feet are currently delayed 1� to 2� months to be processed in order to
receive Design Review Approval form the Planning Commission. To expedite this process
a revision to the Design Review Ordinance is proposed which would allow staff to
approve these additions through issuance of a building permit if the findings can be
made.
Reccmunendation
1. Staff recommended approval of this ordinance to the Planning Commission.
2. Council should open the public hearing and take testimony.
3. First reading of the ordinance should occur at this meeting and the second reading
at the next meeting.
4. The Negative Declaration should be adopted prior to the first reading.
Fiscal Impacts
None known.
Exhibits /Attachm?nts
Exhibit A - Negative Declaration
Exhibit B - Staff Report dated April 19, 1984.
Exhibit C - Ordinance NS -3.57
Exhibit D - Planning Commission Resolution C -208 -1
Exhibit E - Planning Commission Minutes dated 4 /25/84
Council Action
5/16: Approved Negative declaration 5 -0; read and introduced ordinance 5 -0.
6/6: Read and adopted-5 -0.
` EIA -4
Saratoga
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
File No: C -208
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the
CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation
has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through
15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and.Resolu-
tion 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will
have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment
within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amend the text of the Design Review Article of the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga to allow expansions up to 100 sq.
ft. of second stories without a Public Hearing Design Review Approval if
the appropriate findings can be made by staff at the time of building
permit.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
The proposed amendments to the Design Review Ordinance will not have
a significant affect on the environment due to their minor nature.
The primary purpose of the amendments is to expedite small additions
which will not have privacy or bulk impacts.
Executed at Saratoga, California this
J
11th day of April 19 84
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
1
W1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 4/19/84
Commission Meeting: 4/25/85
SUBJECT C -208 - Revision to Ordinance NS -3, Subsection 13A.7 (a)(7),
Design Review of Residential Structures
ACTION REQUIRED: Recommendation to City Council to revise Design Review Ordinance to
allow expansions up to 100 sq. ft. of second stories without a Public Hearing Design
Review Approval if the appropriate findings can be made by staff at the time of building
permit.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: After City Council approval, this revision to the
Design Review Ordinance would become effective in 30 days.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: The City has received several proposals to expand second
stories of existing multi -story structures for areas less than 100 sq. ft. Under the
Design Review Ordinance, any expansion of a second story requires a public hearing at the
Planning Commission (see attached). These projects are then delayed several months in
order to be placed on a Commission Agenda. In order to expedite these small additions,
staff is proposing a revision to the Ordinance which would allow those second story
additions for which staff can make the Design Review Findings (privacy, compatibility,
bulk, grading and preservation of natural landscaping) be approved through the building
permit process.
If staff cannot make the findings or if there is uncertainty, a public hearing Design
Review can still be required.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council the attached amendment to the Design
Review Ordinance, Subsection 13A.7(a)(7) of Ordinance NS -3.
Approved:
KK /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 4/25/84
Attachments
Kathy Kerdus '
Planner
ORDINANCE NO. NS -3.57
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
SUBSECTION 13A.7(a)(7) OF ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, RELATING TO DESIGN REVIEW OF SECOND
STORY ADDITIONS TO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Subsection 13A.7(a)(7) of Ordinance NS -3, the Zoning Ordinance, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"(7) Any expansion in size to the second story of a multi -story
main or accessory structure; provided, however, if the proposed
expansion does not exceed 100 square feet and design review of
such expansion would not be required under any other provision
of this Section 13A.7(a), the proposed expansion may be
reviewed by the Director of Community Development and
approval thereof given if the Director is able to make the
findings set forth in Section 13A.4 of this Ordinance."
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty
30 days from and after the date of its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * * * * * **
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted this 6th day of
June , 1984, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Callon, Clevenger, Fanelli, Mallory and Mayor Moyles
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
YOR OF THE /
ITY OF SARATOGA/
ATTEST: n ,
DEP[TI'YCRY CLERK OF
THE CITY OF SARATOGA
RESOLUTION NO. C-.208-1
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION .
13A.7(a)(7) THE DESIGN REVIEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES
ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, an application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
was initiated by Staff to implement previous zoning and General Plan
decisions made by the City of Saratoga, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
said proposed amendment, which public hearing was held at the following
time and place to wit: at the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the 25th day of
April , 1984, at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale
Avenue, Saratoga, California, and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration the proposed amendment
as it would affect the Zoning Regulations in the General Plan of the
City of Saratoga, and after consideration of the staff report and the
attached Negative. Declaration, the Commission has made-certain findings
and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached hereto
shall be formally recommended to the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Saratoga as follows:
1. That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the
same as hereby affirmatively recommended to the City
Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of
the Zoning Ordinance of the City.
2. That the report of Findings of this Commission, a copy
of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B"
be and the same as hereby approved, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send
a copy of this resolution of recommendation with attached proposed
amendment and Report of Findings and summary of hearings held by this
Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with
State Law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 2Sth. day of April 1984, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Harris-, Hlava, McGoldrick, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Crowther
and Siegfried
Chairman, Planning Co sion
ATTEST:
C C -208
EXIiIBIT "B"
PTMnTNI,q
1. The proposed amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance
are required to achieve the objectives of the General Plan
and zoning ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of the
zoning ordinance.
2. The proposed amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare.
r:1
U
r
U
"Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 4/25/84
Page 6'
C -207 - City of - ratoga, Consideration of amendment of the
text
of
the Zonin
Ordinance to eliminate the minimum site
area
require -
ment.of S
ction 4A.4, clarifying Section 4A.3(b) to
allow second
story stru
tures only when specifically approved by
the
Planning
Commission
and other minor modifications per Ordinance
NS -3,
Article 18
(Planned Community District); continued
from
April 11,
1984
The proposed text amendm nt was explained by Chairman Siegfried and Staff.
Commissioner McGoldrick uestioned whether the amendment states that the
developer must make provi ions for a common green development, which she felt
it should. Staff comment d that the Commission can condition applications for
a common green when they are reviewed for Building Site Approval. Commissioner
McGoldrick stated that she would have a problem approving the proposed amend-
ment without this provisio and suggested that it be added.
The public hearing was open -d at 9:25 p.m. No one appeared to address the
Commission. Commissioner H1 va moved to close the public hearing. Commis-
sioner Harris seconded the m tion, which was carried unanimously.
It was determined that an add tion would be made to Section 4.A.5 to read:
"Any PC area shall contain a c mmon green unless otherwise specifically waived
by the Planning Commission." ommissioner Hlava moved to adopt Resolution No.
C -207 -1 and forward it to t }le 'ty Council, making the findings as shown in
Exhibit B, with the addition to Section 4.A.5. Commissioner McGoldrick
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously S -0.
10. C -208 - City of Saratoga, Consideration of Amending the Text of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow multi -story additions of 100 sq. ft.
or less without a formal Design Review application or public
hearing. However, such additions would be subject to staff
approval if the necessary findings under Section 13A.4 can be
made. These text amendments shall be per Article 1.8 of Ordinance
NS-3.
Staff explained the text amendment. The public hearing was opened at 9:29
D.M. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner McGoldrick
moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adopt Resolution No. C -208 -1 and forward it
to the City Council, making the findings as shown in Exhibit B. Commissioner
Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
lla. Negative Declaration - SDI -1563 John Zaches
llb. A -952 - Mr. and Mrs. Jo�
llc. SDR -1563 - to construct a n
Building Site Ap
15400 Peach Hill
Zaches, Request for Design Review Approval
w, two -story single family residence and
roval for a greater than 50o expansion at
toad in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district
Staff described the applications, oti.ng that the water supply is a critical
concern, and it has been condition d to have 1000 gpm for a period of two hours.
Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use ommi.ttee report, describing the lot and
expressing concern regarding the cl seness of the house to a huge old redwood
tree. Discussion :followed on the pr sent and required water flow.
Warren Heid, architect, gave a presentation on the project. He noted that
there was a parcel map submitted in P bruary of 1966 with a 40 ft. right -of--
way for Peach Hill, and the Staff Rep rt does request a dedication. He asked
for clarification of Condition II -E an expressed concern about, how the road
improvements are handled in that area, to ensure that the quality of Saratoga
is maintained. He asked for clarifi.cat'on on Condition J and discussed the
Sanitation District fees. It was c.lari :ied that a new hydrant is not required
by the Fire District. Theearly warning ystem and requirement for the water
flow were also discussed. Mr. Heid stat d that lie would like to take this
matter to a study session if the issues cinnot be worked out tonight.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissionor 11lava
seconded the motion, which was carried u.alimousl.y.
Staff discussed examples of other appl.icat:i ns concerning the water requirement.
There was a consenus to take this matter to study session to further cl:is-
cuss this requirement. It was directed that it be continued to a study session
•
•
Planning Commission
• Meeting Minutes 4/25/84
SD -1554 (cont.)
Page 5
Commissioner Schaefer moved that two - stories not be allowed on lots 30 -36 and
lot 16. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -1, with
Commissioner McGoldrick dissenting.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved that 50% maximum of the remaining lots can be
two - stories, in a mixed kind of arrangement, and requiring a design review
public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously 5 -0.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to have single- stories no higher than 20 ft. and
the two- stories no higher than 25 ft. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion,
which was carried 4 -1, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting because she feels
the second stories should be 2 feet higher.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to have a rear yard setback and street frontage
setback of 25 feet on lot 36. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which
was carried 3 -2, with Commissioners Siegfried and McGoldrick dissenting.
Staff asked the Commission if they were willing for people to apply for a
variance from that setback in case it doesn't create a very large buildable
area. Commissioner Hlava stated that she may have to reconsider her vote
here, because she does not want to have variances at all. Commissioner
Siegfried stated that it was the consensus and the intent of the Commission
to have 25 ft. setbacks on lot 36, but allowing for a design review public
hearing. It was clarified that the rear yard would be defined as the property
line adjacent and contiguous to the house.
Commissioner Harris stated that possibly there could be a compromise between
10 ft. and 25 ft. Commissioner Hlava commented that maybe the Commission
• could state that they want a setback there in excess of 10 ft. to whatever
the lot will allow. Commissioner Schaefer noted that another option would be
to combine lots 33 -•36 into 3 lots. Staff noted that there will be design
review on the lots.
Mr. Rand commented that he feels placing such.a strict condition on lot 36
would be placing an undue hardship on that lot. He described the lot and
suggested that there be a compromise, stating that they could pass on the
Commission's concern to the buyer.
Commissioner Harris stated that she felt it was the Commission's place to
make their intent clear and she would like to reconsider her.vote. Commis-
sioner Hlava.asked for reconsideration of the vote relative to the setback
on lot 36. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unani-
mously 5 -0.
Commissioner Harris moved that the rear yard setback, the rear yard being
defined as that line on the southerly portion of lot 36, be a minimum of 15
feet, leaning towards an average of 20 ft. Commissioner Hlava seconded the
motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
Commissioner Hlava asked the City Attorney what would be the most effective
way to ensure that the landscaping is being completed. fie stated that the
normal procedure would be for the City to require a Landscape Maintenance
Agreement, with that obligation then passing from the developer initially to
the Homeowners Association when it is established. He commented that the
Homeowners Association would have their normal assessment processed to raise
the funds to do that. He added that, should the Homeowners Association :fail
to landscape under the CCf,R, which the City has the right to approve and can-
not be amended without the City's consent, the City has the prerogative to
do the work and assess the properties for the cost.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve SD -1554, per Exhibits "13-1" and "E"
and the Staff Report dated April 11, 1984, with conditions that (1) the S gate
• for pedestrian access to Prospect High on San Palo Court be installed, with
it coming back to the Planning Commission if the homeowners object, when noti-
fied, (2) the landscaping, including the entry way, be accomplished, per the
previous wording by the City Attorney, and (3) the number and location of
two-stories, the height of single stories and the setback on lot 36 be that
incorporated in the previous motions. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 5-0.
Break 9:00 - 9:15 p.m.
r
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. L_4 0
DATE:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT:
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Final Building Site Approval SDR 1503
--------------- - - --
Motel /Hotel, 4th Street & Big Basin Way, Oude Wall. /Galeb
Issue Sun nary
1. The SDR 1503 is ready for conditional Final Map Approval,_
2. All bonds and fees have been paid.
3. All requirements for City Dept. other agencies have been completed
except clearance letter from Saratoga Fire Dept. regarding easement
for emergency access road and sign agreement regarding parking spaces.
4. Rooms have been reduced from 40 to 37 due to developer could not pro-
vide 40 parking spaces in the final design.
Recommendation
Adopt resolution 1503 -02 attached, approving conditional Final Map of
SDR 1503 and authorized execution of contract of Improvement Agreement.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No. 1503 -02
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Status. report for Building Site Approval
4. Location Map
Council Action
6/6: Approved 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. 1503 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Martin Oudewaal /Caleb /Mandaric
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1:
The 0.6855 Acre Land Parcel shown is Parcel "A" on the
Final Parcel Map prepared by Jon Lynch and Associates and
submitted to the City Engineer City of Saratoga, be approved
as one (1) individual Building Site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
i
meeting held on the day of. lg
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
ti. 4
t /
IWVT
0
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Saratog
APPROVED P11:
T;^:LZ
*Amended (10/28/81)
DATE: 10/9/81
Commission Meeting: 10/14/81
SUBJECT' SDR -1503 - Martin Oudewaal, et al Big Basin Way (Terminus of
Third Street) Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Commercial)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
REQUEST: Tentative Building Site Approval for a hotel in the "C -C" Community
Commercial District.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
project.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Wildwood Park and single family residential to the
north; retail commercial to the south, east, and west.
SITE SIZE: 30,013 sq. ft.
SITE SLOPE: 25%
HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 24' from average finished grade to mid -point of roof;
34' from lowest finished grade to mid -point of roof; 41' maximum exposed
line.
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 27,160 sq. ft.
SETBACKS: 22' from northern property line; 22' from eastern property line;
8' from southern property line.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants propose the construction of a four story,
45 room hotel on a site which was previously approved for a 6,000 sq. ft+
restaurant (SDR -1225 and A -519). Construction of'the project _ would entail tY.e
removal of 4 ordinance size sycamores, 2 ordinance size oaks, (plus a cluster
of smaller oaks), and 2 ordinance size maples. Some smaller trees will also
be removed. ''he building housing Fun Fabrics will be demolished for parking.
The applicants propose the addition of 30 parking spaces to the site. According
to Staff research the final agreement between Tyler /Kocher and the City signed
April 3, 1974 credits the property with eight parking spaces. The applicants
must provide additional spaces to make up the deficit between what is alloted
by parking District No. 1 (8) and the number required by Ordinance (45). This
Report to Planning Commis
SDR -1503 `
10/9/81
Page 2
means that an additional 37 spaces would have to be provided, 7 more than the
applicants propose.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District has indicated that the creek bank is subject
to severe erosion and bank failure. Both the building and parking areas should be
constructed with this in mind. The Water District suggests that parking spaces 22
through 25 be moved back from the top of bank so as not to extend over the creek
bank. A storm drain system will be necessary for site drainage and the District
recommends that there should be no disturbance of vegetation between the proposed
building and the creek.
The building will be fitted with a sprinkler system and smoke detectors. A fire
hydrant will be provided on Third Street. The Saratoga Fire District has expressed
concern about the need for adequate fire escape to the outside and the need for
access alonq the north side of the proposed building.
The parking spaces on Third Street would be rearranged under this proposal but the
number of spaces (10) would remain the same. The third floor of the hotel would be
connected to Third Street by a Bridge. (An encroachment permit for the bridge and
landscaping has already been received under a previous application). The applicant
will be conditioned to provide access from Third Street to Parking District No. 1
as in previous applications.
PROJECT CONCERNS: Considering the size constraints of the site and the limited
parking credited to the site through Parking District No. 1, it is apparent that the
size of the hotel must be reduced. The number of rooms provided must therefore be
reduced to a maximum of 38 rooms. This number could be reduced to 34 if the
Commission determines that the four spaces which are proposed to be beyond the top
of the creek bank are to be deleted. More parking spaces could be lost if employee
parking is required.
If the number of rooms are reduced then the building can be reduced in size which
would reduce its impact on the site. The applicant, however, has indicated that
some of the smaller rooms could be combined to create suites which would reduce
the parking required.
Staff is also concerned with the amount of vegetation that is proposed, to be
removed. Not all of 'the trees that would have to be removed are shown on the plans.
For example, there is a cluster of large Sycamore trees between the 28" Oak and the
cluster of 5 oaks that would be removed. There are also a variety of smaller trees
that will be removed due to construction. If the structure were reduced in size
(i.e., length) fewer trees would have to be removed. The structure could also be
moved more to the west of the site which is its flatter portion. However, this
could move the building very close to the parking area or might even remove some
spaces.
Considerinq the probability that the building will be reduced in size to accommodate
City parking requirements (i.e., reduce the number of rooms by 7) staff would
recommend that the building be reduced in size so that at a minimum the cluster of
5 oak trees would be preserved. This might also allow a small deck area to be
built which could take advantage of the creek setting. If the structure is moved
further to the west the 18" white oak might also be saved.
It should be noted that one of the parking spaces of Parking District No. 1 would
have to be removed to allow access to the hotel parking area. A space would have
to be relocated to accommodate this entrance. It is not clear where this space
Report to Planning Commis r 10/9/81
SDR -1503 Page 3
would be relocated therefore the building might have to further reduced.
Concern has been expressed by residents near the terminus of Third Street that the
ten parking spaces on Third Street be preserved. It has also been suggested that
people using the hotel would park in these spaces all day and this would adversely
impact adjacent businesses on Big Basin Way. Strict enforcement of the two hour
parking unit on Third Street could eliminate this concern.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan,
and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against
the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental
resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara
Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved
under this application. Said determination date: October 6, 1981.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1503 (Exhibit "B -.2"
filed October 28,1981) subject to the following conditions:
I. a=ZAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including
without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of
storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect
at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and
applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department.
Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval
in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor
with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply
with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in
accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC COONDITIONS - ENGINEERING SERVICES
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay required Checking
& Recordation Fees). (If Parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit
three (3) to -scale prints).
C. Improve walkway to City Standards, including the following:
1. Pedestrian Walkway (6 ft. A.C., 4 ft. P.C.C.) between VPD #1 & VPD #3.
D. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as
directed by the Director of Public Works, as needed to convey storm runoff to
Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the following:
1. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes.
Report to Planning Commis9 = °�� / 10/9/81
SDR -1503 f l Page 4
2. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes.
3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc.
E. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent
flow.
F. Protective Planting required on cuts and fills.
G. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Parking Lot.
2. Storm Drain Construction.
3. Pedestrian Walkway.
H. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans.
I. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed
within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
J. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
K. Construct parking per approved plans.
L. Enter into "Deferred.Improvement Agreement" and provide bond for
payment of pro rata (25 %) share or traffic signal.at Big Basin
Way and'Fourth Street. Agreement and bond to run 5 years after
,completion of all on -site public improvements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Prior to Final Map Approval: Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed
professional:
1. Geology
2. Soils
3. Foundation
B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit being
issued.
C. Prior to Final Map Approval: Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and
proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc).
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet
or higher.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed.
5. Erosion control measures.
6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data,
location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc.
Report to Planning Commis( � 10/9/81
SDR -1503 `. Page 5
D. Prior to Final Map Approval: Bonds required for removal of existing building.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewer service is available. A pump may be necessary to pump the
effluent to the main sewer stubbed into the parking lot.
B. Applicant to submit fees to County Sanitation District No. 4 in accordance
with letter dated September 2, 1981, prior to issuance of permits.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by
the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the County Sanitation
District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted
with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. Existing septic tank in City of Saratoga parking lot to be pumped and backfilled
to County Standards. •.A $1,000.00 bond to be posted to insure completion of work.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. District accepts no responsibility for any damage to parking areas or the
building from bank erosion, bank failure or other cause.
B. There shall be no parking stalls beyond the existing top of creek bank.
C. Building foundation shall be designed as a retaining wall that would be stable
if creek banks erode back to the foundation. There shall be no foundation or
overhangs in the existing district easement.
D. There shall be no overbank drainage into creek from the site. It shall be
collected and discharged into the creek through a storm drain system.
E. There - shall -be -no - distu -Fbance -o€ - existing - vegetation - between -the - proposed
building =and = creek. _ (Deleted)_ __
F Submit improvement plans including grading and foundation plans for review
and issuance of hermit.
* G.' Access shall be provided.'between the north side of the building
and the top of bank. Access shall be constructed out of turf
block or some other approved material that will allow revegetation.
This access and its construction shall be reviewed and approved by
both the Santa C1araV`vlalley Water District and the Saratoga Fire
District..
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits.
B. Prior to issuance of building permits the structure shall be reviewed by the
Community Development Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility.
The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site.
C. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way that are
to remain unimproved. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for review and approval. Landscaping and irrigation
improvements shall be installed and established within 90 days of completion of
4-1, r4 rT}^,i'-- nf'— c.r_�c7 4 n;.=
'Report to Planning CC ission 10/9/81
SDR -1503 Page 6
D. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with
the City for those landscaped within the public right of way.
* E. The- proposed -hotel -shall -be- reduced -in- -Giae -t_o- GCMPfy- with- par-kixig - .equine-
menu .- - cif -ied- plans- sha -ll -be -suhmi -tied -at the time -af_ D€sijn- Rei_vew. (Deleted)
F. Structure shall be reduced in size and moved to preserve,at a minimum the
cluster of 5 oak trees.
G. A pedestrian corridor connecting the terminus of Third Street with Parking
District No. 1 shall be provided through the site. Said corridor shall not
require entrance into the building.
H. The terminus of Third Street shall be improved and upgraded for its entire
width and for a depth-of 50 feet (2,500 sq. ft.). Improvement plans shall
designate and detail installations of trees, planting areas, pedestrian street
furniture, paving and striping as approved by the Community Development Department.
* I. Applicant shall provide 1 parking space per room, one parking space
per employee, and one passenger unloading space for the project.
This may be accomplished by combining the spaces credited to the
site through Parking District No. 1 with:
1. Additional spaces on site
2. Restriping Parking District No. 1 to provide compact parking
stalls which would provide additional parking subject to
review and approval by the City Council.
3. Purchase of unused parking space allotments from other members
of Parking District No. 1.
4. Any combination of the above.
If the applicant finds that sufficient parking cannot be provided
for the 45 room structure, then the structure may be reduced in
size to accommodate the parking the applicant can provide.
*
J. A Geotechnical Investigation shall be conducted in accordance with the City
Geologist's letter dated October 8, 1981. Results of the investigation shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Enginoer and City Geologist prior to Final
Building Site Approval.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. As per letter dated 10/9/81.
* B. A fire hydrant shall be provided at the intersection of Third Street and Big Basin
Way prior to final inspection /certificate of occupancy. Location of the hydrant
shall be approved by the Fire District prior to Final Building Site Approval.
* C. Access shall be provided per condition VI. G. subject to Fire District
Approval.
* D. Comply with conditions in letter dated 10/23/81 (Listed below)
* 1. Early Warning Fire Reporting System: Said structure shall have
smoke detectors in each room which shall be installed so that
they can be monitored in a central place within the structure
and be capable of designating individual room signals. Said
system shall also have the capability to transmit signals to
central station.
Report to Planni.,( - Commission
SDR -1503
C
Page 7
2. The building shall have an approved automatic sprinkler system.
Exterior walls shall be protected within the provisions of the
Building Code. This system is to be monitored and connected
to the Alarm System (See #1 above) so that a signal can be
transmitted to the central system upon activation.
3. Separate wet standpipes shall be required. Hose connections for
Fire Department use shall be provided on all floors per National
Fire Protection Agency (NFP) Bulletin No. 13 - Installation of
Sprinkler Systems (1980 Edition). In addition, a fire hydrant
shall be installed at the corner of Third Street and Big Basin
Way.
4. Exit Enclosures: In addition to the requirements of Section
10.109 of the 1973 Uniform Fire Code all exits leading from the
corridors shall exit to the ground floor. In addition, two exits
are required from either end of the building to the required
roadway connecting Third Street to Parking District Three.
All stairways shall include landings connecting stairway
flights and shall lead from the building to the exterior on
Third Street and the ground floor.
Access Roads for Fire Apparatus (Section 10.27, UBC - 1979)
Connection to Third Street from Parking District Three, i.e.
Rosenfeld parking lot, by way of the Wallace, Melton and
Smith properties on the west northwest side of the proposed
building prior to issuance of building permit. As an alter-
nate, a loop involving the use of the driveway from Big Basin
Way serving Assessor's Parcel Numbers 503 -24 -13 and 14 and
access across the rear of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 503 -24 -14
and 15 to Third Street.
Approved
Michael Flores, Assistant Planner
MF /dra
P. C. Agenda: 10/14/81
*As amended 10/28/81 Planning Commission Meeting
;MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1503 Oudewaal /Galeb /Mandaric
6h@M@o (have not) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 10/ 8/81
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required
items:
Offer of Dedication N/A
XY-_ X NXXXaXrVVY XXo')iX Parcel Map yes
Storm Drainage Fee N/A Date Submitted
All Required Improvement Bonds $22 S00 Date
All Required Inspection Fees 5,050 Date
Building Site Approval Agree.nent yes Date
Park and Recreation Fee N/A Date
Date Submitted
,Date Submitted
N/A Receipt
Submitted /25/84
Submitted�l8 .$4
Signed 5/25/84
Submitted N/A
N/A
S/25/82
N
Receipt#
Receipt# 2254 ;.
502.9
Receipt# N/A
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(Conditional) (Final) Building Site Approval for Oudewaal /Caleb- Mandaric
SDR- 1503 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Condition(s) - Reason for Non - Compliance
1. Clearance letter from Saratoga Fire Dept. regarding emergency access
2. Submit signed agreement regarding parking
xo 'l-t S.- r'Shbbk -
Di ector of Community Development