Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-20-1984 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF 'SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. �p J 0 DATE: June 11, 1984 (June 20, 1984) DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT: QUITO ROAD BIKE PATH - APPLICATION TO P.U.C. Initial: Dept. Hd. t-10 C. Atty.� C. Mgr. for R.R. XIN Issue Sunnary The Southern Pacific Transportation Company has informed us that the Quito Road Bike Path constitutes the widening of a roadway at the crossing, therefore, we must make a formal application to the P.U.C. for approval. Recommendation Submit the attached application to the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachmnts 1. Application of the P.U.C.' along with the necessary exhibits. Council Action 6/20: Approved 4 -0. BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO CONSTRUCT A PEDESTRIAN - BIKE •CROSSING, ON BOTH S_IDRS OF QUITO ROAD AT SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY CROSSING EN 46.20 IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY APPLICATION TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Comes now the CITY OF SARATOGA, by and through its City Council, and respectfully alleges as follows: I. All correspondence, notices, orders and other papers relative to this application should be addressed to Robert S. Shook, Director of Community Development, City of Saratoga, Department of Community Development, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, which is the address of the Engineer for the Applicant. II. The applicant is a body politic and corporate, namely, a municipal cor- • poration of the State of California, the governing body of which is City Council of the City of Saratoga, and said Council is charged with the authority for laying out, constructing and maintaining certain pedestrian/ bycycle routes in the City of Saratoga. III. This application is brought under the provisions of Sections 1201 -1205, inclusive, of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California. IV. In compliance with the requirements of Rule 38 of Public Utilities Commission, the following information is submitted in support of this application: (a) The legal description of the parcel to be used for the proposed pedestrian crossing is set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. (b) The nearest existing public crossing on each side of the pro- posed crossing are Saratoga Avenue to the west and Pollard Road to the east. L 0 (c) The proposed crossing is part of Quito Road Bike Path project. A part of this project includes constructing a 4 -foot wide asphalt concrete path, within the Southern Pacific Transportation Company right of way along both sides of Quito Road. It will provide a safe route for bicyclists and pedestrians riding and walking along either side of Quito Road between Allendale Avenue at the south and Baylor Avenue at the north. (d) A grade separation is not economically feasible. (e) Applicant recommends the installation of two Standard No. 1 signs (General Order No. 75 -C) at the proposed crossing. (f) (g) (h) Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth, is sheet 14 of 18 of the plans for the project showing the location, and alignment of the proposed crossing. V. It has been determined this project is categorically exempt and as such will not have a significant effect on the environment. Attached hereto, marked Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth, is a copy of Notice of Exemption on file in Santa Clara County Clerk's Office. Wherefore, applicant requests an order authorizing said construction pur- suant to the provisions of Sections 1201 - 1205, inclusive, of the Public Utilities Code. Dated at City of Saratoga, California, this day of 1984. Attest: City Manager Mayor of the City of Saratoga Santa Clara County 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss CITY OF SARATOGA ) • DAVID P. MOYLES, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is Mayor of the City of Saratoga, in Santa Clara County. Petitioner in the above - entitled Application; that he has read the fore- going application and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as the matters which were therein stated upon information and belief, and as to those matters he believes them to be true. Dated: Mayor of the City of Saratoga County of Santa Clara, State of California Attest: J. WAYNE DERNETZ City Manager • City Clerk • • EXHIBIT "A" A four foot (41) bicycle and pedestrian pathway easement along both sides of Quito Road across Southern Pacific Transportation Company Crossing EN 46.20 in the City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County, more particularly described as follows: Easement 1 - Westerly Side of Quito Road Beginning at a point, on the southwesterly right -of -way line of Southern Pacific Transportation Company's right -of -way, which is North 600 01' 40" West 13.08 feet from the centerline of Quito Road and North 50 18' 45" {Vest 189.36 feet along the centerline of Quito Road from the point of intersection of the centerline of Quito Road with the centerline of Aspesi Drive as shown on that certain tract map of Tract No. 1791, "Quito Road Rancho" recorded in Book 73 of Maps at Pages 26 and 27 in the Office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, State of Cali- fornia on the 19th day of October, 1955; Thence from the above described point of beginning, running North 600 • 01' 40" West 5.26 feet along said southwesterly right -of -way line of Southern Pacific Transportation Company; thence North 100 28' 52" West 47.40 feet to the point of tangency with a curve to the right and having a radius of 30 feet; thence along said curve to the right, through a central angle of 290 40' 07" for an arc length of 15.53 feet to the tan- gent point with a reversed curve to the left and having a radius of 26 feet; thence along said reversed curve to the left, through a central angle of 240 30' 00 ", for an arc length of 11.12 feet; thence North So 18' 45" West 24.41 feet to a point on the northeasterly right -of -way line of Southern Pacific Transportation Company, thence running South 600 01' 40" East 4.90 feet along said northeasterly right -of -way line to a point which is North 600 01' 40" West 12.64 feet from the centerline of Quito Road; thence running South 50 18' 45: East 21.59 feet to the point of tangency with a curve to the right and having a radius of 30 feet; thence along said curve to the right, through a central angle of 240 30' 00 ", for an arc length of 12.83 feet to the tangent point with a reversed curve to the left and having a radius of 26 feet; thence along said reversed curve to left, through a central angle of 290 40' 07 ", for an arc length of 13.46 feet; thence running South 100 28' 52" East 50.80 feet to the point on the southwesterly right -of -way line of southern Pacific Transportation Company, which is the point of beginning. Easement 2 Easterly Side of Quito Road Beginning at a point, on the southwesterly right -of -way line of • Southern Pacific Transportation Company's right -of -way, which is South 600 01' 40" East 12.64 feet from the centerline of Quito Road and north Exhibit "A" Page 2. 5o 18' 45" West 189.36 feet along the centerline of Quito Road from is the point of intersection of centerline of Quito Road with the center- line of Aspesi Drive as shown on that certain tract map of Tract No. 1791, "Quito Road Rancho" recorded in Book 73 of Maps at pages 26 and 27 in the Office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, State of California on.the 19th day of October, 1955; Thence from the above described point of beginning running North 50 18' 45" West 43.58 feet to the point of tangency with a curve to the right and having a radius of 30 feet; thence along said curve to the right, through a central angle of 240 30' 0011, for an arc length of 12.83 feet to the tangent point with a reversed curve to the left and having a radius of 26 feet; thence along said reversed curve to the left, through a central angle of 270 00' 0011, for -an arc length of 12.25 feet; thence North 70 48' 45" West 27.37 feet to a point on the northeasterly right -of -way line of Southern Pacific Transportation Company, said point is South 600 01' 40" East 17.33 feet from the centerline of Quito Road; thence running along said northeasterly right -of -way line South 600 O1' 40" East 5.06 feet; thence South 70 48' 45" East 24.27 feet to the point of tangency with a curve to the right and having a radius of 30 feet; thence along said curve to the right, through.a central angle 270 00' 00 ", for an arc length of 14.14 feet to the tangent point with a reversed curve to the left and having a radius of 26 feet; thence along said reversed curve to the left, through a central angle of 240 30' 00 ", for an arc length of 11.12 feet; thence running South 50 18' 45" East 46.42 feet to a point on the south- westerly right -of -way line of Southern Pacific Transportation Company; thence running along said southwesterly right -of -way line North 600 01, 40" West 4.90 feet to the point of beginning. 0 n 0 • 0 v" ls�lo lz� O.8. - 151a, $CA 1—,Eo* 4-0 PLAT TO ACCOA4,0141VY TA/ XCRCS S - --SOU THER;V- "o, 20, CkOSSIM16--clV46.20 D. 'E Sf yel� =/- Ai? de- s .......... . .... :.: I P....... :............ ............................... — — — — y JaraAo Cir ' L %n /[ J'9• n+ ©f' O i e vyd �.f �.'• y `.•j<< <! /mod , _ I - � .. .. 1 ! •• _ 6 t :r. ! _ } Y t' i � 1. r ' - fl � �r• a !'�L .n �x' 1 !� � l ��. ... f- r. . �v:� f..ta4o• !i k4 ,K,��}}. >' f.a yft' t.1 `s > -•:� J / • ( � 2• ��,. .h' � -,Y.. 4' )' y.t '•4''4.1 tJ'i�F;i.;.i:.c;.e. ✓ of .•, '��' }. �.M.� ''' yl T ...k•,'.. ,�. .Y �.Y'� Y . , c7 AY.' 7 t .'l. {c �`.' � "T�:' • Yi': .t ::,r. J� •! c • > •�:...� 'n f' i ,;KTr+r `r ^' � aR?, i L Y t r .1.. � - 7 < -.r. 4 " -. R 1. I .r_'.' i}•_ [' < �_•. f ,r. ,, t71 i �e7�'}a�t�tis,'•• .4. �: C. t - ,J w � -1. � :L s� ( _ ..:d:' .•['. �Fe: k• .n ✓.;9 L :.,.?: .,� a. +t•'u L.; +� .4. a'. ?_...� .; (•:y :- ,. j:- -�1 I :?.�: •`!. •J', .w ,1 .fi'' -:,. :>.+;. �i{,i -. +4.. .l,r:x+.,.,..�'cn.4. .„ 't.:�r: ,r' -,c- ,.�. :Y' S ::1t•. �: (.yi .4.+: :5� t�tf +':. .: Y.. l� 1. { _}}-3- I 4 •(.. -,f.� 1 �. r' _.F'; "r'. �,. t� .Sr -- x I..¢�+ a•.'�.:i�N�• :f ::�r.ze: .-.e` - titi - "f. �. S�, ii,,;, �..:.t'.T.)l•. .'!, -�.y .r 1 -., e;O.Jx: .4 . T: U, t. ♦` ,� b! t•- - � - yy id4 -�• - 7 .r, .n- s�. 8 $;'4,` •„ � .t...- ^�. :t!_.+: -. '}i..'� .+' .•l•;p• .S± .r. :•t%i -• t-'- .t. ! rp- :r.t .t. a_t r.�a .-r.- �• -•,d- .i r< ofd, •e c .,4' .;ti .i %2•. , -i'.n .:4 •s�`i:.: :, •ter r~. _�. ',✓i7B.°•1'��4 /$.•' • , •r? - ':b: . F y. ,.y . t. f : i < +T. :?'i" 1 .:t. f i 4 �. ..W. �•; 4.. ��,t.. `.Y �•. .�' \. :' i-.\ . •. •..'. �� -f ._ -. . -.. ... •�. .:. :i. ^. -.. 4:— .S.`.. t., _.7.. .t ♦.. .l .... _ �.:_.. �,, wJ-%:.: a�_'. 1. �. l.a r. i. l.:. s-+: f+ a.+, cr. ...�1..,.a.4:?..L4:t.:...,,v,.. ,,.�:L�r .._.1:.. ....4 '-,4. 4; i:.. r.- •t..,r ..,. � r t ' �XrlodO T - - ' ,. Coi�sEi'uttion.. svithiq_ /he"ini /mood' righi alt w r i,s: pondinq proro /5 L . SC,4LE.I .. % . too°' • i •�bxt�pTti M;;bores / � ' R. a. s,'q. 1/ra ��rd —,- ... _ — .1 �Lh'�'• - .�.]✓ N >7 lo;a l.(hed -r .. _ .. ..- .,... -... . - -.._ _ i•�e/A J. O _ _ _ 1 .......... . .... :.: I P....... :............ ............................... — — — — y JaraAo Cir ' L %n /[ J'9• n+ ©f' O i e vyd �.f �.'• y `.•j<< <! /mod , _ I - � .. .. 1 ! •• _ 6 t :r. ! _ } Y t' i � 1. r ' - fl � �r• a !'�L .n �x' 1 !� � l ��. ... f- r. . �v:� f..ta4o• !i k4 ,K,��}}. >' f.a yft' t.1 `s > -•:� J / • ( � 2• ��,. .h' � -,Y.. 4' )' y.t '•4''4.1 tJ'i�F;i.;.i:.c;.e. ✓ of .•, '��' }. �.M.� ''' yl T ...k•,'.. ,�. .Y �.Y'� Y . , c7 AY.' 7 t .'l. {c �`.' � "T�:' • Yi': .t ::,r. J� •! c • > •�:...� 'n f' i ,;KTr+r `r ^' � aR?, i L Y t r .1.. � - 7 < -.r. 4 " -. R 1. I .r_'.' i}•_ [' < �_•. f ,r. ,, t71 i �e7�'}a�t�tis,'•• .4. �: C. t - ,J w � -1. � :L s� ( _ ..:d:' .•['. �Fe: k• .n ✓.;9 L :.,.?: .,� a. +t•'u L.; +� .4. a'. ?_...� .; (•:y :- ,. j:- -�1 I :?.�: •`!. •J', .w ,1 .fi'' -:,. :>.+;. �i{,i -. +4.. .l,r:x+.,.,..�'cn.4. .„ 't.:�r: ,r' -,c- ,.�. :Y' S ::1t•. �: (.yi .4.+: :5� t�tf +':. .: Y.. l� 1. { _}}-3- I 4 •(.. -,f.� 1 �. r' _.F'; "r'. �,. t� .Sr -- x I..¢�+ a•.'�.:i�N�• :f ::�r.ze: .-.e` - titi - "f. �. S�, ii,,;, �..:.t'.T.)l•. .'!, -�.y .r 1 -., e;O.Jx: .4 . T: U, t. ♦` ,� b! t•- - � - yy id4 -�• - 7 .r, .n- s�. 8 $;'4,` •„ � .t...- ^�. :t!_.+: -. '}i..'� .+' .•l•;p• .S± .r. :•t%i -• t-'- .t. ! rp- :r.t .t. a_t r.�a .-r.- �• -•,d- .i r< ofd, •e c .,4' .;ti .i %2•. , -i'.n .:4 •s�`i:.: :, •ter r~. _�. ',✓i7B.°•1'��4 /$.•' • , •r? - ':b: . F y. ,.y . t. f : i < +T. :?'i" 1 .:t. f i 4 �. ..W. �•; 4.. ��,t.. `.Y �•. .�' \. :' i-.\ . •. •..'. �� -f ._ -. . -.. ... •�. .:. :i. ^. -.. 4:— .S.`.. t., _.7.. .t ♦.. .l .... _ �.:_.. �,, wJ-%:.: a�_'. 1. �. l.a r. i. l.:. s-+: f+ a.+, cr. ...�1..,.a.4:?..L4:t.:...,,v,.. ,,.�:L�r .._.1:.. ....4 '-,4. 4; i:.. r.- •t..,r ..,. � TO: SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES 1416 Ninth Street, Room ;.311 Sacramento, California 95814 X County Clerk County of Santa Clara 191 North First Street San Jose, California 95112 PROJECT TITLE: NOTICE OF EXEINIPTION FRO,'4: City of Saratoga DeDt. of Comm. Development 13777 Fruitvalc Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 TDA, Article 3, Pedestrian /Bicycle Program PROJECT LOCATION - Specific: East side of Quito Road between Cox Avenue and Yorkton Way PROJECT LOCATION - City: Saratoga PROJECT LOCATION - County: Santa Clara DESCRIPTION OF NATURE, PURPOSE AND BENEFICIARIES OF PROJECT: Construction of pedestrian and bicycle path for citizens of Saratoga NJV4E OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT: City of Saratoga Nil "4E OF PERSON OR AGENCY CARRYING OUT PROJECT: E )OT STATUS: (check one) Ministerial (Sec. 15073) Emergency Project (Sec. 15071 (b)(c)) REASON *1Y PROJECT IS EXDIPT: City of;Saratoga Declared Emergency (Sec. 15071(a)) X Categorical Exemption. (State type and section number): Class 4: Minor alterations to land; Section 15104 (h) EIR Guidelines Creation of bicycle lane on existing right -of -way CONTACT PERSON: Robert S. Shook, Director of Community Development, City of Saratoga (408) -867 -3438 If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes X No DATE RECEIVED FOR FILENG::; I;, r 21982 : rr JOHN KAZUBOWSKI, lerk ,At;TA ANA Robe t S. S Director of Community Development afe���� ' CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. Cn SI DATE: June 11, 1984 (June 20, 1984) Initial: {� Dept. Hd. o" C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: -- Community Development C. Mgr, -------- — — ----- ----------------- -- ---- - 4 SUBJECT: OAK MAP APPROVAL, TRACT 7283, GARNER - SORENSON, FANELLI, OAK STREET (1 LOT, 8 APARTMENTS) Issue Summary 1. The Tract 7283 is ready for final approval. 2. All Bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the City. 3. Requirement for City and other agencies have been met. Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 1495 -02 attached, approving the final map for Tract 7283. Authorize execution of contracts for improvement agreement. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attaclments 1. Resolution No. 1495 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission 3. Location Map Council Action 6/20: Approved 3 -0 -1 (Fanelli abstaining). 0 l� 11 u • f UTZ}77_ / 'n RESOLUTION NO. 1495 -02 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 7283 WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of Tract 7283 having heretofore been filed with this City Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completed, and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require- ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save and except as follows: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: (1) The aforesaid final map is hereby conditionally approved. Said approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance with Section (3) hereof. (2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the State of California. (3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept- ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted, and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of the -1- estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS -60 as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe- cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city. (4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require- ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day of , 19 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: C77nnl Vk CITY CLERK MAYOR t A r FA_ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City of SaratogQ APPP,CVED CY: DATE: G/ 5 / 81 DA :^: : Commission Meeting: 6/10/81 SUBJECT* SDR -1495 Sorenson & Garner, 14561 Oak Street, Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (8 apartments) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- REQUEST: The applicant has reapplied for building site approval for a .554 acre site at the corner of Oak and Third Streets in the RM -3,000 Zoning District in order to place 8 rental units on the site which incorporate the existing residence. Design Review Application (A -665) iaas being made concurrently. This application is identical to the one approved by the Planning Commission on July 11, 1979 which expired. An appeal on the undergrounding condition was upheld by the City Council, and their decision is reflected in the following recommended conditions. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Apartments ZONING: :RM -3,000 SURROUNDING USES: Single family detached, multi- family units and commercial. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration for this project was approved at the time of the previous tenta- tive site approval. PUBLIC NOTICING: This project is not required to be noticed as a public hearing under current ordinances, however a notice was placed in the Saratoga News. SITE SIZE: .554 acres. HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: SETBACKS: ) See attached Design Review Report SIZE OF STRUCTURES: ) dated July 6, 1979. SITE COVERAGE BY STRUCTURES: ) SITE SLOPE: ) RECOMMENDATION: Said project complies with all objectives of-the 1974 I�ap0rt to P.C. SDR -14 21 C -2- 7 Flood Control-regulations and requirements of the Fire Departr,ent. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further Larticu i.E:.*fs . Site approval -in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga IS 7onina and '3uildina Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. Tn addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific- Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PUBLIC WORI:S DEPARTMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel reap" to City for Checking_ and Recordation (Pay reQ,uired Checking & 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 for a 20 ft. radius return at Oak St. and Third St. D. Improve Oak St. and Third St. to City Standards, including ' -'_ie following: 1. Designed Structural Section 20 ft. between centerline and flowline. 2. P.C. Concrete Curb and Gutter (V -24) 3. Pedestrian Walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.) ** 4. Enter into a deferred improvement agreement for underground - ing existing overhead utilities. E. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the Director of Public tIorks, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Pratercourse, including the following: 1. Storm Sevier Laterals with necessary manholes. F. Construct Standard Driveway Approach G. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. H. Engineered Improvement Plans required .for: 1. Street Improvements 2. Storm Drain Construction Z. Pay Plan Chc-ck and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans J. Enter into Improvoment Agreement for requir ^d improvements to be completed wit -hi.n one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. t�o.rt t.o P.C. -3- 7/6/179 14 11 '1/11/7:% K. Post bond to guarantee completion of the require(-.t improvements. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OL 1N, ;PF;CTI0N S] "RVICES A. Geotechni_cal 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. Retainina 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. Existing structures to be brought to code. 5. Erosion control measures 6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., o�•.ner's name, etc. D. Bonds may be required for upgrading structures. E. Provide pedestrian access to adjacent properties. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Applicant to submit enumerated fees to Sanitation District No. 4 in accordance with letter dated June 2.5, 1979 prior to issuance of permits. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS -• SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk se', Te.rs of the Santa Clara .County Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said distr- ict to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by Sari Jose 17ater l%7orks . C. The well and spring on site to be abandoned or ri �:inta:incd. :ir) ':3ccorcl,3nce I% th County st'lndard . '1 «;1:')ort to P.C. � - 1- � � c ( 7/6,7± c.1;,R -1.4 21 \ 7/11./79 VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA. Ci,r.WA VALLEY G%7 ATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map T.pprova.l, submit plans s'nowi; -.c* the Location and intended use of any e;<.istinq wells to the SCV:••'D for review and certification.. VII. SPECIFIC CONDTTTONS - PTANNTPJC, n7TPA.R1PMr.7,J'P A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. (A -665, submitted) B. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planninq Commission appro✓al. VIII. COMMENTS A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. Kathy Kerdus, Assistant Planner Planning Commission Agenda: 7/11/79 KX /c lh as modi.fi.ecl at the 111eet.inc, on July 11, 1979 of the Planning Conunission. * as modified at the meeting of September 5, 1979 of the City Council Fs TERLIC 4 4 I 4 s W Q O O dti 3 W � 4 L ROPD -� 1 I L o e ATION - MAP- TRACT - 7283 - + �GER4Lp J w lA ►GLl1 `O cT Y 4 U G � N' w W L( J T J W 2 e v \ N1G ass ti' lx s� o V ^ OAK L 2 A i• } �1 CT. V 4 J 4 P r P G� 4 � 9r a P V � l ♦ 0 ' U �9 1 c c O Y I c e AGE -DA BILL M. S 2- DATE: &T<n1E2Z: City Manager SUBJECT: CITY OF., SAR11I'ICCGA Initial: Dept. F]d. C. Atty. _ (Q C. Mgr._ ------------------- ------------ / - - -- Use of Consultant for 1984 Employee Negotiations Issue Summary The City Government is obligated to Meet and Confer during the current period with employee groups. The staff member normally assigned to lead this process and provide information needed by the City Council in its negotiations with employee groups has resigned as of June 1. With this key position vacant, the City must, nevertheless, continue with our obligations under prior agreements to meet and renew the agreements at this time. s. The vacant position leaves the City short staffed and lacking needed experience and knowledge at a time when'it is needed. We cannot fill this void with other management positions without affecting other priorities and projects that are on- going. During the period of the vacancy in the position, the need for staffing, experience and knowledge can be met through use of temporary consultants immediately available for the stated • purpose. Recommendation That the City Council approve an agreement with Keil and Avery for negotiations and consultant services in employer /employee relations for 1984 and authorize the City Manager to enter into the agreement for the services. Fiscal 1m pacts The cost of consulting services will be charged on an hourly basis with a total not -to- exceed $4,500. No other expenses will be charged. This amount is equivalent to approximately one month of the full cost of salary, benefits and other expenses of the position now vacant. Since the position is expected to be vacant for more than two months, the cost of the consulting services can be fully met through salary savings anticiapted in the fiscal year. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Proposed agreement with Keil and Avery along with transmittal letter and information dated June 8, 1984. 2. Report to Mayor and City Council from City Manager concerning • the subject. Council Action c_ uguw Qq IF M 000& _,1__:T)& r) ' 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon Martha Clevenger Virginia Fanelli John Mallory June 15, 1984 David Moyles Report to Mayor and City Council From: City Manager U Subject: Use of Consultant for 1984 Employee Negotiations BACKGROUND Under current State law, the City is obligated to Meet and Confer with employee groups regarding wages, benefits, and working • conditions. Under these obligations, the City enters into contracts known as "Memoranda of Understanding" with employee groups which outline the terms and conditions of agreement reached during the course of Meet and Confer sessions. These Memoranda of Understanding have fixed terms and include provision for renegotiation at set times during the year. The current MOUs will expire on August 31, 1984, and the City has agreed to begin conferring on renewal provisions of the MOUs by May, 1984. However, the City's personnel officer and principal member of the City's negotiating team has resigned effective June 1. Recruitment for a replacement is underway, but the position is not expected to be filled until the end of August. Consequently, the City is without the services of its most knowledgeable and experienced staff member just at the time when this experience and staff resource is needed. Given the press of other on -going priorities and duties, I do not feel that it is possible for the City to makeup this loss with remaining management personnel without other projects sufering. Accordingly, I have sought recommendations on the availability of temporary services to fill -in this gap for the City at this critical time. Attached is a proposal solicited from one of the few labor relations consultants experienced and familiar with local government regulations and processes and is locally based. • RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed agreement with Keil and Avery for negotiations and consultant services in employer /employee relations for 1984 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. 4 Report to Mayor and City Council Page 2 • Use of Consultant for 1984 Employee Negotiations DISCUSSION The proposed consultant, William H. Avery, of Keil and Avery is well experienced in public- sector labor relations and maintains an office nearby. Mr. Avery currently maintains a number of public- sector clients, including the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy among others. I have discussed our needs with Mr. Avery in obtaining his contract and believe that he is eminently qualified to perform the work and would be a great assist to the City during this time. The proposal provides for a fee based on an hourly charge with appropriate conclusion to the negotiation, including the preparation of new Memoranda of Understanding, at a cost not to exceed $4,500. No additional expenses will be charged. The not - to- exceed figure of $4,500 compares favorably with the projected cost of staff time that would otherwise be expended. This cost is equivalent to approximately one month of the full cost of salary, benefits, and taxes for the vacant position of the City. The full cost of the contract, therefore, is less than the anticipated salary and benefit savings to be derived by the City during the anticipated vacancy of the position. Because we are already into the period when the Meet and Confer . process should be on- going, I would recommend the City Council approve the contract at the June 20 meeting and schedule time for a closed session to meet with the consultant and staff at the earliest opportunity in order to review and prepare the City's negotiating position. However, as an alternative recommendation, the City Council may want to approve the contract at the June 20 meeting conditional upon the first meeting with the consultant, at which time you may evaluate the quality of services to be provided and determine whether to enter into the agreement or not. In either case, I would urge the City Council to set an early date for a closed session in order to develop our negotiating positions and determine our method of proceeding. J. Wayne ernetz jm • C] 0 KEIL & AVERY LABOR RELATIONS CONSULTANTS Mr. Wayne Dernetz City Manager 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 RECEIVED JUN 11" 1960 CITY MANAGER 4000 MOORPARK AVE., SUITE 118 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95117 (408) 241 -8435 June 8, 1984 Dear Wayne: ff Enclosed, in the form of a draft contract, is the proposal you requested for labor relations and personnel services. In sum the draft provides for: *Handling negotiations with the City's bargaining unit, including all necessary meetings with the Council, staff and employee representatives. *Bringing negotiations to an appropriate conclusion, and preparing the Memorandum of Understanding. *Assisting the City in developing its' management compensation program. *A fee arrangement based on a charge of $75.00 per hour, not to exceed $4,500. No expenses will be charged. I have also enclosed a brief resume and a list of current clients. You are, of course, welcome to contact any of the agencies listed. Please let me know if any thing further is required. I'm looking forward to working with you. WHA /mh Sinc ely yours, William H. Avery • • KEIL & AVERY LABOR RELATIONS CONSULTANTS WILLIAM H. AVERY 4000 MOORPARK AVE., SUITE 118 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95117 . (408) 241 -8435 ft Mr. Avery is a partner in the Labor Relations Consulting Firm of KEIL & AVERY. Prior to joining KEIL & AVERY, he worked as Labor Relations Consultant for the firm of Becker and Bell, Inc. Mr. Avery was also City Manager of the city of Los Gatos for over four years and Assistant City Manager for an additional three years. While City Manager, he was President of the Santa Clara County City Managers Association and Chairman of the Santa Clara County Employee Relations Service. He has served as a guest lecturer at De Anza College, San Jose State University, and Stanford University. Mr. Avery holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree and a Master of Public Administration Degree from San Jose State University. He grad- uated with highest honors. His Master's Thesis dealt with Labor Relations. KEIL & AVERY LABOR RELATIONS CONSULTANTS CITIES ATASCADERO Mr. Ralph Dowell (805) 466 -8000 BAKERSFIELD Mr. Richard Russell (805) 326 -3751 DIXON Mr. Dave Harris (916) 678 -2326 GILROY Mr. John Booth (408) 842 -3191 MORGAN HILL Mr. Chuck Cate (408) 779 -7271 PASO ROBLES Mrs. S..Godsey (805) 238 -0400 PUBLIC SECTOR CLIENTS of Bill Avery BUTTE Mr. Jim Rackerby (916) 534 -4366 LAKE Mr. Kelly Cox (707) 263 -2367 SISKIYOU Mr. Dick Sierck (916) 842 -3531 TRINITY Mr. Dave Andres (916) 623 -4000 4000 MOORPARK AVE., SUITE 118 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95117 (408) 241 -8435 1 0 r� AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARATOGA • AND KEIL & AVERY FOR NEGOTIATIONS AND CONSULTANT SERVICES IN EMPLOYER - EMPLOYEE RELATIONS THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of , by and between the City of SARATOGA, a political subdivision of the State of California (herein called "City "), and KEIL & AVERY, 4000 Moorpark Ave., Suite 118, San Jose, California 95117 (herein called "Consultant ") it W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, City is obligated pursuant to state law and city policy to meet and confer with recognized employee organizations representing its'employees in their employment relations with ethe City; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to engage professional assistance in matter of labor relations representation and negotiations and in accomplishing the process of said meeting and conferring in relation thereto; and WHEREAS, Consultant is a professional labor relations consultant and representative, who is well qualified by education and experience to provide such services; and WHEREAS, City, under authority of the Government Code, proposes to engage Consultant in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein to render such services. NOW THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree as follows: 1. Employment of Consultant. City hereby agrees to engage eConsultant, and Consultant hereby agrees to provide the services hereinafter set forth involving labor relations negotiations and the instruction and training of PAGE 1 of 5 Z management personnel in the implementation of labor relations agreements. • 2. Contacts for Responsibility. The City Manager shall represent the City for the purpose of administering this Agreement. William H. Avery of KEIL & AVERY shall be Consultant's designated representative for the purpose of administering this contract. The individual within Consultant's firm who will provide services to City as set forth in Section 3 will be decided by mutual agreement of the parties. Consultant shall not delegate or assign his responsibilities under this contract without the prior express approval of City having first been obtained. 3. Scope of Service. Consultant shall provide his special knowledge, services and skills as follows: • a. Consultant shall act as City's principal representative and chief negotiator at all meet and confer sessions held with the City's one bargaining unit. All such representations and negotiations shall abide by the guidelines established by the City, and Consultant shall meet and confer as often as is reasonably necessary until agreement with the bargaining unit is reached in conformance with such guidelines, or until the City Council has determined, after consultations with Consultant,that agreement is not reasonably possible with the bargaining unit. Consultant shall also act as City's representative at any and all impasse proceedings which may be S conducted, such as mediation or factfinding. PAGE 2 of 5 Consultant shall meet with the City Council as often • as is reasonably necessary during each meet and confer process to review City's position and obtain further instructions. b. When agreement is reached with the employee bargaining unit, a Memorandum of Understanding will be prepared by Consultant and submitted to the City Council for approval. When so approved and upon request, Consultant shall meet with City's management team to explain the provisions of any approved memorandum of Under- standing developed pursuant to this agreement and to explain any changes in wages, hours and working conditions instituted by the City following the meet and confer process. • C. Consultant will assist the City Council and City Management Team in establishing the management compensation package. d. Upon request of the City, Consultant shall provide advice on any employer- employee relations or personnel related matter, either by telephone or in writing. 4.. City Assistance. City shall assist Consultant by providing information, personnel, space and facilities as follows: a. All information reasonably within City control or accessible to City and which may be helpful to Consultant in the performance of his services as Oprovided herein; and b. A management team to assist Consultant during the PAGE 3 of 5 I meet and confer sessions; and C. Supplemental clerical and stenographic assistance • as Consultant may reasonably require for the performance of his services as provided herein; and d. A suitable location where meet and confer sessions may be conducted. 5. Term. The respective duties and obligations of the parties hereto shall commence on July 1, 1984, and continue for twelve (12) months until June 30, 1985. 6. Fee Arrangement. For the services described above, the City agrees to pay Consultant the sum of Seventy - five Dollars ($75.00) per hour. Consultant shall utilize City staff for data collection work. Fee for . services described above shall not exceed $4,500.00 for the twelve (12) months without the express consent of the City Council. Fee shall be payable upon receipt of invoices by KEIL & AVERY. 7. Expenses. No travel, telephone, clerical or related expenses will be charged. 8. Independent Contractor. It is expressly understood and agreed to by both parties that Consultant, while engaged in carring out and complying with any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, is an independent contractor and is not an employee of the City. PAGE 4 of 5 • • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. CITY OF SARATOGA ATTEST: CITY CLERK <t APPROVED AS TO FORM: • KEIL & AVERY • PAGE 5 of 5 CI'TY OF SARATOGA / Initial: AMIDA BILL NO. 53 Dept. Hd . DATE: 6/12/84 C. Atty. DEPAR`ITZM: Community Development C. Mgr. SU&7EC: A -958 - Mr. Robert Dewey, 12329 Vista Arroyo Court, Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Approve Design Review Issue Sunnary The applicant requested Design Review Approval for a 6,589 sq..ft. residence on a 2.73 acre lot in Parker Ranch close to a prominent ridgeline. The Planning Commission approved the residence on a 5. -1 vote with -1 abstention.- The approval* is being appealed based on -the impacts to the ridgeline and inconsistency-with SarAtoga's General and Specific Plans. Recommendation 1. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny Design Review A -958, making or amending the Design Review findings. 2. Staff recommended approval of Design Review A -958. Fiscal Impacts N/A Exhibits /Attachments 1. Appeal letter dated 5 /25/84 5. Exhibits B, C, D, E, F 2. Staff Report for A -958 6. Correspondence on application 3. Resolution No. A -958 -1 ., 4. Minutes of Planning Commission Meetings of 5/9/84 & 5/15/84 Council Action 6/20: Applicant referred to Planning Ccgmnission 5 -0. Date Received: Y Hearing Date: ;T Fee 0 0 CITY USE ONLY APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: Address: Q4 Telephone: 02S:-7 7 !�(�% Name of Applicant:` Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: 1 Decision Being Appealed: Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attache d ? `f A, �y {re. vti•t. S 4t- �¢,,L,c� U Ira, • Appellant's Signature 1 *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the V� 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 Cite of Saratoga APPRO'.!ED By. *Revised: 5/15/84 DATE: -/E�L F-171 DATE: 5/3/84 NAITIALS : -( &La) Commission Meeting: 5/9/84 SUBJECT: A -958 - Mr. Robert Dewey, 12329 Vista Arroyo ACTION REQUIRED: Design Review Approval for a new 2 -story single family residence on a hillside lot and Grading Permit approval for grading in excess of 1,000 cu. yds. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Site Modification Approval and City Council Approval to amend the C.C. & R.'s to allow a pool on this site. PLANNING CLASSIFICATION ZONING: NHR (Subject to the HC -RD per the negotiated settlement) GENERAL PLAN: Residential: Hillside Conservation Single Family SITE DATA PARCEL SIZE: 2.73 acres NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The parcel runs along one of the prominent ridges in Parker Ranch on the western hillside facing Prospect Road. The site has moderately steep downsloping topography. There is little natural vegetation on the site, however, there is a grove of eucalyptus to the south and old orchard trees and brush on the lower hillside. A scenic easement extends across the back of the lot. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 31% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 24% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 1,940 Cu. Yds. Fill: 480 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 8 Ft. Fill Depth: 7 Ft. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE SETBACKS: Front: 43 Ft. Rear: 290 Ft. Left Side: 30 Ft. (to deck) Right Side: 35 Ft. Left Side: 40 Ft. (to building) HEIGHT: 28 Ft. Report to Planning Commission A -958 - Mr. Robert Dewey, Vista Arroyo IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 7.8% (25% max. allowed) SIZE OF STRUCTURE (Including Garage): PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS 5/3/84 Page 2 Garage /Storage: 1,188 sq. ft. Main Level: 3,118 sq. ft. Upper Level: 2,283 sq. ft. Total Floor Area: 6,589 sq. ft. (6,200 sq. ft. Design Review Standard) Impact on Privacy and Views: The subject site is surrounded by vacant property and is not likely to impact the views or privacy of future residences. The proposed home will be visible to the homes on the opposite hillside along Prospect Road (refer to north elevation) and will appear large. The visual impact is somewhat mitigated by the backdrop of the hillside, which rises to a higher elevation behind the house, by a knoll which creates some moderate slopes below the house, by the architectural style of the home and by landscaping along this property line. From the valley floor to the east, some of the proposed residence will be hidden behind the shoulder of the hill or screened slightly by a rise with a eucalyptus grove. The whole house will be visible from some vantage points. To help minimize the impact, Staff is recommending that the single story east bedroom wing be lowered, so that the roofline is no higher than the 2 -story living area. Crossections show this wing ele- vated by approximately 4 ft. Trees or shrubs planted on the northwest corner of the lot, such as indicated on the landscape plans, will help blend the house into the hillside. Grading /Retaining Walls: The grading plan calls for a total of 2,420 cu. yds. of grading on the site, the majority of it being cut. Grading for the pool is included in these figures. The proposed grading plan is consistent with the grading shown on the tentative map which was approved with the subdivision. It does result in"a massivo amount of earth movement on the site. There may be some potential to reduce the grading by eliminating the cut under the east bedroom wing, shortening the driveway and reducing the size of the garage, or if the pool is approved later, by reducing the size of the pool and patio. The grading plan also shows a 175 ft. long retaining wall along the western property line. There is, for most of the length, a 10 ft. landscape strip which slopes up from the wall to the driveway. Staff would recommend that the retaining wall at the property line not exceed 3' in height and, where necessary, a second retaining wall could be constructed 4 ft. behind this wall, which wouldleave a landscape strip for planting to screen and drape the walls. Additionally, approval for the length of the wall at this time should not exceed 125' which would bring it to the end of the driveway. Retaining walls around the pool would be looked at under site modification and Staff would suggest there be a variation in the linear wall treatment at this point. Pool: A pool is prohibited on this site by Tentative Map conditions and the C.C.& R s. Building a pool on this site would first require geologic review and site modification approval from the Planning Commission. Then it would require further approval by the City Council to amend the C.C.& R.'s. Report to Planning Commission 5/3/84 A -958 - Mr. Robert Dewey, Vista Arroyo Page 3 * Design Consideratfons: The house will be finished in tan stucco and medium brown stained wood siding with dark brown trim and stone veneer. Roofing will be "Woodlands" fiberglass shingles. FINDINGS 1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privac The proposed residence is not likely to impact the privacy or views of future resi- dences due to the size of adjacent parcels and building site locations. The views of the homes to the west will not be unreasonably impacted due.to the hillside back- drop and landscaping along the westerly property line. The views from the valley to the east will not be impacted due to screening by the shoulder of the hill, screening by a rise with a eucalyptus grove and landscaping. 2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape Because of the slope of the site, any house will require significant grading. There is a massive amount of grading proposed, however, the grading plan submitted is con- sistent with the building site approval and tentative map for this parcel. , 3. Perception of Excessive Bulk The perception of bulk is minimized as the house will be set into the hillside and screened from the east by the shoulder of the hill and to the west by landscaping. 4. Compatible Bulk and Height The proposed residence is compatible in size and height with other homes in the Parker Ranch subdivision. The floor area exceeds the Design Review Standard by 400 sq. ft. but the additional floor area is mitigated by the 2.7 acre lot size. It will not impair the solar access of adjacent property. 5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards The grading plans show.3:1 slopes except in the driveway area where a 2:1 slope is indicated by the retaining wall and is allowed by the geotechnical report submitted with the Tentative Map. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated 5/3/84, Exhibits "B, C, D, E and F ", subject to the following conditions: * 1. A. detailed landscape plan shall be submitted with the building plans for the review and approval of the Permit Review Division. This plan shall be consistent with the conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit "F "), show erosion control on the modified slopes, include plantings for draping and screening the retaing walls along the western property line and indicate indigenous trees along the ridgeline. * 2. The retaining wall along the western property line is not to exceed 5 ft. in height or 125 ft. in length and is not to extend beyond the driveway. The wall shall blend with the hillside and materials, heights and landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Permit Review Dept. 3. Site Modification Approval and City Council Approval to amend the C.C. & R's is re- quired for the pool. Grading for the pool area is not approved with this application. Report to Planning Commission 5/3/84 A -958 - Mr. Robert Dewey, Vista Arroyo Page 4 4. The western, single story bedroom wing is to be lowered so that the roofline will not extend above the roofline of the adjacent 2 -story section. 5. The project shall conform to the adopted 1979 "Uniform Fire Code and Amendments" including fire retardant Class A or B roofing, keying for roadway or driveway gates and chimney spark arrestors. An early warning fire reporting system is to be in- stalled throughout the residence as required by the Saratoga Fire District. Approved: LL /dsc P.C. Agenda: 5/9/84 t Linda Ltau Zze Planner DESIGN REVIEW It FILE NO: A -958 RESOLUTION NO. A -958 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval of a 2 -story single family residence in the NHR zoning district on °s and arcWHE 5 act e ap licant (has) (has not) met the burden of proof required to support his said application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of ROBERT DEWEY for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (granted) ((X&hX ) subject to the following conditions: PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 15th day of May 19 84 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hlava, McGoldrick, Siegfried, Schaefer, Peterson NOES: Harris ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioner Crowther Chairman; Plann' Commission ATTEST: Secretary, lanni g Commission Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 5/9/84 A -948, V -633 and SDR -1564 (cont.) Mr. Nelson sugges ed that 10 -15 ft. trees be planted to screen the fence line. t Fie indicated that would like to work with the applicant regarding the planting of these rees. Mr. Glumac, the app1 cant, discussed the project, stating that he was agree- able to planting big rees. Commissioner McGoldrick, moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, wh ch was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick m ved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR -1564. Commissioner I-Ilava second the motion, which was carried 5 -1, with COmmiS- sioner Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve SDR -1564, f per Exhibit "B" and the Staf Reports dated April.4, 1984 and May 1, 1984, allowing a 14 ft. wide accesX road and requiring a fire hydrant on site, and A -948, per Exhibits C -1, D -1 nd E -1 and the Staff Reports dated April 4, 1984 and May 1, 1984, with the con tion that the trees between the applicant's and the Nelsons' property be 1 -15 feet. Commissioner Filava seconded the Y which was carried 5 -1, ith Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. Com- missioner Schaefer commented that she feels the applicant has made a lot of requested changes, but she feels the height and the bulk are not compatible for an inf.il.l kind of homer Chai man Siegfried stated that if the 14 ft. driveway poses a significant probl m in terms of an impact on existing trees, lie would hope that the applicant world come back to Staff and indicate that there is a problem. Staff noted thathe applicant will have to bring in the plans for review and there will be discussions of any problems of that nature during that review period. D obert Dewey, Vista Arroyo Court (Parcel E, Tract 6528), Request (: or Design Review Approval to construct a 2 -story single family esidence in the NFIR zoning district Commissioner Crowther abstained from discussion and voting on this matter. Staff de.scribe.d the proposed project, stating they were recommending approval. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, discussing the location of the house. She stated that it is visible from Prospect but will not have a major impact on the viewshed from the Arroyo de Arguello area below. The public hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m. Kurt Anderson, representing the applicant, addressed the project. lie stated that they would like to come back to a study session with plans for the retain- ing wall and landscaping to mitigate the impact. Commissioner Hlava commented that they had gone on an on -site visit to look at the wall technique that Floyd Gaines is proposing for his wall at the end of Fourth Street. She stated that they were very impressed with the way that the wall is put together and the fact that it does appear that you can plant on it. She indicated that they had recommended to Mr. Anderson that it was a possible solution to some of the problems. She added that she would be amenabl, to approving this and having Staff do that negotiation on the look and con- struction of that long wall along the driveway, rather than having him come back to the Commission. She commented that the Land Use Committee is very interested in pursuing this technique which has been used for a long time in Europe and might be a solution to a lot of the problems with retaining walls. Mr. Anderson discussed the grading on the project. Russell Crowther, Norada Court, stated that his home is located directly to the. east of the. project, Ile stated that lie feels it will have a major impact on the view, and he disagreed with the comments in the Staff Report and by Commissioner Filava that it will not be major. He commented that it looks like the top of the home will stick up above the top of the ridgeline and will be visible from the cast. lie stated that the vegetation shown on the eastern side of the lot will also stick up above the top of the ridgeline and change the whole character of the ridgeline. Ile commented that the location of the house violates the General Plan, and he feels it should meet the criteria of the General Plan and should be stepped down and moved back from the ridgeline the indicated amount that is in the General Plan. He also indicated that he opposes the method of stabilizing the wall previously discussed, since he does not think it will stand up in that area. - 4 - Planning Commission / Page 5 Meeting Minutes 5/9/84 e A -'958 (cont.) Discussion followed on the criteria in the Specific Plan for ridgelines. Staff noted that this particular site is not subject to NHR but is subject to the HCRD criteria. Staff was asked to see if there were any setbacks from ridgelines in NHR. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels that, with the amount of stucco work that appears in the design, it might be more appropriate to use natural stone to add depth and richness. Commissioner Crowther stated that there was not a good drawing of the ridge - line, and he would like to have the location of the ridgeline plotted out so it can be determined what the house is going to do to the viewshed relative to that ridgeline. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. After :further discussion regarding the ridgeline, it was determined that this matter should be continued to an Adjourned Regular Dleeting. Staff was asked to provide additional input relative to the questions on the ridgeline, and the applicant was asked to provide information regarding the possibility of using stone vs. stucco in the design. It was directed that this item be continued to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on May 1S, 1984. 9. A -960 Harry and Marie Yauger, 14528 Chester Avenue (Parcel E, Tract 6261, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 2 -story single family residence in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district Staff described the proposal. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. She commented that there was very little privacy impact. She described the grading, noting that there was one section of the wall that appears to be over 6 ft. in height. The public hearing was opened at 9:55 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Com- missioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner I-Ilava moved to approve A -960, per the Staff Report dated May 2, 1984 and Exhibits "B ", "C ", ;'D" and "E ". Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. 10. A -961 - Nilson Development, Inc., 21503 Saratoga Heights Drive (Lot 1.2, - Tract. 6665), Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 2 -story single family residence in the NHR zoning district Staff explained the application. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee, describing the site. Commissioner Crowther commented that he would vote against the project. He stated that it basically violates the conditions of the initiative that was passed by the public, and he disagrees with any separate side agreement that was made by the City. He added that he would be opposed to it on the basis that the lot is really too small for this house. The public hearing was opened at 9:58 p.m. Dave Nilson, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project, stating that he would not like to have the windows be opaque. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. After further discussion on the windows, Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A -961, per the Staff Report dated May 2, 1984 and Exhibits "B" and "C ", deleting Condition No. 2 regarding the obscure or opaque windows. Commis- sioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 5 -1, with. Commissioner Crowther dissenting. - 5 - CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, May 15, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Center Meeting Room, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting --------------------------------------------------------------- ----- - - - - -- ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Harris, Hlava, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Schaefer arrived at 7:50 p.m.) Absent: None Abstaining: Commissioner Crowther PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. A -958 - Robert Dewey, Vista Arroyo Court (Parcel E, Tract 6528, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 2 -story single family residence in the NHR zoning district; continued from May 9, 1984 It was noted that Commissioner Crowther was abstaining from the discussion and voting on the proposed project.. Staff explained the application and recommended approval. They commented that this development does not fall with- in the ridueline requirements of the NHR zoning district because of the stipu- lated settlement. The public hearing was opened at 7:34 p.m. Kurt Anderson, representing the applicant, and Bill Heiss, representing Blackwell Homes, presented photographs from various locations around the Parker Ranch area. They indicated the building was 21 feet above the ridge, but essentially the house was on the west side of the ridge. They pointed out the area from which the house would be visible from the Arroyo de Arguello area. Russell Crowther, Norada Court, questioned whether this project meets the General Plan and Specific Plan relative to ridgelines. He also questioned the vegetation on the plan. Mr.Anderson commented that the proposed land- scaping would soften the impact. The City Attorney responded to Mr. Crowther that the intent of the settlement was that the homes be reviewed under the HCRD standards and that the NHR ridge requirements had not been adopted. Bill Heiss stated that this lot was one-of the combined lots within Parker Ranch and, according to the settlement, the developer of this lot could use either one of the two approved building sites or obtain a modification for an alternate site. hie explained that either of the two approved sites would have the structure projecting above the ridgeline, and that the proposed site is 2 feet lower than the higher of the two previously approved building sites. Mr. Heiss then went on to state that the tentative map for Parker Ranch had been developed under the HCRD standards and that the rest of the ridgeline had been left vacant in open space, thus making this a fair proposal. Commissioner McGoldrick suggested that with the shift of this alternate site, it would not increase the visual impact. Staff commented that, viewing the site from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at Seagull, there was an existing home on the hillside beyond Prospect Road which already gives the impression of a home on this site. Commissioner Schaefer questioned whether the rock facia as shown on the plans was real stone or man -made stone, as she was concerned about the appearance of man -made stone. The applicant indicated that he was investing a great deal of money in this project, and that he would be ensuring a quality Look in the stone work. - 1 - P1•afining Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes 5/15/84 ( ° Mr. Crowther stated that he felt that this was just the type of project that had led to the Initiative. He expressed his concern with this type of approval which has more than an 8 ft. elevation difference with the ridgeline. He asked why the standards are put into the zone if they are not going to be followed. He stated that he strongly believes that the agreement is invalid since it violates what Saratoga wants. He added that this project should not take place; it is a disaster. Discusion followed on the proposed landscaping and the lowering of the bedroom wing in an effort to reduce the amount of grading. The applicant's representa- tive explained that there would not be a saving in grading, but that in fact the grading would be increased by the lowering of the wing; however, overall you would see less home. Mr. Crowther indicated that he would prefer more grading rather than having the wing lowered. Mr. Dewey stated that he would prefer to see the house left as is. The size of the home was discussed. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A -958, per the Staff Report dated May 3, 1984, with the condition that the bedroom area be lowered 4 feet. Staff reminded the Commission of the 3 ft. maximum height of the retaining wall. The applicant indicated that there was not enough information on this matter at this time. Commissioner Schaefer amended her motion to modify Condition 2 to read: "or as approved by Staff ". Commissioner McGoldrick asked that the motion be amended to modify Condition No. 1 to read that the landscape plan shall indicate indigenous trees along the ridgeline. Commissioner Schaefer accepted the amendment. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. Commissioner Harris indicated that she would vote against this proposal, since she could not make Finding 3 for excessive bulk. She stated that she realizes that it does not come under the Specific Plan but, having sat through the General Plan and Specific Plan hearings and listening to the citizens, she feels that this fact would not compel the Commission to approve the application. The vote was taken to approve A -958. The motion was carried 5 -1, with Commis- sioner Harris dissenting and Commissioner Crowther abstaining. ADJOURNMFNT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 8714 p.m.. Respectfully s bmitted, obert S. Shook Secretary t RSS:cd • 20788 Norada Ct. Saratoga, Ca., 95070 June 14, 1984 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca., 95070 Dear Council Members: This is relative to the appeal of A -958. The home location which was approved as part of A -958 will result in the home extending approximately 21 feet above the top of the ridge line within the Parker Ranch development, adjacent to the eucalyptus grove. I am appealing this because it will result in a scenic disaster& because it violates the Saratoga Specific and General plan criteria and because it is not consistent with either the NHR or HCRD ordinances. Saratoga general plans, including the 1974 and current general plan clearly specify that the scenic ridge lines which cup the City should be preserved. The current specific /general plan went further to include a detailed map of the scenic ridge lines and to specify that the maximum elevation of any home located near these ridge lines should be 8 feet less than the elevation of the ridge line. This criterion and the associated ridge line map were adopted in the NHR zone ordinance. The property associated with A -958 is zoned NHR. The Saratoga scenic ridge line map shows a major scenic ridge line located directly adjacent to the home location. The City Attorney has indicated that NHR does not apply to this project, but if this is the case why was it zoned NHR? Why was the scenic ridge line map showing the ridge line extending through this property adopted as part of the specific /general plan-if it did not apply? I believe that the project must conform to the City's current ordinances and general plan and that any side deal which was made indicating that the general plan and ordinances do not apply is invalid, is in violation of California law and violates the California and United States constitutional requirements for equal protection under the law. Even if it were valid to apply criteria for a different zoning district (HCRD) to a property zoned NHR, the project would still violate Saratoga ordinances. The HCRD ordinance requires that a "site development plan "' which shows the location of each home be approved as part of the tentative map (Zoning regulations Section 3A.23). Any change in the site development plan requires a change in the tentative map. The home location for A -958 is different than that of the approved site development plan and therefore, a change in site development plan is required before this can be approved. C7 In addition to the—legal arguments, the home location approved is simply a bad • decision which will have a very negative impact on a major Saratoga scenic ridge line and a very negative impact on Saratoga. Although it was indicated that only those who live close to the site will notice this home because there are other homes in the background on other ridge lines, this is a totally invalid argument which is not supported by the facts. I urge Council members to personally inspect this site and to visualize a home on this site which extends 21 feet above the top of the ridge line. The minutes of the May 15th meeting on this topic are incorrect. I attempted to correct these at the last Planning Commission meeting. Although other Planning Commissioners agreed with me that they were incorrect, the City Attorney advised the Commission that they not adopt the corrections. The details of the problem are summarized in an attachment. In summary, I request that the home be relocated to the lower of the sites shown in the prior site development plan approval and be revised in design, if necessary to meet the criterion of being 8 feet lower in elevation than the adjacent ridge line. Sincerely, Russell Crowther • W. In addition to the-legal arguments, the home location approved is simply a bad decision which will have a very negative impact on a major Saratoga scenic ridge line and a very negative impact on Saratoga. Although it was indicated that only those who live close to the site will notice this home because there are other homes in the background on other ridge lines, this is a totally invalid argument which is not supported by the facts. I urge Council members to personally inspect this site and to visualize a home on this site which extends 21 feet above the top of the ridge line. The minutes of the May 15th meeting on-'this topic are incorrect. I attempted to correct these at the last Planning Commission meeting. Although other Planning Commissioners agreed with me that they were incorrect, the City Attorney advised the Commission that they not adopt the corrections. The details of the problem are summarized in an attachment. In summary, I request that the home be relocated to the lower of the sites shown in the prior site development plan approval and be revised in design, if necessary to meet the criterion of being 8 feet lower in elevation than the adjacent ridge line. Sincerely, Russell Crowther • 0. Summary of Corrections to May 15 Planning Commission Minutes At the beginning of the discussion of the May 9, 1984, minutes I asked the City Attorney if it was appropriate for me to request correction of the minutes for an item for which I had abstained from.voting. The City attorney indicated that it was appropriate. Corrections to the May 9th minutes were requested and were unanimously adopted by the Commission. When the City attorney heard the corrections to the May 15th minutes he indicated that perhaps it was not appropriate for me to make such corrections. He requested that instead a literal transcription of the tape recordings be used. Staff indicated that they forgot to take tape recordings of this meeting and that there were no tapes. The City attorney then advised the Commission that they should adopt the minutes as presented by staff and not consider my requested corrections. A motion to that effect passed by a 4/2 vote with J. Harris and myself opposed. Chairman Siegfried indicated that he thought the corrections requested were a valid representation of what really transpired at the meeting, but he voted according to the City Attorney's recommendation. Following is a summary of the corrections to the May 15th minutes: The sentence at the end of the 4th paragraph should be ....had not been adopted at the time of the HCRD ordinance adoption. The following paragraph should be added following the 4th paragraph: Staff provided a ortho -photo contour map of the ridgeline from the Specific Plan /NHR Ordinance. Mr. Crowther noted that the City's ridgeline plot did not agree with that shown on the plot plan and that the true ridgeline passed much closer to the home location. Mr. Heiss agreed that their plot was not the true ridgeline but was an attempt to show the "visual" ridgeline. The next to last sentence in the first ....violates the Saratoga specific and sentence in this paragraph should read: result in disastrous scenic impacts. paragraph on page two should read: - general plans and ordinances. The last He added that the home location will The third sentence from the end of the 2nd paragraph on page 2 is complete nonsense and should be: Mr.Crowther indicated that he would prefer more grading if necessary to lower the wing. sell Crowther August 6, 1984 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca., 95070 Bear Saratoga City Council Members: I have reviewed the new plans for the Parker Ranch home proposed to be located on the ridge line and I continue to ob- ject. The plans indicate that the home will project significantly above the ridge line and will be in violation of both our General Plan and zoning ordinances. The applicant previously indicated in the Council meeting that he wanted to preserve his views of the valley. The revised plans reflect this stand. The peak of the house was lowered by only 1/2 foot and the house was rotated slightly around the hill. Although in the previous Council meeting the developer indicated that the house would project only 4 feet above the ridge line, it is now admitted that the revised plan will result in a house which projects 11 feet above the ridge line as viewed from parts of our neighborhood. The developer refused to consider any change in the design of the house and he would not move the house to the previously approved lower building site. The overall height of the proposed house is greater than 38 feet and I believe that this is excessive. If the design of the home were changed it could be moved to the lower building site and it would not project significantly above the ridge line. I and my neighbors sincerely hope that you will enforce our ordinances and comply with the General Plan by requiring that the design of this home be revised and that the home be moved to the building site approved in the site development plan and tentative map so that it will not project above the ridge line. Sincer y Q. J. antoriello Norada Ct. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. 6 S DATE: June 13, 1984 (June 20, 1984) DEPARTMENT: Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. --------------------------------- SUBJECT: FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL, SDR -1346, ANTHONY LAWRENCE, — LOMITA AVENUE (1) LOT Issue Summary 1. The SDR -1346 is ready for Final Approval. 2. This is an expansion of building to an existing.single family house. 3. All requirements for City Departments and other agencies-have been met. 4-. All fees have been paid. Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 1346 -02, attached approving the building site for SDR -1346. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution No. 1346 -02 2. Staff Report dated 2/10/78 3. Status Report for building site approval. 4. Location Map Council Action 6/20: Approved 4 -0. .4 1 U C J RESOLUTION NO. 1346 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF ANTHONY LAWRENCE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 0.588 Acre Parcel shown as Parcel "A" on the final Parcel Map prepared by Marvin D, Kirkeby 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 20th day of. June 19 84 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR City of Sorologa OFEBRUARY APP CITY OF SARAaOQ; 10, 1978 IN I'' L5: _ !''=� - - -STAFF REPORT SDR -1346 Anthony Lawrence, Lomita Avenue, Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Building Site Approval for an expansion (over 50 %) of an existing one -story structure on Lomita Avenue in the R- 1- 10,000 district. The total square footage of the existing residence is approximately 850 sq. ft. It lies on x gently sloping lot of 100'x276' with an orchard to the rear. Lomita Avenue has not been improved. The expansion will consist of 550 sq. ft. on the first floor and 600 sq. ft. on the second story. Use Permit (Conversion) lies been previously granted for the second sotry addition on December 12, 1977. This Use Permit found that the surrounding residences will not be impacted by the addition due to the distances, trees and existing structures. STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application: Said determination date: N/A Project is Categorically Exempt. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1346 (Exhibit "A" filed January 6, 1978) 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 tentative approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable stealth Department regulation and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinaxice of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - Public Works Department A. Construct driveway approach 16 feet wide at property line flared to 24 feet at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screening.or better on 6 -inch base rock. B. Construct Lomita Avenue to be 18 feet wide plus l.foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6" Agg. Base from Aloha Avenue to northwesterly edge of property. C. Dedicate and improve Lomita Avenue to provide for a 28 foot half- street. D. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for street and stows drainage improvements. E. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change retard or prevent flow. F. Convey drainage water to street, storm sewer or watercourse as approved by the Director of Public Works. G. Engineered improvement plans required for access road and storm sewer construction. H. Bond and inspection fee as determined from engineered plans to be posted and paid. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - Santa Clara Valley Water District. A. Applicant shall, prior to Final'Map Approval, submit plans shwoing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. j�AFF REPORT * EBRUARY 10, 1978 + 1.. SDF -1346, Anthony Lawrence IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - Planning Department A. Building and grading plans to be approved by Planning Department prior to issuance of permits. V. COMMENTS A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. Ka by Kddus, Planner I LDC Agenda; 2/16/78 MEMORANDUM CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY 'COUNCIL- FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR -1346 ,Anthony Lawrence (brad) (have not) been met as listed on the Land'Development Committee Report dated Feb. 10, 1978 Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items: Offer of Dedication shown on map Date Submitted 11/16/78 Record of Survey or Parcel Map yes Date Submitted 11/16/78 Storm Drainage Fee N/A Date Submitted NSA Receipt # All Required Improvement Bonds N/A Date Submitted�; N/A Receipt # All Required Inspection Fees 313.20 Date Submitted 6/14/79 Receipt 449202 Building Site Approval Agreement N/A Date Signed - Park and Recreation Fee N/A Date Submitted N/A Receipt # - It is, therefore, the Public Works Department recommendation that (Condi- tional) (MM Building Site Approval for Anthony Lawrence SDR 1346 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s) Reason for Non-compliance 1. Provide Subdivision guarantee 2. Tax Bond and letter 3. Sign Deferred Improvement Agreement . -ROBERT'S SHOOK 1� dd P" U 0 a LaCA % !ON MAP SDR— 1346 a t CITY OF SAR I`OGA At'DA BILL No. Initial: - �p 5� Dept. Hd. DATE: C. Atty. DEPARTMENT; City Manager C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Recommendation on Prioritization of Proposed Traffic Signals Issue Sunmary Foll.owing study and deliberation of the issues involved, the Public'Safety Commission is recommending that a traffic signal be installed at the inter- section of Herriman Avenue and Saratoga.- Sunnyvale Road as soon as.possible. The Commission recommends no further action on other proposed signals at this time. Recomnendation Direct staff to initiate procedures with Cal Trans for installation of traffic signal at Herriman and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at the earliest opportunity. Fiscal Imoacts City of Saratoga would be required to participate with Cal Trans at 1/3 of the cost -- approximately $40,000. S:�h ibi is /Attachmen is 1. Report from Public Safety Commission 2. 5/9/84 Memo from Director of Community Development 3. 5/7/84 Memo from Engineering Technician Council Action 6/20: Adopted minute resolution to request Caltrans to place in 1984 -85 budget, 4 -0. 6. o� SARA re 15• Qy REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: June 14, 1984 COUNCIL MEETING: June 20, 19 8 4 SUBJECT: Recommendation on Prioritization of Proposed Traffic Signals At their March 21, 1984, meeting, the City Council referred to the Public Safety Commission the issue of prioritization of three proposed traffic signals for their study and recommendation. The Commission. recommends that installation of a traffic signal at the-corner of Herriman Avenue and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road be the first priority and that installation take place as soon as possible. The Public Safety Commission received public input and information from the Community Development Department on the various intersections in the City where signals have been proposed. After study and deliberation, the Commission has concluded that there has been an adequate demonstration of need for this signal based upon satisfaction of warrants and an analysis of the intersection's accident history since 1978. The Public Safety Commission further recommends that no action be taken on the proposed signals at McCoy Avenue /Quito. Road or Quito Road /Westmont Avenue. The Commission felt that the current traffic conditions at these intersections did not demonstrate a need for signals. J seph P. Long, Jr. ew hairman Public Safety Commission 1IE!��OO RANDl1ti'1 (09'ffff o:T O&UMAMDO& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: Public Safety Commission DATE: May 9, 1984 FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Traffic Signals The City Council has referred to you, for review and comment, the matter of proposed traffic signal installation. There are three such proposals in the City, all of which are joint facili- ties with other jurisdictions. They are: 1. Herriman Avenue /Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Joint facility with State 2. McCoy Avenue /Quito Road Joint facility with San Jose 3. Quito Road /Westmont Avenue Joint facility with San Jose. Traffic signal costs are high and, therefore, it is necessary to prioritize their construction. It is this prioritizing that the Council requests your assistance on. I have enclosed a copy of the staff summary memo to me concern- ing the proposed signals for your information. That memo includes a copy of that portion of the State Traffic Manual concerning warrants. This will be of value to you in understanding the justifying of such installations. My staff and I will be happy to assist you in your deliberations if you wish. Ro t S. Shook D rector of Community Development RSS:cd Enclosure 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 "' °• . (408) 867 -3438 TO: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAY 7, 1984 FROM: ERMAN DORSEY, ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRENTS /PROPOSALS SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE RD. /HERRIMAN AVE. (CAL TRANS) QUITO ROAD /MC COY AVE. (City of San Jose) QUITO ROAD /WESTMONT AVE. (City of San Jose) After reviewing the traffic signal warrants sheets on all of the above intersections, I have the following comments: 1. Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. /Herriman Ave. - The study indicated that the Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant and the Interruption of Continous Traffic Warrants were satisfied 100 %. The Minimum Pedestrian Volume Warrant and the Accident Experience Warrant were not met. In the Combination of Warrants - the two warrants that were met fulfills this requirement (2 warrants satisfied 80% or more). Cal Trans used the rural minimum requirements.for their findings, which is less than the urban requirements. If a signal were to be installed at this intersection, the City of Saratoga would be required to participate at 33 1/3 %. 2. Quito Rd. /Mc Coy Ave. - The study conducted by the City of San Jose indicates that the Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant was satisfied 83.3% and the Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant was satisfied 100 %.. The Minimum Pedestrian Volume Warrant was not satisfied (1.3 %) and the Accident Experience Warrant was not satisfied (indicates that the accident experience would increase from 0.227 to 0.80 accidents per million vehicle miles if a signal was installed). In the Combination of Warrants - the two warrants that were met fulfill this requirement. City of San Jose used the urban minimum.requirements. If a signal were to be installed at this intersection, the City of Saratoga would participate at 75 %. 3. Quito Rd. /Westmont Ave. - The study conducted by the City of San Jose indicates that both the Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant and the Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant were satisfied (4.0 %). and the Accident Experience Warrant was not satisfied. -,Memo to Director of Community Development Traffic Signal Warrents /Proposals May 7, 1984 Page 2 In the Combination of Warrants - the two warrants that were met fulfilled this requirement. The urban minimum requirements were.used. If a signal were to be installed at this intersection, the City of Saratoga would participate at 33 1/30. In comparing all three of these Traffic Signal Warrants it was inter- esting to note that the data collected indicates that the volumes on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Quito Road are approximately equal. The intersecting side streets and the pedestrian volumes were also comparible. Satisfaction of a warrant does not necessarily provide justification for signals. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right -of -way assignment must be shown. Erman Dorsey Engineering Technician NOTE:.,. Attached is a copy of Chapter 9- of,the' STate.Traffic Manual "Traffic Signals - Basic infor- mation.and Warrants" cf C- C c I C C Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING CHAPTER 9 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Signals —Basic Information and Warrants 9-01 9 -01.1 Introduction Traffic signals are electrically powered traffic con- trol devices which alternately direct traffic to stop and proceed at highway and street intersections. Their purpose is the orderly assignment of right of way to the various traffic movements. When justified and properly designed, a traffic sig- nal installation may achieve one or more of the fol- lowing: 1. Reduce the frequency of certain types of acci- dents; especially the right —angle type; 2. Effect orderly traffic movement; 3. By proper coordination, the continuous flow of a platoon of traffic at a definite speed along a given route; 4. Allow other vehicles and pedestrians to cross a heavy traffic stream; and 5. Control traffic more economically than by man- ual methods. Unjustified, ill— designed, improperly— operated, or poorly maintained traffic signals may cause: 1. Increased accident frequency, 2. Excessive delay, 3. Disregard of signal indications, and 4. Circuitous travel by alternate routes. Contrary to common belief, traffic signals do not always increase safety and reduce delay. Experience shows that the number of right —angle collisions may decrease after the installation of signals, but the num- ber of rear —end collisions will increase in many in- stances. The installation of signals may increase over- all delay and reduce intersection capacity. Consequently, it is of the utmost importance that the consideration of a signal installation and the selection of equipment be preceded by a thorough study of traffic and roadway conditions made by an engineer experienced and trained in this field. Equally impor- tant is the need for checking the efficiency of a traffic signal in operation. This determines the degree to which the type of installation and the timing pro- gram meets the requirements of traffic. 9 -01.2 Warrants The warrants for the installation of traffic signals are based on those stated in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. These warrants apply to both pre —timed and traffic— actuated traffic signals. 9-1 12 -1979 When the 85— percentile speed of major street traf- fic exceeds 40 miles per hour, or when the intersec- tion lies within the built —up area of an isolated com- munity having a population less than 10,000, the location is considered rural. All other areas are con- sidered urban. Since the installation of traffic signals may increase certain types of collisions, the decision to install signals should not be based solely upon war- rants. Consideration should also be given to such fac- tors as delay, congestion, approach conditions, driver confusion and additional evidence of need for right of way assignment above that which could be pro- vided by stop signs. The installation of traffic signals should be consid- ered if one or more of the warrants listed below are met: Warrant 1 — Minimum Vehicular Volume. Warrant 2 — Interruption of Continuous Traffic. Warrant 3 — Minimum Pedestrian Volume. Warrant 4 — School Crossings. Warrant 5 — Progressive Movement. Warrant 6 — Accident Experience. Warrant 7 — Systems. Warrant 8 — Combination of Warrants. 9 -01.3 Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume The minimum vehicular volume warrant is intend- ed for application where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for consideration of sig- nal installation. The warrant is satisfied when for each of any 8 hours of an average day the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher— volume minor street ap- proach to the intersection. Number of lanes for Vehicles per Vehicles per moving traffic on hour on major hour on higher - each approach street (total volume minor - of both street approach approaches) (one direction only) (Minimum Requirements) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 - - _ - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 500 350 150 105 2 or more -- 1 - - - - - - - 600 420 150 105 2 or more -- 2 or more -- 600 420 200 140 1 - - - - - - - 2or more -- 500 350 200 140 t 9 -2 12 -1979 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual The major street and the minor street volumes are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours the direc- tion of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours. Left turn movements from the major street may be included with minor street volumes if a separate signal phase is to be provided for the left turn move- ment. The left turn volume in the highest direction may be added to the minor street volume on the highest approach and the major street volume should be reduced by this amount. 9 -01.4 Warrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic The interruption of continuous traffic warrant ap- plies to operating conditions where the traffic vol- ume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major street. The warrant is satisfied when for each of any 8 hours of an average day the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher - volume minor street approach to the intersection, and the signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. Number of lanes for Vehicles per Vehicles per moving traffic on hour on major hour on higher - each approach street (total volume minor - of both street approach approaches) (one direction only) (Minimum Requirements) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 750 525 75 53 2 or more -- 1 - - - - - - - 900 630 75 53 2 or more -- 2 or more -- 900 630 100 70 1 - - - - - - - 2 or more -- 750 525 . 100 70 The major street and minor street volumes are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours. Left turn movements from the major street may be included with minor street volumes if a separate signal phase is to be provided for left turn move- ment. The left turn volume in the highest direction may be added to the minor street volume on the highest approach and the major street volume should be reduced by this amount. 9-01.5 Warrant 3 -Minimum Pedestrian Volume The minimum pedestrian volume warrant is satis- fied when for each of any 8 hours of an average day the following traffic volumes exist: 1. On the major street 600-- Urban, 420 -Rural or more vehicles per hour enter the intersection (total of both approaches): or 1,000- Urban, 700 -Rural or more vehicles per hour (total of both approaches) enter the intersection on the ma- jor street where there is a raised median island four feet or more in width; and 2. During the same 8 hours as in paragraph 1., there are 150 - Urban, 105 -Rural or more pede- strians per hour on the highest volume cross- walk crossing the major street. A signal installed under this warrant at an isolated intersection should be of the traffic- actuated type with push buttons for pedestrians crossing the main street. If such a signal is installed at an intersection within a signal system, it should be equipped and operated to provide proper coordination. Signals installed according to this warrant shall be equipped with pedestrian indications conforming to requirements set forth in other sections of this Man- ual. Signals may be installed at nonintersection loca- tions (Mid - block) provided the requirements of this warrant are met, and provided that the related cross- walk is not closer than 150 feet to another established crosswalk. Curbside parking should be prohibited for a minimum of 100 feet in advance of and 20 feet beyond the crosswalk. Phasing, coordination and in- stallation must conform to standards set forth in this Manual. Special attention should be given to the sig- nal head placement and the signs and markings used at nonintersection locations to be sure drivers are aware of this special application. 9 -01.6 Warrant 4 -School Crossings See Chapter 10. 9 -01.7 Warrant 5 - Progressive Movement The progressive movement warrant is satisfied when one of the following is true: 1. On a one -way street or on a street which pre- ponderantly has unidirectional traffic signifi- cance, adjacent signals are so far apart that the necessary degree of platooning and speed con- trol of vehicles would otherwise be lost or, 2. On a two -way street, where adjacent signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and speed control and the proposed and adja- cent signals could constitute a progressive signal system. The installation of a signal according to this war- rant should be based on the 85- percentile speed un- less an engineering study indicates that another speed is more desirable. The installation of a signal according to this war- 1 C c C C C Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING rant should not be considered where the resultant signal spacing would be less than 1,000 feet. 9-01.8 Warrant 6 -Accident Experience The accident - experience warrant is satisfied when: 1. Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the accident frequency; and 2. Five or more reported accidents of types sus- ceptible of correction by traffic signal control have occurred within a 12 -month period, each accident involving personal,injury or property damage to an apparent extent of $200 or more; and 3. There exists a volume of vehicular and pedes- trian traffic not less than 80 percent of the re- quirements specified in the minimum vehicular - volume warrant, the interruption of continu- ous traffic warrant, or the minimum pedestrian - volume warrant; and 4. The signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. 9-01.9 Warrant 7 - Systems Warrant A traffic signal installation at some intersections may be warranted to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow networks. The systems warrant is applicable when the common intersection of two or more major routes has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 800 vehicles during the peak hour of a typical week- 9-3 12 -1979 day, or each of any five hours of a Saturday and /or Sunday. A major route as used in the above warrant has one or more of the following characteristics: 1. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal network for through traf- fic flow; 2. It connects areas of principal traffic generation; 3. It includes rural or suburban highways outside of, entering or traversing a city; 4. It has surface street freeway or expressway ramp terminals; 5. It appears as a major route on an official plan such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study. 9 -01.10 Warrant 8 -Combination of Warrants In exceptional cases, signals occasionally may be justified where no single warrant is satisfied but where any two of Warrants 1, 2 and 3 are satisfied to the extent of 80 percent or more of the stated numer- ical values for each of any 8 hours of an average day. 9-01.11 Periodic Traffic Signal Studies To maintain the desirable operation of existing traffic signals, it is necessary to periodically conduct engineering studies to ensure that the desired opera- tion is realized. In particular, engineering studies should determine whether the installation continues to be justified and that the signal timing in use meets the current traffic requirements.