HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-1984 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL-NO. (0
DATE: May 29, 1984 (June 6, 1984)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: PIERCE ROAD LANDSLIDE REPAIR
Issue Summary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
On August 3, 1983 the City Council awarded to Pacific General Engineering
Corporation the contract for Pierce Road.Landslide Repair for the bid
amount of $63,286.00. The construction took place between September 9,
1983 and May 31, 1984. The final contract amount is $69,230.00. -
Recommendation
1. Increase appropriations by $48,516:00
2. Approve the final acceptance and file the Notice of Completion.
Fiscal Impacts
$98,515.16 from fund 45 (Gas Tax)
Exhibits/Attachments
1. Notice of Completion _
2. Resolution appropriating
3. Memo from Senior Inspector
Council Action
6/6: Notice of Completion approved 4 -1 (Moyles opposed).
Resolution continued to study session, then next regular meeting.
7/24: Council discussed matter and was satisfied with explanations.
7/25: Staff decided to take care of appropriations by method other than resolution.
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
F
Name
A
.
cir b L
S.aie JI
1
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Nitirr of ToIlipirtion
Niatirr is hereby given that ........I ............. . the undersigned, ... J:..Way,Ae...
..........................
........................... ... the agent of] * the owner....... of th............. certain lot............ piece..............., or
parcel ............. of land .situated in the ...City.... af...Saxa. toga........................................... Cotmty of
...... Santa ... C1lara ............... ............................... State of California, and described as follows, to -wit:
Pierce Road Landslide Repair Project
That.......... CitY. ... Of ... Std. I.?. toa a ............................................................ ...............................
................................................. ............................... . as owner...... of said land, did, oil the ..... 3.rd......
clay of ....... Aljs 2t .... ............................... 19 ...8.3.......... , enter into a contract with .........................
...... AQQ..V.i .CQx.Rf?S.a.t7 Q. ri ......................... ............................... for
ands. ide ... RaF. i. r... P. xaj. ec. t ...................................... ...............................
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
upon the land above described, which contract was filed in file office of the county recorder of the
......... ............................... county of .................................. ............................... , State of California, oil
the................. ............................... day of .......... :::................................... , 19 ....... ..... ;
Thaton the ................... ............................... day of ................... ............................... 19 ...........
the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said ...................
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
That the name ...... and address...... of all the owner...... of said property are as follows:
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
and the nature of ........ ............................... title to said property is ........................ ...............................
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
................................................. ...............................
................................................. ...............................
City o£.. SaS a .'.Qaa ....... Owner ............
STATE, OF CAI IFORN111
ss. 1iy ............... ...............................
Coll nly of J. Wayne Dernet4g,;nt
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
J. Wa ne Dernetz .......................................... ............................... saes:
being duly sworn . ............... ..Y............. .
1 (1111 .......... lthe agent of]* the owner...... of the, properly described in the foregoing notice. I have
read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof, and the .crone is true of illy own knowledge.
Subscribed and shorn to before me this
.......................... day o] .f ...................... 19 ....... ................................................. ...............................
........................................... ...............................
................................................ ...............................
' Delete words in brackets it owner signs.
ttmrm nr- TTa= vcrncy of crni>h:tw rcm xY c wnrx r93.1 sae
RESOLUTION NO. 2073.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS
AND AMENDING THE 1983 -84 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET
WHEREAS, it is recamended that the following adjustment be made increasing the
present budget appropriations:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of Saratoga adopted
by Resolution 2073 be amended as follows:
Transfer: $48,516.00 from general ledger account 45 -2900 gas tax fund balance
available, to general ledger account 45 -2941 gas tax appropriations.
Subsidiary:
Fund 45 - Gas Tax
Program 945 - Pierce Road Slide Repair
Purpose:
To increase appropriations to cover the actual cost of the Pierce Road Landslide
Repairs including extra work and engineering.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting
of the Saratoga City Council held on.the day of
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
WE:NOO R,2tiDt1.�I
09''W o:T 0&UMX'XQX5&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: Director of Community Development
FROM: Senior Inspector
SUBJECT: Pierce Road Landslide Repair (Sutton)
DATE: June 1, 1984
On August 3, 1983 the City Council awarded to Pacific General Engineering
Corporation the contract for Pierce Road Landslide Repair for the bid
amount.of $63,286.00. The construction took place between September 9,
1983 and May 31, 1984. The final contract amount is $69,230.00.
The 1983 -84 Budget included a $50,000 appropriation. The following
is a breakdown of the actual project costs:
Geologic Investigation
$'7,700.00
Wm. Cotton
& Assoc.
Engineering Design
$ 5,500.00
Harrison &
Teasley
Contract
$63,286.00
:- Pacific.General
Extra quantities
$ 5,944.00
Pacific General
Field Engineering & Inspect
$ 3,095.00
Harrison &
Teasley
Field engineering & Inspect
$10,990.16
Wm. Cotton
& Assoc.
$96,515.16
Est. Final Inspection 2,000.00 Wm. Cotton & Assoc.
$98,515.16
The original appropriation was based on the Geologist's estimate
of construction costs only and did not include any provision for
engineering or contingencies. Due to the urgency of the project
appropriations were not made in the usual manner although all
expenditures were processed normally.
The nature of landslide repair work required considerable field
engineering and often involves field changes during construction.
For this reason the construction contract included bid prices for
extra work items, deemed necessary by the Geologist after excavation
of the slide mass. This extra work totaled $5,944.00, while the
field engineering costs are approximately $16,085.00 (Wm. Cotton's
final billing has not been received).
Memo to The Director of Community Development Page 2
From the Senior Inspector 6/l/84
The City has an. agreement with the Suttons to share in the cost of
this repair. The Suttons share is primarily the replacement of their
improvement through' their own separate contract. Until this work
is completed we will be unable to determine, how much, if any, the
Suttons will contribute to the costs the City has incurred.
Kichdra H. garison
Senior Inspector
RHH /bjc
(r1-9TXW O O&MIZUOOZ
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
June 15, 1984
Memo to: City Council
From: City Manager
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
Virginia Fanelli
John Mallory
David Moyles
Subject: Review of Pierce Road (Sutton) Slide Repair Costs
At the June 6 Council meeting, the City Council approved the
recommendation for acceptance of the Pierce Road (Sutton) slide
repair and authorized staff to file the Notice of Completion of
the work. The City Council, however, did not approve a
recommended appropriation adjustment to cover additional costs
incurred for engineering and inspection fees pertaining to the
project and for construction costs exceeding the estimate of the
cost of the work. Instead, the City Council requested a full
report regarding the reasons for these higher- than - estimated
costs and a description of the procedures used in incurring these
costs.
In compliance with the City Council's direction, I have met with
members of the staff to review the record on this project and the
procedures used. I have verified that all substantial costs of
the project for construction, inspection, and engineering are
supported and backed by contracts or written letters of proposal
submitted to the City and accepted. There are some incidental
expenses to the project such as cost of publishing, utility fees,
and printing expenses that are routine and incidental which are
also covered by authorized purchase orders. In addition, the
entire cost of the project to date ($102,837.22) is, in fact,
less than the full cost of a nearly identical project along
Pierce Road at Via Regina, which was handled through an
individual contractor in accordance with estimates approved by
FEMA for reimbursement to the City under the Disaster Relief
Program.
However, the Pierce Road (Sutton) project extends over a period
of nearly 30 months from the time of the original damage. We
have determined that during this 30 -month period, the established
procedures for prior authorization by the City Council on certain
portions of the project may not have been followed. However, the
record is not clear to us, at this time, because of the many
changes that occured in personnel responsibile for administering
the project and the fact that it involves more than one fiscal
year. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the
Memo to City Council
Subject: Review of Pierce Road
(Sutton) Slike Repair Costs
Page 2
project also involved litigation with the adjacent property owner
(Sutton) and the negotiation of an agreement through the City
Attorney's office in settlement of the litigation which may have
required additional engineering and analysis work prior to and
during the construction period.
Given these preliminary findings, a more thorough and complete
study is needed in order to fully respond to the City Council's
direction. Therefore, the review will continue and a further
report, along with conclusions and recommendations, will be
provided to the City Council on or before the July 24
worksession.
4", 4 L� -
J. Way a Dernetz
jm
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. (pal I
DATE: May 29, 1984
DEPARTMENT:
Initial
Dept. He
C. Atty
C. Mgr.
--------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
SUBJECT: Final Building Site Approval SDR 1542 Public Storage. Saratoga - Sunny=
vale Rd.
Issue Summary
1.' The SDR 1542 is ready for final map approval
2. All Bonds and Agreements have been submitted to the City
3. All requirements for City Dept. and other agencies have been met
Recommendation
Adopt resolution 1542 -02 attached, approving Final Map of SDR 1542 and
authorized execution of contract of Improvement Agreement
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /AttacYm-ents
1. Resolution No. 1542 -02
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Status report for Building Site Approval
4. Location Map
Council Action
RESOLUTION NO.1542 -02
RESOLUTION OF
PublicT torage, Inc`.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION l:
The 4.047 Acre Land Parcel shown as Parcel "A" on the Final
Parcel Map prepared by ENKE and Associates, Inc. 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 6th day of June 19 84
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
♦r.
( r -
�r
o
o� ZAluezz
REPORT TO PLANNING CO11/IMISSION
City of Sara;o�a
0 _
l�
APPROVED 8QY - i DATE
Revised • 8/2/83
:�1—i .
pA � : 7/21/83
1N1 is Commission Meeting: 7/27/83
SDR- 1542 and A -883
SUBJECT' Tentative Map Approval and Design Review Approval for
Public Storage at 12299 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road.
----------------------
---------------------------------------
REQUEST: Tentative Map Approval and Design Review Approval for one
lot (689 storage units)
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permit
PLANNING DATA:
SITE AREA: (Parcel size minus S.C.V.W.D. easement) 3.127 acres
PARCEL SIZE: 3.899 acres
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial
ZONING: C -V (Visitor Commercial)
SITE DATA:
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Oak Creek Condominiums and commercial to
the north single family residential across the creek to the west,
commercial and single family residential to the south and commer-
cial to the east.
SITE SLOPE: 2%
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 20
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Dense riparian vegetation along
Calabazas Creek to the west. Approximately 12 ordinance - sized
trees are located on the buildable.area of the subject parcel,
and 5 of the these trees will be removed with this proposal.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: This site received Use Permit Approval (UP -529, Staff
Report attached) for the proposed use of this site on March 23,
1983.
Report to the Plar_'nc`\ mmission ` I 7/21/83
Tentative Map Approval and Design Review Approval Page 2
for Public Storage at 12299 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd.
Previously the,site was reviewed and granted approval for the
construction of 29 condominium units in 1980.
GRADING rEOUIRED: CUT: 0 Cubic Yards FILL: 4,400 Cubic Yards
CUT DEPTH: 0 Feet FILL DEPTH: 2± Feet
SETBACKS: 30' Rear (increased from 20' proposed under UP -529)
10' Right Side Building F (10' required)
15' Left Side Building D (13' required but eave overhang
is 3' greater than amended)
44' Front - (10' required)
HEIGHT: 20' at highest point
FLOOR AREA: 1st Floor - 64,380 square feet Total - 104,985 square feet
2nd floor - 40,605 square feet
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
by structure: 47.20± paving: 41.60±
Total: 88.8%
COLORS & MATERIALS: Tan stucco and dark brown wood siding, brown
concrete tile roofing
SOLAR: Project should not adversely shade adjacent properties.
REFUSE: 1 trash enclosure provided just west of Building D.
LANDSCAPING: Landscaping will cover over 15,000 square feet of site
area. Landscaping strips vary in width from 5' along the southwestern
property line to 30' along this northern most property. A 10' width
is the minimum required by ordinance in the C -V district. The 5'
wide landscaping strip along the southwestern property line is not
critical since residential properties in that area will be buffered
by P.G. & E. and S.P.R.R. rights -of -way.
The applicant proposes to plant 15 gallon sized trees along the south-
western property line and the northern property line adjacent to the
Oak Creek Condominiums. Three tree types are proposed: Coast Red-
wood, White Alder and Raywood Ash. All the trees proposed are fast
growing but the Alder and Ash are deciduous trees which could provide
only seasonal screening for portions of Building D. If the Commission
wants more permanent screening they should direct the applicant to
use evergreen trees in this area. It should be noted it will take
several years to provide adequate screening. Lower growing shrubs
will be used in the front of the site.
PRIVACY IMPACTS:
None Anticipated. Storage use only in second stories.
DRIVEWAY & CIRCULATION:
The commercial tenants of the present structures on site have ex-
pressed concern as to the reversal of the traffic flow as proposed.
Any approval of a project on site needs to conform to the plan approved
for the area per Section 7.9 of the zoning ordinance and implementing
plans.
Report to the Pla nr,,- ,mmission 7/21/83
Tentative Map App ( ',a d Design Review Appk ali Page e 3
for Public Storage at'-12299 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd:
Sixty -one parking spaces will be provided on site per UP -529.
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS:
The Use Permit contained two conditions that need to be met at this
time:
3. Applicant shall submit proof of permanent location of emergency
access easement with building site approval and design review
application.
NOTE: Applicant has submitted evidence (attached) that negotiations
for the permanent access are underway. Evans Products Co. has
not yet finalized the Grant Deed for the easement.
4. Hours of operation to be determined at time of Design Review.
Proposed hours of operation had been between 7:00 A.M. and
7:30 P.M.
Maintenance of landscaped area,. particularly next to condominiums.
Most exterior lighting proposed will be screened from adjacent re-
sidences. However, lighting on the west and south sides of Building
E and the west side of Building D could be visible to residents
southwest of the site. Details of light fixtures should be reviewed
to prevent adverse glare conditions.
The height of the two -story structures proposed has been reduced
from a maximum of 27' to a maximum of 20' which is permitted;
Total square *foot:Ei.ge has also, been. reduced
by about 2000 square feet. Storage units were reduced from a toLal
of 698 to 689 units.
Although the proposal complies with the building coverage of 600
allowed by ordinance, approximately 880 of the site outside of the
S.C.V.W.D. easement area would be covered by some sort of impervious
surface. This should be mitigated by on site storm drainage im -.
provements and improvements to Calabazas Creek.
If the Commission wished to reduce the amount of impervious coverage
the applicant would have to eliminate buildings or reduce the size
of the proposed buildings.
Since over 1000 yards of grading is involved the Planning Commission
must approve the grading permit for this project.
The applicant is proposing a free standing sign on the site plan.
Free standing signs are only allowed for shopping center complexes
in commercial districts. This project does not qualify as a shopping
center complex and therefore all signs should be affixed to the
building. A sign program for the project should be reviewed and
approved under a separate Design Review application.
The applicant proposes a 15' wide emergency access or fire lane
across the Evans Products Co. (Hubbard and Johnson) property. The
City normally requires a minimum width of 18' for emergency access
roads and will require this of this project per the conditons of Building
Report to the Pla n-' ^ emission 7/21/83
Tentative Map App gat .i Design Review Appr vas_ Page 4
for Public Storage at 12299 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd..'
site approval.
Setbacks from the main building walls appear to comply with ordinance
standards. However, the eave overhang for Building D encroaches 3
feet further into the required side yard than the ordinance allows.
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 avail-
able 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 determin-
ation date: July 20, 1983
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1542
(Exhibit "B" filed June 8, 1983) and Design Review application A -883
(.Exhibit "B,C,D,E,F and G ") 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 requirements ofthe Fire Department. Reference is hereby
made to said ordinance for futher particulars. Site approval in
no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building
Ordinances, nor with any other Ordiance 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
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 and Recordation Fees). (If Parcel
is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to-
scale prints).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to Provide Easement
as required.
D. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master
Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as
needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or
Watercourse, including the following:
Report to the Pla ' r-= ^-mmission 7/21/83
Tentative Ma A Desi n Review A r�
P pp g ppr ✓ai Page 5
for Public Storage at 12299 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd.
1. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes.
2. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes.
3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc.
*E. Construct Access Road 15 feet wide(to be clearly delineated)
using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in.
aggregate base from rear to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road..
Note: The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 feet
The minimum vertical clearance above road surface
shall be 15 feet.
Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed
to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
Storm Runoff shall be controlled through the use of
culverts and roadside ditches.
F._ Provide evidence of permanent easement for access road.
G. Construct turnaround having 32 foot radius or approved equal
using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in.
aggregate base.
H. Construct Standard Driveway Approach.
I. Provide adequate sight distances and remove obstructions of
view as required at driveway and access road intersections.
J. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
L. Obtain Encroachment Permit from Cal -Trans for work to be done
within State Right -of -Way.
*.M. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water
District for work done within their right -of -way.
N. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements
2. Storm Drain Construction
3. Access Road Construction
O. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improve-
ment Plans.
P. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements
to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final
Approval.
Q. Post bond to quarantee completion of the required improvements.
R. Enter into "Deferred Improvement.Agreement" agreeing to pay
pro -rated share of improving Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road to a
standard which provides a median, 2 southbound lanes, a parking
lane, a landscaping strip with sidewalk, and a parallel ser-
vice road together with concrete curb and gutters, street
lights, and other appurtenent improvements.
S. Construct walkteay and landscape strip between Saratoga- Sunnyvale
Road face of curb and service road per Design Review.
,Report to the Plann� 7;-= )mmission L- 7/21/83
Public Storage, 122 :atoga- Sunnyvale Rd. Page 6
*T. Enter into Deferred Improvement Agreement and provide bond for
payment of pro rata (250) share of traffic signal at Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road and Seagull. Agreement and bond to run 5 years
after completion of all on site public improvements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional.
1. Foundation prior to Building Permits.
B. Detailed on -site improvment 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. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan
using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos.,
owner's name, etc.
C. Bonds required for removal of existing above and below
ground structures.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance
with requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District as outlined
in letter dated June 27, 1983.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
A. Building D not to exceed allowable area permitted for Type
V -N Construction or type of construction shall be modified
to allow the proposed 42,180 square feet building. Construction
type shall be approved by both the Fire District and the
Community Development Department.
B. All buildings require installation of approved automatic
fire extinguishing system.
C. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is re-
quired for fire protection. Plans to show location of water
mains and fire hydrants.
*D. Developer to install 2 hydrant(s) that meet Central Fire Dis-
trict's specifications. Hydrants to be installed prior to
construction of any buildings.
E. As the hydrants will be on -site, the developer is to grant
an easement to make these hydrants public.
,Public Storage, 12299 atoga- Sunnyvale Rd. Page 7
a ,•
..f F. All gates,(.i access roadways shall bf quipped with Fire
Department "MEDECO" locking devices. This includes both
ends of the proposed FIRE LANE.
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
sewers 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.
VI,I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Dedicate right -of -way along entire creek frontage to
Santa Clara Valley Water District, as requested in letter
dated June 27, 1983.
B. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells
to the SCVWD for review and certification.
C. Comply with SCVWD solution to flood problem as stated in
letter dated June 27, 1983 prior to Final Approval.
D. No overbank drainage is allowed into creek. Any storm drain
outfall into the creek to be designed in accordance with
District requirements.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance
of permits. Any modifications to approved elevations or
changes to exterior colors listed in this report shall re-
quire staff review and approval.
B. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be sub-
ject to Planning Commission approval.
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 the right -of -way improve-
ments. Landscaping on remainder of site shall be installed
prior to final inspection /occupancy.
*D. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement
with the City for those landscaped areas within the site and the
public right -of -way: The applicant or subsequent property owner
shall maintain these areas.
XE. Landscaping and lighting plans require Design Review
Approval prior to Final Map Approval.
F. The eave overhangs on Building D, shall reduce their
encroachment into the required side yards by 31.
4Zeport
Public
to the Plann mmission 7/21/83
Storage, 122 ;i atoga- Sunnyvale Rd. Page 8
G. Details for exterior lighting fixtures shall be submitted
for staff review and approval prior to issuance of Building
Permits. The purpose of this condition is to ensure that
adjacent residential properties are not adversely affected
by light and glare.
H. Fencing designs shall be submitted for review and approval
from the Community Development Department prior to erecting
fences.
*I. All exterior lighting, excyding signs, shall be turned off
at closing time except for security lighting. Security lighting
to be reviewed by Staff prior to issuance of building permits.
*J. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
K. Final Map Approval shall not be granted until the permanent
�.� emergency access easement on the adjacent Evans Products Co.
property has been duly recorded and granted to the owners
of the project site.
L. Tentative Map shall be modified to show a 30' setback from
Building F and the northern most property line of the site.
M. A sign program for the project shall be reviewed and approved
under a separate deisgn review application prior to any sign
installation.
*N. There shall be no storage, use or discharge of hazardous or toxic
materials in or from the storage units.
*0. There shall be no electrical power supply for other than lighting
in the storage units.
*P. The commercial building in front shall be
shall be constructed and maintained so as
equipment retail store.
*Q. There shall be no outside storage of the
retail business.
*R. Applicant is to clean out adjacent creek
appropriate consent of Santa Clara Valley
a retail building and
to encourage an
9quipment from the
site of debris with
Water District.
*S. East and southwest side of Building D to have evergreen land-
scaping subject to Staff approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
X. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
APPROVED
Michael Flores
Assistant Planner
MF /bjc
P.C. Agenda: 7/27/83
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- 1542 Public Storage
(have) (have not) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for;all required
items:
Offer of Dedication yes
Record of Survey or Parcel Map
Storm Drainage Fee 4,332.00
All Required Improvement Bonds
All Required Inspection Fees
Building Site Approval Agreeme:
Park and Recreation Fee n/a
yes
Date S
40,000
5,900
nt yes
ubmitted
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date Submitted
_ Date Submitted
25/84 Rec i t
Submitted 5/25e%8
Submitted
Signed
Submitted n/a
5/25/84
5/25/84
5523
Receipt#
Receipt #S_S-
3715
Receipt# n/a
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(Conditional) (Final) Building Site Approval for Public Storage Inc.
SDR- 1542 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it sball become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Condition(s) Reason for Non - Compliance
Director of Community Development
1
CITY OF SARATOGA
/ Initial:
AGENDA BILL' .NO,.. (O�� ' � ?-� Dept. Hd.
DATE- June 6, CMay 29,,. 1984)
C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C..
V -636 Glen and Ellen McLaughlin, 14016 Camino Barco
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny Variance, V -636
Issue Summary
The applicant requested Variance Approval for; a) a portion of the existing
2nd story balcony, b) new posts and arbors over the existing balcony and
c) a new 10' x 28' 2nd story deck off the existing balcony. The Commission
approved the Variance for the existing balcony and the new posts and arbors,
but denied a Variance for the new 2nd story deck on a 4 -1 vote, having been
unable to make findings #1, 2, 3 and 4.
NOTE: Reduced site plan exhibits do not show tennis court and pool being
constructed on the property. Please refer to full size exhibit B.
Recommendation
1. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny Variance V- 636(c),
making the necessary findings.
2. Staff recommended denial of Variance V- 636(c).
Fiscal Impacts
N/A
Exhibits /Attaciments
1. Appeal letter dated 5/2/84
2. Staff Reports for V -636 and A -956
3. Resolution No. V- 636(c) -1
4. Minutes dated 4/25/84
5. Exhibits C, D and E.
6. Gorres ondence from Applicant and Architect
Council Actin
6/6: Appeal granted 3/2 (Callon, Fanelli opposed).
0
AAY02i 3�
�11TY DEVELOPP "ENT
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: Glen and Ellen McLaughlin
Address: 14016 Camino Barco
Telephone: 867 -5366 .
Name of Applicant: Glen and Ellen McLaughlin
Project File No.: V -636 Variance —
Project Address 14016 Camino Barco
Project Description: New Second Story Deck
Date Received: -Y4-
Hearing Date : - - -7
°9
Fee
CITY USE ONLY
Decision Being Appealed: Planning Commission denied
New Second Story Deck part of V-636 variance on 4/25/84
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
..._During the Planning Commission meeting on 4/25/84 the following actions
occurred:
1) Motion made to approve deck provided its' size was cut in half.
Failed for lack of second.
2) Motion made to approve as, submitted. Failed for lack of
second.
3) Motion to deny. Seconded and approved.
Since the Planning Commission could not reach a consensus on this item,
it is being appealed to the City Council.
*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.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 4/19/84
Commission Meeting: 4/25/84
SUBJECT: A -956, V -636 - Glen & Ellen McLaughlin, 14016 Camino Barco
ACTION REQUIRED: Design Review Approval for a minor 2nd story expansion and additions
which exceed the 6,200 sq. ft. standard. Variance Approval for existing and proposed
2nd story decks, posts and arbors which do not maintain the required rear yard setback.
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
GENERAL PLAN: Residential: Very Low Density Single Family
SITE DATA
PARCEL SIZE: .98 Acres
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The site has mild downsloping topography with little
natural vegetation. There is a creek running across the southern boundary of the
property.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 8.9% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Level
GRADING REQUIRED: None
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
SETBACKS: Rear: 47 Ft. Left Side: 170+ Ft. Right Side: 93 Ft.
HEIGHT: Building Addition: 27 Ft.
2nd Story Deck: 92 Ft. (to floor)
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 35% (35% max. allowed)
Report to Planning
A -956, V -636 - Glen
Commission
& Ellen McLaughlin, Camino Barco
SIZE OF-STRUCTURE (Including Garage):
Existing Residence:
1st Floor Addition:
2nd Floor Addition:
Total Floor Area:
(6,200
4/19/84
Page 2
7,835
220
65
8,120
sq. f
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq• ft•
sq. ft.
t. Design Review
Standard)
COMPLIANCE: The proposed room additions exceed the floor area standard and the new
2nd story deck maintains only a 47 ft. setback instead of the 60 ft. setback required.
The existing rear deck and proposed posts with arbors also do not maintain the required
rear yard setback.
V -636 - VARIANCE
BACKGROUND: Building permits were issued for the subject residence in 1979. On these
plans, the rear balcony was shown to maintain the 60 ft. setback requirement. According
to site plans now submitted, the house was mistakenly located closer to the rear property
line and portions of the 5 ft. rear balcony do not meet the setback requirement.
There are three variances to consider, each with separate findings. The first is to
legitimize..the existing balcony, the second is.to consider the posts and arbors over the
balcony and the third is for the new 10' x 28' second story deck expansion.
Existing Rear Balcony
Approximately half of the existing balcony is in the required setback. It spans the length
of the house, measuring 5' x 110' for a total of 550 sq. ft. with a floor height 92' from
finished grade.
Findings for Existing Balcony
Strict Interpretation Consistent with.Ordinance Objectives
One of the purposes of setback requirements is to maintain open space and the rural
atmosphere of the City. Because most of the .balcony intrudes less than 3 ft. into
the setback and the existing setback was due to a mistake in siting during construction,
the enforcement of the setback would result in a severe physical hardship in removing
the.balcony without the substantive benefit of preserving open space.
2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstance
The fact that the balcony is existing and was constructed too close to the rear property
line through an honest error does constitute extraordinary and exceptionalcircumstances.
3. Common Privilege
Denial of the Variance would create an undue hardship for the applicant which is not
commonly incurred.
4. Special Privilege
Because there is exceptional circumstance and denial of the Variance would create an
uncommon hardship on the applicant, granting the Variance would not be a grant of
special privilege.
Report to Planning Commission 4/19/84
A -956, V -636 - Glen & Ellen McLaughlin, Camino Barco Page 3
V -636 - VARIANCE, cont'd.
5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare
The proposal will not be detrimental to the Public Health, Safety and Welfare.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval for the existing balcony per the Staff Report
dated 4/19/83, Exhibits "B, C and D ", subject to the following condition:
1. Detailed landscape plans, including trees around the perimeter of the property and
screening for the tennis court, are to be submitted prior to issuance of building
permits and landscaping is to be installed prior to final building approval.
Posts and Arbors
The new posts and arbors over the 2nd story balcony will also intrude into the rear yard
setback and require Variance Approval. Architecturally, they add some depth and interest
to the rear elevation.
The arbors are 182 ft. high and extend 2 ft. beyond the existing balcony. If the Variance
is approved, staff recommends the arbors extend no more than 1 ft. beyond the existing
balcony.
Findings for the Posts and Arbors
1. Strict Interpretation Consistent with Ordinance Objectives
One of the purposes of the setback requirements in residential districts is to maintain
open space and the rural atmosphere of the City. Because the arbors will not encroach
farther than the existing balconies, except for a 1 ft. overhang (the Zoning Ordinance
allows a 4 ft. eave overhang into a setback), they will not decrease the open space
on the site. Therefore, a strict interpretation would be inconsistent with the Or-
dinance objectives.
2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances
The addition of posts and arbors will not increase the setback discrepancy established
by the existing balconies (except for a 1 ft. overhang)and this is an exceptional
circumstance.
3. Common Privilege
It is not a common privilege to have shade covers on a 2nd story balcony. Staff cannot
make this finding.
4. Special Privilege
The granting of this Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege as
there are exceptional circumstances concerning the existing balcony and the proposed
posts and arbors.
5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare
The proposal will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
Report to Planning Commission 4/19/84
A -956, V -636 - McLaughlin, Camino Barco Page 4
V -636 - VARIANCE, cont'd.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial having been unable to make Finding U. If the
Commission wishes to approve the Variance, the necessary finding is required and staff
would recommend the following condition:
I. The arbors shall have a 1 ft. maximum overhang from the existing balconies.
New Second Story Deck
The proposed second story deck would be 280 sq. ft. and would be entirely within the
required 60 ft. rear yard serback., There will also be pitched lathe roofing over the deck
which would provide some shading in'the summer and allow for heat gain in the winter.
Findings for the New Second Story Deck
1. Strict Interpretation Consistent with Ordinance. Objectives
One of the purposes of setback requirements in residential districts is to maintain
open space and the rural atmosphere of the City. Because there is a lot of construc-
tion on this site and few mature trees, a second story deck with roofing which extends
over 10 ft. into the required setback is not consistent with this objective and enforc-
ing the setback requirement would not result in unnecessary hardship. Staff cannot
make this finding.
2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances
There is nothing unique about the topography of the site, the proposed structure or the
use of the property which would differentiate it from other properties in the zone.
Staff cannot make this finding.
3. Common Privilege
Denial of the Variance would not deprive the applicant of the common privilege to
have outdoor living areas including some second story decks. Staff cannot make this
finding.
4. Special Privilege
Granting the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege as there are no
exceptional circumstances or denial of common privilege involved with the proposed
deck expansion.
5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare
The proposal will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial having been unable to make Findings #1, 2, 3 and
4. If the Commission wishes to approve the Variance, the necessary findings are required
and staff would recommend the following condition:
1. Roofing over the deck shall be flat lathe roofing similar to the arbors over the
existing balconies.
Report to Planning Commission 4/19/84
A -956, V -636 - McLaughlin, Camino Barco Page 5
A -956 - DESIGN REVIEW
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
Impact on Privacy and Views: Because of the topography, the rear yards of many of
the surrounding residences are already visible not only from the existing 2nd story
deck which spans the entire length of the residence, but also from the lower levels
of the residence. The room expansions will not increase the privacy impact, however,
the deck expansion is likely to intensify the impact due to the reduced setback and
the probability that it will be used more frequently than the existing balcony.
Site Restrictions: Building Permits for the tennis court, pool and patios have been
issued. In order to meet impervious coverage limits, the patio area..between the spa
and barbeque cannot be impervious material and no additional impervious coverage is
allowed on the site.
Because of the amount of construction on the property, staff is recommending that
minimum setbacks be maintained. If the Variance for the reduced rear yard setback is
approved, staff would recommend that the size of the deck expansion be reduced and
has added this as a condition of Design Review Approval.
Design Considerations: The proposed room additions will match the existing resi.dence
with brick and white siding and trim. These room additions will not add to the visual
bulk of the residence as they merely fill in an enclosed space on the lower level and
add only 65 sq. ft. to the upper.level.
The rear elevation as it now exists, appears stark with little architectural relief.
The addition of the posts and lathe arbors over the decks will add depth and visual
interest to that elevation.
FINDINGS
1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or -Priva
The proposed additions, when the second story deck expansion is reduced in size or
prohibited, do not increase the privacy impacts which already exist.
2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape
The proposal does not result in any additional grading or tree removal on the site.
3. Perception of Excessive Bulk
The room additions will not increase the visual bulk due to the size and location of
the additions and if the deck expansion is reduced in size, the new posts and lathe
work may provide some architectural relief on the rear elevation.
4. Compatible Bulk & Height
The proposed additions do not substantially increase the size of the residence, which
is already in excess of the Design Review Standard, and the height does not increase.
The proposed additions will not impair the solar access on adjacent property.
5. Gradinq and Erosion Control Standards
The proposed additions do not result in any additional grading.
Report to Planning Commission ` 4/19/84
A -956, V -636 - McLaughlin, Camino Barco Page 6
A -956 DESIGN REVIEW, cont'd.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated 4/19/84, Exhibits
"B, C and D ", subject to the following conditions:
1. Detailed landscape plans, including trees around the perimeter of the property and
screening for the tennis court, shall be submitted with the building plans and land-
scaping is to be installed prior to final building approval.
2. If the rear yard setback Variances are approved, the rear deck expansion indicated on
Exhibit "C" shall not exceed 3 ft. wide, which would provide a 5 ft. walkway around
the room addition.
3. Impervious coverage shall not exceed 35% of the site.
Approved:
Linda Lau ze
Planner
LL /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 4/25/84
+ VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. V-636 (c) -Ml
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FILE NO.: V- 636(c)
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of
MR., AND MRS'., GLEN MCLAUGHLIN for a Variance
for a new second- -story deck which extends into the rear yard setback
at 14016 Camino Barco '
and
WHEREAS, the applicant (1)as� (has not) met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW) THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,
the application for.the Variance
be, and the same is hereby
( -9T%Mx (denied) subject to the following conditions:
Per the Staff Report dated April 19, 1984.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that XX)tjj*�
�XX>X�S?�XiXI�X�3X?E) (the Planning Commission could not
make all of the requisite findings), and the Secretary be, and is
hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 25th. day of April
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commi.s:soner's Harris, H1ava, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: Commissioner McGoldrick
, 19 84 ,
ABSENT: Commissioners Crowther and Pe
ATTE: T
r
C airman, P1 nning ission
Sc etary, anni -g ommission
Planning Commission
"Meeting Minutes 4/25/84
C I Page 8
14a. A -956 - Mr. and Mrs. Glen McLaughlin, Request for Design Review Approval
14b. V -636 - for a second story expansion to an existing two -story residence
and Variance Approval for a reduced rear yard setback at 14016
Camino Barco in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district
Staff explained the applications. Commissioner 1-Ilava gave a Land Use Committee
report, describing the site and the houses in the area. She noted that all
of the houses in the area are visible to each other. She added that the back
of the house is very massive and there are privacy impacts.
The public hearing was opened at 10:19 p.m.
i
Mr. McLaughlin, the applicant, described the lot. He discussed the proposal,
including the deck and landscaping. He read letters from the neighbors in
support of the proposal and a letter which opposed the deck extension.
Oscar Sohns, the architect, addressed the possibility of cutting the deck in
half, thereby making it 5 feet instead of the proposed 10 feet.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner I -Ilava moved to approve V -636 for the existing rear balcony and
post and arbors, per the conditions in the Staff Report dated April 19, 1984,
with the arbors having a 1 ft. maximum overhang, making findings No. 1, 2, 4
and 5 listed in the Staff Report, plus finding No. 3, that it is a denial of
common privilege not to have shade on the second balcony which is a living
area of the house. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was
carried unanimously 5 -0.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve the variance for a 5 ft. wide deck,
making the findings. Further discussion followed on the deck. Commissioner
Schaefer clarified her motion to approve a 5 ft. wide deck extending from
the existing balcony, making the findings. The motion failed for lack of a
second.
Mr. Previte, the neighbor on the other side, spoke in support of the variance
for the deck as proposed by the applicant. It was explained to Mr. Previte
that findings must be made for approval.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the 10 ft. deck as proposed by the
applicant, making the findings that it is already into the setback and is not
changing anything; the topography is unique and the heights of the adjoining
properties were noted; and she does not feel that the primary purpose is to
give deck space but will give some architectural relief to the back of this
property for the neighbors. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner Hlava moved to deny the variance for the deck, stating that she
cannot make the findings. She noted that the house was poorly conceived at
the time of design review relative to placement on the lot and the size. She
added that she cannot make the variance findings to put such an addition into
the setback when there is no much intense use on this lot. Commissioner Harris
seconded the motion. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that the only reason she
will not vote for the motion is because nothing will be done to mitigate the
horror that is already there. The vote was taken on the motion to deny the
variance for the deck. The motion was carried 4 71, with Commissioner McGoldrick
dissenting.
X
Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A -956, per the Staff Report dated April 19,
1984 and.Exhibits "B ", "C" and "D ". Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the
motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
The appeal period was noted. The City Attorney clarified that the variance
approved was shown on the original drawings and is part of the living area,
and is necessary because the house was incorrectly placed on the lot.
15. UP -555 - Pinn Brothers Construction, Request for Use Permit Approval to
operate a model home sales office on the northwest corner of
Verde Vista Lane and Toni. Ann Place (Lot 112, Tract 7580), in
the R- 1- -12,500 zoning district
Staff explained the use permit. The hours of operation were discussed. The
public hearing was opened at 10:56 p.m. No one appeared to address the Com-
mission. Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commis-
sioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
MAY 2 J 1984
May 28, 1984 PERMIT RFjrlr��r
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Atttention: Council Members
Subject: Appeal Application
Glen and Ellen McLaughlin
14016 Camino Barco
867 -5366
Project File No. V -636 Variance (V -636 (c))
Project Address: 14016 Camino Barco
Project Description: New Second Story Deck
Decision Being Appealed: Planning Commision Denied
New Second Story Deck of
V -636 (c) variance on
4/25/84.
Dear Council Members and Staff:
Following are the appellant /applicant comments regarding the
staff findings:
1- STRICT INTERPRETATION CONSISTENT WITH ORDINANCE OBJECTIVES:
Due to the irregualar full acre lot shapes surrounding the
house, the slight extension into the setback zone does not
encroach on the privacy of the neighboring lots due to their
existing shapes and house siting. Applicant's lot is long and
narrow whereas lots ajoining are deep, thus providing more than
120 feet distance from any house in view. Since this lot is
lower than all other surrounding lots, the second story deck is
below the level of one ajoining lot and half the level above the
other two ajoining lots. Trees already screen this level or will
when landscaping is finished. Thus, the objective of the setback
requirement is met.
2- EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES:
The topography of the site is unique in that the house is
one story in front and two stories in back. Entry from the front
is on the second floor which comprises the living area, while the
first floor is exclusively bedrooms. No other house is this area
has this arrangement.
Page 2
May 28, 1984
City of Saratoga
RE: Glen and Ellen McLaughlin project file no. V636 (c)
3- COMMON PRIVILEGE:
It is usually a common privilege to have an outdoor living
area off the living room or family room. Since these functional
areas are reversed in this house, it follows that a deck should
be afforded to one of these living areas
4- SPECIAL PRIVILEGE:
A primary purpose of the new second story deck is to correct
a visual deficiency with the back of the house. Although the
front of the house has excellent architectural interest, the back
reminds one of a motel with its 110 foot flat length and 2 story
height. The present appearance is as ugly to us as it is to our
neighbors. We are seeking to relieve the monotony of the present
mass by designing a deck to provide architectural interest. The
latticed hip roof over the deck provides the necessary
architectual detail to reduce the overall mass and motel -like
appearance of the back of the house. This can only be
accomplished by some projection from the present house and some
alteration to the roof line. We have attempted to accomplish
this objective by use of a solar porch that would be pleasing to
the eye, functional with the living areas, and energy saving.
Therefore, we believe a new second story deck is justified as
presented.
5- PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE:
Staff has determined that the deck will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare.
SUMMARY:
The objective of the setback requirement is met due to the
locations of the existing houses. The proposed new second story
deck with it's hip roof is necessary to correct the monotony of
poor design of the back of the house. Moreover, by its design,
it will provide compatible bulk and height.
Finally, the adjoining neighbors do not object to the new
second story deck.
Sincerel
Glen and Ellen McLaughlin
OSCAR E. SOHNS, INC.
AIA Architect & Planner
May 23, 1984
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Attention: Council Members
Subject: Appeal Application
Glen and Ellen McLaughlin
14016 Camino Barco
867 -5366
Project File No. V -636 Variance (V -636 (C)
Project Address: 14016 Camino Barco
Project Description: New Second Story Deck
Decision Being Appealed: Planning Commission denied New Second
Story Deck part of V -636 (C) variance
on 4/25/84.
Dear Council Members and Staff:
I am including a copy of my letter of April 17 sent to the Planning Commis-
sion, for your information. It covers five important points of our proposal.
I would also like to comment on the Staff Recommendations and Findings listed
on Page 4 of the "Report to the Planning Commission" dated April 19, 1984.
Staff recommended denial, having been unable to make finding #3, which stated
that 'Denial of the Variance would not deprive the applicant of the common
privilege to have outdoor living areas including some second story decks.
Staff cannot make this finding'.
It is my observation that the common privilege to have outdoor living areas
was caused to be deprived by the original designer of the McLaughlin's resi-
dence by placing the living areas on the second floor and then placing the
rear of the building too close to the rear setback so that this design de-
ficiency and oversight would not be possible to correct within your present
ordinance.
This deficiency was not directed by the McLaughlins and was thought to be cor-
rectable until they had purchased the home and lived in it and become increas-
ingly aware of the need for outdoor living areas on the second floor. And
then, after checking the actual location of the house on the site, they found,
to their and my surprise, that the setback was preventing this possibility of
correction.
253 Almendra Avenue • Los Gatos, California 95030 • (40B) 354 -7933
Page . . 2.
May 23, 1984
City of Saratoga
Re: Glen and Ellen McLaughlin Project File No. V -636C
I believe that anyone of you who would take time to walk through their home
and notice this deficiency would agree that something should be done about it.
We attempted to correct it with our proposal and feel that this site and its
topography, and the placement of the living areas on the second floor, make
unique circumstances common to very few other properties, and that the
McLaughlins should be permitted that common privilege enjoyed by those resi-
dences not having these unique circumstances.
In rebuttal to Finding #1 - Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy:
There is more than enough open space to maintain the rural atmosphere of the
city to satisfy the main purposes and intent of setbacks, due to the way in
which the cluster of neighboring homes has been placed on the respective par-
cels. The Staff's reasoning of too much construction and few mature.trees,
and the 10' projection of the decking not being consistent with the objective
of enforcing the setback .requirements, overlooks the fact that there will be
a great number of trees planted in the'new landscape planting plans and will
result in unnecessary hardship for their living patterns.
In rebuttal to Finding #2 - Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances: I
must differ with the,Staff's.opinion as I believe, as stated before, the
topography of the site is unique, that does differentiate it from the other
properties in the zone.
Rebuttal to Finding #4 - Special Privilege: It is my opinion the granting
of this variance would correct the original deficiency, as stated above, and
would not constitute a grant of special privilege because of the exceptional
circumstances, as above, requiring the deck expansion for the exterior living
space, also described above.'
It is'my opinion that all of these special circumstances add up to sufficient
evidence for the-granting of this variance.
Very truly yours,
c�
car E. rSohns, President
OSCAR E. SOHNS, INC.
OES:j
Encl.. C6py of letter of April 17, 1984
CC: Glen McLaughlin
OSCAR E. SOHNS, INC.
OSCAR E. SOHNS, INC.
AIA Architect & Planner
April 17, 1984
City of Saratoga Planning Commission and Planning Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attention: Kathy Kerdus
Subject: Variance Request for Mr. and Mrs. Glen McLaughlin,
14016 Camino Barco
Saratoga; CA
Dear Kathy and Planning Commission Members:
The following points I would like to make in behalf of this request for vari-
ance are simply stated below and are as follows:
1. ARCHITECTURAL IMPROVEMENTS:
Architectural view from all the neighbors would be greatly improved.
Everyone benefits, including the City, from improved appearance.
Increases the value materially, esthetically and functionally. Solves
a design problem that was neglected.
2. IMPACT TO NEIGHBORS:
Projection into rear setback has relatively no effect on adjoining
neighbors whose homes are at least 200 - 300 feet away, who must look
through trees and other landscaping elements to see the rear elevation.
The proposed new Solar Porch projection is important to the architect-
ural composition as well as meeting its environmental function of be-
coming an energy saving feature to the home.
3. SOLAR:
The Solar Porch will extend a new glass bay out from existing porch,
making a larger Solar Porch, which will reduce summer air conditioning
load and costs and, of course, trap additional heat during the winter
months for the comfort of the interior living spaces.
4. MASS:
The apparent mass will be diminished by the rear porch projection as
it will break the expanse of the flat 2 -story elevation, which pre-
sently looks quite large and flat for 2 stories in height and 110 feet
long; which reminds one more of a motel in appearance with the stair
paralleling the deck and rear wall, making for an objectionable facade
for the neighbor's viewing.
253 Almendra Avenue • Los Gatos, California 95030 • [40e1 354 -7933
Page 2.
City of Saratoga Planning Commission and Planning Department
Variance Request - Mr. and Mrs. Glen McLaughlin
5. LANDSCAPING:
The new landscaping plan with swimming pool will also help to foil
the views from adjoining neighbors, which is also being presented
to you. The new tennis court and some front yard landscaping and
walls are already under construction, greatly enhancing this prop-
erty.
Very truly yours,
q. carSohns, President
OSCAR E. SOHNS, INC.
OES:j
CC: Mr. and Mrs. Glen McLaughlin
OSCAR E. SOHNS, INC.
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. ,4 Dept. Hd.
DATE: May 25, 1984
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Appeal of SD -1554, Brookview School Site, 12301 Radoyka Drive,
SUBJECT: Tentative Subdivision Approval -36 Lots.
Issue Summary
Applicant received a 36 lot subdivision approval for a 12.3 acre site
at 12301 Radoyka Drive ( Brookview School'Site)�with.aceess from Radoyka
and Kosich from the Planning Commission on 4/25/84. An appeal has been
submitted expressing concerns on 1) the burden of additional traffic,
2) the hazardous condition of an extension of Obrad Drive, 3) the in-
adequacy of the EIR particularly relating to open space to loss of a
school facility in Saratoga plus 4) the insufficient findings regarding
the means to mitigate or avoid the negative EIR impact of the development.
Recommendation
1. Conduct a Public Hearing on the appeal.
2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny if the council
wishes to approve the subdivision, they must 1) certify the Final EIR
as adequate, acknowledging that the project will 3iave- ,a�signi.fi.cant
effect on the environment and 2) approve per the Staff Report making
a statement of overriding considerations, that certain environmental
impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
3. Staff recommended approval
Fiscal Impacts
M/A
Exhibits /AttachTmnts
1. Letter of Appeal
2. Staff Reports dated
3. Planning Commission
4. Exhibit "B -2"
Council Action
4/3/84, 3/30/84, 4/19/84
minutes of 4/25/ and 4/11
5. FEIR
6/6: EIR certified 5 -0.
Appeal denied on condition that Obrad be closed during construction and
opened as regular access road upon completion of construction 4 -1
(Clevenger opposed).
J V
.,IT" DEVELOP ^....,...
Saratoga, Calif:
MuY 7, 1984. .. .. -
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To the members of the Board:
We, the undersigned, do hereby appeal the ruling(approval)of the Saratoga Planning
Commission of April 25th, 1984 regarding the 36 lot subdivision at 12301 Radoyka Drive
(Brookview School Site)as proposed by the Moreland School District. (SD_1554 & E_2_83).
It is our contention that the addition of 36 homes in our community will generate at
least an additional 70 cars using_Kosich.Drive,_and this,_?ae feel, will present an
insurmountable burden on an already very hdavily trafficked and congested street.
The_, present . - plan,-- that._of..purchasing the home.at 18763_Kosich Drive(Parker residence)
and extending Obrad Drive through to the proposed subdivision will create, in our
opinion'; an"extremely. hazardous condition.
.The EIR does not state all the significant affects this development will have on the
enviroment; nor does it state all the ways these negative affects can be mitigated or
avoided. The EIR does not state all reasonable alternatives to the project.
More specifically, the EIR did not adequately discuss the loss of open space,
recreational space, and the loss of the lost Moreland School district facility in Sara-
toga and the impact on the minor children of the community.
In addition, the Planning Commission made insufficient findings regarding the means
to mitigate or avoid the negative EIR impact raised by the development.
RespDctfully submitted,
Al & Lorraine Burden
18780 Kosich Drive,
Saratoga, CA 95070
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 4/19/84
Commission Meeting: 4/25/84
SUBJECT E -2 -83 - Final EIR, Moreland School District, 12301 Radoyka Dr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
BACKGROUND: The Draft EIR on this project was the subject of a public
hearing before the Planning Commission on April 11, 1984. Communications
received on the Draft EIR were presented and all present who wished to
speak on the Draft EIR were heard. The public hearing on the Draft
EIR was then closed and the item continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of April 25, 1984.
THE FINAL EIR
The consultant has submitted responses to the comments received at
the public hearing, as well as in writing prior to April 12, 1984,
which incorporated, with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff finds the Final EIR provides adequate information on the environ-
mental effects of the proposed project. It is recommended that the
Planning Commission certify the Final EIR as adequate, acknowledging
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
At the time the Tentative Map is before the Commission, the Commission
shall be required to make a.statement of overriding considerations
should they determine that certain environmental impacts cannot be
mitigated to a level of insignificance.
APPROVED
Kathy Kdrdus
Planner
KK /bjc
P.C. Agenda 4/25/84
( I,-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 3/30/84
Commission Meeting: 4/11/84
SUBJECT: E -2 -83, Draft EIR, Moreland School District, 12301 Radoyka Drive
( Brookview School Site)
PURPOSE OF THE EIR
The State EIR Guidelines define an Environmental Impact Report as:
"...an informational document which, when fully prepared in accordance
with the CEQA and these Guidelines, will inform public decision - makers
and the general public of the environmental effects of projects they
proposed to carry out or approve. The information in an EIR constitutes
evidence that a public agency shall consider along with any other
information which may be presented to the agency. While CEQA requires
that major consideration be given to preventing environmental damage,
it is recognized that public agencies have obligations to balance
other public objectives, including economic and social factors, in
determining whether and how a project should be approved ".
The guidelines provide direction in implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which says:
"The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the
significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify
alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which
such significant effects can be mitigated or avoided ".
CONTENT OF THE EIR
The Draft EIR evaluates the impact of subdividing an irregular
12.3 acre site, the Br000kview School property, into 36 lots
and placement of single - family homes on each of these lots. The
lots would range in size from 10,000 to 21,200 square feet.
The EIR focuses on environmental areas deemed to have the potential
for significant impact according to the City's initial study. Any
mitigation measures for which could reduce the environmental impacts
are listed at the ends of each section.
Report to the Planning Commission 0- 3/30/84
E -2 -83, Draft EIR, .land School District Page 2
The major concerns of the EIR are open space, tree preservation
and traffic. The unavoidable adverse impact with_ development
of the site is "loss of existing, developed .open space and
recreation area." Additional significant environmental effects
which cannot be avoided, in addition to the loss of the use of
the school facility, are noted on page 36.
CEQA quidelines require an EIR to describe all reasonable alternatives
to a project "which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of
the project, and why they were rejected in favor or the ultimate
choice." The EIR presents alternatives:
1) no project
2) open space
3) retention of existing school building and subdivision of the
remaining area
4) higher density
The first would mean boarding up the school buildings and discontinuance
of the maintenance of the site according to the School District. The
second would require the City or some other public agency to buy the
site, which does not appear economically feasible. The third alter-
native would add additional traffic but would retain the school and
some of the open space. The fourth alternative would require
General Plan amendment and rezoning and generally increase the impact
of the development on the area, especially traffic.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the at the Commission open the public hearing for
purposes of testimony on the adequacy of the EIR. Written comments
received during the 45 -day review period have been forwarded to the
consultant for preparation of responses (see attachment). Those
responses, in addition to any which shall be prepared after this
public hearing, shall constitute the final EIR.
Following conclusion of the public hearing, it is recommended that
the item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 25,
1984 at which time the final EIR can be certified as complete and
adequate.
APPROVED
Kathy Kerdus
Planner
KK /bjc
PC. Agenda 4/11/84
\` r
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
*Revised: 4/25/84
0Y of Sara +_ua DATE: 4/3/84
APPROVED Commission Meeting: 4/11/84
D A `E: i 5
SUBJECT. SD -1554 ' Mo'r'el and- of -..Di s-tri ct, 12301 Radoyka Drive
(Brookview School Site) - Tentative Subdivision Approval - 36 lots
ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative Subdivision Approval for 36 lots.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Final Subdivision Approval, Design Review Approval for each
residence, Building Permits.
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION
ZONING: R -1- 10,000
GENERAL PLAN: Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M -10)
SITE DATA
PARCEL SIZE: 12.3 acres with proposed lots ranging from 10,000 to 21,200 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Most of the project site is a mowed grassy field used
for general playground activities. A variety of trees have been planted on site with
the most significant being Monterey pines and redwoods which form a corridor on San
Palo Ct. and Radoyka Drive; coast live oak on the south central border; and a fan palm
near the parking lot.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Approximately 1%
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: Approximately 15,000 Cu. Yds. Fill: 15,000 Cu. Yds.
Cut Depth: 2 Ft. on southern edge Fill Depth: 1.Ft. on northern
edge
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
Circulation: Two accesses have been provided for the site by removal of an existing
home on Kosich Drive. There are no cul -de -sacs, so that the 15 unit or 500' rules do
not apply.
Report to the Planning Comm-icf,
ssion 4/3/84
SD -1554 - Moreland School Dist., Radoyka Dr. Page 2
Traffic: The General Plan requires a cumulative traffic study for any subdivision
of 5 lots or more. This study has been done as part of the required Environmental
Impact Report. It states that "The project will generate about 360 vehicle trip ends
per weekday, with 36 of these during the p.m. peak hour..... Existing uses at the site
generate about 150 vte during the p.m. peak hour. The project would decrease the num-
ber of vte to the site during the p.m. peak hour by about 114..... Traffic increases
from cumulative development and decreases from the project would not be sufficient
enough to change the level of service at any of the four (4) intersections analyzed."
(EIR pp. 14 -15)
Design Considerations: The Subdivision Ordinance states: "Not as a mandate, but as
a statement of future policy on all matters concerning the design and improvement of
sites and subdivisions, the following shall generally not be approved;
...(b) A subdivision of gridiron design, or a subdivision having double
frontage lots;
The layout of the lots is similar to surrounding subdivisions. Lots, 16, 17 and 18 have
potential double frontage on San Palo Ct. and a proposed street. Staff has recommended
conditions for no frontage on San Palo Ct. This design was submitted to save the ex-
isting stand of pine and redwood trees along San Palo Ct. A previous submittal, show-
ing 35 lots, did not result in potentially double fronting lots, but several trees were
to be removed.
At your Committee of the Whole on April 3, 1984, you expressed interest in placing a
landscape easement on the four (4) corner parcels opposite Obr.ad Drive, entering into
the proposed subdivision. Staff also indicated another potential place for a land-
scaping easement on San Palo Court, in anticipation that fencing will be placed in the
rear yards and that some landscaping should be in place to mitigate the visual impacts
from San Palo Court. Recommended Conditions VIII. D, E and F would handle the review
of the proposed landscaping and its eventual maintenance.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all re-
quirements 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.
An Environmental Impact Report was certified by the Planning Commission as adequate on
/84. A Notice of Determination will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's
Office when this project is approved. Since the project has been certified to have a sig-
nificant impact on the environment, one or more of the following finds must be made:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project
which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identi-
fied in the completed environmental impact report.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or
can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
f
Report to the Planning Comm( n ( 4/3/84
SD -1554 - Moreland School Dist., Radoyka Dr. Page 3
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1554 (Exhibits "B -1
and C" filed February 1, 1984) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. Comply with Standard Engineering Conditions dated
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval.
B. Submit "Tract Map" to City for checking and recordation (pay required
checking and recordation fees).
C. Provide for a 25 ft. half- street dedication on all streets.
D. Provide easements as required.
E. Improve all streets to City Standards, including the following:
1) Designed Structural Section 18 ft. between centerline and flowline.
2) P.C. Concrete Curb and Gutter (R -36)
3) Undergrounding existing overhead utilities.
F. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and
as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street,
storm sewer or watercourse, including the following:
1) Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes.
2) Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes.
3) Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc.
G. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches.
H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required
at driveway and access road intersections.
I. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or pre-
vent flow.
J. No direct access allowed onto San Palo Ct. from lots.
K. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
L. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1) Street Improvements
2) Storm Drain Construction
M. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans.
N. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed
within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
0. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
Report to
Planning
CommissioC
C 4/3/84
SD -1554 -
Moreland
School Dist., Radoyka Dr.
Page 4
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional.
1) Soils
2) Foundation
B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit
being issued.
C. 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 ft. or higher.
4) All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed.
5) Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data,
location map., north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements
of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated November 22, 1983.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION 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 3 hydrant(s) that meet Central Fire District's specifi-
cations. Hydrant to be installed and accepted 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 sewers of the 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.
VII. 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 SCVWD for review and certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits.
B. Comply with Mitigation Measures shown on Exhibit "E ", attached, prior to
issuance of building permits.
Report to Planning Commission 4/3/84
SD -1554 - Moreland School Dist., Radoyka Dr. Page 5
C. Prior'to issuance of building permits, individual structures shall be re-
viewed by the Permit Review Division 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 sub-
division.
*D. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way and pro-
posed 10'landscape easements that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping
fencing and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Permit Review Division
for review and approval. Landscaping adjacent to extension of Obrad shall
act as an entry way to the subdivision. No fences within the easement are
to exceed 3 ft. in height. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be
installed and established within 90 days of completion of the right -of -way
improvements.
*E. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the
City for those landscaped areas within the landscaping easements at the
extension of Obrad and the public right -of -way on San Palo Ct. The appli-
cant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a minimum of one year after
which the homeowners association shall be responsible for maintaining 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 landscape easements. The C.C.& R's of the home-
owners association shall be reviewed and approved by the Permit Review Division
prior to final approval.
*G. No 2 -story residences are allowed on Lots 30 -36 and 16. Fifty per cent of
the remaining lots may be two -story as allowed through a public hearing
Design Review on which lots may contain second stories. One story residences
shall be a maximum of 20 ft. in height and two -story residences shall have a
maximum height of 25 feet.
*H. The rear yard setback on Lot 36(adjacent to the southerly property line) shall
be a minimum of 15 ft. with a 20 ft. average setback preferred.
*I. An S gate to allow access to Prospect High School shall be constructed at the
end of San Palo Court as approved by Campbell Union High School District and
the City Engineer. Prior to Final Map Approval, all properties within 300 ft.
shall be noticed and given time to comment on the S gate. Any objections will
be forwarded to the Planning Commission for Design Review of the gate.
IX. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances.
Approved:'
Kathy Keraus
Planner
KK /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 4/11/84
-Planning Commission l
Meeting Minutes 4/11/84
Page 8
12. UP -SS4 - Frank Cuddy, Request for Use Permit Approval for a Real Estate
Office at 12228 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road in the C -V zoning district
This application was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
13a. SD -1SS4 - Moreland School District, Consideration of EIR and Request for
13b. E -2 -83 - Subdivision Approval for 36 -lot subdivision at 12301 Radoyka
Drive in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district
It was noted that this project had been discussed at a study session. Staff
stated that there had been resubmittals on one or two lots which had previously
had improper dimensions. Chairman Schaefer commented that she would like some
kind of size expectation on the corner lots so they might be a little bit less
than what has been seen in a few recent applications.
The public hearing was opened at 10:45 P.M.
Charles Bennett, Environmental Science Associates, preparer of the EIR, appeared
to answer questions. It was noted that the public hearing tonight is open for
comments on the EIR, and the Building Site Approval will be considered later.
However, any concerns on the project should be brought up tonight.
D. L. Nourse, 18923 Kosich Drive, expressed concern about the loss of open space
in the area. He stated that he would like to see the City consider something
regarding open space and maintain it. Chairman Schaefer explained that there
had been discussions with the school district,with the thought of maintaining
either one of the buildings or some of the land. However, the school board did
not agree and the City did not have enough money to purchase. She added that
there was no movement in the neighborhood to save land for open space; therefore;
it was rezoned. She stated that the only thing that could be done is if private
people had the money to buy one of the lots for open space, and the reality of
that happening when the lots are so expensive is not likely.
Lorraine Birden, corner of Kosich and O'Brad, expressed concern with the traffic
which will be generated when O'Brad goes through. The traffic circulation in
the area was discussed.
Ken Evans, 18779 Kosich Drive, expressed concern about existing overhead utility
lines and hoped that this subdivision would cause their undergrounding. Staff:
stated that the subdivision itself would have to be undergrounded but there
might not be any requirement for the undergrounding of the adjacent existing
subdivision. If the undergrounding of the adjacent tract were required, there
would be cost to the existing property owners for establishing the underground
services.
Commissioner McGoldrick asked about closing Kosich Drive to preclude shortcutting
through this area. Staff indicated that closure of Kosich would simply force
shortcutters to utilize different streets within the neighborhood. It was
indicated that the City had recently received a request to close off Saratoga
Glen Place for the same reason. Staff suggested that if there was to be effort
made to modify traffic patterns within the area, it should be on the basis of
a study of the entire area, rather than piecemeal.
Commissioner Schaefer asked if there was any way to preserve one lot as open
space. Staff explained that the Parks and Recreation fees did not equal the
cost of one lot.
It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing on the Draft EIR. It was
explained to the audience that there is a copy of the EIR at City Hall for,
review, and the EIR consultant will provide answers to the concerns expressed
tonight. It was also noted that comments would be taken on the subdivision
proposal at the next meeting. It was directed that SD -1SS4 and the Final EIR
be continued to the meeting of April 2S, 1984.
COMMUNICATIONS
Oral
1. Chairman Schaefer commented that many of her neighbors had expressed
concern regarding the flow of traffic on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Staff
reported that the City Council has requested the State to establish the speed
zoning at 3S miles per hour on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road between Big Basin Way
and Aloha Avenue, and also on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road between Big Basin Way and
Herriman Avenue. Staff indicated that the State had made a speed study on
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and found the speeds to be almost exactly the same as
- 8
Planning Commission
-Meeting 4/25/84
GF -344 and GPA- 83 -1 -A (cont.)
Page 3
primarily with the seniors. I would like to see something that would deal
with that. I am willing to look at almost anything, even if it started out
with very restrictive in order to judge the impacts, that would deal in any
way with those two issues.
Commissioner Schaefer - I think the best one we came up with that could still
use some modification is the one on lots of 45,000 sq. ft. or greater. Perhaps
considering them on lots that are 25% greater than the other homes in their
own zoning district, or to look at them and bring them out to the neighborhood
and say, what do you want in your own zoning district, because I think it has
such a major impact. If all we are voting on tonight is either put them
everywhere or put them nowhere, then I would make a motion not to have them
now but with a timeframe limit on that, assuming that we would look at that
and clarify that at a later date,
Chairman Siegfried commented that the Commission is voting only on whether or
not we can preclude them; the Council is deciding whether or not and where they
are going to allow them.
Commissioner Harris - I had presented at the last meeting the findings that I
thought could be made to preclude them.
Commissioner Siegfried - I was originally one in favor of the 45,000 sq. ft.
limitation, and after much deliberation and listening to comments, I have come
around to a different point of view. I appreciate the seniors sending that
ordinance that has been considered. I would be inclined to go along with the
Council's proposal, except that I would insert in it a senior citizens limita-
tion, even though I think legally it won't survive. But I think Ave can cer-
tainly protect the ordinance in allowing severability, so that if that fails
the rest of the ordinance survives. Secondly, I think I would, not in terms
of detached units, make that limitation that the lot be twice the size of the
zoning district. I think I would do it something less than that, 60% or 70 %,
because if it is twice the size that essentially says there can probably be
two units there anyway. I think I would compromise that to some extent, and
I am somewhat inclined to say that, for any kind of second unit, it has to be
some percentage over the minimum size, but I would be open to thoughtabout that.
I thought perhaps for the attached unit it could be 20 or 25% larger, but I am
not wedded to that.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to forward a denial of the ordinance precluding
second units to the City Council, not being able to make the findings. Com-
missioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 3 -2, with Commissioners
Harris and Schaefer dissenting.
Commissioner Harris expressed her frustration with the whole procedure. She
stated that, having come on the Commission after this ordinance was considered,
she felt it was'very awkward. She added that she felt that the Commission's
task was merely to see whether they could make the findings for preclusion or
not, and she found it very disconcerting that the Commission kept considering
other things along the way because it was inappropriate and it was not a com-
plete job.
Chairman Siegfried commented that the Housing Element contains a statement
that the City is considering second units, which is where the Commission would
be at this point. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the Housing Element and
forward it to the City Council. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
8a. SD -1554 Moreland School District, Consideration of EIR and Request for
8b. E -2 -83 - Subdivision Approval for 36 -lot subdivision at 12301 Radoyka
Drive in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district; continued from April
11, 1984
Staff stated that the..consultant has submitted responses on the comments
made at the public hearing on the EIR. Those, along with the Draft EIR, would
become the Final EIR, which Staff is recommending that the Commission certify
tonight.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to certify the EIR, making the statement that it
will have a significant impact on the environment. Commissioner McGoldrick
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
- 3 -
Planning Commission Page 4
Meeting - Minutes 4/25/84 C
SD -1554 (cont.)
Discussion followed on SD -1554. Staff stated that Exhibit "F:" forms the
Commission's statement of overriding considerations and contains all of the
mitigation measures taken from the environmental report. Discussion . Collowed
on these mitigation measures.
The public hearing was opened at 8:04 p.m.
Jim Russell, representing Saratoga Woods Homeowners, summarized comments from
the neighbors, lie noted the traffic congestion and the desire for open space.
Jim Rand, of McKay & Somps, gave a presentation on the project. He reported
that the school district has met with the neighbors several times and have
tried to mitigate their concerns.
Commissioner Hlava asked if there would be any access from this subdivision or
the,end of San Palo to Prospect High. Mr. Rand commented that he believes
there is currently a chainlink fence that prohibits any direct access. After
discussion it was suggested that a small opening, a S gate, could be created.
Alan Aspi, 12421 Lolly Court, expressed concern about two- stories and the
elimination of open space. Staff stated that there was no restriction on two -
stories at this point, and discussion followed on possible locations for two -
stories.
Lorraine Bergman, Kosich and O'Brad, spoke in opposition to the project. She
commented that she represented five neighbors living in the immediate area.
Ken Evans, 18779 Kosich, expressed concern regarding two- stories. He stated
that he would like to see undergrounding of utilities in the area be a part
of the project. Staff explained to Mr. Evans that any setback from a street
would be 25 ft, from the property line. They discussed the landscaping ease-
ment that is being required by the City.
Virginia Glogovac, 12309 Radoyka, inquired about the setback of the houses
and an easement for the school. She expressed concern regarding traffic.
The setbacks were discussed. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels the
setback should definitely be 2S feet all the way around on corner lots.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
There was a consensus to have a S gate at San Palo, if the neighbors approve.
There was also a consensus that issues to be resolved are (l.) height limit
on single stories, (2) limitation on two - stories and location, and (3) setbacks
for corner lots. Staff pointed out that it would be difficult to develop some
of the corner lots if a 25 ft. setback in the rear yard was maintained. Staff
also suggested Design Review Approval forthe location of two stories. Dis-
cussion followed on the maintenance of the landscaping easement and what can
be done if not properly maintained. The City Attorney commented that he assumes
there is a Landscape Maintenance Agreement, which gives the City the right, if
the maintenance is not performed, to go in and do the work and assess all the
lots for the cost. Staff noted that the Commission should determine if the
easement should be privately or publicly maintained.
Mr. Rand addressed the issues of two - stories and height of one - stories. lie
stated that there was no builder tied into the property at this point and a
reasonable approach would be to make some limitation on the location of some
two -story plans and try to leave some flexibility for a potential builder to
develop his own kind of mix. He suggested some two- stories possibly along
the southerly boundary.
There was a consensus to take the matter to a study session to discuss the
issues. Bob Bjoring, Moreland School District, stated that they are under a
time constraint because the bid opening is scheduled for May 31, 1984, since
they were led to believe that the approval could be obtained by that time.
It was determined that further discussion would be held on the issues at this
time, rather than take the matter to a study session. Commissioner McGoldrick
stated that she would like lots 26 -30 to be single- story. She explained that
she feels that if they are two - story, then future development in the Prospect
High School property could come in and ask for two - stories there because they
would be adjacent to two - stories.
4 -
yr
J
-Planning Commission / �` Page 5
"Meeting Minutes 4/25/34 l
SD -1554 (cont.)
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 2S 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 S -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 S --0.
Commissioner Hlava asked the City Attorney what would be the most effective
way to ensure that the landscaping is being completed. He 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 `r
the funds to do that. lie added that, should the Homeowners Association fail
to landscape under the CC$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 'B -1" and "E"
and the Staff Report dated April 11, 1.984, 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 storie -s and the setback on .lot 36 be that
incorporated in the previous motions. Commissioner Hlava seconded the'moti.on, _
which was carried unanimously 5-0.
Break 9:00 - 9:1S p.m.
-----------------
Z4 Z3 zz Z/ Z(D
0 CA 710 Al ",Po
i Z., / "= /000
............
Z 7
z 2
. ........................
................
. . . ........................
. ..............
tA
. ..............
.....................
........... * .....................
. . . . . .....................
. . .......................... a.-r'1--R no
................
...... . . ............... ...
...... ..........
-30
3L I.
fA r
W.
I I I i
J
3 33
34
/Z
Z4,
-
"..
3
--------
---
. ........................
................
. . . ........................
. ..............
tA
. ..............
.....................
........... * .....................
. . . . . .....................
. . .......................... a.-r'1--R no
................
...... . . ............... ...
...... ..........
-30
3L I.
fA r
W.
I I I i
CITY OF vi
0
7y,-IcAt. snqeEr SPCTIO" AADOVICA DIRIV,! 7YAIC-41 17A,-.fr3zc71aV-AAOOY.'(A OR /VG
/ " A'r A.v
.4Ly
U,
�4
✓05 by •
-Yplewl -sr7- -lov - 7,y,.ICAI 37j"Z7 L^ '?ON- SAN,-ALOCX
7 jr. rec7
J
3 33
34
CITY OF vi
0
7y,-IcAt. snqeEr SPCTIO" AADOVICA DIRIV,! 7YAIC-41 17A,-.fr3zc71aV-AAOOY.'(A OR /VG
/ " A'r A.v
.4Ly
U,
�4
✓05 by •
-Yplewl -sr7- -lov - 7,y,.ICAI 37j"Z7 L^ '?ON- SAN,-ALOCX
7 jr. rec7
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. i �',�
DATE: May 25, 1984
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: C -206; Morrison and Fox, 14234 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road,
Rezone from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000
Issue Summary
1. At its meetingsof April 11th and 25th, 1984, the Planning Commission
reviewed and approved the above referenced rezoning upon compliance
with certain conditions (Tentative and Final Building Site Approval;
Design Re'view).
2. Site is currently occupied by 20 apartment units. Although the pro-
posed rezoning could allow 12 additional units, Staff expects only
5 - 6 units could be added to the site without the need for variances.
Reconmendation
1. Staff recommended approval of this rezoning to the Planning
2. Council should open the Public Hearing and take testimony.
3. The attached Negative Declaration should be adopted prior to
reading of the .rezoning ordinance.
4. The first reading of the ordinance should then be made. The
reading would then occur at the meeting of June 27, 1984.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated.
Exhibits /Attachments
Exhibit A - Negative Declaration
Commission
if B - Staff Reports dated 4/3/84 and 4/18/84
if C - Applicant's letter dated 1/26/84
it D - Resolution No. C -206 -1
if E Ordinance rezoning the subject property.
if F - Planning Commission minutes dated 4/11/84 and 4/25/84
Council Action
6/6: Negative Declaration approved 3 -0.
Ordinance read by title, waiving further reading, 4 -0.
Ordinance introduced 3 -1 (Clevenger opposed).
6/20: Adopted ordinance,v3 -1 (Clevenger opposed)
NS3- 2G.9a
the first
second
EIA -4
Saratoga
5
File No: C -206
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
.x4ktsrr A
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 Rezone a 2.2 acre parcel from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000
to allow the eventual construction of a maximum of 12 additional multi-
family apartment units where 20 units already exist at 14234 Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, CA.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
David & Terry Morrison Stephen & Lynda Fox
19590 Juna Lane 19630 Juna Lane
Saratoga, CA. 95070 Saratoga, CA. 95070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment
since the act of rezoning does not have any direct effect on the physical
environment. However, the ultimate construction of the project could
have some effect on the environment. These will be mitigated through
the application of existing City codes and ordinances and through the
conditioning process of Tentative Building Site Approval. Further
environmental assessment will be required at that time.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 3rd day of April , 19
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF C MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIR NPIENTAL CO T OL OF THE CITY OF
SARA GA
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 4/3/84
Commission Meeting: 4/11/84
SUBJECT: C -206, Morrison and Fox, 14234 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
--------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - - --
REOUEST: Consider rezoning the subject property from R -M -4000 to
R -M -3000 to eventually allow the construction of 12 additional apartments
where 20 already exist.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Tentative and Final Building Site Approval,
Design Review approval and building permits.
PLANNING DATA:.:. .-
PARCEL SIZE: 2.2 acres
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential- Multi - Family
ZONING: Existing: R- M- 4000.
Proposed: R -M -3000
S TTF DATA:
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential to the west and
north; multi- family residential to the east and southeast;
commercial to the southwest.
SITE SLOPE: Gentle
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Non - native landscaping dominates
the site except for that portion adjacent to Saratoga Creek.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: Twenty units were built on the site in the early 1960's.
Three of the units are in a two -story structure. The remainder
are single -story units.
Report to the Planni Commission 4/3/84
C -206, Morrison and (ox !`" Page 2
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The density permitted under the proposed-R -M -3000 is consistent with
the maximum density of 14.5 dwelling units per acre allowed under the
multi - family designation of the General Plan. The traffic generated
(72 Average Daily Trips) by the 12 additional units that could be
built on the site if this rezoning is approved could be accommodated
by Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and would be consistent with the following
general goals:
LU.6.0 Relate new development and its land uses to presently planned
street capacities so as to avoid excessive noise, traffic,
and public safety hazards. If it is determined that existing
streets need to be improved to accommodate a project, such
improvements shall be in place or bonded for prior to issuance
of building permits.
CI.5.0 Use presently planned street capacities in determining land
uses and acceptable development densities. If it is determined
that existing streets need to be improved to accommodate a
project, such improvements shall be in place or bonded for
prior to issuance of building permits.
The applicant-must also conform with the following General Plan
policies:
LU6.1' Prior to initial approval, the decision making body shall
consider the cumulative traffic impacts of single family
. ,,..residential projects of 4 or more lots, multi - family residential
projects of eight or more units, and :commer.cial projects de-
signed for an occupancy load of more than 30 persons.
CI.2.7 Prior to further development of major residential (4 or more
single- family units; 8 or more multi - family units) or major
commercial (more than 30 person occupancy) projects along
the City's major arterials, the impacts of increased traffic
shall be studied and a plan for minimizing these impacts
shall be developed to the extent feasible.
If the applicant wishes to build eight or more dwelling units on the
site, a traffic impact study will have to be submitted when application
is made for Tentative Building Site Approval. This study must take
into account the cumulative traffic impacts of future development
along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and indicate how these impacts, if
significant, can be mitigated.
The Planning Commission has been working on the Draft Housing Element
of the General Plan for the past year. As the Commission is aware
there is a need for more housing in Saratoga as expressed in the Draft
Housing Element. This project when completed would contribute to
meeting some of that need.
Report to the Plann Commission 4/3/84
C -206, Morrison andi( (11
Page 3
The appl.icant has indicated that the additional units would be about
700 sq. ft. in size and would be rented for about $650 /month. At
this proposed rent these units would be affordable for moderate
income households ($18,697 - $28,044 per year) or low income house-
holds if the County median income increases as projected for 1985.
The Draft Housing Element has indicated that there is a potential
need for an additional 123 moderate income housing units.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The site of the proposed rezoning
in four detached structures. Two
parking spaces are also contained
a pool and open space area in the
the site is from 5 to 10 feet lows
about 20 feet lower than adjacent
about the same elevation or up to
perties to the east and south.
is occupied by 20 units contained
carports providing twenty covered
on site. The buildings surround
center of the site. The center of
=_r than Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road,
properties to the north and is at
5 feet higher than adjacent pro-
The applicant has submitted a rough sketch showing the property in
its existing condition (Exhibit '.0 ") and a tentative layout showing
how additional units could be added to the site (Exhibit "D "). The
applicant proposes that the carport building nearest the pool be
removed and - additional units added-in-its place and attached to the
longest of the existing apartment structures. The carport would be
moved to the rear of the property. Additional carports are proposed
near the southern property line and at the front of the site.
Using the tentative plan proposed by the'applicant staff would estimate
that no more than seven single -story apartments could be built in that
plan. The full potential of 12 units (if the rezoning is adopted)
could be constructed if two -story structures are used. However, the
tentative plan violates the 25' minimum rear, side and front yard
setbacks required for this site and violates the minimum 20' distance
required between structures used for human habitation. Variances from
these requirements would have to be granted by the Commission if the
tentative plan were to be used.
Staff estimates that from 5 to 6 additional units and required covered
parking could be built on site without requiring variances from ordinance
standards. This would require the two existing carports to be placed
back to back with a 25' setback from the rear property line and could
require two -story construction with the new covered parking beneath
the new units. The details of such a plan would be reviewed by the
Planning Commission at the Tentative Building Site and Design Review
Approval stage of the project.
If the tentative development plan is modified so as not to require
any variances from City standards, staff feels that the proposed
project would be of assistance in helping to meet Saratoga's need
for aditional moderate income "rental units.
Report to the Plannir- Commission
C -206, Morrison and C x
4/3/84
�t Page 4
FINDINGS:
In accordance with Section 18.6 of the Zoning Ordinance staff has
prepared the following findings:
1. The proposed rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of
the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in Section
1.1 of said ordinance.
2. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the
environment or adversely affect the public health, safety or
welfare.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the necessary
findings and adopt-a resolution recommending that the City Council
rezone the subject property shown on Exhibit "B" from R -M -4000 to
R- M- 3000. '
APPROVE
MF /bjc
P. C. ` Agenda '4 /11/84
�� ..CCU' W�L.• `fi�1"`�• -�
'Michael Flores
Assistant Planner
C
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 4/18/84
Commission Meeting: 4/25/84
SUBJECT: C -206, MORRISON & FOX, 14234 SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE ROAD
At its meeting of April 11,1984 the Commission considered rezoning
the 2.2 acre parcel at the above address from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000.
After considerable discussion the Commission directed staff to prepare
an ordinance conditionally rezoning the property from R -M -4000 to
R -M -3000.
The City Attorney's office has prepared the attached ordinance which
would allow the rezoning to occur if the following two conditions
are complied with within 24 months of the effective date of the
ordinance:
1) Tentative and Final Building Site Approval showing the
preservation of all existing residential units and the
location of new structures.
2) Design Review Approval
The purpose of these conditions is to ensure that the existing
moderate income housing units are preserved and that any future
development will be harmonious with the existing development.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution recommending that the City
Council adopt the attached ordinance conditionally rezoning the site
from R -M -4000 to R -M =3000 and make the necessary findings as shown
on Exhibit "F ".
APPROVED
MF /bjc
P.C. Agenda 4/25/84
. 41�- l4t,
Michael Flores
Assistant Planner
PT'S
�3C t: r
ZO VNtT5 -
r5lAr-OG
0'14q
--------------
DCHHMT
00%.—
Fl LE Me
CITY OF SAIRATOQA
v
v
U."
r.
ILI
APT.5
Z.Z-AceAe
14 v-kt-T-5-,-/-Acv
cu,
cl% j4C)a*j6ojJ— r,67X
EXHIBIT-
FILENe.
IAIJJ
MY OF SARATOGA
IV 1;
X
V
\4
1
c�
DAVID J. MORRISON. INC
David J. Morrison M.A.I.
Rcal Estate Appraiser & Consultant
1 175 Saratoga Ave., Suite 4
San Jose. Calif. 95129
(408) 996 -0872
January 26, 1984
City of Saratoga
Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Zoning Change
14234 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
A/P 397 -27 -30
Dear Commission Members,
G-Z06
1�,X4116rr tt C *
This letter will state why a zoning change from RM4000 to RM3000 on the
above 2.2 acres is in the public interest and conforms with the General
Plan.
I have owned the subject property for 12 years and have had a waiting
list to occupy the existing 20 units during the entire 12 years.
There has been no new construction of apartments in Saratoga in the past
10 years with the exception of subsidized housing on Cox Avenue and the
Odd Fellows subsidized housing for the elderly.
The inventory of apartments in Saratoga was reduced dramatically when
the two largest apartment complexes in Saratoga were converted to condo-
miniums, "The Gatehouse" on Fourth Street and "The Saratoga Creekside"
across from the old Post Office.
Based on the most recent U.S. Census, Santa Clara County housing contains
40% rental units and 60% owner occupied. The City of Saratoga has 265
rental units, or only 3% rental units and 97% owner occupied housing
units.
With so few apartments in Saratoga, many existing young and older resi-
dents of Saratoga are forced to move out of Saratoga if they choose
apartment living.
I have owned apartments in Saratoga for 19 years. The average tenant
has lived in my buildings for five to 15 years and nearly all have been
former residents of Saratoga who formerly owned a home or lived with
their parents.
In summary, it is evident that there is a strong demand for apartments in
Saratoga by existing residents of Saratoga. With the inventory of non -
subsidized apartments in Saratoga actually decreasing due to two major
condo conversions, many citizens of Saratoga are forced to move to other
communities to obtain an apartment.
t
City of Saratoga _ 2 January 26, 1984
Planning Commission
Area E, triangle south of the new General Plan states at the top of page
4 -14.
Number of dwelling units in Area E
Type: Number:
Single Family Dwellings 1,696 (95 %)
Condominiums 71 ( 4 %)
Rentals 20 ( 1 %)
Total 1,787
The above 20 rentals have been owned by me for 12 years. I would like
to build 12 apartment units on vacant land for a total of 32 units.
Page 4 -16 of General Plan Area E - Guidelines for Area Development
1. The southern corner of Area E should be reviewed as possible sites
for additional multi - family housing units. The proximity of this
area to public transportation, Highway 85 (Old Highway 9), Saratoga
Avenue, the Village, commercial and professional facilities, and
churches make this a highly satisfactory area for such developments.
Based on the preceding Guidelines for Area Development in Area E of the
General Plan, my request for a zoning change from RM4000 to RM3000 is
justified and encouraged by the General Plan.
Pleasa send copies of staff reports to me.
Very
David
e
RESOLUTION NO. C -206 -1
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
WHEREAS, the 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 11th day of
April , 1984 at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale
Avenue, Saratoga, California; and thereafter said hearing was closed,
and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendment as it would
affect the zoning regulation plan of the City of Saratoga, and after
consideration of a Negative Declaration prepared for the project and
brought before the Commission, this Commission has made certain findings
and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached hereto and
marked Exhibit "E" should be affirmatively recommended to the City
Council.
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached
hereto be and'the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City
Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning
Ordinance of said City, and that the Report of Findings of this
Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked
Exhibit ",F ", be and the same is 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 a 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 25th. day of April 1984, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Harris, Hlava., McGoldrick, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissi.oners Crowther and
Peterson
ATTEST:
��'--��Secretafy
airman of the Plannai
Commission
C -206
Exhibit "F"
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of
the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in
Section 1.1 of said ordinance.
2. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the
environment, or adversely affect public health, safety or welfare.
EXHIBIT E
ORDINANCE NO. NS -3 -ZC-
• AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3
THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP
RE: APN 317 -27 -30 FROM R -M -4000 to R -M -3000 SUBJECT
TO COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Subject to Section 2 of this Ordinance, Sectional District
Map No. C -206 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
is hereby adopted, and the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga adopted
by Section 1.8 of Ordinance NS -3 of said City, together with any
amendments thereto, is hereby changed and amended by substituting
the crosshatched area on the foregoing sectional district map for
that portion of the Zoning Map delineated in and by the within - adopted
crosshatched portion of the sectional district map.
So much of the Zoning Map of-the City of Saratoga, together with
any amendments thereto, as in conflict with the within - adopted sectional
district map is hereby superseded and repealed.
SECTION 2: Pursuant to Section 18.11 of Ordinance NS -3, the reclassi-
fication set forth in Section 1 of this Ordinance is conditioned upon
the following requirements being fully satisfied within twenty -four
(24) months from the effective date hereof:
• . (a) Tentative and Final Building Site Approval pursuant to
Ordinance NS -60, showing preservation of all existing
residential units and location of proposed new structures.
(b) Design Review Approval of existing and proposed structures.
In the event the foregoing conditions are not satisfied within the
time prescribed in this section, the zoning reclassification shall
not become effective.
SECTION 3: This Ordinance conditionally reclassifies certain pro-
perty shown on the attached sectional map from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000.
This ordinance shall become operative and take effect thirty (30) days
from its date of passage.
This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time
required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this day of
, 1984, by the following vote:
•
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
- s
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
•
•
Planning Commission Page 4
;.Meeting Minutes 4/11/84
A -945 and UP -S57 (cont.)
being relocated to a single driveway. The parking and circulation were
discussed, and Staff suggested that a condition be added to the Staff Report
that the street light that was removed between the two existing driveways be
reinstalled.
Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, noting that there is a
tree which will have to be removed because of the relocation of the driveway.
She indicated that she feels the proposed parking and circulation are better.
She noted that the bank desires to have a strong sodium vapor light over the
ATM. She described this, indicating that she did not see any problem with it.
The public hearing was opened at 8:40•p.m.
Herb Cuevas, architect, described the walls on the site. Commissioner Schaefer
commented that she feels the retaining wall in back needs some treatment and
suggested some landscaping for Staff approval. Mr. Cuevas indicated that they
could provide a surface treatment to the wall which will make it look more
like stucco finish. He -stated that they could also plant some ivy when they
do their landscaping design. Mr. Cuevas described the light fixture, and he
noted that the voltage of the bulb can be lowered if it is too intense.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve UP -557 and A -945, per Exhibits "B -2 ",
"C" and "D" and the Staff Report dated April 5, 1984, with the addition of
the following conditions: (1) the street light shall be reinstalled, and
(2) the retaining wall shall be texturized, and plantings added for Staff
approval. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous-
ly 6 -0.
6. C -206 - Morrison and Fox, Consideration of Rezoning a 2.2 acre parcel
from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000 which could eventually allow the con-
struction of 12 additional apartment units at 14234 Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road
Chairman Schaefer reported that, in discussions with Staff, there is some
question as to whether 12 apartment units, as suggested by the applicant, is
possible, or whether it would be closer to S or 6 units. It was noted that
the rezoning on the Neale property is R -M- 4,000. Staff described the applica-
tion. Chairman Schaefer described the apartment complex. She expressed con-
cern regarding the fact that if this were zoned separately, and for some
reason the property changed hands or the development went ahead in several
years, that it might be extremely intensified. She commented that it is possi-
ble to impose conditions at the time of reclassification, to include the fact
that the project must be done in a specified period of time and the kind of
project that would be allowed, so that the City has some control over the kind
of things that would go in this development.
Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the apartment
complex and the adjacent Neale property.
The public hearing was opened at 8:52 p.m.
John Kahle, attorney representing Clarence Neale, addressed the impact on Mr, wry
Neale's property. He expressed concern about the increase in traffic, possi-
ble fire hazard since there is one fire hydrant for all of the units, and the
drainage. Staff noted that there will be an additional hydrant in the area
when the Neale project goes forward. They also commented that the change of
zoning is being addressed now, and if approved there would be a need for
tentative and final approval for any intensification on the site, at which
time the concerns of Mr. Kahle would be reviewed and conditioned appropriately.
Clarence Neale questioned the requirement for an additional fire hydrant when
his property is developed. Staff clarified that Chief Kraule had reviewed
the area and did suggest the hydrant on Mr. Neale's application. Mr. Neale
described his property and the surrounding properties, addressing the drainage
in the area. He requested a study session with the Commission on his develop-
ment. There was a consensus that the Commission would like the proposed develop-
ment on the Morrison and Fox property to come back to a study session.
Dave Morrison, the applicant, described the application. He indicated that lie
would like the rezoning considered now, and then the details can be worked out
`-r - - 4
Planning Commission r Page 5
Meeting Minutes 4/11/84 g
C -206 (cont.)
during the preliminary and final site approval.
Stephen Fox, 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 that the Commission is concerned about the need for variances, etc.
It was the consensus that if the rezoning is granted, it will be understood
that it is not granted for 12 units. Chairman Schaefer added that it appears
that the Commission is in favor of the rezoning. However, they do not want
to give variances on this development or have anyone think they are going to
get the maximum possible yield to the detriment of any neighboring property.
She stated that if something came up in the future and it looks reasonable,
it might be considered, but it is not the Commission's intention to give
variances.
The City Attorney commented that the Commission does not have to make a
judgment on the whole project at this time. He explained that the ordinance
allows the Commission to conditionally rezone it, and the condition being
that the use to which the property has been reclassified is established within
a certain period of time. He stated that the Commission can determine that by
making the condition theirapproval of the Site Development Plan, which will
show what the buildings 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 effect nullify the reclassification for the zoning. He
added that he feels, in 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 can be extended if necessary.
Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
The City Attorney indicated that the resolution would have to be changed and
the section of the code specifically 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 this item should be put on the Consent Calendar for the
next meeting on April 25, 1984.
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.41 clarifying Section 4A.3(b) to allow second -story
structures only when specifically approved by the Planning Com-
mission, and other minor modifications per Ordinance NS -3, Article
18 (Planned Communitv District)
It was directed that this matter be continued to April 25, 1984.
8. A -947 - Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval for a two -
story single family residence on Saratoga Heights Drive, Lot N7,
Tract 6665 in the NHR zoning district
Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the lot. She
indicated that the house will be lower than the street and will not be visi-
ble from anywhere. Commissioner McGoldrick added that the applicant had
indicated that they would be willing to change the color.
Staff described the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 9:50 p.m. No
one appeared to address the Commission. It was moved and seconded to close
the public hearing.
Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A -947, per the Staff Report dated April
3, 1984 and Exhibits "B ", "C" and "D ", with 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 X14, 'Tract
6665 in the NHR zoning 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 -
CITY OF SARA•COGA PLANNING COi1D1ISSI0N
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, April 25, 1984 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 1.3777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
------------------------------------------------
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Harris, Hlava, McGoldrick, Schaefer and Siegfried
Absent: Commissioners Crowther and Peterson
Minutes
The following changes were made to the minutes of April 11, 1984: On page 4,
second paragraph, the second sentence should read: "Commissioner 111.ava
indicated that she feels the proposed parking and circulation are better."
On page 3, the fifth line in the fourth paragraph should read "its lots"
instead of "their lots ", and "second units" should be added to the third sen-
tence. On page 6, "Harris" should be added after the word "Commissioner" in
the second sentence. Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the reading of the
minutes of April 11, 1984 and approve as amended. Commissioner Fllava of
the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Reorganization
The new chairman, Chairman Siegfried, presented a gavel to past Chairman
Schaefer for her years of service as Chairman of the Planning Commission.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Attorney stated that the Section 3 of the ordinance regarding C -206,
Morrison t Fox, should read: "This ordinance conditionally reclassifies certain
property shown on the attached sectional map from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000. This
ordinance shall. become operative and take effect thirty (3) days from its date
of passage." With that change, Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the items
on the Consent Calendar listed }ielow. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
1. LLA -84 -1 - Dorcich /Gibberson, Sobcy Road (Evans Lane), Request for Lot Line
Adjustment
2. A -864 - George and Judith Claussen, Request for One -Year Extension for
V_604 - Design Review Approval and Variance Approval
3 C -206 Morrison and Fox, Consideration of Rezoning a 2.2 acre parcel from
R -M -4000 to R -M -3000 which could eventually allow the construction
of 12 additional apartment units at 14234 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road;
continued from April 11, 1984
4. Mr. and Mrs. Donald A. Schlotterbeck, 19000 Sunnyside Drive, Construction
of a 6' High Redwood Fence within 1.00' of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5a. A -942 - Charles Aring, Request for Design Review Approval to construct
5b. V -630 - a second story addition, Variance Approval for a 11'6" side yard..
Sc. SDR -1562 - setback and Building Site Approval for a greater than 50% expan-
sion at 20080 Mendelsohn Lane in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district;
continued from March 28, 1984
It was directed that this matter be continued to the May 9, 1984 meeting.
6. GPA- 83 -1 -A - Consideration of Draft Housing Element and Environmental Impact
Report; continued from April 11. 1984
- 1. -
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. (r) Dept. Hd:
DATE: May 25, 1984
C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
-------- - - ----- ------------------ - - - - ------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
C -207 City of Saratoga, Amending the text of Article 4A PC Planne3 -
SUBJECT: Community District) of the Zoning Ordinance
Issue Summary
1. The Amendments.proposed in this ordinance revision are required to
implement the Council's rezoning of the Teresi and Gasco Service
Station properties to R -M -5000 PC.
2. Certain portions of the ordinance have also been updated and clari-
fied.
3. The Planning Commission recommended approval of these Ordinance
Amendments at its meeting of April 25, 1984.
Recommendation
1.
Staff recommended approval of these
Ordinance Amendments
to the
Planning Commission.
2.
Council should open the Public Hearing
and take testimony.
3.
The Negative Declaration should be
adopted prior to the
First Read-
ing of the Ordinance.
4.
The First Reading of the Ordinance
Amendments should be
made at this
meeting. The Second Reading would
occur at the meeting
of June 20, 1984.
Fiscal Impacts
None Anticipated.
Exhibits /Attachn-ents
Exhibits A - Negative Declaration
it B - Staff Report dated 4/5/84
" C - Current Text of PC Ordinance
" D - Resolution No. C -207 -1
" E'- Ordinance Amending Text of PC District
F - Planning Commission Minutes dated 4/25/84
Council Action
6/6: Negative Declaration approved 4 -0.
Ordinance Read by title only, waiving further reading 4 -0.
Ordinance introduced 4 -0.
6/20: Adopted Ordinance NS 3.58, 4 -0.
EIA -4
Saratoga
C'
.'� File No: C-207
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
rr
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 P -C Planned Community District,
of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga by eliminating the minimum
site area requirement of 5 acres, clarify regulations for two story
multi - family dwellings, and other minor word changes to update and clarify
the ordinance.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The proposed amendments to the P -C Planned Community District will not
have a significant affect on the environment due to their minor nature.
The primary purpose of the amendments is to clarify the ordinance.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 6-r4 day of
74 i,,_/L 19j314.
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
tA
C I sri 15
REPORT TO 'PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 4/5/84
Commission Meeting: 4/11/84
SUBJECT C -207, City of Saratoga, Amend the text of Article 4A the
P -C (Planned Community) District
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
In September of .1983-the City Council amended the Zoning Map to bring
it into conformance with the General Plan. At the time the Teresi
property and the GASCO service station were rezoned. R -M -5000 PC to
give the City greater control and flexibility in regulating multi-
family development on thb§e sites. However, the text of Article 4A
P =C (Planned Community)``b'istrict needs to be amended to accommodate
,these.within.the P--7C district-.-The purpose of the proposed amendments
is to modify the ordinance to implement previous decisions made by
the. City Council.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The purposes of the P -C District include provisions for: a common
green development, smaller residences for older or retired persons,
and the combination of a number of uses to develop a living environment
consistent with the General Plan. To accomplish this, the P -C ordinance
allows some variation of normal zoning district regulations. The or-
dinance generally provides greater City control and flexibility in
regulating these projects.
Section 4A.4 of the P -C ordinance requires that sites with a P -C
designation must be a minimum of 5 acres in size. Both the teresi
property and the GASCO service station site are under the 5 acre
minimum. If the P -C designation of these properties is to be
effective the five acre minimum size requirement must be deleted.
This amendment would allow more sites to be designated P -C .-but the
City would still ultimately determine which sites would be designated
P -C so staff anticipates no adverse effects from this amendment. It
should give the City greater flexibility in determining appropriate
P -C areas.
Report to the Planni� Commission
C -207
4/5/84
Page 2
During the rezoning hearings the City Council expressed their concern
about controlling the location of two -story structures on the Teresi
and GASCO sites after hearing testimony from the residents in the area.
To accomplish this it was determined that the language in Section 4A.3(b)
needed to be clarified to control two -story multi - family structures.
Currently Section 4A.3(b) reads as follows:
Section 4A.3. Permitted Uses.
(a) Single story one - family, two - family, or three - family dwellings
or a combination thereof, together with all other permitted uses in an
R -1 residential district, shall be permitted in an R -1 district which
is combined with a PC district. Two story family dwellings may be
included in the development when specifically approved by the Planning
Commission.
(b) Single story or two story one - family and multi- family dwellings
or a combination thereof, subject to the limitation of (a) above,
together with all other.permitted.uses . in an R -M district, shall be
permitted in an R -M district combined with a PC district.
Staff would propose the following wording for Section 4A.3(b):
(b) Single , story, one - family, and multi - ,family ,:dwellings or a
combination thereof together with all other permitted uses in an
R- M.district, shall be permitted in an R -M district combined with a
P -C district. Two story one- family or multi - family dwellings may
be included in the development when specifically approved by the
planning commission..
The r.emaining amendments to the ordinance are minor changes to make
the rest of the ordinance consistent with the amendments mentioned
above and update other portions of the ordinance. A copy of the whole
P -C ordinance has been attached for Commission reference.
FTND TNC�R
1. The proposed amendments to the text of the
required to achieve the objectives of the
ordinance as prescribed in'Section.l.l of
2. The proposed amendments to the Text of the
not be deterimental to the public health,
RECOMMENDATION
zoning ordinance are
General Plan and zoning
the zoning ordinance.
zoning ordinance will
safety or welfare.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the necessary
findings and adopt the attached resolution recommending that the
City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the text of the P -C
District.
APPROVED
MF /bjc
P.0 Agenda 4/11/84
.Cl�d,✓, r �� z�2^
Michael Florles
Assistant Planner
x44IBcT C "
Appx. B, S 4.6 -3 Zoning Regulations Appx. B, S 4A.1
�' -- The location and dimensions of all areas designated as common
open space,_.and of all areas designated as usable open space:
-- Lot lines and lot dimensions.
- Architectural elevations in sufficient detail to show the character
of the proposed buildings and their relationship with other facilities in the
development.
(b) The precise plan shall be reviewed by the director who shall prepare
a written report with recommendations for submission to the commission with the
applicant's precise plan.
2. Criteria for conditional use permit.
(a) The planning commission may grant an application for a conditional
use permit for planned residential development provided that the precise plan is
in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plan and the housing
needs of the community as identified in the action program of the housing
element, upon making those findings as set forth in article 16, section 16.6
of this ordinance.
(b) A precise plan shall be deemed to be in substantial compliance with the
action program of the housing element if the commission determines that it con-
..forms in all respects with the unmet housing needs and project criteria of the
C ,,.action program of the housing element. (Ord. No. NS -3.37, S 3.)
Section 4.6 -3. Same -- Diap roval_
If the Commission disapproves a conditional use permit based on failure of
the precise plan to substantiallv conform with the housina element, the appli-
cant shall have the choice of:
1. Revising the precise plan and resubmitting it to the
Commission, or
2. Applying for an amendment to the housing element, or
3. Appealing the decision of the Commission to the City Council in
accordance with Article 24 of this Ordinance. (Ord. No. NS -3.51, 52)
Article 4A. PC Planned Community District
Sec. 4A.1 Purposes.
In certain instances the objectives of the zoning plan may be achieved
by the development of a residential community primarily for a common green
development or for older or retired persons desiring smaller residences or
�. Apps. B, § 4A.2 Zoning Regulations A x B § 4
pP . A.3 r
dcvelling units than economically feasible under existing zoning districts, and
Which combines a number of uses in order to develop a living environment in
conformity with the general plan. The planned community district is intended
to accomplish this purpose and may include a combination of single or multiple
dwelliiig uses together with ancillary uses of recreational centers, social halls,
restaurants, medical centers and other related facilities. In order to provide
locations for well planned community facilities which conform with the objec-
tives of the zoning plan , although they may deviate in certain respects from
existing district regulations, property may be rezoned to a new combined resi-
dential district, provided the development complies with the regulations pre-
scribed in this article. (Ord. No. NS -3.6, § 2. )
Sec 4A.:2. Combining. with other districts; designation
A planned community district may be combined with any R -1 (single -
family residential) district or any R -M (multiple - family residential) district
upon the granting of a change of zone to a combined district in accord with
the provisions of this article. A planned community district shall be desig-
nated by the symbol "PC" following the district designation. '(Ord. No. NS-
3 G-, § 2. )
,Sec . 4A . 3 . Permitted uses .
(a) Single story one = family`, tivo- family, or three- family dwellings or
a:.com.bination thereof, together with all other permitted uses in an R -1 residen-
tial district, shall be permitted in an R -1 district which is combined with a PC
district. Two -story family dwellings may be included in the development when
specifically approved by the planning commission.
-_ (b) Single -story or two story one - family and multi - family dwellings or
:. a combination thereof, 'subject to the limitation of (a) above, together with all
other permitted uses in'—a-
n an R -111 district, shall be permitted in an R -M district
combined with a PC district.
(c) Such conditional uses, subject to the granting of a use permit, as
are permitted by the R -1 or R -M residential district with which the PC district
is combined.
(d) Community centers, privcte recreational centers, social halls,
lodges, clubs, restaurants, medical canters (and related facilities as estab-
lished from time to time,by resolution of the city planning commission in accord
With article 14.1 of this ordinance) , save and except that the use of all such
facilities shall be restricted to the .residents of the planned community district
and their tTucsts. (Ord. No. NS -3.6, § 2.)*
t�
239
Supp • #13, 7 -78
Apps. B,. §.4A.4. .. _ -
Saratoga City Code App -,. B, § 4A.5
Sec . 4A . 4 . Site area; sin -le ownership of all land com -
prising; di stri ct.
The minimum site area shall be five acres , and all of the said site area
shall be in one ownership at the time of the change of zone from a residential
district to a combined planned community district. (Ord. No. NS -3.6, § 2.)
Sec . 4A . 5 . Standards .
Standards of site area and dimensions, site coverage, density of dwelling
units, yard spaces, types of structures, distances between structures, fences,
walls and hedges, signs and off - street parking facilities shall in the aggregate
be at least equivalent to the standards prescribed by the regulations for the
district with which a planned community district is combined.
The city planning commission may grant variances to the regulations pre-
scribed herein with respect to fences and walls, site area, width, frontage,
depth and coverage, front, side and rear yards, distances between structures
and rights -of -way and 'improvements required by Ordinance NS -5 at the time
of approval of the tentative map for the entire site and without compliance with
the provisions of article 17 of
240
Supp . #13 7 -78
(b) Each application for a reclassification shall be accompanied by a tentative
map for either site approval or subdivision approval in accord with the provisions
of Ordinance NS -S; together with the proposed procedure to be followed to insure
the care, maintenance and operation of all common use areas to be covered by
agreement as per (a) (2) above.
(c) The drawing called for under section 18. 3 shall be a general site develop-
ment plan of the entire development drawn to scale and showing the contours of the
site at intervals of not more than five feet and shall in addition include all of the
following:
(1) Proposed land uses, population densities, buildin- intensities and
parking areas, particularly showing those areas and buildings, if any, intended
for the common use or benefit of all residents of the'premises.
(2) Proposed circulation f)attern, indicating both public and private streets.
(3) Proposed parks, playgrounds, school sites and other open spaces.
r (4) General delineation and location of each and every building and struc-
ture, the proposed use of each building; and structure and a schedule of the progres-
sion of construction of each buildin- acid structure.
240. 1
Supp. 6 -71
Appx. 13, § 4A. 6 Zoning Regulations A x. B
pp , § 4A. 6
this ordinance relating to variances. The approval of a tentative subdivision map
and of the site development plan shall automatically constitute a granting and permit-
ting of such variances as are shown and delineated on the face of said tentative sub-
division map or said site development plan. (Ord. No. NS -3. 6, § 2.)
Sec. 4A. 6. Amendment procedure
The regulations prescribed in sections 18. 3 through 18. 11 of this ordinance
shall control the procedure for making application for a change of zone to a com-
bined planned community district, subject to the following exceptions and provisions:
(a) Each reclassification to a planned community district shall be a conditional
reclassification in accord with section 18. 11 hereof and each such conditional re-
classification shall in all cases include the following minimum conditions:
(1) That the entire site shall be developed in accord with a final site develop-
ment plan previously approved by the city planning commission and that building per-
mits shall have been issued and construction commenced on all structures shown
on
-said site development plan or particular units thereof no later than one year from the
date of approval of the reclassification ordinance.
(2) The owner shall be required to enter into a written contract with the
f
City of Saratoga, secured by good and sufficient bond or bonds, agreeing to be re-
sponsible for the care, maintenance and operation of all areas, buildings
!
and fa-
cilities not dedicated to public use, but intended for the common use of the residents
of said property.
(b) Each application for a reclassification shall be accompanied by a tentative
map for either site approval or subdivision approval in accord with the provisions
of Ordinance NS -S; together with the proposed procedure to be followed to insure
the care, maintenance and operation of all common use areas to be covered by
agreement as per (a) (2) above.
(c) The drawing called for under section 18. 3 shall be a general site develop-
ment plan of the entire development drawn to scale and showing the contours of the
site at intervals of not more than five feet and shall in addition include all of the
following:
(1) Proposed land uses, population densities, buildin- intensities and
parking areas, particularly showing those areas and buildings, if any, intended
for the common use or benefit of all residents of the'premises.
(2) Proposed circulation f)attern, indicating both public and private streets.
(3) Proposed parks, playgrounds, school sites and other open spaces.
r (4) General delineation and location of each and every building and struc-
ture, the proposed use of each building; and structure and a schedule of the progres-
sion of construction of each buildin- acid structure.
240. 1
Supp. 6 -71
Appx. B, § 4. 7
Saratoga City Code Appx. B, § 4. 8
(5) Relation to future land use in surrounding area and to the general plan.
(d) The city planning commission may recommend a change of zone to a plan-
ned community district as applied for or in modified form if, on the basis of the
application and the evidence submitted, the commission makes the findings pre-
scribed in section 18. 6 of this ordinance and makes the following additional findings:
(1) That the proposed location of the planned community district is in
accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the general plan and the
purposes of the district in which the site is located.
(2) That the proposed planned community district will comply with each
of the applicable provisions of this ordinance.
(3) That standards of site area and dimensions, site coverage, yard
spaces, heights of structures, distance between structures, fences, walls and
hedges, signs, rights of way and improvements and off - street parking facilities
will produce an environment of stable and desirable character consistent with the
objectives.of the zoning ordinance and general plan.
(4) That the combination of different uses in the development will compli-
.ment each other and will harmonize with existing and proposed land uses in the
vicinity. (Ord. No. NS -3. 6, § 2. )
} Sec. 4A. 7. .Design review.
All uses and structures in a planned community district shall be subject to
design review as prescribed in article 13. (Ord. _No. NS -3. 6, § 2.)
Sec. 4A. 8. Dedication of common green.
Where a planned community district is combined with an R1 -20, 000 or an
R1 -40, 000 district, inlieu of the owner setting aside areas for the common benefit
of the residents and remaining obligated for the care, maintenance and operation
of the same, lie may instead dedicate such areas or portions thereof to the city
for public parks or recreation uses, so long as no less than fifty per cent of the
entire site area is either dedicated or set aside for private common use or any
combination thereof. Each site development plan which shows any proposed dedi-
cation for part; or recreation use shall be first submitted to the parks and recreation
commission for a report and recommendation prior to action thereon by the city,
planning commission. Nothing herein contained shall preclude the city from re-
fusing to accept any offer of dedication not deemed to be in the best interests of
the city. (Ord. No. NS -3. 24, § 4. )
240.2
Supp. 6 -71
-)
= +�Brr D
RESOLUTION NO. C -207 -1
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 4A,
THE P -C PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
. 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 the25th 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 25th day of April 1984, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Harris, H.lava, McGoldrick, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Crowther
Peterson
ATTEST:
% - etary 1v
and
Chairman, Pl!anln 7s n
►� C -207
�a
EXHIBIT "B"
1. The proposed amendments
are required to achieve
and zoning ordinance as
zoning ordinance.
2. The proposed amendments
will not be detrimental
welfare.
to the text of the zoning ordinance
the objectives of the General Plan
prescribed in Section 1.1 of the
to the text of the zoning ordinance
to the public health, safety or
0
C]
W
ORDINANCE NS -3.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY MAKING
VARIOUS CHANGES TO ARTICLE 4A, THE PC PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1: Subsection (b) of Section 4A.3 (Permitted Uses)
is hereby amended to read as follows:
(b) Single story one - family and multi - family dwellings or a
combination thereof together with all other permitted uses in an
R -M district, shall be permitted in an R -M district combined with a
P -C district. Two story one - family or multi - family dwellings may be
included in the development when specifically approved by the Planning
Commission.
SECTION 2: Section 4A.4 (Site area; single ownership of all
land comprising district) is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 4A.4 Single ownership of all land comprising district.
All of the site area shall be in one ownership at the time of
change of zone from a residential district to a combined planned
community district.
SECTION 3:
as follows:
Section 4A.5 (Standards) is hereby amended to read
Section 4A.5. Standards.
Standards of site area and dimensions, site coverage, density
of dwelling units, yard spaces, types of structures, distances between
structures, fences, walls, and hedges, signs and off - street parking
facilities shall in the aggregate be at least equivalent to the standards
prescribed by the regulations for the district with which a planned
community district is combined.
The City planning commission may grant variances to the regulations
prescribed herein with respect to fences and walls, width, frontage,
depth and coverage, front, side and rear yards, distances between
structures and rights -of -way and improvements required by Ordinance
NS -60 at the time of approval of the tentative map for the entire site
and without compliance with the provisions of article 17 of this
ordinance relating to variances. The approval of a tentative subdivision
map and of the site development plan shall automatically consititute
• a granting and permitting of such variances as are shown and delineated
on the face of said tentative subdivision map or said site development
plan.
Any P C area shall contain a common green unless otherwise _
specifically waived by the Planning Commission.
SECTION 4: Subsection (b) of Section 4A.6 (Amendment Procedure)
is hereby amended to read:
(b) Each application for a reclassification shall be accompanied
by a tenative map for either site approval or subdivision approval in
accord with the provisions of Ordinance NS -60, together with the proposed
procedure to be followed to insure the care, maintenance and operation
of all common use areas to be covered by agreement as per (a)(2) above.
SECTION 5: 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, 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, sub-
sections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid or unconsti-
tutional.
SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days
from and after the date of its passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance, after a public hearing
held thereon before the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga
on the, day of , 1984 and was thereafter regularly
introduced and a public hearing held thereon on the day of
, 1984 before the City Council and thereafter was
passed and adopted by said City Council on the day of O
1984, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
TY CLERK
MAYOR
•
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutcs 4/25/34
�y
Page 6 ,�
�x� iPAT r-
�\ 9 /� C -207 - City of Saratoga, Consideration of amendment of the text of
the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the minimum site area require-
ment of Section 4A.4, clarifying Section 4A.3(b) to allow second
story structures 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,
1.984
MY.
The proposed text amendment was explained by Chairman Siegfried and Staff:.
Commissioner McGoldrick questioned whether the amendment states that the
developer must make provisions for a common orcen development, which she felt
it should. Staff commented that the Commission can condition applications for
a common green when they are revi.ewcd for Building Site Approval. Commissioner
McGoldrick stated that she would have a problem approving the proposed amend-
ment without this provision and suggested that it be added.
The public hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m. No one appeared to address the
Commission. Commissioner lilava moved to close the public hearing. Commis-
sioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
It was determined that an addition would be made to Section 4.A.5 to read:
"Any PC area shall contain a common green unless otherwise specifically waived
by the Planning Commission." Commissioner Hl.ava moved to adopt Resolution No.
C -207 -1 and forward it to the City 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 5 -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 ar 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 18 of Ordinance
NS -3.
Staff explained the text amendment. The public hearing was opened at 9:29
p.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 - SDR -1563 John Zaches
llb. A -9S2 - Mr. and Mrs. John Zaches, Request for Design Review Approval
llc. SDR -1563 to construct a new, two -story single family residence and
Building Site Approval for a greater than SO% expansion at
15400 Peach Hill Road in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district
Staff described the applications, noting that the water supply is a critical
concern, and it has been conditioned to have 1000 gpm for a period of two hours
Commissioner Fllava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the lot and
expressing concern regarding the closeness of the house to a huge old redwood
tree. Discussion followed on the present and required water flow.
Warren Heid, architect, gave a presentation on the project. He noted that
there was a parcel map submitted in February of 1966 with a 40 ft. right -of-
way for Peach Hill, and the Staff Report does request a dedication. He asked
for clarification of Condition II -I; and expressed concern about how the road
improvements are handled in that area, to ensure that the quality of Saratoga
is maintained. He asked for clarification on Condition J and discussed the
Sanitation District fees. It was clarified that a new hydrant is not required
by the Fire District. The early warning system and requirement for the water
flow were also discussed. Mr. Heid stated that lie would like to take this
matter to a study session if the issues cannot be worked out tonight.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Illava
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Staff discussed examples of other applications concerning the water requirement.
There was a consenus to take this matter to a study session to further dis-
cuss this requirement. it was directed that it be continued to a study session
- 6 -
C
AGENDA BILL NO. ITY OF SARATOGA �p
DATE: June 6, 1984
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1
Issue Sunnary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
(Existing)
At the May 2, 1984 meeting, City Council adopted Resolut.io_n NQ. 2138B,.
a Resolution of preliminary approval of Engineer's Report and Resolution
No. 2138C, a Resolution of Intention to order the Levy and collection
of assessments pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act 1972. Reso-
lution No. 2138C also set the time and date for the Public Hearing at
June 1984, at 7:00 P.M..
Recommendation
Utilize the agenda provided by Wilson, Morton, ASSAF and McElligott, for
Public Hearing. Upon closing the Protest Hearing, order improvements and
confirm the diagram and assessments.
Fiscal Impacts
The cost for the administration, maintenance and servicing and lighting
cost are charged to the various zones within the District, based on
benefit received. The Santa Clara County Assessor's office will collect
the amount through the taxes and, in turn, send to the City.
Exhibits /Attachmnts
1.
Resolution
No. 2138D
2.
Engineer's
Report
(available in City Clerk's Office)
3.
Agenda for
Public
Hearing
4.
Mayor's statement
and declaration that the Public Hearing is open.
S.
Statement
of the
Clerk of the City verifying Affidavit of Publication
Council Action
and Certification
of -posting Resolution of Intention are on
file.
6/6: Adopted Resolution 2138 -D 5 -0.
---- 263/17A WMAM:JEB:om 05/23/84 12c
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS AND ORDERING
THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING
THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT
FISCAL YEAR 1984 - 1.985
CITY OF SARA'T'OGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
Calif.or.ni.a, as follows:
WHEREAS, on the 18th day of April, 1.984, said Council adopted its
Resolution No. 21.38, Describing Improvements and. Directing Preparation
of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1984 - 1985 for the City of
Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 Pursuant to the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and directed the City Engineer to
prepare and file with the Clerk of this City a written report called for
tinder said Act and by said Resolution No. 2.138;
WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the Clerk of
said City, wl-tereupon said Clerk presented it to the City Council. for its
consideration;
WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report and
each and every part thereof and found that it contained all the matters
and things called for .by the provisions of said Act and said Resolution
No. 2138-, including (1) plans and specifications of the existing
i.mpr.ovements and the proposed new improvements; (2) estimate of costs;
(3) diagram of the District; and (4) an assessment according to
benefits; all of which were done in the form and manner required by said
Act;
WHEREAS, said Council found that said report and each and every
part thereof was sufficient in every particular and determined that it
should stand as the report for all. subsequent proceedings under said
Act, whereupon said Council pursuant to the requirements of said Act,
appointed Wednesday, the 6th day of June, 1984, at the hour of 7:00
o'clock p.m. of said day in the regular meeting place of said Council,
City Hall, 13777 Fruitval_e Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, as the
time and place for hearing protests in relation to the levy and
collection of the proposed assessments for said improvements, including
the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, for Fiscal Year 1984 -
1.985, and directing said Clerk to give notice of said hearing as
required by said Act;
WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearing were duly and
regularly published and posted in the time, form and manner required by
said Act, as evidenced by the Affidavits and Certificates on file with
said Clerk, whereupon said hearing was duly and regularly held at the
time and place stated in said notice; and
r
WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to said improvements,
i.ncl.udinq the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the
extent of the assessment district, or any zones therein, or to the
proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's estimate of costs
thereof, filed written protests with the Clerk of said City at or before
the conclusion of said hearing, and all persons interested desiring to
be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and
things pertaining to the l.evy and collection of the assessments for said
improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof,
were fully heard and considered by said Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED and ORDERED, as
follows:
1. That protests against said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the
assessment district or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment
or diagram, or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof., for Fiscal
Year 1.984 - 1985 be, and each of them are hereby, overruled.
2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require
and said Council. does hereby order the levy and collection of
assessments pursuant to said .Act, for the construction or installation
of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both,
tllereof, more particularly described in said Engineer's Report and made
a part hereof by reference thereto.
.3. That the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District
LLA -1 and the boundaries thereof benefited and to be assessed for said
costs for the construction or installation of the improvements,
including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are situate in
Saratoga, California, and are more particularly described by reference
to a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of said City. Said
map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in
said District and of any zone thereof and the general location of said
District.
4. That the plans and specifications for the existing
improvements and for the proposed improvements to be made within the
assessment district or within any zone thereof contained in.said report,
be, and they are hereby, finally adopted and approved.
5. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs
and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof_,
and of the incidental. expenses in connection therewith, contained in
said report, be, and it is hereby, finally adopted and approved.
6. That the public interest and convenience require, and said
Council does hereby order the improvements to be made.as described in
and in accordance wi.th.sai.d Engineer's Report, reference to which is
hereby made for a more particular description of said improvements.
-2-
7. That the di.agr.am showing the exterior boundaries of the
assessment district referred to and described in said Resolution
No. ?138, and also the boundaries of any zones therein and the lines and
dimensions of each lot or parcel. of land within said District as such
lot or parcel. of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for the
fiscal year to which it appl.ies, each of which lot or parcel of land has
been given a separate number upon sai.d cai.agram, as contained in said
report, be, and it is 'hereby, finally approved and confirmed.
8. That the assessment of the total. amount of the costs and
expenses of the said improvements upon the several lots or parcels of
land in said District in.proportion to the estimated benefits to be
received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements,
and the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof_ and of the expenses
incidental thereto contained in said report be, and the same is hereby,
finally approved and confirmed.
9. That said Engineer's Report for Fiscal. Year 1984 - 1985 be,
and the same i.s 'hereby, finally adopted and approved as a whole.
10. That the City Clerk shall forthwith file with the Auditor of
Santa Clara County the said assessment, together with said diagram
thereto attached and made a part thereof., as confirmed by the City
Council, with the certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and
of the date thereof.
1.1. That the order for the levy and collection of assessment for
the improvements and the final adoption and approval of the Engineer's
Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications, estimate of the
costs and expenses, the diagram and the assessment, as contained in said
Report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and shall
refer and apply to said Report, or any portion thereof, as amended,
"`modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to and in accordance with
any resolution or orde.r., i-f any, heretofore duly adopted or made by this
Council.
-3-
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the
day of 19 by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES, and in favor thereof, Council Members:
NOES, Council. Members:
ABSENT, Council Members:
APPROVED:
yor
City Clerk o the City of Saratoga
1
2.65/7A
AGENDA
CITY OF SARATOGA
PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 6,'1984
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
FISCAL YEAR 1984 -1985
A. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Mayor's statement and declaration that the Public Hearing
is open.
2. Statement of the Clerk of the City verifying Affidavit of
Publication and Certificate of Posting the'Resolution of
Intention are on file.
3. Statement of Director of Public Works as to the nature of
the Project.
4. Reading of written protests.
5. Hearing of oral testimony and comments.
6. Closing of Public Hearing.
B. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION
1. A Resolution Overruling Protests and Ordering the Improve-
ments and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment.
265/7A
OPENING STATEMENT BY THE MAYOR
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
JUNE 6, 1984
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
This is the time and place set for hearing on the levy and
collection of the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 1984 -1985 for the
City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District. Notices have been
published and posted pursuant to law and the certificates and affidavits
of publishing and posting are on file in the office of the City Clerk.
These proceedings were undertaken pursuant to the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972. This hearing is a hearing on the Engineer's
Report prepared pursuant to the provisions of the 1972 Act.
The Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer consists of
the proposed improvements, the boundaries of the Assessment District and
any zones therein, the proposed diagram, the estimate of cost thereof
and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land
within the District. Any one of these items may be the subject of
protests or endorsements.
You are asked to clearly identify yourself and the property
owned by you so.that your statements may be correctly recorded.
The hearing is'.declared open and I will ask the City Clerk to
report on the various notices given in connection with the hearing.
65/7A
CLERK'S STATEMENT
JUNE 6, 1984
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
Notices have been published and posted as required by the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Affidavits and certificates of
publishing and posting are on file in my office. A copy of the
Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer.was filed in my office
on May 2, 1984, and has been open to public inspection since that time.
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. c7
DATE: June 6, 1984
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty,
C. Mgr.
Ste. Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 :,(Annexation)^ •
Issue Sunr ary
At the May 2, 1984 meeting, City Council adopted Resolution NQ. 2137B,'.
a Resolution of preliminary approval of Engineer_!s Report and Resolution
No. 2137C, a Resolution of Intention to order the Levy and collection
of assessments pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act 1972. Reso-
lution No. 2137C also set the time and date for the Public Hearing at
June 1984, at 7:00 P.M..
Recommendation
Utilize the agenda provided by !Nilson, Morton, ASSAF and McElligott, for
Public Hearing. Upon closing the Protest Hearing, order improvements and
confirm the diagram and assessments.
Fiscal Impacts
The cost for the administration, maintenance and servicing and lighting
cost are charged to the various zones within the District, based on
benefit received. The Santa Clara County Assessor's office will collect
the amount through th:e taxes and, in turn, send to the City.
Exhibits /Attachments
1.
Resolution
No. 2137D
2.
Engineer's
Report
(available in City Clerk's Office)
3.
Agenda for
Public
Hearing
4.
Mayor's statement
and declaration that the Public Hearing is open.
5.
Statement
of the
Clerk of the City verifying Affidavit of Publication
Council Action
and Certification
of posting Resolution of Intention are on
file.
6/6: Adopted Resoution 2137 -D 5 -0.
264/17A
WMAM:JEA:om 05/23/84 12c
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS AND ORDERING
THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO AN EXISTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS
AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
ANNEXATION 1984 -1
FISCAL YEAR 1984 -1985
RESOLVED, by the City Council. of the City of Saratoga,
California, as follows:
WHEREAS, on the 18th day of April_, 1984, said Council_ adopted its
Resolution No. 2137, Determining to Undertake Proceedings for the
Annexation of Territory to an Existing Assessment District Known as ",C'ity
of Saratoga Landscapi.nq and Lighting District LLA -1" Pursuant to the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1.972, and directed the City Engineer.
(herein the "Engineer") to prepare and file with the Clerk of this City
a written report cal.l.ed f_or under said Act and by said Resolution No.
2..137,
WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the Clerk of
said City, whereupon said Clerk presented it to this Council. for its
consideration;
WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report and.
each and every part thereof and found that it contained all the matters
and things called for by the provisions of said Act and said Resolution
No. 2137, including (1.) plans and specifications of the existing
improvements and the proposed improvements; (2) estimate of costs;
(3) diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the area proposed to be
annexed to the e.xi.sti.nq assessment district, which is al.so the area
proposed to be assessed; and (4) an assessment according to benefits;
all of which were clone in the form and manner required by said Act;
WHEREAS, said Council. found that said report and each and every
part thereof was suffi-cient In every particular and determined that it
should stand as the report for all subsequent proceedings under said
Act, whereupon said Council pursuant to the requirements of said Act,
appointed Wednesday, the 6th day of June, 1984, at the hour of 7 :00
o'clock p.m. of said day in the regular meeting place of said Council,
City Hal.l., 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, as the
time and place for bearing protests in relation to the annexation of
territory to an existing assessment district and the levy and collection
of the proposed assessment pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972, and to said proposed improvements for said improvements,
including the maintenance or ser.vi.ci.nq, or both, thereof, and directing
said City Cl.erk to give notice of said hearing as required by said. Act;
WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearing were duly and
regularly published and mailed in the time, form and manner required by
said Act, as evidenced by the Affidavits and Certificates on file with
said Clerk, whereupon said hearing was duly and regularly held at the
time and place stated in said notice; and
WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to the annexation of
territory to an existing assessment district, or of said improvements,
including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof., or to the
extent of the proposed assessment district, or any zones therein, or to
the proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's estimate of
costs thereof, filed written protests with the Clerk of said City at or
before the conclusion of said hearing, and al.l persons interested
desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all
matters and things pertaining to the annexation of territory to said
existing assessment district and said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof., were fully heard and
considered by said Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED and ORDERED, as
follows:
1. That protests against the annexation of territory to said
existing assessment district or of said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof., or to the extent of the
assessment district or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment
or diagram, or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, were not
signed by the owners of a majority or more of the area of assessable
lands within said territory proposed to be annexed and assessed herein,
and that said protests be, and each of them are hereby, overruled.
2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require
the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district and the
levy and collection of assessments pursuant to said Act, for the
construction or installation of the improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly described
in said Engineer's Report and made a part hereof by reference thereto,
which annexation is hereby ordered.
3. That the annexed territo.r.v and the boundaries thereof
benefited and to be assessed for said costs for the construction or
Installation of the improvements, including the mai.ntenance or
servicing, or both, thereof, are situate in the City of Saratoga,
California, and are more particularly described by reference to a map
thereof on file In the office of the Clerk of said City. Said map
indicates by a boundary line the extent of the annexed territory
included in said assessment district, and of any zone thereof_ and the
general location thereof.
4. That said annexed territory be, and it is hereby, designated
as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1. Annexation
1984 -1." by which name it may hereafter be referred to.
-2-
f
5. That the plans and specifications for the existing
improvements and for the proposed improvements to be made within said
assessment district or within any zone thereof_ contained in said report,
be, and they are hereby, finally adopted and approved.
h. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs
and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof,
and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in
said report, he, and it is hereby, finally adopted and approved.
7. That the public interest and convenience require, and said
Council does hereby order the improvements to be made as described in
and in accordance with said Engineer's Report, reference to which is
hereby made for a more particular description of said improvements.
8. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the
annexed territory referred to and described in said Resolution
No. 2137, and also the boundaries of any zones therein and the lines and
dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said annexed territory
as such lot or parcel. of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for
the fiscal, year to which it applies, each of which lot or parcel_ of land
has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained in said
report, be, and it is hereby, finally approved and confirmed.
9. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and
expenses of the proposed improvements upon the several Lots or parcels
of .land in said annexed territory in proportion to the estimated
benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said
improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof,
and of the expenses incidental thereto, contained in said report, be,
and the same is hereby, finally approved and confirmed.
10. That said Engineer's Report be, and the same is hereby,
finally adopted and approved as a whole.
1.1. That the City Clerk shall forthwith file with the Auditor of
Santa Clara County the said assessment, together with said diagram
thereto attached and made a part thereof, as confirmed by the City
Council_, with the certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and
of the date thereof..
1.2. That the order ordering the annexation of territory to an
existing assessment district and the final adoption and approval of the
Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications,
estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram, the assessment, as
contained in said Report, as he.r.einabove determined and ordered, is
intended to and shall refer and apply to said Report, or any portion
thereof, as amended, modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to
and in accordance with any resolution or order., if any, heretofore duly
adopted or made by this Council..
-3-
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the
day of 19 by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES, and in favor thereof, Council.Members:
NOES, Council. Members:
ABSENT, Council. Members:
APPROVED:
ayor
City Clerk of the City of Saratoga
266/7A
AGENDA
CITY OF SARATOGA
PUBLIC'HEARING'JUNE 6,'1984
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
ANNEXATION 1984 -1
A. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Mayor's statement and declaration that the Public Hearing
is open.
2. Statement of the Clerk of the City verifying Affidavit of
Publication and Certificate of Maiing the Resolution of
Intention are on file.
3. Statement of Director of Public Works as to the nature of
the Project.
4. Reading of written protests.
5. Hearing of oral testimony and comments.
6. Closing of Public Hearing.
B. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION
1. A Resolution Overruling Protests and Ordering the Annexation
of Territory to an Existing Assessment District, Ordering
Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment.
266/7A
OPENING STATEMENT BY THE MAYOR
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
JUNE 6, 1984
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
ANNEXATION 1984 -1
This is the time and place set for hearing on the annexation of
territory to the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District and
the levy and collection of the proposed assessment. Notices have been
published and mailed pursuant to law and the certificates and affidavits
of publishing and mailing are on file in the office of the City Clerk.
These proceedings were undertaken pursuant to the Landscapi.ng and
Lighting Act of 1972. This hearing is a hearing on the Engineer's
Report prepared pursuant to the provisions of the 1972 Act.
The Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer consists of
the proposed improvements, the boundaries of the territory to be annexed
and any zones therein, the proposed diagram, the estimate of cost
thereof and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of
land within the area proposed to be annexed to the District. Any one of
these items may be the subject of protests or endorsements.
All written protests to be computed in the protest percentage in
relation to the annexation of territory to the District including the
Engineer's Report should be filed with the City Clerk at or before the
conclusion of this hearing. Protests or endorsements may be made by any
person interested, but only written protests filed by property owners of
assessable lands in the territory proposed to be annexed,may be
considered in determining the percentage of protests.
You are asked to clearly identify yourself and the property
owned by you so that your statements may be correctly recorded.
The hearing is declared open and I will ask the City Clerk to
report on the various notices given in connection with the hearing.
266/7A
CLERK'S STATEMENT
JUNE 6, 1984
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
ANNEXATION 1984 -1
Notices have been published and mailed as required by the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Affidavits and certificates of
publishing and mailing are on file in my office. A copy of the
Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer was filed in my office
on May 2, 1984, and has been open to public inspection since that time.
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. ( 4 Dept. Hd.
DATE: May 29, 1984 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. mgr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracts #6526 and #6528, Blackwell Homes,IAc. *, Parker Ranch
SUBJECT: Amendment to CC$R'S to allow Pools on 5 Additional Lots
Issue Summary
The original tentative map for Parker Ranch restricted pools to certain
lots. Applicant requested modification to the Site Development Plan for
Parker Ranch to allow pools on 6 additional lots. The Planning Commission
approved pools on 5 lots and recommended that the City Council amend the
CC &R's accordingly given:
1. Verification of
Tracts 6526 and
2. Conformity with
3. Approval by the
plan modificati
Recommendation
percentage of ownership of lots within
6528.
requirements of City Geolist, and
Planning Commissionof site development
ins of the time of Design Review.
L Determine the merits of the proposal and approve or deny
2. Planning Commission & Staff recommend approval per the Staff Report
dated 9/22/83.
Fiscal Impacts
N/A
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Staff Report dated 9/22/83
2. Minutes of 9/28/83 Planning Commission
3. Modification of Restrictions with 2 additional property owners
signatures
4 Correspondence received on project
Council Action
6/6: Approved amendment 5 -0.
F
' P
C
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
11� 30�G
DATE: 9/22/83
Commission Meeting: 9 /28/83
SUBJECT: Tracts #6526 and #6528, Blackwell Homes, Inc., Parker Ranch
Modification to the Site Development Plan to Allow Pools on
6 Additional Lots,
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
-'-=-RE UEST= Applicant requests a modification to the Site Development Plan for Tracts
6526 and 6528 to allow pools on 6 lots and a recommendation to the City Council to
amend the CC & R's to allow these pools.
OTHER APPROVALS REQURIED: City Council approval of CC & R revision for pools, Design
Review Approval of structures on the lots, building permits.
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: (1)
8
- 1.725
Ac. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - Residential Hillside
(2)
21
- 1.051
Ac. Conservation - Single Family
(3)
F
- 3.360
Ac.
(4)
75
- 2.306
Ac.
(5)
L
- 2.0
Ac.
(6)
K
- 3.469
Ac.
ZONING: NHR (but follows HCRD setbacks per Negotiated Settlement)
SITE DATA:
8
- Natural
grasses,
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family
Residential
SLOPE AT PROPOSED POOL /BUILDING SITE:
(1)
8
- 20%
(3)
(2)
21
- 10 -15%
knoll area
(3)
F
- 10 -25%
(4)
75
- 20%
- Graded
(5)
L
- 28%
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION:
(6)
K -
10%
(1)
8
- Natural
grasses,
hillside
(2)
21
- Natural
grasses,
hillside
(3)
F
- Natural
grasses,
knoll area
(4)
75
- Many significant
trees
(5)
L
- Graded
hillside
(6)
K
- Natural
grasses,
vegetation at ridge
Report to Planning Commissic 9/22/83
Tr. 6526 & 6528, Blackwell Homes, Parker Ranch Pools Page 2
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: At the time of tentative map approval of the Parker Ranch, a condition
was added to not allow pools (through the CC & R's and Site Development Plan) on
certain lots. The extention of this condition was to not allow grading for pools
on areas which exceeded 20% in slope. Since this approval, nearby subdivisions have
been conditioned so that pools are allowed by site modification rather than restricted
by lot.
Parker Ranch has been improved, a number of the lots have been combined and the pro-
spective buyers are finding what they consider to be reasonable
places for pools to exist on some of the restricted lots. In January, in accordance
with the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant's engineer submitted a
coordinated application to modify the site plan for 6 lots to allow pools. Lot 11
has recently received approval for a pool through a similar process.
GEOLOGY: The City Geologist has reviewed the proposals and his comments are attached.
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: Staff made an on -site
gineer and reviewed the proposals. All of the lots, ex
place for location of a pool (less than 25 %) given that
(with-a stepped foundation( -on .the, more sloping portion
.both proposed within the .1 eve area of the :1 o,t Lot.'..75
would need to be removed,for.any pool..construction.
visit with the applicant's en-
:ept Lot 75, had a reasonable
the house was constructed
of.the lot or that they are
contained numerous trees which
RECOMMENDED. ACTION: Recommend, revision of. the::. CC, .& R's... for. ;p,l acemen,t. of, pools on. Lots
,8; 21-5 ,F L "'and .K; subject to the ,fol l owing. condi ti ons :
1. Approval of Site Development Plan Modification for a pool and residence by the
Planning Commission at the time of Design Review of main residence.
2. Prior to revision of the CC & R's, applicant to supply verification of percentage
of ownership of lots within Tracts 6526 and 6528.
3. Comply with requirements of City Geologist's letter dated September 21, 1983.
4. Deny modification to the Site Development Plan and recommendation for revision
to the CC & R's for Lot 75.
Approved:
Kathy Kerdus
Planner
KK /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 9/28/83
C c
JEN:NINGS - McDERMOTT - HEISS, INC.
SUITE 200 256 -4555
925 REGENT STREET —SAN 1OSE, CA. 95110
Civil Engineering
Planning Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Kathy:
Land Planning
January 18, 1983
Land Surveying
Attn: Kathy Kerdus
Re: The Parker Ranch 0ur #2353
The C.C.& R.'s for the Parker Ranch stipulate that certain lots are not
allowed pools. Last year we requested an amendment in the C.C.& R.'s for
the first unit to allow a pool on Lot 19 of Tract No.6526. Since that time,
certai'n''map'modifications and "construction "Have taken place within the second
•,unH—'36f theilproj-ectiethat `is ,Tract'!No 6528,L-which ha5§V,affectedl some, of those!
lots which were'prohibited from having pools. It therefore seems appropriate
to review and refine the pool requirement situation for the second unit and
-mod ifi cat ions -in -the C.C:& R:!s -. ,.This, of course; requires
approvalr'by the-City and it is to that end this "letter is directed.
Several of the numbered lots within the project have been merged through
a reversion to acerage process and now have letter designations. Some of
these numbered lots were prohibited from having pools. Specifically, these
pre lots no. 6_,,.' 7, 16, 17, 18, 19, 35, 36, 59, 60, 70, 71, 73 and 74. With
the enlargement of these lots, there are some cases where an expanded buildable
area is possible where pools would be logical. As you may remember, the pri-
mary criteria was that no pools would be allowed on slopes exceeding 301.
Since the numbered lots no longer exist, it would seem appropriate to
delete them from the list and introduce the new parcel designations. We are
requesting however, that the certain new parcels created not be added back to
the list. Specifically, the combination of Lots..6 and 7 to Parcel H, Lots
18 and 19 to Parcel F, Lots 35 and 36 to Parcel S and the combination of Lots
73 and 74 to Parcel R.
To summerize, it is our request that Lots 6,7,16,17,18,19,35,36,59,60,70,
71,73, and 74 be deleted from the list since they have been reverted to
acerage. The new letter Parcels to be added back to the list would then
be Parcels E, J, and Q.
In an effort to keep the revisions to the C.C.& R.'s to a minimum, we
have also gone through the entire project in order to evaluate whether our
original conclusions were still appropriate. We find that it would be logical
to make certain additions and deletions to the list.
C
Page 2
After completing the first phase of Unit 2, we feel that Lots 8, 11, 21,
and 75 should be allowed pools. There is significant area within each of these
lots that is less than 30% slope that would allow for a home with a pool.
We also note that Lot 43 which was not on the list should be added since it
does not appear to have adequate area.
We have enclosed plat maps
areas that would be available
Plan illustrates that lots 8,
still fall within the criteria
are asking that Lots 8, 11, 21
be added to the list.
for Parcel F, H, R and S illustrating the
for pools. Examination of the 50 scale Grading
11, 21 and 75 have adequate pool areas that
of the City. To summerize this grouping, we
and 75 be deleted from the list and that Lot 43
To aid in this rather complicated dessertation, I am enclosing a copy of
the Second Unit Cover Sheet wherein I have outlined in yellow the combined
lots of the project. I have circled the original lot numbers where pools
were not permitted and have added a blue circle to the parcels where we feel
pools'should be allowed. T have 6s-e'8,-a: red square where we are adding Parcels
or' lo`t's to'tFie°re'strictive 1 ist '"`Th'at`'s'u- d's'mo`re`con'fus'ing than my `orlg'inal
discussion, but I think with the drawing in front ofIyou, it should make sense.
""'=Please adw'ise us'of�'any''eequired`'fees in order that `this amendment to the
C'.C:- -R.'s' can be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Thank you
very much for your obvious patience in working your.way through this letter.
We would be happy to meet with you in oerson to go over the specifics when it
is convenient.
c.c. Blackwell Homes
WEH /nr
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM E. HEISS
JENNINGS - McDERMOTT - HEISS, INC.
Iry
r...
MR.
ffil"
av Lev Q—uvciq
Re
\\ ��b \ � � fir, _ � ��\ 1,. �� .\
-ato
ka
WR
izo
Lath.
E
rog
Zve
CRES
Pq
"ta"- iz, v- Plao_cin . .
'Ik.rcel s `75 alp d G -
4061b( abc"-
,Jake -C -vt Fl b3
A �2 � � � ` \,'::�,\\ \ <.f °.sue � -,.._ �,' I Y \y< ' l•S.N' � ~� — _ --5?r _�_
All- '� `��^ c���?a. plc } �. \ •..,_.�_ '1b:4• '�-�,� �'. olQl,
/ / ,• ' / p i r' I / \ 1 \' / _ o o :v\ \ 9��s �` \ 7 � �n�i wT ` ��a k �. � �rJ�
(1` � i, \ �i�.'• � f ,9'. j., `,rya G Vr..� .•y` ,
\(r qe
/ i __ '� t �" .,fit} g.��,` ee�e la�ev .�•�✓'� / \� `'�I �. II
r % i I 7 •...� I
JE.� --1
fG0 E i /',� i�i• j j / , %/ ,. •'.
2.0 'ACRES L—
�'.-
I
Ull H ` .. •rte ��, ��, -•` ..,\ ^ \C- 1' t /i.} �� �. i `'',; .: \ t f .,
6jj,1
A\K
/ ,f r -yam` -a \ `•��'•`�,�
.. �;:.F,...�'�:•v:�?�"...�. :T!T \~.:�� � �.. ..lug' J fir. �: ... 1'y.��� ...� i� �/� / ��J �», \,�
,
7m-
A �2 � � � ` \,'::�,\\ \ <.f °.sue � -,.._ �,' I Y \y< ' l•S.N' � ~� — _ --5?r _�_
All- '� `��^ c���?a. plc } �. \ •..,_.�_ '1b:4• '�-�,� �'. olQl,
/ / ,• ' / p i r' I / \ 1 \' / _ o o :v\ \ 9��s �` \ 7 � �n�i wT ` ��a k �. � �rJ�
(1` � i, \ �i�.'• � f ,9'. j., `,rya G Vr..� .•y` ,
\(r qe
/ i __ '� t �" .,fit} g.��,` ee�e la�ev .�•�✓'� / \� `'�I �. II
r % i I 7 •...� I
JE.� --1
fG0 E i /',� i�i• j j / , %/ ,. •'.
2.0 'ACRES L—
�'.-
I
Ull H ` .. •rte ��, ��, -•` ..,\ ^ \C- 1' t /i.} �� �. i `'',; .: \ t f .,
6jj,1
A\K
/ ,f r -yam` -a \ `•��'•`�,�
.. �;:.F,...�'�:•v:�?�"...�. :T!T \~.:�� � �.. ..lug' J fir. �: ... 1'y.��� ...� i� �/� / ��J �», \,�
. . . . . . . . ....
-LYPICA rTm ton..":
rR,
Va M-
06-s/
/A OE TCm1+•c NT
FROM qwlf
T
cefy-1 65ed
X
\A,
49
—77
ox-
VV\
I.L
I
TRACT
OPEN S PACE 8.p5-E-
jt!
Y
OF
.A
------- - ---
i:PLI
�eFvIt,
. . . . . . . . ....
-LYPICA rTm ton..":
rR,
Va M-
06-s/
/A OE TCm1+•c NT
FROM qwlf
T
cefy-1 65ed
X
\A,
49
—77
ox-
VV\
I.L
I
TRACT
OPEN S PACE 8.p5-E-
jt!
Y
OF
.A
•\ r�Itl•,
&I a
nning Commission Page 9
eting Minutes 9/28/83((r r
UP -543 (cont.)
Chairman Schaefer questioned having an automatic teller on site, and Commis-
sioner Siegfried agreed. Mr. Dunn stated that a teller would increase foot
traffic. It was noted that there will be design review on this matter.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he voted for the use permit because of
Condition No. 3, requiring participation in the creation of the Parking
Assessment District. It was clarified that approval of the use permit is
subject to that condition.
MISCELLANEOUS
12. Tracts 6526 and 6528, Blackwell Homes, Inc., Parker Ranch, Modification
to Site Development Plan to allow pools on six (6) additional lots
Commissioner Crowther abstained from the discussion and voting on this matter
because of pending litigation. Staff described the proposal. Commissioner
Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, agreeing that the rest of the lots
except No. 75 have substantial sites for pools.
Russell Crowther, Norada Court, stated that the Site Development Plan for
this project was tied to the tentative map. He commented that there was
a public hearing, the EIR was based on the site development plan that was
approved, and therewas a lot of concern about scenic impacts from things
like tennis courts and swimming pools, since it is a hillside site. Fie _
indicated that he strongly believes that this should not come up under Mis-
cellaneous as it has, but should be put up for a rehearing if there is.going
,.,. to be any modification to-the-Site Development - *Plan:
Commissioner Hlava commented that they had lo0ked''at inhere the pos'sib-le -swimm-
ing pool sites were so there would not be any visual impact, and for the most
part there were no visibility problems on any of the lots.
The City Attorney stated that this -mss._ -just .a co.nsent.-.for_amendmen.t. - -to -the
-
CC&Rs at-this time. 'Staff noted that any site development plan would o
through design review, which would be a pubic bearing. Mfr. Crowther ques-
tioned whether the tentative map would be modified by changing the site
development plan. The City Attorney indicated that there would be a public
hearing in connection with a development proposal. Ile added that the fact
that the restriction is being removed doesn't necessarily mean that the
City is bound 'at that point to 'approve the proposal when it comes in. He
noted that the-engineer has indicated that Lot No. 43 should be added.to the
list of restrictions.
Bill Heiss, engineer, stated that lie understands that the pools are not
being approved and must go through the design review process. He discussed
the original delineation of pools and the criteria used. He noted that the
City Geologist has looked at the lots on which approval is being requested
but has stated that he wants to review the specific site plans.
The City Attorney stated that the amendment to the CC &Rs would not only be
for the removal of the restriction, but also the imposition of a restriction
with respect to Lot 43. He added the condition "Applicant will prepare the
Proposed amendment to the CC&Rs and furnish a draft of the same to the City
Attorney for approval as to form at least ten days prior to the City Council
meeting at which the consent to the amendment is being requested.
Mr. Crowther commented that he feels modifying the CC&Rs before the Site
Development Plan and the tentative map is putting the cart before the horse,
since the site development requires that by CC&Rs what is in the site develop-
ment plan be regulated. lie added that he feels that the danger in doing that
is a purchaser of a home site sees the-CC&Rs, saying he can build a pool,
and the site development plan says he can't. Mr. Heiss stated that the
applicant indicates to all buyers that whatever is proposed has to go through
design review. It was determined that the words "may be approved" be added
to the Staff Report.
Commissioner Illava moved to recommend modification of the CC$Rs for potential
Placement of pools, per the Staff Report dated September 22, 1983, adding
the restriction on Lot 43 and the condition as stated by the City Attorney
relative to the proposed amendment. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the
•moti.on, which was carried 5 -0, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining.
- 9 -
®I
W
VALLEY TITLE COMPANY
VTC11 172651 P6
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
VALLEY TITLE COMPANY
300 S. First Street
San Jose, CA 95113 AY
P ':AITY uLJELOPP
MODIFICATION OF RESTRICTIONS
r
i
WHEREAS, there was filed for record a Declaration of
Restriction, dated August 21, 1979, executed by Blackwell Homes,
a partnership and-Valley Title Company, d corporation, and
recorded September 20, 1979 in Book E805 of'Official Records, page
326, affecting all of Tract No. 6526, which map was filed for
record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara,
State of California on August 23, 1979 in Book 448 of Maps, at
pages 25, 26 and 27, Santa Clara County Records; and affecting
all of Tract 6528 which Map was filed for record in the office of the
i Recorder in Book 499 of Maps at pages 35 -41 Santa Clara County
Records.
WHEREAS, the undersigned is the record owner of 75% of
the lots in said Tract Nos. 6526 and 6528;
WHEREAS, the undersigned is the record owner of 75% of
the lots in said Tract 6526 and-6528 does hereby amend and modify
said Declaration of Restrictions by changing the following
paragraph:
Section 3. Pools: No pools (except spas) may be cons-
tructed or permitted to exist in:
(a) Tract 6528 on lots 12, 14,.15, 20, 32, 33,
'34, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54,
62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, and 75
(b) Parcel J as shown..on the Parcel Map filed for
record on July 1, 1982 in Book 504 of Maps,
Page 5, Santa Clara County Records
(c) Parcels M and N as shown on the Parcel Map
filed for record on May 25, 1983 in Book 513
of Maps, Page 17 in Santa Clara County Records
(d) Parcel E as shown on the Parcel Map filed for
record on September 1, 1982 in Book 504 of Maps,
page 8 in Santa Clara County Records.
Pools on the remaining lots are to be placed on slopes of 30% or
less and will be subject to City Staff design review to insure
correct placement in relation to trees and slope. Decisions of said
City Staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission through the
Design Review process.
The approvals for pools on Lots 8, 21, Parcels F, L and K are to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at the time of
the Design Review of the main residence.
All other terms and conditions of the Declaration of
Restrictions hereinabove referred to shall remain in full force
and effect.
Dated: April 16, 1984
M. C. JOHNSON, .T1
BY
VALLEY TITLE COMPANY,
A CORPORATION
BY:
Pete Borello
Executive Vice President
. %"'� `bd�
SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS • GEOLOGISTS
1737 No. First Street • Suite 425 v San Jose • California • 95112 • (408) 287 o2023
File No. A3- 0310 -J9 and J16
September 19, 1983
Jennings, McDermott, Heiss, Inc.
925 Regent Street, Suite 200
San Jose;, CA 95110
Attention: William Heiss
Subject: Parker Ranch, Tract 6528
Saratoga, California
SWIMMING POOL..CONSTRUCTION
Dear Bill:
RECEIVED
SEP 2 ,1983
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
As requested by your letter of August 17, 1983, we have reviewed the parcel map
and accompanying building enevlope sketches, for Lots. 8.,:.11,..2.1, 75, and combined
Parcels F, K, and L. We have also reviewed our Geotechnical report for the Parker
Ranch and Grading Plans prepared by your firm for development of the property.
As a result of this review, it is our opinion that those portions of the subject
lots that you have currently designated can, with careful consideration of geo-
technical conditions during the design phase of work,receive swimming pools. As
is true with all of the lots within the Parker Ranch Subdivision, it is a require-
ment of the original geotechnical report that each proposed swimming pool site
be reviewed,and perhaps further investigated, by the geotechnical engineer prior
to its final approval.
If there are any further questions, please call us for assistance.
Sincerely,
APPLIED SOIL MECHANICS, INC.
Written By:
A" Ben A. Patterson
Engineering Geologist 594
ah
Copies: 3 to Addressee
1 to Blackwell Homes
Reviewed By:
,941 Carl W. Greenlee
Soil Engineer, C. E. 19698
1 to City of Saratoga, Attn: Kathy Kerdus
1 to Cotton & Associates
William Cotton
and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
September 23, 1983
TO: Kathy Kerdus, Senior Planner
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
�r',
�h
lj
SUBJECT: Parker Ranch Pools, Lots 8, 11, 21, and 75 and Parcels F,
H, R and S
In accordance with your authorization, we have completed a geo-
logic review of the subject lots and parcels using the following
documents:
o Letter (with accompanying maps) from Jennings -
McDermott- Heiss, Inc. to Kathy Kerdus dated
January 18,-1983, and
o Letter (with accompanying map) from Jennings -
McDermott- Heiss, Inc. to Kathy Kerdus dated
January .20, - 1983.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent data, maps and ordin-
ances from our office files.
nTCriICCTnm
Our review of the referenced material indicates that several lot
adjustments have been incorporated into the subdivision plans for the
Parker Ranch. These changes are described in the letters from -
Jennings- McDermott - Heiss, Inc. Due to the lot revisions, the pro-
ject engineers have evaluated the affected parcels and determined
that certain parcels should be allowed pools and that others should
be denied pools. Specifically, they have recommended that Lots 8,
11, 21 and 75 and Parcels F, H, R and S be allowed pools, and they
have identified proposed pool sites on these properties. The purpose
of our review was to determine if any of the proposed pool sites are
not suitable for pools based on geologic criteria.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
In our opinion, the pool sites identified on the subject lots
and parcels by the project engineers do not appear'to be constrained
by any unusual soil or geologic conditions that cannot be mitigated
by proper design and good construction practices. Consequently, we
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY e ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
IWM
Kathy Kerdus, Senior Planner September 23, 1983
recommend approval of each of the pool sites with the following condi-
tions:
1) Geotechnical Evaluation - The project geotechnical consultants
should review, inspect, investigate (if necessary), and approve
each of the proposed pool sites when specific development plans
become available.
The purpose of this work is to evaluate the plans and site
topographic and soil conditions to determine if design
modifications are warranted. The results of this work should
be submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final
approval.
2) Geotechnical Field Inspection - The project geotechnical con-
sultants shall inspect test as needed) and approve the geo-
technical aspects of the pool construction. This work should
include, but not' necessarily be limited to site preparation and
grading, site drainage and inspection of the pool excavations
prior to placement -of steel and gunite.
The results of the field 'inspections should be described by the
geotechnical consultants in- letters submitted to the City for review
by the City Engi neer''pri or 'to final project approval.
WRC: DC: km
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
William Cotton and Associates
" r JE: T N 1NGS - iN -icDI R '[OTT - HEISS, INC.
gl �;
SUITE
u�1 <- J555
�° �)_5 RI ;.(;I.NT' SI'RITT1 -SAN JOSF, CA. 95110
Ao'o l i cd Soil Mechanics
'1737 North First Street
Suite L`25
San Jose, CA
95112
�e Carl.
Laud 1'lauui;I
August 17, '1983
Laud Srirveyil:g
RECEIVED
AUG 422 1983
COMM.UPITY DEVELOPMENT
Attn: Mr. Carl Greenlee
Re: Our #2353 Tie Parker Ranch
During original approval the Tentative `Sap for the Parker
Ranch, several lots were prohibited from having swimming pools because
cf slope or geotechnical restraints. Now that much of the work has
yen completed on phase 2 of the project, we feel some of these lots
s;-:o: id now be permitzed to have pools. Therefore, we have submitted on
behalf of Blackwell Homes a request to the City to amend the C.C.& R.'s
�ccorc: i ugly.
Thy: City, prior to taking action on this matter, will be having
'�e new pooi sites reviewed by the City Geologist and also require a
sta;:ement from Applied Soil Mechanics as to the suitability of the site
-or pools. Those lots being considered at this time are Lots 8, 11, 21
and 75 along wi-h several combined parcels namely parcel F, K and L.
e
To aid in your :eliberations, I am enclosing a copy of the over -all
Parker Ranch layout to permit locating the lots, plus excerpts of the
- a':'n- Plan wherein the general pool and souse locations as proposed
are illustrated. We would appreciate if you could revi,.w this as soon
as possible and respond either to our office or to the -ity with your
comments or concerns.
�.ckwe l l Homes
y y of ., ratcq:]
Attn: a:ny nerdus
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM E. HEISS