HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-1981 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAt ,I
CITY OF SAPATOGA
AGIiQDA BILL NO.
DATE: 10/21/81
DEPE'�i:1fi=: Community Development
SUBJECT: SDR 1387 and SDR 1388 - Big Basin Way
Issue Summa
Initial:
Dept. Hd .
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Attached is a copy of my memo to Council dated 2/25/81 relative to inaction
on the completion of the driveway on a 25 foot right -of -way through the property
of Masek. Mr. Masek requested deferment of the recommended action so as'to fur -'..
ther negotiate this matter.
No discernable progress has been made to.date.
Recorrmendation
Adopt Resolution'No. , accepting the Offer of Dedication from Joseph Masek
and direct James Rosenfeld to proceed with the construction of the temporary
access across the public way.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attactmpants
1. 2/25/81 Report from Director of Public Works-
2. Resolution No.
Council Action
10/21: ':Koved to accept staff recommendation and adopt Res. 1000 accenting dedication.
Passed 5 -0.
'Page, 2 )
Memo to Mayor and City Council
SDR 1387 - James Rosenfeld, SDR 1388 - Joseph Masek
Subsequent to the receipt of the August 9, 1980 Masek letter, the City Manag0
sponsored a meeting between City staff, Mr. Masek and Mr. Rosenfeld and their
representatives in an effort to resolve the differences. During that meeting,
it was agreed that it would be better to utilize the monies Mr. Rosenfeld would
be expending on temporary pavements towards the permanent pavement that Mr.
Masek would be required to construct. It was staff's understanding that
Mr. Rosenfeld and Mr. Masek would proceed to implement the construction of
the permanent pavement, to which Mr. Rosenfeld would donate the amount bid
for the temporary access road.
No such construction has taken place and I am informed
while attempts were made to provide quotations for con
pavement, there has been no further agreement for such
my opinion, therefore, that the chance of construction
in the near future, is not great and we should proceed
access implemented.
Recommendation:
by Mr. Rosenfeld that
struction of the final
construction. It is
of the permanent access,
to have the temporary
Adopt Resolution No. 1000, accepting the Offer of Dedication from Joseph Masek
and instruct James Rosenfeld to proceed with the construction of the temporary
access across the public way.
Submitted by; L — / <"
City Manager ' Robert S.-Shook •
Director of Public Works
Date:
Preparation Cost: 6 Manhours
$97.62 Total Cost
RSS /dsc
Attachments
•
0
O
Af
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 2/25/81
COUNCIL MEETING: 3/4/81
SUBJECT: SDR 1387 - James Rosenfeld, Big Basin Way
SDR 1388 - Joseph Masek
Background:
SDR 1388 - Masek
In 1978, the City of Saratoga sold the property on Big Basin Way common-
ly known as the ARCO Site to Mr. Joseph Masek. Included in the agree-
ment of sale between the City and Mr. Masek, was the provision that a
25 foot right -of -way be dedicated to public use as access to off - street
parking (agreement attached).
On March 22, 1979, the Land Development Committee gave tentative site
approval for the development of this site, including the condition for
improvement of the above - mentioned right -of -way. On October 24, 1979,
the Planning Commission gave final site approval for the development of
this site after having received; 1.) The Offer of Dedication for the
25 foot right -of -way and, 2.) An agreement dated October 16, 1979 be-
tween Mr. Masek and Mr. Rosenfeld relative to the joint improvement of
their properties (copies of Offer of Dedication and agreement attached).
On August 9, 1980, Mr. Masek notified Mr. Rosenfeld that he felt Mr.
Rosenfeld had utilized his property contrary to the agreement and
unilaterally terminated that agreement, effective August 11, 1980.
SDR 1387 - Rosenfeld
On June 21, 1979, the Land Development Committee gave tentative site
approval for development of the (Cleff House) property of James Rosenfeld,
This approval included the condition that he provide a vehicular access
across the 25 -foot right -of -way to be dedicated by Masek. If Mr. Rosen -
feld's development proceeded Mr. Masek's development, the requirement
was for temporary minimum access road standards for this access. On
• October 24, 1979, the Planning Commission gave final site approval for
the development of the Rosenfeld property, after first having received
the above - referenced agreement between Rosenfeld and Masek for the mutual
development of their properties. Mr. Rosenfeld has proceeded to develop
the buildings and parking required under that site approval.
For valuable consideration, the undersigned owners of the here-
inafter described real property, hereby warranting that they
constitute all of the owners thereof., for themselves, their heirs, j
successors and assigns, hereby irrevocably offer to dedicate to
;r
the City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation, an easement and
.right' -of -way for a public city 'street (including all trees or growth
-presently growing or as may be grown within said right -of -way) upon, i
- -under, over and across that certain real property situated in the
=City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and
C _"more particularly described as follows: 'r
=All that certain real property situate in the City of Saratoga, County ?
-of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows `
=: Being a portion of Lot 1 in Block 2, as shown upon that certain Map
entitled, "Plan of the Town of McCartysville ", which Map was filed for
record on September 28, 1870 in Book A of Maps at page 43.
v' Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly line of Big Basin Way :
(formerly Lumber Street) with the Southwesterly line of Second
Street as shown on the above - mentioned Map;
f.7M
C°1 ®'hence, S 42° 23'W, 25.00 feet .along the Northwesterly line of
Big Basin Way;
't
j hence, N 47° 44'W, 120.00 feet to the Northwesterly line of that t
TI certain parcel of land described in the Deed from Rosenfeld,
et ux,. to:Richfield Oil Company', recorded on May 13, 1954 in
F,: y Book 2872 of Official Records, page 520, Santa Clara County
`3 a, Records;
O .'] Fa he.. N 42.' 73'�T, �S.OJ fe °t along }he r?erth•.,e °terly line o.f. the
G7 - t'T
V aforemeritioned.Deed to a point on the Southwesterly line of
o D Second Street as shown on the above - mentioned Map;
w
whence, S 47° 44'E, along the Southwesterly line of Second Street to
G] to the point of beginning.
r+'I
.v
The undersigned-understand that the within offer can only be accepted
by resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga pursuant
to Streets and Highways Cede Section 1806 of the State of California,
and recordation of this instrument shall not and will rot constitute
acceptance of the within offer to dedicate. This offer shall be
irrevocable and shall be binding upon our heirs, personal representa- t
tives, successors and assigns. The plural as used herein shall in
c lude the singular, -and the singular include the plural.
da of C Z
t.
Executed this y
K- :YY?!fL4�tYri' 1GSX'(vGJK"JiGY'1f,!.ftf} M 4� ..
FILED Ff R FE OFD
.. .•�»i �
345
�REQU
BE7S 3 23 PM Is
OFFIGIP,L REGORDS -1
OOUNCY
GF.G: ;E• ;;i, iri,i)RJERs
k. CYjVHI1N J. U' kAKY O1e i
(Thi. eree (or oRcal n reel aeel)
Name (Typed or
Printed)
F
•
0
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1: Reference is hereby made to the following Offer
of Dedication to the City of Saratoga covering
right -of -way over a portion of Lot 1 in Block 2, as shown upon that
certain Map entitled, "Plan of the Town of McCartysville ", which
Map was filed for record on September 28, 1870 in Book A of Maps at
Page 43. Said Offer. of Dedication was recorded on December 26, 1979
in Book F42 at Page 345 in the Office of the Santa Clara County Re-
corder.
SECTION 2: The aforesaid portion of Offer of Dedication is here-
by accepted by the City of Saratoga and the above
portion of said street covered therby and hereby declared to be a
public street of the City of Saratoga.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on
the day of 1981, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
? MAYOR
ROBERT J. POPELKA
POPELKA, ALLARD, MCCOWAN & JONES
BERNARD J. ALLARD, INC.
.
PHILIP R. McCOWAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JAMES C. JONES, JR.
DONALD D. HOWARD
LLOYDS BANK BUILDING
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
EUGENE P. LA MORE
ONE ALMADEN BOULEVARD
601 MONTGOMERY STREET
FRANKLIN E. NO
STEPHAN A. BARBER ARBER
EIGHTH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113
TELEPHONE (415) 952 -8955
JAMES N. SINUNU
TELEPHONE (408) 298 -6610
BRUCE NYE
MICHAEL G. ACKERMAN
JOHN M. INGLE
THOMAS S. BRAZIER
_
JONEE M. GRA551
DAVID A. CENA
NANCY R. SWEATT
JAMES C. HYDE
JAMES E. MACMASTER
AMY L.RANDALL
GREGG L.KAYS
October 21, 1981
KEVIN J. TULLY
'
WILLIAM H. DAVIS
,
DAVID M. KING
OF COUNSEL
OSBORNE BECKLUND
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale
Saratoga,.California
Re: Resolution Accepting Dedication of Right -
of -Way (CSDR 1387 and SDR 1388, Big Basin
Way) Agenda Bill #126
Dear Councilmembers and Mayor Callon:
This firm represents Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Masek.
Mr. & Mrs. Masek, by this letter to the City Council,
object to adoption by this City Council of the above ref-
erenced resolution. Their objection is that the offer to
dedicate the driveway and construction of the driveway were
to be coextensive with formation of the parking district.
Since the parking district has not been formed, the Maseks
do not believe that they should be required to submit to
construction of this driveway..:
Throughout the course of the negotiations surrounding
the sale and development of the Masek property, there was
always a common understanding that the easement which the
Maseks were to dedicate would be an easement to the parking
district for access to public parking. It was never intended
that this driveway be a private access road for adjoining
properties during any period when the parking district was not
in existence. Resolution No. 840, under Conditions of Sale,
paragraph.10, stated as follows:
"The City will require and /or reserve a 25 -foot
easement for vehicle access running perpendicular
to Big Basin Way... for access to future public
parking."
Paragraph two of the Development Agreement entered into
between Masek and the City of Saratoga regarding development
Saratoga City Council
October 21, 1981
Page 2
of this property stated:
"It is the understanding,of the parties hereto
that a right -of -way for public access will be
required through. [Masek's property] ... for off -
street parking purposes."
The Staff Report regarding development of this
property dated September 19, 1978 recited the understanding
of the parties:
"The City Council accepted the applicants bid
on this site in March 1978 with the following
expectation:
1). A 25 -foot public right -of -way and access
easement would be provided through the
property to the rear (to the proposed
parking district No. 3)."
The second Report to the Planning Commission on the
development of this property dated May 2, 1979 reconfirmed
the understanding of the parties:
"A 25' access easement /driveway is also to be
provided on site which would be a future link
with.Parking District #3 if and when it is
formed." (emphasis added)
It is clear from reading.the documents surrounding
the purchase and development of the Masek'property that
the parties never intended the Maseks!to.provide a drive-
way or access easement until formation of the parking
district. While it is true that the Maseks and Mr. Rosenfeld
entered into a side agreement for construction of this
-
driveway, this was done as a means of compromise between
the two.parties to develop both of their properties.
Subsequent difficulties between.these parties resulted in
cancellaton.of this side agreement. There was a subse-
quent negotiation and compromise which. resulted in a second
agreement as to construction of the driveway, but this
agreement also met with problems in the execution and was
subsequently revoked.
During the negotiations and compromise between Masek
and Rosenfeld, the City's involvement was that.'of negotiator
and referee and at no time did Masek intend to alter his
I \ + kr 0.
Saratoga City Council
October 21, 1981
Page 3
original understanding with the City to -wit: that he was
not required to provide an access driveway or easement
until formation of the parking district.
Since the parking district has yet to be formed,
it is the Maseks' position that they are under no obliga-
tion to provide an access driveway or easement. If such
an access driveway or easement were constructed at this
time, it would be in the nature of a private driveway for
Mr. Rosenfeld. This was not the understanding of the
parties when the Maseks executed the offer to dedicate and
in fact the offer to dedicate is to dedicate to the City
for public purposes and not to Mr. Rosenfeld for a private
right -of -way.
Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this
City Council decline to adopt the resolution submitted,
or in the alternative postpone adoption until such time
as the parking district is formed.
On behalf of the Maseks, thank you for your consideration
of the foregoing.
JEM /pc
cc: Mayor Callon
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
Mr. Joseph Ma
Clevenger
Jesen
Mallory
Watson
sek
Very truly yours,
4 es E. MacM ster
November 13; 1981
(bunty Recorder ..
70 West Heddhgg St,
San Jose, California 95110
Dear'Sir:
Please reoord the enclosed Resolution #1000 accepting dedication of
right-of-way and return to. the Dsp pity► City Clerk of : Saratoga.`
Thank you:
Sincerely,*
AGL -TDA BILL NO.
DATE: 10/21/81
12 -7
CITY OF SARIU'OGA
DEP .i :Community Development
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH MONTE SERENO FOR
BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES.
Issue S=nary
Initial:
Dept. lid.
C. Atty
In 1962, Saratoga and Monte Sereno entered into a joint powers agreement wherein
Saratoga would provide building inspection service.s and the Saratoga Building
Official was appointed Building Official for Monte Sereno. Monte Sereno "now
wishes to modify this agreement such that their City Engineer /Administrator be
designated Building Official and that the Saratoga Building Official be desig-
nated Deputy Building Official of Monte Sereno..
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. , approving second addendum to Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement Building Inspection Services and authorize execution of same.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No.
2. Addendum
Council Action
10/21: ?"lotion to adopt Res, 1038. Passed 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SECOND
ADDENDUM TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT, BUILDING
INSPECTION SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO AND
THE CITY OF SARATOGA
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, County
of Santa Clara, State of California, that
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga has read
and considered that certain Second Addendum to Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement, Building Inspection Services between the City of
Monte Sereno and the City of Saratoga, eliminating the designation
of the Building Official of Saratoga as the Building Official of the
City of Monte Sereno,
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, ORDERED AND DETERMINED as
follows:
1. Public interest and convenience require the entering into
of a Second Addendum to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement des-
cribed, and the City of Saratoga hereby approves the above - described
Second Addendum to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement.
2. The City of Saratoga shall enter into and the Mayor and
City Clerk of the City of Saratoga be, and they and each of them here-
by is authorized and directed on behalf of said City, respectively,
to execute and attest the above - described Second Addendum to Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of Monte Sereno and the
City of Saratoga.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the
day of 1981, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST
•
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
SECOND ADDENDUM TO
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
BUILDING*'INSPECTION'SERVICS
This ADDENDUM TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT, BUILDING
INSPECTION SERVICES, entered into by and between the City of Monte
Sereno, a municipal corporation, herein called " MONTE SERENO" and
the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, herein called
"SARATOGA ",
W I' T N E S' S E' T' H:
WHEREAS, on or about April 17, 1962, MONTE SERENO and SARATOGA
entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement concerning per-
formance of certain municipal functions for MONTE SERENO by SARATOGA;
• and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 1962, MONTE SERENO and SARATOGA entered
into an Addendum to the above - described Joint Powers Agreement con-
cerning performance of sanitary sewer connection inspection service
by SARATOGA for MONTE SERENO; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into a further Addendum to
the above - described Joint Powers Agreement to provide for the elimina-
tion of the designation of the Building Official of SARATOGA as the
Building Official of MONTE SERENO,
NOW, THEREFORE, MONTE SERENO and SARATOGA agree as follows:
1. Paragraph 3 be and it hereby is amended to read as follows:
(3) Building In's'pe'c't'i'on' `Servi'ce's for Monte' S'ereno.
As
set forth in the Resolution
of the
City Council
of MONTE
SERENO, MONTE SERENO does
hereby
designate and
appoint the Build
Building Official
ment and Building
powers and duties
MONTE SERENO when
for MONTE SERENO.
ing Official of SARATOGA as the Deputy
of MONTE SERENO. The Building Depart -
Official of SARATOGA shall have all
under all applicable ordinances of
performing building inspection services
2. Except as hereinabove modified the above- described Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement between MONTE SERENO and SARATOGA,
together with the terms and provisions contained therein, hereby
is ratified and confirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Addendum
to Agreement to be executed in the City of Monte Sereno, State of
California, as follows:
By MONTE SERENO this', /? day of 1981; and
By SARATOGA this day of 1981.
C. CITY OF MONTE SERENO,
ATTEST: a Municipal Corporation
By
/City Clerk Mayor
( MONTE SERENO)
CITY OF SARATOGA,
ATTEST: a Municipal Corporation
By
City Clerk Mayor
SARATOGA)
APP VED AS TO FORM:
v
City Attorney
-2-
gi
'r � "Y
O�
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
October 23, 1981
Ms. Faye Furtado
City of Monte Sereno
18041 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, C11ifornia 95030
Dear Ms. Furtado:
Attached is the second addendum to the Joint Exercuse of Powers Agreement -
Building Inspection Services. This addendum was,executed by the Saratoga
City Council at a regular meeting of October 21, 1981.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
/% 7 �7
0-. mil. r
Grace E. Cory 0
Deputy City Clerk
ui JSi.� • . ``4 J _ . _ .., � r._ a . ... � _ :Yi + . , �1 "L v' .!..ie �. y' { +�f5� +�" � 1- .�f'7fu F
0
AGENDA BILL NO. AA OP
DATE: 10/21/81
DEPAi:I=: Community Development
CITY OF SARATOGA
S =.Cr: PARKING RESTRICTION ON FOURTH STREET
Issue S=nary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Fourth Street from Big Basin Way south to its termination.measures thirty
feet (301) from curb to curb. Currently, parking is allowed on both sides.
Thirty feet is an inadequate width to allow parking on both sides and two
lanes.of traffic. Thirty eight feet would be the necessary width to allow
parking on both sides. Prohibiting parking on one side of Fourth St. will
allow property width for parking on one side and two lanes of traffic. The
Saratoga Village Merchants were contacted and they oppose the parking re-
striction. Resolution No. MV- has been prepared to prohibit parking on
the west side of Fourth St. from Big Basin Way south to its termination::'
Seven parking spaces will be eliminated.
Recommendation
Approve Resolution No. MV- , which prohibits parking on the west side of
Fourth St. from Big Basin Way to its termination.
Fiscal Impacts
$250.00 Signing and Marking
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No. MV-
2. Location Map
Council Action
10/2.1: Jensen /Mallory moved to adopt. Failed 2 -3.
RESOLUTION NO. MV-
RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING
ON A PORTION OF FOURTH STREET
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
i
SECTION 1: The following portions of street in the City of
Saratoga are hereby declared to be congested areas
and the following limits for parking of motor vehicles are hereby
established for said portions of said streets:
NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION PARKING LIMIT
Fourth Street West side of Fourth St. start-
ing at a point 35'+ south of NO PARKING
the centerline of Big Basin Way ANYTIME
and ending at a point 220'+
south of the centerline of Big
Basin. Way
This section shall become effective at such time as the proper
markings are installed as delineated above.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the
day of 1981, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
/�'ohi6111017 off' Par/rIr� -
AM whey -e
IS iD be p v,6 /,6/ /ec/
V. /la,y e A414S
C-
CITY OF SAP.ATOGA
�.�
?1(Ti`TDA BILL NO.
DATE: 10/21/81
DEPAFTI�=: Comm. Development
SUBJECT: TDA BICYCLE FACILITY ON QUITO ROAD
Issue Summary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
TDA has allocated $20,000 for the installation of a bicycle facility on the
west side of Quito Road from Allendale Ave. to Yorktown Way. From Allendale
Ave. north to Wildcat Creek, a bicycle lane is to be installed. Before in-
stallation of the bicycle lane, parking must be removed. A petition by home-
owners stating their willingness to have parking prohibited has been submitted
to staff. Resolution No. MV- has been prepared to eliminate parking along
the westerly side of Quito Road from Allendale Ave. to Wildcat Creek.
Recorrmendation
Adopt Resolution No. MV-
Fiscal Impacts
$250.00 Signing and Marking
EV.hibits /Attactury--nts
1. Resolution No. MV-
` 2. Location Map
3. Homeowner Petition
Council Action
, which prohibits parking on a portion of Quito Rd.
10/21/81: Jensen /Mallory moved to adopt Res. MV -148. Passed 5 -0.
ti
•
RESOLUTION NO. MV-
RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING
ON A PORTION OF QUITO ROAD
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
Section 1: The following portions of street in the City of
Saratoga are hereby declared to be congested areas
and the following limits for parking of motor vehicles are hereby
established for said portions of said streets:
Quito Road West side of Quito Rd. from
a starting point 30'+ north NO PARKING
of the centerline of Allen- ANYTIME
dale Ave. and ending at a
point 550'+ north of the
centerline of Allendale Ave.
This section shall become effective at such time as the proper
markings are installed as delineated above.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by
the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held
on the day of 1981, by the
following vote:
� AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
D
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT.
w
TO: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Quito Road Bike Path
We support the proposed bile lane and pedestrian walkway for
Quito Road. As we understand the project, the' lane would be four feet
in width as measured from the curb into the street and defined by a
unbroken white line. It would be located.orn the west side of Quito.
The lane could not be utlized by cars and would provide a buffer space
for exitine and entering Qutio properties in that area. The parking in
this area would be limited to private property as it now is in most of
the area. No private property would be used for any construction with
respect to the bike lane..
DATE NAME ADDRESS
Slay r �, r,3 X31 R .
eqj
�,.
3
/5roh1bi71-1a17 a ,00rk��9 - 0()/7b Ad
Arts w here Pnr',��ny �S
he Piok ,�i APal
v
Q
�c
Q
CITY OF SARATOGA
I'iGL'IVDA BILL NO.
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: 10/21/81 C. Atty.
DEPT . T=: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE REQUEST AT CHATEAU DRIVE
AND WOODMONT DRIVE
-------------------=-------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Si- mary
On September 11, 1981, a small boy on his bicycle was seriously injured at the
subject intersection. This prompted several inquiries for stop signs to be
installed at this location.
Staff has made a warrant study relative to this request and finds that.such
stop signs are not warranted and cannot recommend installation of stop signs.
However, yield signs on Woodmont Dr. are recommended to establish right -of -way.
Recomnendation
Adopt Resolution No. MV-
Drive.
Fiscal Impacts
$200.00
Exhibits /Attachmcnts
, authorizing yield signs on Woodmont Dr: at Chateau
1. 10/1/81 Memo to Director of Community Development
2. Resolution No. MV-
3. Correspondence received.
Council Action
10/21: Jensen /Clevenger moved to accept offer of citizens to pay for 4 -way stop sign. Passed
3 -2 (Callon, Mallory opposed).
Resolution to that effect to be prepared for 11/4 meeting.
J
9008
I�- 1E�IORANDLIM
097f @:T 0&M&UQ)(5&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438 .
TO: Director of Community Development DATE: 10/1/81
FROM: Asst. Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Intersection of Chateau Dr. and Woodmont Dr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 11, 1981, there was an accident at the intersection of
Chateau Dr. and Woodmont Dr. A six year old boy riding a bicycle
traveling north on Woodmont Dr. collided with a vehicle traveling
west on Chateau Dr. The boy was injured-
We have had two requests for installations of-stop signs at the in-
tersection of Chateau Dr. and Woodmont Dr. One was a telephone call
I received on September 15, 1981 by the bicyclist's father, Mr. Aram
Janjigiam. The second was a letter sent to Mayor Callon by Mr. James
Rees. In the letter, Mr. Rees stated the bicyclist was struck by a
speeding vehicle. The-,traffic collision repoy�',q atates, t1ne. . d i.ver of
the vehicle �;Ias travelin ; at, the speed l„i.mit, 2-,5 r«a!:..
On September 16, 1981, I began conducting a stop sign study. A spot
speed study was taken in the daytime on Wednesday, September 16, 1981.
The critical speed was calculated to be 31.5 mph. Officer Hazlett, a
Santa Clara Deputy Sheriff, conducted a spot speed study on Friday
evening, September 25, 1981. The critical speed was calculated to be
28.5 mph.
The SWITRS report was used to check the accident history for a five
year period, 1977 - present. The accident on September 11, 1981 was
the only reported accident in the five year period. The safe approach
speed is that of the speed limit because there is not a sight- distance
problem.
Traffic counters were placed on three of the four legs of the intersection,
the cul -de -sac was not counted. The volume of both Chateau Dr. and Wood-
mont Dr. were not great enough to satisfy the stop sign warrant. A
summary of the traffic volumes for both Chateau Dr. and Woodmont Dr. are
in the following table.
Page 2 . )
Intersection of Chateau Dr. and Woodmont Dr.
Day
Woodmont Dr.
Volume
Chateau Dr.
Volume
Ratio
Chateau / Woodmont
Fri.
588
849
1.44
Sat.
476
775
1.63
Sun.
430
627
1.49
Mon.
547
704
1.29
The volumes indicate that Chateau Dr. is the major street and Woodmont Dr.
is the minor street.
The stop sign warrant has not been met, therefore, I cannot recommend the
installation of stop signs on either Chateau Dr. or Woodmont Dr. However,
I recommend the installation of "Yield" signs on both approaches of Wood -
mont Dr. to establish the right -of -way to Chateau Dr..
Homeowners of the area are expecting a report to Council on the October
211, 1981 City Council Meeting. Upon our discussion, I will prepare the
agenda bill for the Council Meeting.
John Bean
JB /dsc
RESOLUTION NO. MV-
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTION OF
CHATEAU DRIVE AND WOODMONT DRIVE AS A YIELD INTERSECTION
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION I: The following intersections in the City of Saratoga
are hereby designated as yield intersections:
Name of Street Description
Woodmont Drive All vehicles traveling southbound and north-
bound on Woodmont Drive shall yield to traffic
on Chateau Drive before entering or crossing
the intersection thereof.
This section shall become effective at such time as the proper
signs and /or markings are installed.
This section supersedes Resolutoin No. MV -112 established on
the 5th day of May, 1976.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by
the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held
on the 21st day of October, 1981, by the following vote:
AYES:
S NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
i
MAYOR
- ,Lot -Le,e
76 o,T64' e
�e?
tar
o Do
81981
6
U �
/,, kt-4�
S
.A-41 GGUi
F,. _mil
a o� a 8 eB,,� ��•
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
•
PETITION TO INSTALL THREE -WAY STOP SIGNS
AT THE CORNER OF
WOODMONT DRIVE AND CHATEAU DRIVE IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA
WE, the undersigned, are property owners and concerned cit-
izens of the City of Saratoga, and in the immediate neighborhood
around the intersection of Woodmont Drive and Chateau Drive. We are
painfully aware of the fact that Chateau Drive is used as a thor-
oughfare for traffic traveling to and from Argonaut Plaza Shopping
Center and those areas East of Cumberland Drive. From the intersec-
tion of Winter and Cumberland Drive to Highway 9 on Chateau there
are no stop signs. The amount of traffic along Chateau is consider-
able and, in general, it does appear that the speed of traffic is
excessive.
As Woodmont Drive is the primary access street off of Cox
Avenue to the residential area surrounded by Cumberland Drive on the
East, Argonaut Drive on the South and Reagan Drive on the West,
there is an extreme potential for collision on the corner of
Woodmont Drive and Chateau Drive. Although this intersection is
wide and visibility in most directions is good, the fact is that
there is nothing to slow the speed of traffic along Chateau, we have
all seen near collisions at that intersection. In the last month,
in fact, a six year old neighborhood child was injured severely
while riding his bicycle across that intersection. He was struck by
an automobile traveling Westward along Chateau. There is a very
substantial likelihood that such incident would not have occurred if
stop signs had been placed at that intersection.
Nearly all of the surrounding neighborhoods have numerous stop
signs, and apparently less traffic. Therefore, we respectfully
request that the members of the City Council provide for a three -way
stop at the intersection of Chateau Drive and Woodmont Drive. With-
out such action there is an extreme and continuing danger to not
only our children in the neighborhood and those children going to
and from school, but likewise to all of us as we travel to and from
our neighborhood.
Dated: October 8, 1981
Name
Name
Address
ame i ame
rlj
0
11
[u
; ame
i a.
am e-
j�
Name
Address
�G.,
6W
Ad ress
N
ss
Address
t1UULC55
Name
Name
Address
?Named U p n
Name -�-
Address
L IL��
,',,I e
Name
)cam `7 C_�i�ea �i fir
Address
..
("- PJ�
amen ->J
Nam CxX t �L CtGi h`i'
Address
i
Name
Address
s�� �l9C�1r1�4'7
Name
as-() w �j Q) M o
Name
Chi ?ATE$-A
Address
xp-lo-a 4v�t-�(
i
Name
•
Address
-Pd,
ame
�G141 `�ernse
ame
Address
$';f.. .
_A��
' � J
�.1 b °Jr ` S
Name
Name
--Address
L�
Name
Address
�� me p
o�GGX-S .D C�c
Name
Address
.�N e �-
f/ i M c fe si-ap L
/arIf- Gl)OAA doT- bf.
Addr s
4
a�etr�?a
Flu � sl.
jame ,q
o n /Jo?,�,n
Name
- a`
Address
N � /
Nh.me v✓/
Address'
Name
�A hef L2Jer(ch
Name
1 a-! +) e,
Address 5a"-1 C-+
ame
/li Ic�o�ENG� 14 ti 3161AfJ
Name
Address at. 9V70
Name
,4,V,vE7-RF
Name
.Wlao 1?eXx1MA&) A16
Address
L ll�k,o
I l �lllJ�-
Name At a v
oap 1- .
Nam
Z!McdD;tk- PA-
Address U TSD90
Name
Name
Address S C
l Wa t .
1
Name
�
�k set
Address-
Sc", Q -.c�:,. �A�010
(�`1) , 5 , 2I c k] c-*
Name (-)A • . .
Name
Address
Name
\7 S7 /f
Name
Address
u
Name
V7
Address
7\ i Z",
e
Address
ame
13 9vp���l�
Address
M6 ,I 4�-% Si5�vic� A jild)
nr,,e,, -.1 N me
Name
boa 5" I°i�,e«
Address
ame
Name / /n
.19717 z Gam/
Address
.. I -
- v,,-. I ()" J, - � - —
N �' I
o�� �J ��rC V
Name
203,E ChG eo,v
Address
wL �n r���� /� �� • ' •
Name
� 5 V,
Name
Name
2� Ll C�
Address
am
VMS ArL �
Name
(Z11-71 ee2oocL 11.
Address SA- -,Oq,-.
Now;, ,i MoN, �M
Nam 9
Address
�(
//'')) J i
�
Name
Name
-1 4 qa f.�e
Addr
r 0
&wj
0-M
IVA
•• Address
/ '
Na �e NL'���(/
Address Address
L e 4�t
Name N e
Name Name
Address Address
l4dl, RCA �"
Name
d I
ame
Name
Address
Name
Name
Address
Name
Name
Addres
Name
/.3 ,Y3�%
Name
Ad d r e S,!;' i
1 IA p
Name
..
Name
[��IL
Nome
i
Address
i
i I
Name
Mow
Address scram Vc�
a-, o
Name
Name
1,39 o 1 ndf-
Address
Name
Cho /�7
Address
W. �liwmlo
Name
B /c9 C �o_d�i� ` -�--
Address
•
Name
W, V, `1
VA or o 4",
Name
/�v9a 'L
Address
N
Na e
/" 3,-)
Address
Name
Address
Name
N
-7 ��CQ '^'' Q/
res �L� 9.fo-�o
L
Name
tdame
Addres!A6A7-0,4,,,V Ci4
r/I i /7j I, it l
3 rxr �S Cl k-ln�
Name
a
Addrress -
11
Name if
r
Name
Address
.p
o
�A
i A, i ,
Name
�.�D�o2� uayzr
Address
%�
me
Name
J �-1 ion I Vvk--,'vice G,�P
Address
,�)
me
• / _ —M,
ame
Name
/f{�0 l 600,07, 7�UV S
Address C;q
54e s�� `Q
game
Addre�sss�A
ame
Name O /
Add re s q -d4q atfe�a/
Name _
�L(O/5
me
Address V '
-A E
Na e
Name
Address
Name
/ 4 Cos �c
d me
Address
N
�507�
Name
Address A
Name
!Jd / ? ¢-
` Name
V L
Ngme
Address
Name
/ �-(, 36
Name
Address
(/J
Nam
Name_
Address
Sa
°9`"
Name
am
Addr ss
Name T
v2ol.'t3 �i T'ar V�
Name
Addr s
a�/
Name
Address
Name
om
QName
i cu, /
..
�. .
•
Address /
l
Name
w1�FNCE, w- CEED
Name
�Address
Nafie � -
Name
..—L, .4 //",0- � 76,
Addrelss /
�.
aTke.�
Name
2co,w �,Ae�u
Address
S wQAllf Vl0 RNA(.
Name
4
Name
l3 i i4 IthK 10 N 1
Address
e
Name
/ 9970 _
Address
e
c�i9�lES
Name _
Address
ce
_ I
Name J
Address 7-
Name
Name �f
Address
Name
Name
Address
Name
Name
Address
Name
Name
Address
Name
Name Name
A dress ddress
r
Name
")d.4
Name
Address
e
G
Name
Address
Name
`J e
Address
(4,11
J
NC
6�
Aaaress
�V
dress
Nam
Name
Address
I
Name
AN,azl/
Name)
Address
��14A-JAJV
Name l
Name *A
Address
Name
Name Name
Address Address
I
Name
Name
Name
A,-2 7?(D
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
/
Name
Name
3
Address
Address
Name Name
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Name Name
Address Address
Nyle
- Name
Name tame Name
Address Address Address
8
� � M 5 i� �.� v} �. a Wr y rv,a.Fm� ai ✓
•-
µ.}'�.,,
A _
• i V
Address
Name
Name
d
Name
a.
Name
Address
�
NamVF--- Name
Name Name
Address Address
1'2 ?.?1 ) fK 04 �T
Address
Name
Name
Address
Name
Name
Address
Name
Name
Address
Name Name
Name Name
3 D/O Q/
Address Address
Name
Name
Address
Name
Name
Address
Name
Name
Address
Name
Name
Address
Name
Name
Address
Name
Name
Address
Name
Name
Address
Name
Name
Address
i
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
PETITION TO INSTALL THREE -WAY STOP SIGNS
r
AT THE CORNER OF
WOODMONT DRIVE,AND CHATEAU DRIVE IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
PETITION TO INSTALL THREE -WAY STOP SIGNS
AT THE CORNER OF
WOODMONT DRIVE,AND CHATEAU DRIVE IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA
WE, the undersigned, are property owners and concerned cit-
w rtr.f'
izens of the City of Saratoga, and in the immediate neighborhood
around the intersection of Woodmont Drive and Chateau Df ive. We are
painfully. aware of the fact that Chateau Drive is used as a thor-
.oughfare for traffic traveling to and from Argonaut Plaza Shopping
Center and those.areas East of Cumberland Drive. From the intersec-
tion of Winter and Cumberland Drive to Highway 9 on Chateau there.
are -no stop signs. The amount of, traffic along Chateau is consider -.
able and, in general, it does appear that the speed of traffic is.
excessive. ;
;
As Woodmont Drive is the primary access street off of Cox ,
,F
Avenue to the residential area surrounded by Cumberland Drive on.the,
East, Argonaut Drive on the South and Reagan Drive ..on the West, `
`
there, is an extreme potential for collision on the corner of.
Woodmont Drive and Chateau Drive. Although this intersection is
wide and visibility in most directions is good, the fact is .that 3
3"
there is nothing to slow the speed of traffic along Chateau, we have.
all seen near collisions at that intersection. In the last.month,"
in 'fact, a six year old neighborhood child was injured severely
while riding his bicycle across that intersection. He was struck by.,:,:,'
an automobile. traveling Westward along Chateau. There is .a very �
�+
substantial likelihood -that such incident would not have occurred
stop.signs had been placed at that intersection.
Nearly all of the surrounding neighborhoods. have numerous stop +
+t;
signs, and apparently less traffic. Therefore, we respectfully
request that the members of the City Council provide for a three -way ,
,
stop at the intersection of Chateau Drive and Woodmont Drive. With -. -
-,
out such action there is an extreme and continuing danger to not
only.-our children in the neighborhood and those children going to.
y ; g g 9
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: October 21, 1981
DEPARTM ENT • Administrative Services
SUBJECT: Proposed change in Community Center rental rates
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Issue Summary
The staff has reviewed the Saratoga Community Center rental rates taking into consideration
fees charged by other cities and the opportunity to increase .revenue. Fees were last
increased July 1, 1980.
This resolution would increase rates for most rooms. by $5 /hr., staff costs by $1 /hr. and
set up /clean up time by $3 /hr. It would decrease the fees for two small meeting rooms
by $8 /hr. because of lack of usage.. The new rates are in line with fees charged in
- other cities.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Resolution No. 780 -14 be adopted,and new rates will become effective
January 1, 1982.
Fiscal Impacts
To determine the over -all effect of the individual rate increases, staff took eight
actual building rentals from this year and applied the new rates. On this basis it is
estimated over -all increases and rental revenue will be approximately 17%. The
recommended fees will increase revenues by $1,700 in F.Y. 1981 -82.
The square foot cost of maintaining the Community Center was calculated in 1979 -80 and
estimated to be $3.26 per sq.ft. per year japproximately $36,000.) and rental fees were
increased 12% at that time. The current rental increase of 17% should cover the cost of
maintenance of the building revenues from classes and building rentals.are estimated to bring
to 45 000 �n fiscal year 81 -82.
Exhibits/Attachments
Background Memo
Current Rate and Proposed Rate Schedule
Resolution No. 780 -14
Council Action
1_1 /4: Jensen /Mallory moved adoption of Resolution 780.14 with change providing special
pay for supervisor on holidays and after midnight. Passed 5 -0.
MEMORAND�1� %I
TO: City Council
uguw @:T O&MEZOO&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
FROM: Community Center Director
SUBJECT: Community Center Rental Rate Change
DATE: October 27, 1981
SUMMARY:
The staff has reviewed the Saratoga Community Center rental rates,
taking into consideration fees charged by other cities for similar
facilities and the opportunity to increase the City's revenue. Fees
were last increased July 1, 1980. At that time room rates were all
increased by $5.00. There were no changes in the fees required for
the use of the backyard or kitchen.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Resolution No. 780 -14 be- adopted, changing
rental rates for the Saratoga Community Center effective January 1,
1982, as follows:
1)
That fees
for the kitchen, backyard,
multi - purpose room,
and multi - purpose room and snack bar
together, be
increased
$5.00 per hour.
2)
That fees
for the set -up and clean -up
time be increased
to $15.00
per hour.
3)
That fees
for the Building Supervisor
be increased to
$6.00 per
hour prior to midnight, and
$7.00 per hour
after midnight.
4)
That fees
for the meeting room and arts
and crafts room
be decreased to $12.00 per hour.
A copy of the current rate schedule and the proposed rate schedule
for the Community Center is attached for your review.
Community Center Rental Rate Change
October 27, 1981
Page two
City sponsored or co- sponsored activities are not charged usage
fees. Saratoga community groups sponsoring events open to the
public with no admission charged also use the building for no
charge. If their event is held in the evening or on a weekend,
the group pays the Building Supervisor fee. Private groups, or
individuals and community groups sponsoring private events, =.are
charged the regular rental rates. On occasion, the City Council
or City Manager has waived fees for community groups or organi-
zations sponsoring private events. The City does not charge
West Valley College fees for a class held at the Center, and the
College does not charge the Center for tennis court usage during
the summer.
It is recommended that there be a decrease in fees charged for the
use of the meeting room and the arts and crafts room. In the
last year, the meeting room was only rented once. Many small
groups and organizations have requested usage of these rooms, but
they feel the rental fee is too high. If the fee is lowered, the
Community Center rates for small rooms will be more in line with
the centers in surrounding cities.
To determine the over -all effect of the rate increase, staff took
eight actual building rentals from this. year and applied the new
rate. On this basis, it is estimated over -all increases and
rental revenue will be approximately 17 %. The Community Center
receives approximately $20,000 per year in revenue from rentals.
The recommended fees will increase revenues by $1,700 in
FY 1981 -82.
�itA�v
an Pisani
ck
PRESENT AND PROPOSED
SARATOGA COMMUNITY CENTER RENTAL RATES
Proposed Rate
Present Rate Effective Jan. 1, 1982
Res. /Non -Res. Res. /Non -Res.
A. Security Damage Deposit:
1.
Function without alcoholic beverage
$100.00
same
2.
Function with alcoholic beverage
$200.00
same
3.
Cancel date notice
30 days
same
B. Rooms Available:
4.
Multipurpose Room & Snack Bar Area
$
35/45 per hour
$
40/50 per hour
5.
Backyard & Restrooms only
$
20/25 " it
$
25/30 " "
6.
Multipurpose Room only
$
25/35 " "
$
30/40 " "
7.
Snack Bar Area only
$
20/25 " "
same
8.
Meeting Room only
$
20/25 " "
$
12/15
9.
Arts & Crafts Room only
$
20/25 " "
$
12/15
C. Other Facilities:
10.
Kitchen Use with dishes & utensils
$
35.00 /day
$
40.00 /day
11.
Kitchen Use without dishes & utensils
$
20.00 /day
$
25.00 /day
12.
Backyard Use with other facility
$
30.00 /day
$
35.00 /day
D. Other Charges:
13.
Fee for Set -up & Clean -up time
$
12.00 /hr
$
15.00 /hr
14.
Fee for Building Supervisor time
$
5.00 /hr
$
6.00 /hr
15.
After midnight Bldg. Supervisor time
$
6.00 /hr
$
7.00 /hr
RESOLUTION NO. 780 -14
A RESOLUTION ALTERING FEE SCHEDULE FOR
COMMUNITY CENTER RENTALS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1: The following schedule of fees is hereby
establishe or payment to the City of Saratoga on application
for each of the following uses of the Community Center. This
fee schedule shall become effective January 1, 1982, and shall
be applicable to all applications filed from and after is
effective date.
ident /Non- resident
Multi- purpose room and
snack bar area
$40 /hr.
$50 /hr.
Backyard and restrooms only
25 /hr.
30 /hr.
Multi- purpose room only
30 /hr.
40 /hr.
Snack bar area
20 /hr.
25 /hr.
Meeting room
12 /hr.
15 /hr.
Arts & crafts room
12 /hr.
15 /hr.
Kitchen use
with dishes and utensils
$40
/day
without dishes and utensils
25 /day
Backyard use with other facility
35 /day
Fee for set -up and
clean -up time
15 /hr.
Fee for Building Supervisor's
time, day and evening
6 /hr.
after midnight (City Holidays -
7 /hr.
depending upon availability,
minimum charge will be double)
The above and foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on
the 4thday of November
vote:
, 1981, by the following
AYES: Councilmeabers Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory, Watson, Mayor Callon
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
CITY OF SARATOGA
+.AGENDA BILL NO. j
DATE: 10 21 / 81
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
S=-CT: BILL FROM MON -IQUE ERNST
Issue Sumnary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
�
In July, Mrs. Monique Ernst wished to move a railroad flat car up Bohlman
Road to On Orbit Way to use as the decking for abridge structure. Because
of the size of this item, the City required that a plan:.be devised for the
safety of residents of Bohlman Road and the passage of traffic along Bohlman
Road. At.the direction of the City Council, this office did not permit the
movement of the flat car until.such plans had been approved.
Mrs. Ernst's September 23rd letter indicated that this procedure resulted in
additional costs and has billed the City for those costs.
Recomnendation
Deny this requested payment.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. September 23, 1981 letter from Monique Ernst.
Council Action
10/21: Jensen /?Matson moved to deny claim. Passed 5 -0.
F
!.
v
P`
�,
a
J t h` lv: � � Vw. A
�'r
� ..
,at� �,�,
�<��,,
�,
�L���
�j /
l/ /.�''Q72 '-' ���,
�?'e.�2.� —�
'�.
4
P
SPARKS CONSTRUCTION CO.
787 Cambrian Drive
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 371-2722 Lic. #304663
OWNER'S PHONE
DATE
NAME
Mr. and Mrs. Ernst
STREET JOB NAME JOB NUMBER
15625 On Orbit Dr. Bridge Construction
CITY STATE STREET
Sar toga CA. i On Orbit Dr.
EXISTING CONTRACT NO. I DATE OF EXISTING CONTRACT I CITY
You are hereby authorized to perform the following specifically described additional work:
Extra Cost Not In Contract;
..... ...... .......... . .. . . ..... . .... --' . ....... .................... ....... ....... .
St-and-by-- t-i-rrie (del-ay su
Saratoaa
Hardar Concrete
I, -, I - * . —
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
560.00
Overt inie Premium in
. . . . . ..... ........... . ................. .. . . ................ ......................... ... ....... . .... . ...... . ........................ .... .. . . . . .......... I .......... . .... - ................ ... -- ..........
Reinholm Crane 554.00
...................... ....... . .... . . . .............. ........... . ......... .. . . . . ....... ........... ...... ...... ... ........... ... . ..... . ......... . ...... . . ........ .. . .............. ............................ ................. ...... . ........ .............
Sparks... Construction ................................................ . .. . ..... ..................... -- ........ . ... ................. .. . . ............... ..... ..................... --....224._00
TOTAL EXTRA DUE THIS BILLING
..... .............. ..... ... . ........... . .. ........... . ............. ... . .................. . ......... . .. . ........... .... ......... . ... . ...... ...... . . ..... . ... --- ...................................... ......... .... ..... . ...... ...... . . . ......... . . . .......... . ......
ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR ABOVE WORK IS: $ 31590.00
Payment will be made as follows: On Invoice'
STATE
a
Above additional work to be performed under same conditions as specified in original contract unless otherwise stipulated.
Date 19- Authorizing Signature (OWNER SIGNS HERE)
We hereby agree to furnish labor aqd materials - complete in accordance with the above specifications,at above stated price.
Authorized Signature Date (CONTRACTOR SIGNS =HER - ff 6e
k�
I NOTE: This Revision becomes part of, and in conformance with, the existing contract.
•
Qq 0&M&19Q)(B&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
• . (408) 867 -3438
October 23, 1981
Mrs. rbnique Ernst
15625 On Orbit Drive
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mrs. Ernst:
Please be advised that the claim which you presented to the City of
Saratoga was considered at its regular meeting on October 21, 1981.
The City Council voted to deny this claim.
WARNING
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the
date of this notice to file a court action on this claim. See Government
Code Section 945.6.
Sincerely,
�1
Gra E
ce .dory
Deputy City Clerk
cc: Saratoga Insurance
Insurance Company of North America
Paul Smith
CITY OF SARATOGA
A,* =- A BILL NO. /.II
DATE: 10/21/81
DEPE 1\7MENT: Community Development
S=-CT: INTERSECTION•OF HILL AVE. AND MONTALVO ROAD
Issue Summary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
`)
MA
A request from a resident for yield signs on Hill Ave. and Montalvo Road
was received by staff. Presently, the intersection is an uncontrolled
intersection.
Staff conducted a traffic study. The ADT of Montalvo Road was found to be
three times greater than that of Hill Avenue. A right -of -way should be es-
tablished for Montalvo Road. Resolution No. MV- has been prepared to
establish the intersection of Hill Ave. and Montalvo Road as a yield inter-
section.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. MV- , establishing the intersection of Hill Ave. and
Montalvo Road as a yield intersection.
Fiscal Impacts
$200.00
Exhibits/Attachments
1. Resolution No. MV-
2. Memo from Asst. Civil Engineer to Director of Community Development
Council Action
10/21: Jensen /T,latson moved to approve Res. W -149. Passed 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. MV-
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTION OF
HILL AVE. AND MONTALVO RD. AS A YIELD INTERSECTION
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1: The following intersections in the City of Saratoga
are hereby designated as yield intersections:
NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION
Hill Avenue All vehicles traveling eastbound
and westbound on Hill Ave. shall
yield to traffic on Montalvo Road
before entering or crossing the
intersection thereof.
This section shall become effective at such time as the proper
signs and /or markings are installed.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by
the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held
on the day of 1981 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
,o
99061
�- IENIORANDLI�I
uguw o0 ° ° OOO OZ
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: Director of Community Development DATE
FROM: Asst. Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Intersection of Montalvo Rd. and Hill Ave.
9/29/81
A resident of Montalvo Rd. called to express his concern regarding
the intersection of Montalvo Rd. and Hill Ave. He requested a study
be made to establish some type of right -of -way for the intersection
which is currently an uncontrolled intersection.
I set out traffic counters on Montalvo Rd. and Hill Ave. north of
Montalvo Rd. The ADT's were not high enough to meet the requirements
for a stop sign, however, the ADT for Montalvo Rd. was three times
as great as that of Hill Ave. I calculated the safe approach speed
and Hill Ave., north of Montalvo Rd.,met the qualifications for a
stop sign.
Since Montalvo Rd. is a thoroughfare to Villa Montalvo County Park,
the right -of -way should be given to Montalvo Rd. Therefore, I recom-
mend the installation of yield signs on both legs of Hill Ave.
O-.
John Bean
JB /dsc
CITY OF SARATOGA
�/_ Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. 3& Dept. Hd.
DATE: 10/21/81 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: OVERLAYING McCOY AVENUE AND OVERLAYING PROSPECT ROAD
Issue Summary
1. OVERLAYING MCCOY AVE.- BETWEEN QUITO RD. & VILLANOVA RD. -Bid Opening 10/14/81
This project consists of repairing pavement failed areas, fabric mat and a 1" A.C. Overlay.
We have a cooperative agreement pending with the City of San Jose to include their half of
McCoy Ave.(south side). As a condition of annexation, the Sunland Park'Homeowners have
posted money to cover the paving of the north half.
2. OVERLAYING PROSPECT RD.- Bid.Opening 10/19/81
This consists of placing fabric mat and a 1Y" A.C. overlay on the eastbound lanes of Prospect
Rd. between Plumas Dr. and Scully Ave., and at the area of the Saratoga Creek bridge. This
is a part of our annual overlay.
Recommendation
Award both projects to the lowest responsible-,bidder on each project, if appropriate. Additional
recommendation will be made at your, meeting.
Appropriate gas tax funds for Prospect Road.
Fiscal Impacts
1. OVERLAYING McCOY AVE.
Engineer's Estimate: $30,200 - Funded by Sunland Park and City of San Jose
2. OVERLAYING PROSPECT RD.
Engineer's Estimate: $28,000 - Part of the $200,000 estimated cost of the 1981 -82
Capital.Improvement Budget.
Exhibits /Attachments
Bid summaries on each project to be available at 10/21/81 Council Meeting.
Council Action
10/21: Jensen /Clevenger moved to award bids according to staff reconrlendation;
Passed 5 -0.
C /TY OF SARA TO 6A
OA TE
SNEE T / 0 F L
PWO,/ECT: OvERL A YiN,!:;
1WcCoy.4VEAu16 8,,r-rwEEN_
QU /TO RD. � V141-441OV4 ,4D
(E ,19 DESCRIPTION QUAA/T /TYUNl7
En i�eerSEsli fe
UN/T
I!�RICE 7'DT,4L
,Diazzq�r sir.
UN /T
p�,�C� T02r,4L
N /cE4r/i�, �S i�snaF/,
Un! /T
TO TAG
CA ESnsfi:
TOTAL
Swe6rw �SgnS
//
7—OT ,4L
-,000
S.F
2.
/0,000.00
1.66
8,00
/.39
6 950.0
9,250,00
/.77
,850.a
I. R. 4000 Asp%/,4
800
6a /
1. zo
9,60.6
2.00
6 600,
2.14
/ 7/2.00
/,l�80.00
R1.3
Fobr�c /fiQ670
S.Y.
1.10
2937.00
0.80
2,/36.
/./4
,,043.80
0.80
2,136.00
30/Z /O
4,
1 ,4sP�a /��ac: wer /lr
440
Tor?
35.00
/5, 4.00
3S,
/- `,_4'.
4/.37
/9 OZ 80
43
18,920.00
qp
18,022.46
S.
Q L151 MI-r fo 6rade
4
Ea.
IMM
6'00 00
11.006
44V.00
140
SOO. 00
15
600.00
2-5"
I
�
I
6,
Yellow Ski Li
1_720
Z.F,
A20
264.061
azo
264:0
o.zs-
. 33o.00
0,70
9Z4.60
10.E
7 92.OG
%1`�I� Qmour�� o� 8io1
,3o /61.00!
�Z?84D,
�3/ 038.61
X33 3:0.�
33 801. SD
!
I
DA TE
TIME,,' 3 e 00-L"
C/TY OF S41?A7'06A
B®® S'U'MMA °,,
SNEE T L O F
PRO,/ECT: OI/ERz A YiNG'
/We COY ,4VENUE BErwEF,1 /_
6) /T0 RD. � k/ /L C.4,VOV.l RD
6radeway fansfr.
1fvG�f /s �oas><r.
UN /T TOTAL
pRICF
PRicE TOTAL
-
UN /T
PR /C TaTA I ..
'eM
DEscR /PT /O/V
Q114A/T/7YUNIT
RIC
R /cF
TOT,4L
�'v/T
PRICF
TOTAL
/.
f�epair ob i /eo/�%rE
-500o
S.F.
/.95
'9,750.00
2.65
13,250.00
Z
�1.R. 40� .4spiaa /f
8o0
621,
2.35
3.
Fobr /c Ala l-
Z,.6 70
5.. Y.
0.85
2,269.5-01
OLqd
2,40y.al
4,
1 ,4sia /><�rc Over /li
440
Tory
4.. ZZ
/ 9, 0/6.80
42.
/8 7M CC
-
S.
�Q uS>< /✓�/ i t`o (�r�e
4
EQ,
1b,5
660, GYM
1.7
70,160
G
Ye!�ot� /Ski LimeSfr� /��
1-320
L.F.
o.
858. co
111 0.301
396. -00
%fa� L%rr�our>� o� Zid
34434.30
136 9Z Y.60
I
-
'oA7"� Oc14 19�/9B/
TIMEo 3;00 PM.
Cl TY Or ,.S'.4RA TJ 6'A
BID S6Ii AR,.Y ----
Sf/EE r- / o F 2
,aRo�/ECT: Of/E.eL AY /�/G
�.4osPEC T ,Qo <J p
Engineers Esfirri%
Sween
wo V
697sh -.
P.ozza �OiiS Cr
ZTEM
DESCR /PT /ON
QZMA/T /TY
UNIT
UNIT
PRICE
TO TAG
UNIT
PRICE
7--DTAG
UNIT
R1CF
TOT.41
UNIT
R /L�
7-OTAG
UNIT
/�RiC
TOTAL
/.
AR 4000 .4sphQ//!
/, 3/0
6a/.
1, ZO
1,6-7.2.00
2.38
3 117.80
1.5o
1965. o0
/. 45
1,899.50
2.00
2,620.&
2.
4 800
5-.y
1.40
S,Z80.00
0.781
3,74-4.,00
0.75
3,6W DO
0.67
9,216.
0.85
4084ac
3.
Qs ho/yl eons. Omer /a
534
Tory
36.
18 550.40
35.75
1<9,94 Z
37.83
ZO 049
38.
ZO ss� so
3820
20 ,244
4'
QCi US! / 1 to Grade
8
5a.
00
I75.
/, 4 V GO
/65
1, 3ZO. oo
2,00a 00
134 &
!, 040.60
$.
�ti� /e s i �inP Sfi^ipir�
/,885'
Z-
0.08
150. 80
O.lO
/88,50
0.16
'301.60
0.095
/79.08
O.0
188.$0
6.
Ooub /e yc / /aw
1,7-70
L. F.
6-145
309.60
0.14
240.80
D. Z8
481.6o
a/ 35
232, zo
7.
6 ".So %O/k/hife Si(r ir!
1,590
L.F.
O. ZO
318.00
0. IZ
! 90.80
0.23
365.70
0,115
18z.85
0./Z
- 8
8"So /�!t/hi <eSfri
ZID
-44
I0.Z
52.50
O,/3
27.30
O.Z3
48.30
0,/Z6
Z6.25
0,/3
27.30
9.
T e C- IOaPrllwhl /Lilln4---,
38
Ea.
3.50
133.0 5
4.7
190.5-0
5-25
199.50
4.
J7400
4.50
/7 /_OO
lO.
T e D= Pove���f�/Qr
40
Ea_
3.S
/10,00X4.7
l90,QD
s.-Z6
210.0011d.501
180.00
4.5-6
00
To/0 /ZWOM l 0 9 ip/ ;
27 705.90
28 ZZ7. ZO
28541.60
Z8 677 38
Z8 984.4
'DATE : 0C 7 /9 198/
TIME*, 9:00 P. Al.
Cl TY Off' SARA TO G A
SID sII AR;Y —.
Sf/EE T Z O F .2
pR4,/CC7 Oye.CL.ayl yg
,OQOSPEC 7- Ao a p
!� i�Srrt9rl
trE�9
pESCRiPT /ON
QUANT /Ty
UNIT
UA r
JORICE
TO TAG
UN /T
PRICE
TOTAL
UN /T
R�c�
TOTAG
UN/ c
R/C.
TO TAG
UN /T
pR�c
7-0 7-A L
�•
A. R. 4G700 .4soho /�
/,3/0
Ga/.
/,50
/,965.00
1.88
2,462.86
2.
F 6r� c Mal
4 BGY,
s Y.
O, 76
3,360.00
0.79
79z.ao
3.
/Js ha// bone Over /Q
530
Tory
40.
Z/,261 o0
4/.
21 942, 00
.
ZDD.G
z
1,64e a0
5
�ti /fie S GAP S�;p /�
1,885
L.F.
AZO
_777.60
d.ZB
5Z7.80
6.
Ooub /e yc / /aw Sfr /' ire
1,7470
L. F.
O, ZS
430.00
0.60
/D 32. oo
7.
1,590
L.F.
O.ZO
,18.00
0.39
6Z0, /O
8
8 "So / /a''�t/!�i><eS�ri'
Z/O
L,
I a.ZS
g'Z_5o
oso
/os,00
9.
% e C- flail wwl lkariCe
3(9
Ea.
5.00
/ 90.00 ,
5.5
Z09. 00
/O.
T e D- Amemcnll1j.
40
Ea•
.S,aO
260 oo
5:sc
2zo.00
Tofai 4moanl o 8z0/ :
Z Z. Z,
032,510.70
CITY OF SARATOGA
• �g� Initial:
AGII\'DA BILL NO. d7 Dept. Hd.
DATE: 10/21/81 C. Atty.
DII'ARTMErPr: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: QUITO ROAD /ALLENDALE AVE. - COX AVE. /SARATOGA AVE. TRAFFIC SIGNAL
MODIFICATIONS
Issue Summary
The traffic signal modifications to the intersections of Quito Road /Allendale
Avenue and Cox Avenue /Saratoga Avenue has been completed. The "Notice-of
Completion" has been prepared.
Recommendation
File the "Notice of Completion"
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. "Notice of Completion"
Council Action
10 /2_l:
Jensen /Clevenger moved to accept compoletion of work and direct that notice of completion
be filed. Passed 5 -0.
CITY OF Se1R1�`pGA
t? r�NDA tiE L NO. 11-
OhL
DA'I'S: October 21 . 1981
D1!1ARI,%=: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Fid.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SU3T=. Revocation of Horse Permit, 20885 Wardell Road. Mr. and Mrs.
-- Ronald Knapp ----- - - - - --
_J.- ------- ----------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Stmmary
The applicant applied for a variance for the location of an existing horse
corral in March 1981 after complaints had been received by the City. In
July they requested the variance be withdrawn. On August 12, 1981, after
numerous public meetings on the item, the Planning Commission directed the
Planning Director to "initiate appropriate action for revocation of the
(Knapp) horse license." The revocation was to become effective 10 days
after receipt of the letter to the Knapps (August 28, 1981). The Knapps
have appealed this action.
Recommendation
1. Conduct a de novo public hearing on the appeal.
2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny.
3. Staff recommended that the City proceed to revoke the horse permit.if
the variance were withdrawn.
Fiscal Impacts
None noted.
Exhibits /Attachments
I. Letter of Appeal
2. Notice of Intention to Revoke Horse License
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 8/12/81, 7/22/81, 6/24/81, 5/27/81 and
5/13/81
4. Staff Report dated 5/06/81 and Addendums dated 5/07/81, 5/20/81, 6/16/81
and 7/30/81
5. Exhibit "B"
6. Horse Permit dated 11/13/70
7. Correspondence Received
Council Action
10/21: T�Tatson /Jensen moved to continue to 11/4 at 8:00 D.M. Passed 5 -0.
11 /4: Jensen /Watson moved to grant appeal. Passed 4 -1 (Mallory opposed).
I
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 10/28/81
COUNCIL MEETING: 11/4/81
SUBJECT: Revocation of Knapp Horse Permit
(V -550, 20885 Wardell Road)
On August 18, 1981, the Acting Planning Director sent a Notice
of Intention to Revoke Horse License to Mr. Ronald Knapp. In
summary, the letter states that a horse can not be kept on site
unless all ordinance requirements are complied with and that
any horse permit that was issued in violation of those require-
ments is invalid. The letter then states the reasons the horse
permit is invalid:
1.
Site lacks the minimum 40,000
sq. ft. area required for the
keeping of a horse.
2.
The barn and corral are not setback
the minimum 50' from
a property line.
3.
The._corral is not setback 30'
from
the private right -of -way
along the eastern edge of the
site.
4.
The corral is not setback 100'
from
some of the dwellings
on adjacent sites.
The letter then goes on to state that the revocation proceedings
were initiated at the Planning Commission's.dir.ection because
the applicant had withdrawn a variance application which would
have addressed those items listed above. It also advised Mr.
Knapp that the revocation could be appealed to the City Council.
Prior to the sending of the letter mentioned above both Staff
and the Commission spent a considerable amount of time on the
problem. In January this year the Code Enforcement Officer
received complaints regarding the keeping of a horse on the
site. It was then determined that the corral was not in confor-
mance with ordinance setback requirements and a variance would
have to be granted in order for the horse to remain even though
a horse permit had been granted by Staff in 1970. The Knapp's
were informed of this and, after preliminary discussions with
` Report to Mayor and City Council
Revocation of Knapp Horse Permit
10/28/81
Page 2
Staff, filed a variance application in April to rectify the
matter.
The Commission then heard this matter on May 13, 1981. At that
time it was determined that the corral encroached into a private
easement and the item was continued to May 27th. At that meet-
ing the item was again continued to the June 24th meeting to
determine if the Knapp's and those opposed to the variance
request could develop a compromise. The City Attorney was also
directed to review the impact of the corral on the easement.
On June 24th the Knapp's requested a continuance to the July 22nd
meeting which they received. At the July 22nd meeting it was
determined that the easement reduced the site area below the
40,000 sq. ft. required by ordinance. Also, the Knapp's attorney
requested that the application be withdrawn and the fees returned
since he felt the Knapp's had a valid horse permit. The Deputy
City Attorney disagreed with that position citing ordinance
requirements which make the permit invalid. The Commission dis-
cussed the withdrawal request but determined that a variance
application was indeed necessary. The item was continued to
the August 12th meeting at which time the Commission voted to
have Staff initiate revocation proceedings.
Submitted by:
is ael Flores
Assistant Planner
Approved by: 0 _�
Ro ert . Shook
Director of Community Development
RECEIVED SEP 0 8 1981
Cite of Saratoga
Planning Dent.
Re: Variance Aopli_cation 4P V '��G� , R.J. Knao:D
Gentlemen:
,enternbe,r 9 19 1
►-
ldc herby request an appeal hearing before the Saratoga
City Council, in protest of the vote and opinion rendered
by the City Plannyna Commission regarding our variance _
A 1.1cation LL I/ - <5 <� D ±Urttic�hauJc���res�l(�t Z-n KQUOCQ+i09
!Je .-eel that we have a number of valid reasons for this.
Principally, we should have never been required to submit to
a variance request because %•re have always had a valid horse
license, corral permit and barn permit, and - because a variance
hearing is required, by your own City rules, only when a citizen
dosir~es to build something new, or change something existing -
neither 1.-jas the case for us. In addition, the City Staff acted
improperly on several. occasions regarding this case, and at the
last Planning Commission hearing, the Commission itself acted
improperly and illegally in closing a previously announced public
hearing, refusing to receive our input to the meeting, refusing
to accent our simple request to withdraw the application, voting
on an issue that had already been withdra ,,•in, Making public comdients
that did not include all of the data in the matter, �,v,hich ignor %d
many, many expression
s of support from the maicrity of our neighbors,
and ignoring a letter in our favor from the County Health DeOiv,
Mr. Knapp will be making 1cnOWn to you, shortly, a full accounting
of this case; it's unreasonable expansion and enlargement by a
cantankerous nei.ghbor,Cvi_th City staff going along with it)
ignoring our property rights, and allowing personal slander to occur
against us, with proven l-es_,to be printed and distributed to the
public at large.
Very Truly Yours,
Mrs. Ronald J. Knapp
0 3'�S�S Gc,L %c LC /�L
v
f?
OTTE 90 0&M&19Q)(5&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
August 18, 1981
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REVOKE HORSE LICENSE
Mr. Ronald J.' Knapp
20885 Wardell Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
bear Mr. Knapp:
Section 8-35.4 of the Saratoga City Code provides that: "It shall
be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or other entity to
keep or maintain any horse, I or cause any horse to be kept or main-
tained, in the city, except in conformance with the provisions of
this division and the zoning ordinance."
Section 8 -35.8 of the Code states that no horse may be kept or main-
tained in the City of Saratoga without first obtaining a horse
license, and Section 8- 35.6(b) further provides that: "No horse
license shall be issued under the provisions of this division in
violation of any of the provisions herein, or in violation of any of
the provisions of the zoning ordinance of the city, and any license
as may be issued wh "ich is in violation of any of said provisions
shall be void and of no force and effect."
It has been determined by the City that your present horse barn and
corral violate Section 3.2(e) of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance in
the following respects:
(a)
The site area of your lot is less
than 40,000
sq. ft., which is
the minimum lot size for keeping
and maintaining
a single horse
in a private stable. The "site area"
of your
lot has been
calculated in accordance with the
definition
of that term as
set forth in Section 1.5tt of the
Zoning Ordinance,
which
requires the exclusion of streets
and private
road easements
located within the property line.
(b)
The horse barn and corral do not
comply with
the required
50 foot setback from the property
line.
(c)
The corral does not comply with the required
30 foot setback
from the private right -of -way.
Mr. Ronald J. Knapp
Page 2
August 18, 1981
(d) The corral does not comply with the minimum distance of 100 ft.
from adjacent dwellings.
In view of your decision to withdraw your application for a variance,
at its regular meeting on August 12, 1981, the Planning Commission
of the City of Saratoga directed the Planning Director to initiate
appropriate action for revocation of your horse license. Accordingly
pursuant to Section 8- 35.8(e) of the Saratoga City Code, you are
hereby notified that your horse license will be revoked, effective
ten (10) days from your receipt of this letter. Upon revocation of
the license, no horse may be kept or maintained upon your property.
In this regard, reference is made to Section 8 -35.9 of the Saratoga
City Code which provides that: "Any keeping or maintaining of a horse
or horses without a license in violation of this division shall be
deemed to be a public nuisance, and may, by this City, be summarily
abated as such, and each day such condition= continues shall be
regarded as a new and separate offense."
Please be advised that the decision to revoke your horse license may
be appealed directly to the City Council.by filing a written Notice
of Appeal with the City Clerk within teni(10) days from your receipt
of this letter. Should you elect to do so, the decision will be
reviewed by the City Council at a hearing de novo.
Very truly yours,
Kathy ICerdus
Acting Saratoga Planning Director
CERTIFIED MAIL'- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ptanui'ng Commission r
Page 3
Meeting Minutes 8/12/81
LIP -500 (cont.) /
June 18, 1981, amended to read that the number of units will be deter-
mined during the site development and design review process. Commissioner
King —_ conded the motion which was carried with Commissioner Zambetti
dissent g. '
4. V -5S0 Ronald and Patricia Knapp, 20885 Wardell Road, Request for a
Variance to allow an existing corral and barn to remain in their
50'Wfr , back
present location which does not meet current ordinance set
requirements ( from any property line and 1 from any dwell-
ing not on the site;' Cbnt'inued from July 22, 1981
The Deputy City Attorney gave the history of the proposal. He noted that
this matter had been continued from the last meeting because of a split
vote.
Commissioner Crowther stated that there were more members of the public
who were in favor of the corral and barn than opposed, and the Public
Health officer from the County did not indicate a problem in many of the
areas that were being criticized. He noted that Staff had recommended
that the Commission grant a variance. Commissioner Crowther stated that
he felt the City, at this point, should try to stay out of the matter and
should accept the applicant's request for withdrawal.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that if the Planning Commission issues a
directive for the horse permit to be revoked, then they are in effect
concluding that a variance was required. He explained that the condition
regarding the zoning aspect is on the City records, and it would seem that
the permit was issued in recognition of the fact that the adjacent area
was not then developed, and when development did occur the relocation of
the corral and barn would be required. He added that the ordinance per -
taining to the issuance of horse permits specifically states that if 'a
::�. :(w'r� : i`�:.'` �.=- .i.:':±:o := i "�.> :i:: Wit•: ?:`�`„ : • f..: i-
permit is issued under a situation which does not comply with the Zoning
Ordinance, the permit is to be deemed null and void. The Deputy City
Attorney further explained that when the site area is computed it is cus-
tomary to exclude streets and easements; therefore, when those areas are
excluded, it reduces the area down to 32,000 sq. ft. He noted that this
exclusion does not pertain to easements for utilities. He indicated that
this proposal does not comply with setbacks with respect to the 30 foot
requirement from a street, the 50 foot requirement from a property line, or
the 100 foot requirement from an adjacent dwelling.
Commissioner Zambetti stated that lie cannot accept the applicant's with-
drawal for a variance that is immediate business before the Commission.
Commissioner Monia moved to direct Staff not to take any action concerning
V -550 for the horse permit. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that she would have voted for the variance,
hopefully with some time limit and perhaps some other conditions. She
expressed her concern that, by not taking any action, the Commission would
be setting a precedent by saying that, although an issue is not in con-
formity on many different levels, and not requiring a variance, the City
would be allowing many other kinds of situations to be referenced to this
case.
Commissioner Bolger stated that he could share that concern; however, the
major problem with this case is the fly issue, and that has been taken
care of with all of the spraying. He commented that he would like to see
the neighbors work together to resolve this issue, and he does not believe
the City should be involved in it any further than it has been at this time.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that there are ordinances to consider., and
apparently the neighbors are not talking to each other. She stated that
the situation has gone beyond the neighborhood and she feels i.t is up to
the City to make a decision.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he believes the Horse Permit Ordinance
has provisions in it that the City can revoke the permit if the holder is
creating a publi.c nuisance or is creating problems; however, this was not
the conclusion. He explained that there was a lot of input that the
applicant was not conducting himself in such a way that the City would have
* addition on page 3a attached.
,
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 8/12/81
V -550 - Ronald Knapp
Page 3a
The Question was raised as to whether the City had been consistent in
subtracting easements when computing site area, with particular
reference to lots in the Parker Ranch development and a recently
approved development on-Big Basin Way. The Deputy City Attorney
indicated that street easements are excluded when the site area is
computed; however, other types of public or private easements are not.
i'
1
Planning Commission Page 4
Meeting Minutes 8/12/81
V -550 (cont.)
a basis for revoking the permit.
The vote was taken on the motion to direct Staff not to take any action
for the horse permit with regard to V -550. The motion failed, with
Commissioners Laden, King, Schaefer and Zambetti dissenting.
Commissioner King commented that he felt the central issue is whether a
horse is appropriate on this site. He stated that this is a rather small
site and is probably inappropriate for a horse. Commissioner King stated
that this is no longer a rural neighborhood, although there may be one
near it.
Commissioner King moved to request Staff to initiate proceedings to revoke
the horse permit from this site, as suggested by the City Attorney, unless
a variance comes back before the Commission. The Deputy City Attorney
stated that if the applicant wished to appeal revocation proceedings, that
appeal would go directly to the City Council. Commissioner Zambetti
seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther
and Monia dissenting.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she had voted for the motion, even though
she feels a horse certainly could belong on the site, because she feels that
the matter should go beyond the Commission level.at this Doint.
5. SDR -1500 Norma Behel, Herriman Avenue, 2 Lots, Tentative Building Site
Approval; Continued from July '22, 1981
The proposal was escribed by Staff. It was noted that a variance had
previously been ap roved on this.project.
The public hearing as opened at 9:05 p.m.
Doug Adams, the atto ey, stated that the applicant has no intention of
building at this poin , and the purpose of the proposal was to split the
lots so they conform t the other lots in the area. He expressed his
concern about the cond tions in the Staff Report, which include payment of
fees, since the applica t does not intend to build at this time. Mr. Adams
explained that he had di cussed the condition from Sanitation District
No. 4 with them, and the is a possibility that some of the storm drainage
fees will be reduced and ived until such time as a building permit is
applied for. The conditio s of the Staff Report were discussed, and it was
explained by Staff that Con itions II -C, D and E would not come into play
until there is some use of e lot, and III -B, C, D and E would not be
required prior to Final Map . proval. Regarding Condition II -A, Staff
indicated that this condition has always been applied with site development
rather than the issuance of a uilding permit. Chairman Laden commented
that perhaps Condition V -A, re rding the hook up to sewers, is directed
towards both lots. She explain \ ,d that it has been customary for the City
to bring all lots that are invo ved in a lot split up to the City.require-
ments, which would apply to both arcels in this case.
Mr. Adams stated that he was he \•1 that additional comments from the
Sanitation District No. 4 would bed received soon, and it was determined
that Condition IV -A be amended to r ad "Sanitary sewers to be provided and
fees paid in accordance with require ents of Sanitation District No. 4 as
outlined in letter dated June 22, 19 or any additional letters submitted
by the Sanitation District."
Commissioner Zambetti moved to close e public hearing. Commissioner King
seconded the motion, which was carried nanimously.
Commissioner King moved to approve SDR- 00, per the conditions of the
Staff Report dated July 8, 1981 as amend d. Commissioner Zambetti
seconded the motion, which was carried u ani.mously.
6. A -775 - Dividend Development Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval
for a two -story single- family dwe ling that would be over 22' in
height (30' max.) on a lot with a average slope of less than 10%
in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district n Carnelian Glen (Lot 4, Tract
T 6722)
Staff described the proposal. Discussion fo owed on the lot lines and
4 -
ng Commission ` \ Page 4
n lnu s 7/22/81
i 7. V -550 - Ro ald and Patricia Knapp, 20885 Wardell Road, Request for
Va iance to allow an existing corral and barn to remain in their
esent location which does not meet current ordinance setback
requirements (50' from any property line and 100' from any
dwelling not on the site; continued from June 24, 1981
Staff gave the history of the proposal. The Deputy City Attorney addressed
the issues that have been raised: (1) The question as to the method of
calculating the square footage of the site. He explained that in the
definition of site set forth in the Zoning Ordinance rights -of -way and
easements used as roads are excluded, and this has been the customary prac-
tice of Staff and the Commission. He added that he is inclined to concur
that this site, while it may be 40,000 sq. ft. in terms of total size, for
purposes of determining the size after this exclusion is approximately
32,000 sq. ft.; (2) A review of the files would seem to indicate that at
the time the permit was issued the party issuing and reviewing it was not
aware of the private easement on the property. We have now been placed on
notice of that easement and it is an easement of record. We have no know-
ledge of abandonment or court order ruling that it has been abandoned or in
any way impaired. The Deputy City Attorney stated that if the Commission
does elect to grant the variance, it should be conditioned upon the corral
being moved so that it does not encroach upon the easement area.
He discussed the setback requirements. He pointed out that the applicant's
attorney's position is that the applicant does not need a variance because
he has the horse permit. However, the ordinance under which the permit was
issued provides that the permit must comply with the Zoning Ordinance, and
that if the permit is issued in violation of the Zoning Ordinance it is to
be considered as void. The Deputy City Attorney commented that, since there
was no development at the time the permit was issued, and the City was not
aware of the easement, there may have been some relaxation on the side yard
setback requirements. He added that there now seems to be some dispute as
to whether there is a condition on that permit that, upon development of the
adjacent property, the barn would have to be moved.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he was concerned because it appears that,
based on the evidence that the applicant has provided, he. does have a valid
building permit and he has a valid horse permit. He added that he would
question whether the subdivision is legal and he is concerned about the
City's position on this matter, since that construction caused some viola-
tion of the ordinances. He asked how the Commission can proceed since the
attorney has withdrawn their request for a variance.
Chairman Laden explained that the variance is still before the Commission
in a continued public hearing. She stated that the Commission should either
deny or approve the variance, and if it is denied, then the applicant's
request for withdrawal will have been met.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that there may have been recognition of the
:., r'; <.' =: ;;;z : •:: ;::::;.: setback requirements when the horse permit was originally issued in 1970,
but because there was no development adjacent to the property, the condition
may have been inserted that upon the development of those properties, the
stable and corral would have to be moved. He advised the Commission that,
if there is a conflict between the horse permit and the Zoning Ordinance,
the statutory provisions concerning the horse permit clearly indicate an
invent that the zoning act should prevail. He added that, in his judgment,
the City is dealing here with a variance situation.
Commissioner Crowther stated that the Government Code reads and implies that
a variance is something that you obtain before you grant a permit and before
you do construction; in this situation the permit has been granted and the
construction has been completed.
The Deputy City Attorney explained that there have been numerous situations
where the City has gone back to legitimate situations that may have occurred
earlier, including existing structures.
4 -
g Commission `` Page 5
C_ g Minutes 7/22/81
V SSO (cont.)
The public hearing was reopened at 8:SS p.m.
Mr. Marshall Hall asked to review the letter from Mr. Knapp's attorney,
and he was given a copy of the letter that had been received. ,
Mrs. Moon again asked the Commission to deny the variance. She passed
out letters which had been written from the other two owners backing on
this property. She stated that they were very concerned about the effects
of the horse, the effects on the health of the children, the use of their
back yard, and the effects on property values. Mrs. Moon added that she
did not see any kind of compromise on this situation. She commented that
the size of the applicant's land after the easements have been subtracted
is 16,272 sq. ft.
Marshall Hall, after reading the letter from the applicant's attorney,
commented that he would assume that there is now no application before the
Commission. He added that if there is no application,•then perhaps the scene
would shift from the Commission to someone who wants to make an issue of
the fact that the structures are there without a variance or without a
permit, and that would address itself to the courts; perhaps the neighbors
could seek litigation to clarify the matter.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that this is a situation which was initiated
by the neighbors and the City is acting in response to a complaint. If the
Commission makes a finding that the
(prepent structure does not comply with
the Zoning Ordinance, in the absence of a variance the City could require
its removal, and that would prompt another application by the applicant for
a variance.
Marshall Hall stated that, if the Commission is thinking seriously about
granting this permit, which is one of the most flagrant applications that
he has seen, he would like to comment further. He commented that the person
who had issued the horse permit had created a situation that was in violation
of the ordinance, but that does not bind the City. Mr. Hall pointed out
that the applicant does not have a usable 40,000 sq. ft. lot and lie does
not conform to the required setbacks.
Mr. Moon, 12651 Arroyo de Arguello,pointed out that the original permit
seems to be questionable and the new permit application grossly misrepre-
sented the measurements. He stated that they have tried to work out a
solution with the applicant. Mr. Moon added that there is no effective
way of enforcing any conditions the Commission might attach; he requested that
the permit be revoked and that the barn and corral be removed per City
ordinance.
Commissioner Schaefer moved,-seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to close the
public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that perhaps one approach would be for the
Commission, rather than voting on a variance, to see whether there is a
consensus for directing City Staff to take appropriate action with respect
to the horse permit as has been suggested. That may initiate a further
request for a variance, but it would seem to be the only course of action
open to the City at this time. He explained that the consensus would
essentially be whether this is a circumstance requiring a variance. Then
the dropping of action on the variance request itself would not be con-
strued as agreement by the Commission to Mr. Knapp's contention that he
does not need a variance. As far as pursuing the matter, that is again
up to the Commission as to whether or not you want to direct Staff to bring
appropriate proceedings under the horse permit ordinance for revocation of
the permit.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he felt the prior inputs from the
neighbors indicated that there was no major problem. Fie pointed out that
5 -
g.Commission C ,\ Page 6
g. Minutes 7/22/8.1
V -550 (cont.)
the Health Inspector had indicated that the barn was very clean and there
was no fly problem. Commissioner Crowther added.that this input included
that from the people who were downwind from the site that would be most
affected. In view of the fact that the Knapps built this back in 1970 and
have a building and horse permit, he feels that he would grant the variance
because they have acted responsibly in this case. He added that he felt
it would be an undue burden on them at this late date to make them move or
remove the structure.
Commissioner Crowther moved that the request for withdrawal of application
V -550 be accepted and the City should take no action in requiring a new horse
permit or variance. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. Commissioner
Crowther amended his motion to include the fact that the Commission con-
siders this to be a nonconforming use which has taken place over a number
of years. Commissioner Bolger seconded the amendment. Commissioner Crowther
further amended the motion to add the statement that the necessary findings
to grant a variance could have been made. Commissioner Bolger stated that
he could not second that amendment. He explained that he is very troubled
by this situation, since it appears that there are two different issues - -the
problem of the stable, corral, neighbors, and horses, and the problem with
easements. He concurs that it is not necessary to ask for a variance for this
particular project, but he cannot second the portion of the motion stating
that the findings can be made. Commissioner-Crowther withdrew that amend-
ment dealing with the findings.
Commissioner Schaefer suggested a time limit, so when the Knapps sell the
property, the corral is removed, and also that the corral be removed
from the easement portion. The Deputy City Attorney pointed out that the
motion here is for the City to take no action. Commissioner Schaefer stated
that she would not vote for the motion, since she does not feel this is the
appropriate action in this situation.
Commissioner Laden stated that she will vote against the motion. She
explained that she feels there has been enough evidence to show that there
was incorrect or insufficient information given at the time of the applica-
tion concerning the easement and the right -of -way of property owners. She
added that she sees the Commission recently granting variances on almost
any premise that comes along. She stated that she is very concerned about
the very lax approach to this situation here when the Commission takes a
very strong approach to issues such as ministerial acts. Commissioner Laden
added that she feels this is not an appropriate motion and will not vote for
it.
The vote was taken on the motion. The motion failed, with Commissioners
Schaefer and Laden dissenting. It was directed that this matter be con -
tinued to the meeting on August 12, 1981. The Deputy City Attorney pointed
out that what is now before the Commission is whether there is a finding
of a violation of either the Zoning Ordinance or horse permit, and whether
Staff should be directed to take action to revoke the permit. '
8. SDR -1500 Norma X ehel, Herriman Avenue, 2 Lots, Tentative Building Site
A rov
Staff noted that the pplicant had requested a continuance. It was directed
that this item be con nued to the meeting on August 12, 1981.
9. UP -505 - Rajdev /Morelan School District, Request for Use Permit to allow
a Day Care Cent r to operate in existing buildings (Quito School)
at 18720 Bucknall Road
Staff described the proposal, stating they were recommending approval.
The public hearing was opened at%,9:35 p.m.
- 6 -
Planning Commission '
Meeting Minutes 6/24/81
Page 2
n ald and Patricia Knapp, 20885 Wardell Rd., Request for Variance
allow an existing corral and barn to remain in their present
ation which does not meet current ordinance setback requirements
' from any property line and 100' from any dwelling not on the
e; Continued-from May 27, 1981
Staff reported that the applicant has requested a continuance to July 22,
1981. It was clarified to Mr. Marshall Hall that a continuance could be
requested by him if he was unable to attend that meeting. It was directed
that this item be reagendized for July 22, 1981.
f 6. CF-328 Consider tion of a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as it
relates t Design Review; Continued from June 16, 1981
This item was discu sed after the other items on the agenda had been heard.
The Deputy City Att rney explained the newest changes, to the ordinance which
have been made as a esult of the last meeting held by the Planning Commission.
Additional changes we e made, and it was determined that the heading of
Section 4, on page 3, should read: "General Guidelines for Design Review ".
Setbacks were discusse . It was the consensus that the setbacks of the
district in which the of is found will be maintained.
The public hearing was pened at 10:00; p.m.
Warren Heid, architect, xpressed some of his concerns, specifically the
non- conforming structures created by this ordinance and the 13% standard
used in the 40,000 sq. ft. district. He questioned the replacement of a
home that has burned down. He pointed out that 20% is the standard used
for a 20,000 sq. ft. lot, ut only 13% is used for a 40,000 sq. ft. lot.
The variance procedure was iscussed, and it was determined that there
should be an exception in t e ordinance to cover replacement of homes that
need to be replaced because f fire, natural hazards, etc. Mr. Heid stated
that he felt the standard fo the 40,000 sq. ft. and above lots should be
reconsidered.
Commissioner Schaefer stated he felt strongly that the 13% for 40,000 sq.
ft. lots is really discriminat ry and the number is not reasonable.
Don Elam, 14721 Live Oak Lane, expressed his concern about the appeal
procedure, stating that he felt there should be more criteria for the
" ".•. ".• :.:.:...:...: .:..:.:::,., ,,;.:..,,,..:.;;.:.
appellant to follow. He explai ed that he felt there was a serious
inequity in the fact that, for 30.00, an appeal can be made that ,-ashes
away weeks of work by the applic nt and Staff and also a lot of money spent
by the
applicant. Mr. Elam -stat d that he feels this ordinance is needed,
since there are a lot of people i terested in converting their homes. He
commented that he is not sure tha the percentages listed can be applied;
perhaps they should be moved into the area of guidelines, rather than
standards.
Nino Gallo, developer, stated that he will be spending more time with Staff
because of this ordinance, and he els it will be making more paper work
for everyone. He added that the pe tentage of the coverage should be used
as a guideline, on what is being bu lt, the individual lot, the design of
the home, etc.
Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, stated that she felt that Mr. George Day,
who has built a lot of fine homes in his area, should be asked regarding
his criteria used in building.
David Call stated that he feels some c nsideration should be given to the
appeal system. He discussed the standards, and it was explained to him
that other cities have been contacted for their standards and guidelines.
- 2
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 5/27/81
V -549 ( ont.)
The publi hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m.
Page 2
Tom Carine, the adjacent property owner, stated that, since the
balcony loo s right into his back yard, specifically his master
bedroom area he would like to see a row of trees placed along the
property lin He submitted a list of different types of trees that
:-:•::,..;; °; >r.!,;.:,.a.;;;:;.;:,:.'::.:; he felt would solve the problem, rather than removing the balcony.
Mr. Morrow Comm nted that he thought that would be agreeable with the
new owner, who i present, since he had discussed plantings with him.
lie noted that th new owner also has a loss of privacy from his kitchen
area.
Mr. Carine stated t at he had seen the landscaping plans that the new
owner, Mr. Nederveld has, but he would like to see something planted in
the near future.
The proposed landscape was discussed by Mr. Nederville, the new owner,
and he stated that it w in agreement with what Mr. Carine was request -
ing. He added that the Nrawings will be completed soon.
Commissioner King moved ose the public hearing. Commissioner
Zambetti seconded the m which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Crowther moved to approve V -549, subject to the condition
that suitable plantings be es\ablished as shown in Mr. Carine's exhibit
(Exhibit "D ") within 30 days, nd maintained along the fence, line to
shield the neighboring property Commissioner Zambetti seconded the
motion, making the findings.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that, since the person who is supplying
the trees is not the person who is living in the home at the time,
she questioned what happened if some of the trees die. It was noted
that the motion included that these plantings must be maintained, as a
condition of the variance.
Mr. ederveld stated that he would have to
N get vehicles in and out of
the area to construct a retaining wall. He requested that 60 or 90 days
be the timeframe, rather than 30.
Commissioner Crowther amended his motion to\state that the plantings must
be d.e.n within 60 days. Commissioner ZambetV seconded,the amendment,
an•d —the otion was carried unanimously.
4. V -550 - onald Knapp, 20885 Wardell Road, Request for a variance to
llow an existing corral and barn to remain in their present
location which does not meet current ordinance setback require-
ments (50' from any property line and 100' from any dwelling
not on the site);Continued from May 13, 1981
Staff explained that this item had been continued from the last meeting,
at which time Mr. Hall indicated that the existing corral structure
encroached into a 30 ft. easement. It was noted that both the Staff and
Deputy City Attorney have reviewed the documents pertaining to this
easement. Staff indicated that, if the Commission approves the variance,
Staff is recommending that the corral be relocated to be completely out
side the 30 ft. wide easement area.
It was reported by Staff that they had rechecked Mr. Knapp's calculations
on the map, and it had been found that the corral. itself encroaches
into the easement about 7' feet, not 2' ft. as indicated by the applicant's
drawing. Staff also indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Moon had requested an
inspection by the Environmental Health Services of the County, and they
have submitted methods of cleaning and containing the horse waste so it
would not have adverse impacts. Staff explained that the County Sani-
tarian had not detected any particular odor problem when they visited
the site; the animal was not on -site at that time and there had been only
one manure pile near the barn. However, they feel there could be problems
in the future.
2 -
Planning Commission Page 3
Meeting Minutes 5/27/81
L 0 nt.)
pablic hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m.
Ronald Knapp, the applicant, discussed the issues of the easement and
sanitation. He stated that he feels an agreement could be worked out
with Mr. Hall regarding the easement, as they have done in the past on
various items. He discussed how he had measured the calculations on
his map. Mr. Knapp stated that his attorney has advised him that the
easement is for Mr. Hall and two other families' ingress and egress,
but it is not an easement that gives full rights to the property. He
added that the attorney maintains that there should be no reason to
move the corral fence at this time., since it does not in any way weaken
the easement of the Halls; it does not interfere with the egress and
ingress, and certainly an agreement to move it if and when the roadway
is ever widened should be acceptable. Mr. Knapp stated that his
attorney's biggest concern is the allegation inthe Staff Report that
the roadway should be construed as a potential street because it is a
30 ft. easement and that the setbacks should be measured from that.
He explained that that interpretation should be left to be worked out by
Mr. Hall and himself and /or through the courts. He also mentioned the
fact that the report states that the easement should be subtracted from
the acreage in figuring the land area. Mr. Knapp requested that both
of these statements be deleted from the Staff Report. He reported that
his attorney was not present at the meeting. .
Chuck Moon, 12651 Arroyo de Arguello, submitted a copy of the letter
from the Health Department, a letter from his pool service, and a draw-
ing. He stated that he had also measured the setbacks and easements,
and lie concurred with the measurements of Staff. Mr. Moon commented
that, when the easements are subtrac ed Mr. Knapp has slightly less
than one -half acre and doesn't meet tte ordinance requirements for horses.
He also indicated that the manure pile is still there. Mr. Moon stated
that if the Commission grants the variance, he would request that the
corral be relocated south from the existing barn, and there is adequate
room. He explained that if it were moved it would make a significant
difference to them because the wind comes primarily from the north.
Mr. Moon described the location of the other neighbors.
Mr. Marshall Hall addressed the Commission, pointing out that the ordi-
nance states that you need 40,000 sq. ft. for a horse, and he feels the
Knapps only have a little over 30,000 sq. ft. of usable area. He
stated that he felt Mr. Knapp's attorney would recognize that you cannot
use the surface of someone else's right -of -way when calculating the
area. Mr. Hall indicated that there are two property lines in question,
the line dividing the right -of -way from the balance of the Knapp property
and the line defining the subdivision. He stated that the corral does
not clear either one of those lines by 50 ft. Mr. Hall gave the history
of the barn and corral. He commented that if the City grants this vari-
ance conditionally with requirements that it be cleaned every three
days and watered down, etc., it will create an impossible policing situa-
tion for the Staff.
Mr. Knapp commented that they do have the original horse permit that did
not have any requirement to move the corral when the land was subdivided.
He added that it.indicated that they were in full compliance, and he has
a building permit on the barn which shows where the easement is. The
easement was discussed, and Mr. Knapp added that he would be glad to plant
some trees along the site. He also noted that both the Code Enforcement
Officer and the Building Inspector have commented on how neat and clean
the area was. Fie commented that their pool is totally removed from the
barn area; however, they still have a tremendous dust problem in the pool
area.
The Deputy City Attorney discussed the easement. He stated that lie did
not agree with Mr. Knapp's counsel that the City's recognition of that
easement constitutes some form of condemnation. He explained that the
definition of streets in the City's ordinance includes private easements.
There is an easement of record which has been acknowledged by the parties
and apparently there is no claim that such easement has been in any way
relinquished or abandoned, even though the entire area of the easement
has not been used. He stated that there has been no interference with
- 3
Planning Commission �. Page 4
Meetin Iinutes S/27/81
b (cont.)
ghts established under that easement, and he would take the posi-
or the City that there is a 30 ft. easement as a matter of record;
the parties have acknowledged the existence of that easement at various
times subsequent to the creation of the easement; therefore, we would
also view that 30 ft. easement as establishing the width.
Chairman Laden stated that she would like the Deputy City Attorney to
take the input of Mr. Knapp's attorney and Mr. Hall's interpretation and
give the Commission his written opinion as to those items. The Deputy
City Attorney asked the applicant to have his counsel address a letter
to the City or City Attorney's office, outlining what his position is,
and he will respond to that.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he felt the Deputy City Attorney has
clarified that the statements in the Staff Report regarding the ease-
ment are consistent with the ordinance. He added that his only question
would be whether it is feasible to do what Mr. Knapp suggests, which is
to grant the variance conditionally on the basis that, if for some reason
in the future the full width of easement is needed, the corral would be
moved.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that he would prefer not to put that in
as a condition unless there is some agreement between the owners which
is a matter of public record. He explained that,while the condition is
known now and it is understood that the corral would be moved as time
goes by, these things.sometimes get lost in the process. He added that
he feels Mr. Hall has a point that, once you allow something over the
easement, unless it is a matter of public record, you run the risk of
infringing on that easement. The only way it could be workable is if
there was some document acknowledged by Mr. Knapp made a matter of public
record, so that subsequent owners would be aware of the easement, and
the fact that the structure within the area would not negate the easement.
The Deputy City Attorney clarified that he was referring to something
recorded in the Office of the Recorder for Santa Clara County; however,
his preference would be that, if the variance is to be granted, we try
to keep clear of the easement if at all possible.
The Deputy City Attorney also stated, when questioned whether the Com-
mission could require that the corral be moved back 50 ft. even if it
wasn't mentioned in the original approval, that he did not think the
Commission is bound by particular provisions in the license. The license
says that it is subject to all applicable laws of the City of Saratoga,
and we have already determined that a variance is required with respect
to other areas; therefore, you can impose conditions if the variance is
to be granted.
The Deputy City Attorney was also requested to submit his opinion on
the following questions: (1) Do we subtract all easements from the
site, even though the Knapps are in fact paying taxes on this land?
(2) Has there been any modification to the ordinance since the applicant
made application, say, in the last 10 years? (3) The City's liability
relative to the building permit which shows setbacks that were approved,
and then permitting a neighboring subdivision with the particular layout
of the homes.
It was suggested that possibly the Knapps and Moons could get together
and discuss some of the conditions that might allow the variance, using
the suggestions in the letter from the Health Department. Mr. Knapp
stated that he had offered to put some fast growing large shrubs or small
trees along that property line which would screen out flies and dust and
possibly odor. He stated that he also had offered to relocate the corral
to the other side of the barn. Mr. Knapp commented that he would try to
discuss these solutions with the Moons. It was pointed out that one of
the recommendations from the Health Inspector had been to redesign the
manure bin, and Mr. Knapp was asked to consider this.
UP -493 (co t.)
acceptable ize.
Chairman Lad n commented that they would like a redesign of this cabana
on the back p operty that would not impact future development on the
adjacent prop ty, since the Commission feels they need to take that-
into considera ion. The vote was taken on the motion to deny UP -493
without prejudi e. The motion was carried unanimously. The applicant
was notified of the 10 -day appeal period on this decision.
lla.Ne ative Declaration - V -522 - Allen Don
llb.V -522 - Allen Don, Old Oak Way, Lot #12, Request for a Variance to allow
the constr ction of a single - family residence to maintain a
10' side ya d where 20' is required on a site near the terminus
of Old Oak 1 y
Staff gave the histor of the application and described the current
proposal.
The public hearing was pened at 11:00 p.m.
Mrs. Don addressed the C mmission, stating that they have been through
the process for almost a ear, and now they have just learned that they
will also need Design Review Approval of the structure. She added that
Staff has indicated that he structure shown in the exhibit is too tall,
and the designer will prep re a new dxhibi.t if the variance is granted.
Mrs. Don commented that th y need to get a building permit before
;'.,. September and she asked if it was possible to consider both the variance
and design review at one me ting.
Chairman Laden stated that i would be more appropriate to take action
this evening on the variance, to determine if the variance is going to
be granted prior to redesigni the home. Staff commented that the
design review consideration co ld be on the next agenda if the new exhibit
were submitted by the beginning of next week.
Roger Griffin, the architect, cl rified that the deck on the plan with
the revised height situation on t e building will no longer exist along
the north property line.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the Negative Declaration for V -522.
Commissioner Schaefer seconded the ftiotion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve V -522, making the findings. Com-
missioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that she would like landscaping along
the north property line to act as a bu�fer, and it was noted that this
(5ot covered in the Design Review plication.
onald Knapp, 20885 Wardell Road, Request for a Variance to
llow an existing corral and barn to remain in their present
ocation which does not meet current ordinance setback require
ents (SO' from any property line and 100' from any dwelling
on the site)
Staff described the application. They stated that they feel there are
physical constraints associated with the property which allows them to
make the findings necessary and are recommending approval. The corres-
pondence received in opposition and in favor were noted into the record.
Staff indicated that the applicant has submitted a copy of what they
feel was the original permit, and it does not have Condition No. 3,
that the corral was to be relocated when the adjacent property was
developed, on it. Staff also noted that the Knapps had received a
verbal clearance from an inspector at the time the barn was completed;
therefore, the Staff Report has been conditioned to get requisite
building permits and pay whatever fees are necessary. Staff discussed
Planning Commission Page 12
Meeting Minutes - 5/1.3/81
V -5S0 (cont.)
the setbacks..
The public hearing was opened at 11:15 p.m.
Mr. Knapp, the applicant, stated that one of the objectives in moving
to Wardell was so they could have a horse. Mr. Knapp submitted the
original permit, which lists only two conditions. He commented that
the corral and barn were there when Mr. and Mrs. Moon moved there.
Mr. Knapp commented that the barn and corral are almost as close to
the other neighbors' homes who are in favor of the application. He
submitted letters from Mr. and Mrs. Sterling and Mrs. and Mrs. Bogart,
stating they were in favor of the variance. Mr. Knapp discussed the
fly problem and stated that it was there regardless of the horse. He
commented that he could not think of a better way to maintain the rural
character of Saratoga than to keep a horse in a barn if it is kept clean
and neat.
Shirley Diemer, 20751 Wardell Road, read the letter she had submitted,
indicating that she was in favor of the variance.
Mary Moon addressed the Commission, stating that the conditions are
affecting their property and them adversely. She submitted pictures of
the area. Mrs. Moon discussed the fly problem and the odor from the
�',•:.:::a manure piles. She indicated that the applicant was boarding a horse;
the horse is not theirs. She stated that the excess dust is caused
from the weight of the.horse.
Chuck Moon added that the wind blows from the north daily and the
manure pile is maintained next to the barn currently. He stated that
if it were cleaned upon a regular basis the problem could be minimized,
but he does not think that will happen.
Marshall Hall, 20685 Wardell Road, discussed the driveway, which is the
only means of access to three residences. He stated that the driveway
is constituted of a 30 ft. deeded easement, and they have only used about
.14 ft. of it. He explained that the easement runs on the north side of
the Knapp property and on the east side. When the subdivision was con-
structed in 1976 they were required to relocate the roadway, which they
did. Mr. Hall added that they only took 14 ft. of it and a retaining wall
was put up so Mr. Knapp's horse corral would not slide down the road.
He indicated that the horse corral is built right on top of the easement.
He explained that he thought it would be a temporary corral, and he has
no objection to it now, but it does cloud the property line. Mr. Hall
indicated that the access they have now is not adequate, and if the
Fire Department ever says that they need more than 14 feet, they want
to be able to have it. The easement was discussed, and it was pointed out to
Mr. Hall that it had not been shown on the exhibits and the Commission was
not aware of its existence.* (addition below)
The Deputy City Attorney stated that more information would be needed
on the easement. He added that he would have a problem with the Commis -
sion approving a variance that has an encroachment.
Chairman Laden requested the applicant to submit an accurate map of the
property and all the easements that are on it, in relationship to any
existing buildings, including the barn and corral.
Mr..Knapp commented that the corral is over the easement, and the barn
is not. He stated that he could move the corral easily. Mr. Knapp
stated that he would submit the requested map to Staff. He also
submitted a letter from Mrs. Bravo who owns the horse being boarded.
Mr. Knapp commented that he boards the horse because they are friends;
he is not renting the barn out as a commercial enterprise.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that he would like Mr. Hall to submit
*Mr. Hall was asked if he was considering developing his property such
that he would need a wider road in order to permit that; Mr. Hall stated
he has no desire to develop it.
r-
Plannirg Commission
Meeting Minutes - 5/13/81
V -550 (cont.)
CPage 13
a title report or policy showing the easement, and also a copy of the
agreement,if possible, that may have related to the construction of the
corral over the easement. Mr. Hall indicated that there was no agreement
drawn up. He added that he would submit a copy of the title report to
Staff.
It was di`r.ected that this item be continued to the meeting on May 27, 1981.
(Commissioner Schaefer left the meeting at 12:01 p.m.)
13. A -768 - Divid d Industries, Request for Design Review Approval for a
two -S t ry dwelling over 22' in height (27' max.) on a lot with
an ave ge slope less than 10% at the end of a private street
off of orseshoe Drive
The proposal was described by Staff. The changes in the Staff Report
were noted.
The public hearin was opened at 12:10 p.m.
Marty Oakley, the rchitect, clarified that the height is 26 ft. Item
C in the Staff Rep rt, regarding landscape screening, was discussed.
Mr. Oakley stated t at he did not feel that screening in that area is
1...,•..., appropriate because the adjacent house that will be designed for Lot H1
will be approximatel 150 feet fzom'this structure.
Jim Ormsberg, from Di idend Industries, stated that he interprets this
" requirement to mean th t the eventual owner would have to come in with
some landscape plans a d that the City believes there might be some
adverse impacts from th t side of the house. Mr. Ormsberg added that
he feels this type of c ndition would pre -empt the homeowner from
deciding what he wants t do with his own home.
Discussion followed on th condition, and it was determined that Con -
dition No. 3 shall. read: 'Landscape plans indicating how the proposed
structure will be screened from adjacent property shall be submitted
for Planning Department re 'ew and approval, as determined necessary.
by Staff."
Commissioner Zambetti. moved o close the public hearing. Commissioner
Bolger seconded the motion, w ich was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to \approve A -768, per the Staff Report as
amended, making the findings. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously.
r•:x tr.:;.r,y M: ^,., .. DESIGN REVIEW
14. A -766 - Gerald Butler, 20634 Vick ry Avenue, Single - Family Residence,
Final Design Review Approv 1
Staff described the proposal. They gave the background of this sub -
division, and stated they were reco ,mending approval.
Gerald Butler, the applicant, described the existing adjacent structure.
He stated that this subdivision inclu es a scenic easement. He dis-
cussed this easement and also the ci.rc lar driveway that Staff had asked
to be eliminated. He explained that tNe Fire Chief had been concerned
about the amount of parking space in th area, and a circular driveway
would provide more parking. He also no ed that there would be no runoff
of waters above the property. The possi•ility of using turf stone was
discussed. it was determined that Condition 1 -D should read: "A circu-
lar driveway utilizing turf stone shall bG submitted for Planning
Department review and approval." \
13 - \
TC GA
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 5/6/81
Commission Meeting: 5/13/81
SUBJECT V -550 Ronald and Particia Knapp
20885 Wardell Road
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
REQUEST: Allow an existing corral and barn to remain in their present
location which does not meet current ordinance setback require-
ments.
ZONING: R- 1- 15,000
SITE SIZE: 1.1 acres
BACKGROUND: On November 13, 1970 a horse license (License H -52) was
issued to Mr. Ronald Knapp for one horse at the above
address. The location of the barn and corral approved at that time is
approximately the same as shown on the site plan of this variance
request (Exhibit "B "). However, special condition number 3 of the license
states that the corral is "...to be relocated when lower, adjacent
property is subdivided into 15,000 sq. ft. lots." The applicants have
indicated that they feel this condition was added after the permit was
issued.
On August 11, 1976 final map approval was granted for 4 lots (SDR -1236)
on a property to the east of the subject property which is lower in
elevation. However, the corral was not moved and one of the adjacent
property owners has complained about the existing corral and barn. The
Knapps have indicated that they feel that the corral and barn have been
properly located and that their present location has no adverse impact
on their neighbors. The purpose of the variance request is to maintain
this existing situation.
STAFF ANALYSIS: Currently the barn and corral maintain minimum setbacks
of about 25' from the eastern property line and 27'
from the western property line. The minimum setback required by ordinance
is 50' from any property line. The corral is also about 88' from the
dwelling on the Moon property to the east where 100' is the minimum
required by ordinance.
Report to Planning Con( ssion 5/6/81
V -550 Page 2
The site has an unusual shape with the southern portion being very
narrow (about 80'). This shape and the location of the existing redwood
grove and the dwelling make it highly unlikely that a corral and barn
can be located on the site without some variation from setback require-
ments.
Topography also acts as a constraint in the location of the corral and
barn. Both are currently located on the flatest portion of the lot.
A steep slope separates the corral and barn from the dwelling. There
is also a significant grade change between the corral and the driveway
to the east. The barn and corral could be moved further south but
would still be close to adjacent eastern properties.
In short, there appear to be no reasonable options to the existing
location of the barn and corral that would not require a variance.
FINDINGS:
1. Practical Difficulty and Unnecessary Physical Hardship: As indicated
in the Staff Analysis above, there are significant physical constraints
associated with the site in terms of its shape, topography, and the
location of trees which make compliance with ordinance requirements
a practical difficulty. A strict or literal interpretation of the
ordinance would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance.
2. Exceptional Circumstances: The physical conditions of the lot
already described are the unusual features which warrant the variance.
It should also be noted that the corral has occupied this location
for over 10 years.
3. Common Privilege: Denial of this variance application would deny
the applicant the privileges of other property owners in the same
zoning district with over 40,000 sq. ft. in site area. The unusual
physical features of the site make compliance with ordinance
requirements more difficult than other properties of similar size
and a less peculiar shape.
4. Special Privilege: Approval of this variance would not be a grant
of special privilege since there are exceptional circumstances
associated with the site which would warrant a variance. Granting
this variance would not be inconsistent with the limitations on
other properties classified in the same zoning district and in a
similar physical situation.
5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare: The granting of this variance
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per Staff Report dated May 6, 1981 and
Exhibit "B" subject to the following conditions:
Report to Planning Con .ssion `,. 5/6/81
V -550 Page 3
1. Only one horse owned by the applicant shall be kept in the corral
and barn.
2. The corral and barn shall be kept clean so as not to create any
adverse health impacts on adjacent properties. Violation of this
condition shall constitute grounds for the revocation of this
variance.
COMMENTS-
1. Environmental Assessment: This project is a Class 5 categorical
exemption according to State E.I.R. Guidelines.
2. Public Hearing: This proposal was advertised by posting, publication
in the newspaper, and mailings to 51 nearby property owners.
Approved:
MF /clh
P. C. Agneda: 5/13/81
r
Michael Flores, Assistant Planner
C
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 5/7/81
Commission Meeting: 5/13/81
SUBJECT Addendum to V -550, Ronald and Patricia Knapp
20885 Wardell Road
It was brought to Staff's attention that the barn constructed on the
site never received final building permit approval although an in-
spection was completed for the barn's foundation. If this variance
is granted, a completed building permit gust be received by the
applicant and the requisite fees paid..
Also, the City's Code Enforcement Officer indicated that the horse
kept on the site is not owned by the Knapp's which is the reason for
condition 2 of the Staff Report dated May 6, 1981. The ordinance
allows only "private stables" on a residential site. If the Knapp's
are renting the barn and corral for commerical purposes this would
not meet the intent of the ordinance.
Recommended Action: Staff is still recommending approval of this
variance subject to the additional condition:
3. The applicant shall receive all required building permits
for the barn and pay all requisite fees within 30 days of the
granting of this variance. The barn shall comply with all current
building code requirements.
Approved��
Michael Flores, Assistant Planner
MF /da
Agenda: 5/13/81
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 5/20/81
Commission Meeting: 5/27/81
ADDENDUM TO:
SUBJECT V -550 Ronald and Patricia Knapp
20885 Wardell Road
This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of May 13,
1981 to allow the applicant to prepare revised plans showing the 30'
wide easement along the eastern and northerniproperty lines of the site.
The applicant has submitted a revised map showing the 30' easement. It
indicates that the corral encroaches about 2.5' into the easement area.
Approximately 157 sq. ft. of the corral occupies an area of the lot
covered by the easement.
The presence of the easement also requires that setbacks be measured
differently since the ordinance requires "...that a corral may be
located no less than 30 feet from the right -of -way of any side or rear
street bordering on the site;..:" The 30' wide easement would be
considered a street by ordinance definition and therefore the setback
must be measured from the edge of the easement.
At minimum, the applicant should relocate the corral outside of the
easement area so as not to impair its future use.
The easement also has an impact on the
applicant has indicated that site size
If the easement is deducted form the s
definition (Section 1.5tt) the site is
32,849 sq. ft. The ordinance requires
of site area to allow a horse permit.
way site area is measured. The
is 1.1 acres or 47,916 sq. ft.
ite area as required by ordinance
reduced to approximately
a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft.
The original variance application did not address these issues. There-
fore, if the Commission grants this variance it will be to allow the
corral to maintain a 0' setback from the easement line where 30' is
required and to allow the horse to be kept on a site with a site area,
as technically defined by the ordinance, of less than the required
40,000 sq. ft.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Since the physical constraints affecting the site
still preclude compliance with the ordinance, Staff
feels the necessary findings can be made and would recommend approval
of this application. However, additional conditioning is required to
Report to Planning Cd,. .fission
V -550 Addendum
C 5/20/81
Page 2
deal with the concerns of adjacent property owners in addition to the
conditions already suggested by Staff. These additional conditions are
as follows:
4. The corral shall be relocated to be completely outside the 30' wide
easement area along the eastern and northern property lines of the
site.
5. The corral area shall be watered or covered in some manner to
control the creation of dust.
Approved:
MF /clh
P. C. Agenda: 5/27/81
4 &Z2,
Michael F ores, Assistant Planner
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 6/16/81
ADDENDUM T0: Commission Meeting: 6/24/81
SUBJECT: V -550, Ronald Knapp
20885 Wardell Road
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This item was continued from the meeting of May 27, 1981. The
Deputy City Attorney was requested to submit his opinion on
several questions brought up by the Commission. (See minutes
of 5/27/81 meeting). It was also suggested that the Knapps and
the Moons could meet to discuss some conditions which would
mitigate the approval of the variance. If the variance is to
be granted, then the Commission can attach those conditions which
it feels are reasonable.
Additionally, the Knapp's have requested a continuance to the
July 22 meeting in order to allow their attorney sufficient time
to review the various easements.
Michael Flores, Assistant Planner
/da
P.C. agenda: 6/24/81
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 7/30/81
Commission Meeting: 8/12/81
SUBJECT: Addendum to: V -550, Ronald Knapp
20885 Wardell Road
This item was continued from the meeting of July 22, 1981, because the
Planning Commission split 2 -2 on whether or not to accept the applicant's
withdrawal of the variance as outlined by the applicant's attorney in his
letter dated July 20, 1981. The item had to be continued so that more
Conmissioners would be present to break the deadlock.
The Commission rust also determine if the City should take further action
on the existing horse permit if the withdrawal is accepted. Staff recom-
mends that if the variance is withdrawn then the City should proceed to
revoke the horse permit under the provisions of Section 8- 35.8(e) of the
Municipal Code. Also, under Section 8- 35.6(b) any horse license that was
issued in violation of any of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall
be void and of no force and effect.
Approved JZ
Michael Flores, Flores, Assistant Planner
P.C. Agenda: 8/12/81
NoRrH
� � I
E
t
r
i
WAY
f
1
SCALE-
0 20 yD (co 80 /oo FT
�1
I
211 6 _ �Q F- T. i
IvoTK : Da�A.w /tiG fS Tn SCA��
1- I- owEV�fL pREc►SE Pcto�Er'r.T}'
� f
� - 1
Moo//
O` '
SAz
EXHIBIT SI-
FILE No. , o
CITY OF SARATOGA
Ui(��zDrLL aOa) .
tVd rr
OF Moof! Hou5Elp ",I-
1S
J
v
i,
G�
l�,
�3 >2
FEE
LICENSE NO
NAME OF APPLICANT
-�--
ADDRESS OF APPLICANT �O 39.S U.(J vde- is S v /0 eL.,
PHONE
ro %- 30 /0
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY FOR KEEPING HORSES -S a " e-
ZONING DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN ZONE
ROPERTY IS
SIZE OF PROPERTY
NO. OF HORSES REQST
00
1 Yes ✓ No
wne Leased
N Ac-k -q— S .Ft.
DDIENSIONED SKETCH
PASTURING PERMITTED
(or see attached sheet)
SPECIAL Yes No kExpiration
CONDITIONS
OF COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE
LICENSE Yes X No Var. Reg.
fee a �a cd►Q� eke
')-Corral �4 be lota�ed bc�o+�
. .S�
e-
'p. Q Pime �S, LOCQT(Oh h a
Gi.► cet ractie d S-ke&4
-A) Wd k 4AS%41jil e.�^�.�' f - 'FOP -
3. tori.oi 4c)
,,logy
DISTANCES TO DWELLINGS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES;
HEALTH OFFICER
DATE LICENSE ISSUED
1'hlh• 100 ,
PRNoAL
No V. 1311? 70
Yes
CANNING DIRECTOR
By
I affirm that the facts stated by me
hereon are true. I agree to be bound
his Licen is issued s ject to
by all applicable ordinances of the
omplianc rich all applicable City
City of Saratoga and to hold the City
of Saratoga Ordinances, all pertinent
of Saratoga harmless from all costs
State Laws, and lawful orders of the
and damages resulting from the use of
lannina Director
the property as described hereon for
the keeping of horses
X
S NATURE Or APPLICAN T
H.0 R S E C I T Y O F S A R A T 0 G A The.number of this
L I C E N S E PLANT1ING DEPART ENT license shall be
CITY HALL, SArNTOGA, CALIFORNIA legibly and perma-
867 -3438 nently displayed
near or on the
facilities used
for keeping horses.
PrO�►�-� is s�br�c'v�s� tti'�'D �5��� Sys �o+ �Of1
i V `1 !�•�
s
i I s
RE, LJA 7
J Lz RD
X
xx
.. Loc- •T /crJ Or NO�JS% ��� �,.
- � •. � •.. � _. rct �jr ^. i<f!lU i_ .' fS � f'!' /C�� /�'��('i %'` .. ' •j f`.1 .. y � iF,f .. ..
JK SI':�_ ANA
CLoS���
EFC�/i �.
VV
i
t
f� � •
'1
County of Santa Clara
California
July 17, 1981
Tom Upson
City of Saratoga Code Enforcement
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Health Department
2220 Moorpark Avenue
San Jose, California 95123
RE: POSSIBLE VARIANCE TO ALLOW ONE (1) HORSE
KNAPP RESIDENCE, 20885 WARDELL ROAD, SARATOGA
I:f the City of Saratoga grants a variance to the Knapp Residence
to allow a horse, I would like to suggest the following items
as conditions to be attached to the variance:
1. The perimeter of corral area next to the easement road should
be provided with fast, high growing, dense shrubbry to intercept
flies.
2. The wet spots (urine) should be covered weekly with lime and
turned under.
3. The small bin of stockpiled manure should be treated either
by weekly removal or other approved methods such as a properly
constructed and maintained compost pit.
l
TIM MULLIGAN, R.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SANITARIAN
TM: la
cc: Knapp Residence, 20885 Wardell Rd., Saratoga
® An Equal Opportunity Employer
21 July 1981
John and Margaret Durnya
12675 Arroyo de Arguello
Saratoga, Ca.
City of Saratoga
Planning Commission
Commissioners:
My wife and I recently purchased and moved into 12675 Arroyo de Arguello
(previous owners were the Sterlings) and became aware of what appears to
be a zoning violation relative to a horse stable and corral near our
home. My wife and I discussed the situation and hope you will take into
consideration the following.
We chose the city of Saratoga to move to because we feel the city is
well maintained and also exercises exceptional planning and foresight in
the area of growth and building to ensure a high quality of living for
our residents. If indeed the corral and stable does not conform to our
zoning ordinances, then in our opinion it should be removed.
Our other concerns are the amount of dust we would have to put up with and
also the greater number of flies. We also have three children, aged one,
four and seven, and our feeling is that the further the stable is from our
residential property, the less potential there is for our children to be
attracted to it and possibly injured. Please don't feel we are hysterical -
that's one less thing (a major one) that we as parents.will have to worry
about.
In summary, we ask that the commission reject the request for variance, and
thank you for taking the time to review and consider our concerns.
Thank you.
ohn Durvya;`' Date
Margaret Durnya Date
f.
V, 67,<,o
Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga, California 95070
July 22, 1981
Gentlemen:
In March of this year we signed a
petition circulated by Mr. Knapp supporrilg
the renewal of a horse corral permit on his
property. The horse corral was represented
as causing no problems in the neighborhood.
Since that time we have found that other
neighbors have objections to the presence
of the horse corral. It is still true we
are not bothered by the corral but because
others object we would.like to withdraw our
support of the renewal. If the renewal
requires variance to existing zoning we would
like to request you deny this renewal.
Thank you for your co- operation.'
Bruce 0. Beebe
6/"- Qo a- 6
Sally A. Beebe
V - S�
,a URSLEY & GARFIELD
ATTORNEYS._AT LAW
101 CHURCH STREET
WILLIAM J. PURSLEY SUITE 12
WILLIAM L. GARFIELD LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 05030
(408) 354-1188
July 20, 1981
City of Saratoga
City Hall
Saratoga, California 95070
RE: Subject V -550
Ronald and Patricia Knapp
20885 Wardell Road, Saratoga
Gentlemen:
RCCE Uz
a
V-S'S-0
CAPITOLA OFFICE
720-0 CAPITOLA AVENUE
CAPITOLA. CALIFORNIA 95010
(408) 462 -3592
Please be advised that I have been retained by Ronald
and Patricia Knapp to review their request for a variance to per-
mit their existing barn and corral to remain in its present
location.
On November 13, 1970, a horse license for the subject
property was issued to the Knapps by the Planning Director for
the City of Saratoga. The original license attached two condi-
tions to the issuance of the license, both of which have been
complied with by the Knapps. Subsequent to the issuance of the
license, someone with apparent access to the City's files altered
the license to include a third condition that the "corral be relo-
cated when lower adjacent property is subdivided into 15,000 square
foot lots." The third condition was added without the knowledge
or approval of the Knapps.
It is my understanding that the Knapps filed the request for
a variance in response to a complaint filed with the City of Saratoga
by a neighbor located in a subdivision which did not receive final
map approval until August 11, 1976. The neighbors primary complaint
appears to be that the corral is located less than 100 feet from his
house, which does not comply with the minimum setback required by the
City ordinance. The corral appears to be less than 100 feet from
the neighbors dwelling. However, it would appear to be obvious that
the neighbor had full knowledge of the existence of the corral at the
time he purchased his property. It is difficult to conceive that
the neighbor now has legal standing to dictate that the corral must
be moved from its present location. Furthermore, the City approved
the aforementioned subdivision with actual or constructive knowledge
that the Knapps had a valid horse license and that the distance from
the corral to the residence was less than 100 feet.
The reports of the Planning Commission staff refer to other
C
City of Saratoga
July 20, 1981
Page Two
minimum setback: and minimum acreage requirements for the barn and corral.
Once again, the City will be determined to have actual or constructive
knowledge of such requirements at the time the license was issued.
The City is arguably estopped to now argue that the subject property
must conform to the above requirements. My clients constructed the
barn and corral in justifiable reliance that they were issued a valud
horse permit. If, through no fault of their own, the Knapps are
damaged because of the City's neglect, it is the City who should bear
whatever burden comes to pass.
The report to the Planning Commission dated May 21, 1981,
recommends a condition that the corral be located completely outside
the 30 foot wide easement area running along the eastern and northern
boundary lines of the subject property. Apparently. the corral extends
into the easement area running along the eastern portion of the subject
property. The subject easement is a private, non - exclusive easement
which provides rights of ingress and egress to certain property owners
located to the west of the subject property. The actual road which
traverses the easement is only about 12 feet wide. The easement raises
several complex legal issues including the possibility that the
un -used portion of the easement has been extinguished; the rights of
the property owner to utilize the unused portion when such utilization
does not restrict or interfere with the use of said easement by the
beneficiary; and certain Statute of Limitations (the time within which
a lawsuit can be brought) problems involving the removal of a permanent
structure from the easement area. If the City were to impose the
above - mentioned condition, most certainly lengthy and expensive liti-
gation would result.
It should be noted that the barn and corral was recently
inspected by Mr. Milligan of the County Health Department who found
the existing conditions did not pose any sort of health problem. He
did impose certain suggested conditions which are contained in a
7/17/81 letter to the City of Saratoga. The Knapps have complied
with or are in the process of complying with all these conditions.
The various problems associated with the subject property
mentioned in the reports to the Planning Commission were not created
by my clients, but, if anything, were due to prior actions taken by
the City.
In conclusion, my clients have a valud horse license and have
complied with the conditions contained therein. The barn and corral
have existed in their present site and condition for ten years with
no problems except for the complaint which initiated this matter.
C
City of Saratoga
July 20, 1981
Page Three
It should be noted that virtually all of the Knapps neighbors, many
of whom are "downwind" from the corral unlike the complainant, have
signed a petition that the barn and corral have been maintained in a
neat and clean manner and the presence of a horse has been no problem
to them. It is my opinion that my clients have unjustifiably been
forced to spend time and money to obtain a variance when, in fact,
they possess a valid horse license duly issued by the City of Sara-
toga. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Request for a
Variance be rescinded and the $125 filing fee be returned to the
Knapps.
We sincerely regret any inconvenience that we may have caused
the City staff or the Planning Commission due to the filing of the
Request for Variance.
Thank you.
Very truly yo ,
William L. rfivid
WLG:lmn
cc .. Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Knapp
EUGENE N. CURTIS (1915 -1975)
JOHN W. THOMPSON, JR.
ROBERT E.LAWSON
NEVILLE K. SPADAFORE
July 13, 1981
( RECEIVED JUL 2(
THOMPSON, LAWSON 8 SPADAFORE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 125, SUNNYVALE OFFICE CENTER
CIVIC CENTER
505 WEST OLIVE AVENUE
SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94086
City of Saratoga
Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA
ATTENTION: Rob Robinson
TELEPHONE
(408) 73e -2132
CABLE ADDRESS: TAMURE
RE: V -550 Ronald and Patricia Knapp
20885 Wardell Road - Request for Variance
Dear Mr. Robinson:
I represent.Mary and Charles Moon. As you know, they are very
concerned about the detrimental effect that the stable and
corral on the Knapp's property has had and will continue to
have on the Moons-use and enjoyment of their adjoining
property. The Moons, along with several of their neighbors,
are requesting that the City not approve the variance requested
by the Knapps for continued use of the stable;. and corral
facilities that have been on the Knapp's property since 1970.
It is clear to everyone concerned that living conditions and
density in the area have increased markedly since the Knapps
received their initial permit in 1970. It is respectfully
submitted that the reality of neighbors in such close proximity
simply does'not justify the continued use of the Knapp property
for stabling a horse. The detriment to adjoining neighbors of
the Knapps were the City of Saratoga to grant the variance
far outweighs and exceeds any detriment to the Knapps caused
by the City's refusal to grant a variance for a horse license
at this time. The Moon's are simply asking that the City of
Saratoga's ordinances be applied equally to everyone without
special favor or excention. .
My review of the record leads me to re- emphasize several
factors which had previously been noted in the investigation
done by City Staff.
1. A review of the original license application prepared
and submitted by the Knapps in 1970 clearly shows that the
information they were certifying as being true was, in fact,
inaccurate in that the Knapps did not show that the proposed
location of the stable and corral would place it in the right
City of Saratoga
July 13, 1981
Page 2
of way easement for the adjoining properties which was clearly
a matter of record when the application was made.
2. The 1970 application provided other conditions binding
the Knapps:
(a) They were required to obtain a building permit
for a permanent stable structure. It was my understanding
that this was never actually done until recently.,
(b) The Knapps agreed to be bound by all applicable
ordinances of the City of Saratoga. It seems clear that the
setback requirements of the City of Saratoga have simply been
ignored in this case by the Knapps. There is a minimum 100'
setback from any dwellings on.adjacent properties. There is a
minimum 50'. setback from property lines and that setback is to
be measured.from. the edge of any easements across property.
There is a site area square footage requirement of 40,000 sq.
ft. as.a precondition to granting the permit for the stabling
of a horse. The site area on the Knapps property after deduc-
tion of the square footage for the easements across the property
is less than 33,000 sq. ft.
(c) A condition of the original permit was that the
corral would have to be relocated when adjacent property was
subdivided into 15,000 sq. ft. lots. This occurred in 1976.
No relocation of the corral was made at that time or has been
made since.
At the time they applied for a horse license in 1970, the Knapps
were not surrounded by neighbors in close proximity. They had
to be aware of the existing ordinance requirements of the City
of Saratoga. They agreed to be bound by those ordinances.
They knew that the stable would have to be relocated in any
event after development of the adjoining property. They certainly
were aware at all times of the existing topography of their
land and in agreeing to these conditions they must have known
that site relocation would have been difficult if not impossible.
Nevertheless, they did agree to'these conditions and they are
bound by City of Saratoga ordinances as are all property owners
in Saratoga.
City of Saratoga
July 13, 1981
Page 3
The Knapps have requested a variance for continued use of the
corral and stable area on the ground that to enforce the pro-
visions of the existing Saratoga ordinances would work an
unfair hardship upon them. However, investigation of the use
of the stable area over the years seems to show the Knapps
have never used the stable for a horse of their own, but have
rented out or loaned out the facilities to non - property
owners indirect violation of the ordinance requirement.
It further seems clear that they do not presently own a horse
to stable on that property so that no animal would have to be
removed from the premises if the variance is not granted.
City Staff needs to carefully weigh any claim of hardship made
by the Knapps against the offsetting claim of hardship and
diminished property value which are being made.by the Knapps'
eastern neighbors. An examination of the topography of the
Knapp property and the placement of( screening trees on their
property clearly shows that the Knapps themselves are not
inconvenienced or harmed in any way by the maintenance of a
stable on their property as their living facilities are clearly
screened and removed from the stable site. Such is not the
case with their adjoining neighbors. All of the eastern
properties are much lower than the Knapps' property. The
stable and corral area stand in full view over the neighbors'
back fences. These neighbors have the right to the full use
and enjoyment of their property. During the times that the
Knapps have stabled a horse, these neighbors have found that
their yards have been practically uninhabitable because of the
dust, flies and odor emanating from the corral area. For
Staff to recommend continued use of the stable without some
sort of cleanup or dust control provisions is a stop- -gap measure
that is not going to satisfy anyone. It is simply too
nebulous to be enforceable and the issue will simply reoccur
because of the problems of defining whether the Knapps-at any
given time are in compliance with the City requirements in that
regard.
My clients respectfully submit that the granting of a
variance at this time should be done only if there are
extreme compelling reasons for doing so. My review of the
information which I have before me does not indicate the
Knapps have presented any such compelling reason. Indeed,
-3-
City of Saratoga
July 13, 1981
Page 4
if the City of Saratoga had received accurate information
from the Knapps in 1970 with reference to the right of way
easement across the Knapp property and the placement of the
stable facilities, it seems clear that the license which was
granted at that time would never have been granted by the City.
In 1981 it is even more clear that because of the changed
conditions in the surrounding area that the granting of a
variance for continued use of a stable facility in this loca-
tion is simply unacceptable and unjustified. There is no
question that to grant such variance would significantly
diminish the property values of the surrounding residences
and would certainly adversely impact upon those neighbors'
rights to the full use and enjoyment of their homes.
Given all these considerations, it is respectfully submitted
that there is no justifiable basis for the City of Saratoga
to grant a variance for the continued Fuse of the stable
facilities on the Knapp property.
Very truly yours,
THOMPSON,4 LAWSC
G• .C�.v��C"J
Neville K. Spad
NKS:lc
cc: Mike Flores, Planning Department
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Moon
�,..,ECi"i,�E�J.:;r' May
Memo To: Rob Robinson or Mike Flores
From: Ronald & Patricia Knapp
Re: V -550 Variance Application for Continuation of
Horse License H -52
Your recommendation to the Planning Commission for their
May 13 meeting included three additional conditions for inclusion
on our permit (Lic.H -52) when re- approved. As a result of the
discussion that night regarding the easement question and because
we propose the following change to your recommended conditions:
a) Add a condition regarding the easement which says:
"The existing corral (a non - permanent installation)
shall be re- located so as to not extend over the Hall
30 foot right-or-way if and when it should be necessary
to widen the existing 14 foot driveway to the full
easement i .-ridth. As such, the present location of the
corral shall not alter whatever rights are associated
with this easement. No permanent structure (ig, barn)
shall be constructed over this easement."
(It should be noted that the barn is clearly off of this
easement by several feet. The corral extends only 23z ft.
into the easement, and is set back 13'z ft. from the
existing 14 foot driveway. Since the driveway will
probably never be widened, there appears to be no reason
to narrow the corral at the present time.)
b) Inasmuch as a successful. "re -run" of Final Inspection on the
barn ,,.,as completed last week, the condition regarding meeting
of code and final inspection is no longer appropriate. All
elements of the structure were deemed satisfactory by the
inspector, and sign-off occurred. This condition should be
dropped.
We agree with the basic intent of the other 2 conditions, but
request minor changes as noted herein:
c) The term "clean" is a subjecL-ive term. Therefore, the
proposed condition stating the barn and corral are to be
kept clean, should have a postscript or clarifying footnote
to the extent that "clean" is used herein the context
relative to customary standards for a corral, barn, and horse.
d)1We request that the remaining recommended condition be
modified slightly to read, flonly one horse may be kept in the
corral and barn. The applicant shall not operate the corral
and barn as a commercial venture or business." The code
concern should be over commercial business involvement, and
not over who holds title to the horse. A borrowed horse for
personal or non business use should be acceptable.
Sincerely,
Ronald Knapp
/� (. Health Department
County of Santa Clara 2220 Moorpark Avenue
San Jose, California 95128
California ��11
U
May 27, 1981
The Moon Residence
12651 Arroyo de Arguello
Saratoga, CA 95070
HORSE CORRAL
20885 WARDELL RD., SARATOGA
This letter is in response to a complaint filed to the Health
Department, Environmental Health Section on May 22, 1981 by the
Moon Residence located at 12651 Arroyo de Arguello. The nature of
the alleged complaint was flies, odor, and dust caused by an uncared
for horse corral located on the Knapp property at 20885 Wardell Rd.
The following is this investigators observations. The Moon residence
located at 12651 Arroyo de Arguello was visited first. No odor was
noted at the time of the visit. The fly population hovering in the
patio area and sitting on the back side iofr the house was identified
as common house fly (Musca domestica) and the lesser house fly
(Fannia s s.). Both flies could. be caused from inproperly cared for
corral wastes. The fly population was judged to be moderate for an
urban situation. No dust problem except some silt on the steps of
the Moon's swimming pool was observed.
The Knapp residence at 20885 Wardell Rd., was then visited at approx-
imately 4:20 p.m. No one was home and a card was left in the door.
The horse corral and adjacent manure stock pile was then investigated.
Access to this area was gained via the judge property easement,
Located just below the Knapp corral and barn. The corral area was
extremely clean with no animal deposits observed. No animal was present
in the corral at this time. An old manure stock pile near the far end
o.f the corral was investigated. The manure was decomposed with an ant
colony living in the pile. No fly development was expected or seen.
The active manure stock pile area to the side of the barn was next
inspected. The manure is stock piled in a three sided bin cut into
the slope of the hill. The bin is constructed of 2 x 6 lumber making
a bin approximately 12 inches deep by 5 feet wide by 10 -12 feet long.
The odor from the bin was strong. The manure below the top 3 or 4
inches of dried manure was moist and could support fly development.
The larval and pupal fly population observed in this stock pile was
very low.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
The Moon Residence
May 27, 1981
Page 2
The following recommendations would be made if the horse boarding
is allowed to continue on the Knapp residence.' The corral area
should be cleaned at least 3 times a week. The animal waste removed
from the corral should be treated in the following methods in order
or preferential treatment. The manure should be placed in fly tight
garbage cans and picked up weekly by local disposal company. The
second method would be utilization of the existing stock pile bin
but in a modified manor. The bin should be redesigned so that it has
a closeable tight lid to keep adult flies and the elements out and
discourage fly development. The manure in the bin should be
thoroughly turned twice weekly. The first method, weekly disposal,
would serve to eliminate odor and fly development so the surrounding
properties would not be bothered.
�' ��I �
TIM MULLIGAN, R.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SANITARIAN
TM: jb
i
cc: City of Saratoga, Code Enforcement
May. 2 6 , 1981
�Q
City of Saratoga. Planning Commission
U -.550 Ronald Xna-o-o rc�-, pest, for a variance.
We.would like to acquaint you with a few facts supporting our
strong ,and valid. objections .to this horse,, permit and variance request.
Shortly after we moved into our house, the knapps brought..a horse
onto their-property. The 'horse at no time belonged to the Knapp:
`family. The horse remained on the . Knapp property for many m n.ths
: and.t, the young man,finally, in July or August, removed the horse to
":- trar_sport it to Cal. Pol -: where he was a student.
The barn and coral area were not maintained properly during all _
•that time. The dust fallout was severe, we felt, :creating health
problems. ' The:.manure giles In the coral area were not cleaned for a
When t ; : ,,
wee_ or tiro at a. tiri�.e, i eras. cleaned, it was p_lec: in an=
`are. -,
just 22 feet from our property line and was never rer__oved. T�onths
of manure piled uy) causing it to beccn.e a breeding t-round for flies.
The flies, naturally, gravitated to the entire Poor_ bac_: :yard.
The odor was extremely strong bac?� on this hi llsi de . An-any times `re
were forced to close o__r. windo�Ts and doers, tt was so overpowering:"
We tolerated these conditions until mid -su Amer, when we had decided
to proceed against the Knapps. The removal of the horse solved our
problems te:Lmorarily. V4,76 chose , at that time, to ignore the horse...
problem and location of the barn and coral u� tlil the tir_e when the:
Knayop family would' bring in another horse. I mid ;1t re ention that
dur -ing. this time we had no pool.
In October,, 1980, another horse was brought into the same
property. This horse was at all tunes owned by PQr. and Mrs. Richard
Bravo of 12846 'Arroyo de Arguello, Saratoga. We did not complain
'`.to Mr. Upson until sometime in March, when it appeared that =the .
horse was on the property permanently. ' ` We were again bothered
'by'.the� same conditions '.Namely .dust.fallout,'yoverpot7e?�ii1� -:
odor„ an in?lti � o' flies and rianure miles that were never haul (,_d a: ;-ay.
The cor l etas no-`- cleaned dai ly - T1Qnj -l' eS, zre __ Or t;r0 �1ou?_d.. -,o
by before. itwas cleaned. Two or three vree'l-s riefore the horse was
relaloved, the daily clean -uy) began. The horse -,;as re_noved by
the 'Bravo's on Sant .rday, !Aay 16,1951. and the stable and barn
were cleaned for the last time.
0-a.r pool was installed and finished in Plarch, 1979. Coiid_itions
on the iinu'_: prOOeY'tJT CLis C'1 iaS "t0 3CCU7_re a x:001 COVC r-
due to tine iallou"t. Increased l ":S?g e of o. r pool f=ilter and s-, Y�ree�.�
S'aS I1:::C =JSS ry. 1T�!'L• "_ i`• e , or—, E;one, tii0 dutit i7�'Ob1C -a �]�5 81i'_ ?C�t
b'-:ei? e .1i._-i _1a CC Tie ra:i lli.'.lg d_ st L' '0b1_em noa is Cats :d - File
CCuasi0:1al gust of ar0 "l'_a`!d thi c a ndl an
St0 a, :1 c l a'�'E Cc: >_1S1' (1Ca_aal CU.'1G.1 _ '_O_�S.
This past long wee!-:end, we have been able to enjoy oLZr patio
and pool area for the first t_i_ ;.e in months.
J ` .
The barn has not been totally enclosed- - until the Bravo' N brou. -ht
their horse on t le property, the r_ oof area..had been.p.artial"ly open.
Young; boys, many ti ies, were S en cli ?binZ in, ou and a of nd ' -he b xna.
At one tile, `;re obses`TT�d a ✓oJIgd child cryl ., after -being hit-'"on the
heed by so:�ie chi zg t at fell oa hi_1r �roi: the ceili _��. A call to I'.:cs.
1- pp brou.g.!t tl1.Eir c���u hte do'ri to L-_e scab e �,1e�A .'co i__vesti Le:.
T ;1. ,, , .ha , 'e ; , ,I, ous' - „1�. a.�ed _Ku �ro� �biSr
Le _il �, t _.e c__ilc� mac- _zo c been _. i� _ ,�
suffered only a good bump o:: the head.
There was an incident of indec _nt exposure in Vie dooiNmy to the
barn by a neighborhood young man. Tlhis ha,..pened in the fall after the
first horse had been remo,,red. Mrs. Rna-i„ T;vas not - ho',:e at the time.
:.;:;•,The_.,X(zaop ;�ho;u -e has al,-rays, been protected frozL :these adverse
conditions Eby 'a long' row of full-grown "pine and redwood trees. There
is no z�vay then Can enjoy the bene�`lts of file dust, or flies; or probably
not .even tie odor'.
' These adverse COr.ditio -±—I& .t`r'ill 'have a.n effect o2 me val'a'c ail?. set Lis:
of our property, wl. e:1 the time arrives. On visitin.- an open. house, sere
1 l n c ,, e,,� , , e the
oc s at-rw , ''rece �_�. '� sC . _ . l . �.a_.. to,..� >> - -=1\ a.} d_.sc �.� ��. z�
Sterling property. They stated the? t.aould� not `shoi,,! that house to thei r
clients because of the "horse bath o the fence" . The Sterling's did
sell the ho:zse and will be moving shortly. If these co iditi obi's were
.
` , brought to the .attention .o p-ros�necti ve bu�Ters, the house might still .be
unsold,
Knapp app pl o�� i. t- Zas ri dit o1 ia s -,. or a nojaber of faan.i lies'
livins G)n that hillside . TIIa s, e a _ 2oS t eiit1 -1'E 1y encircle t1 -oir'
The,n � r_ J, , l n yl i" V r :- , tv s 7 „_; u
�l e. c:t acre .�gc is a-�� c�o;.m co:_s u;.ra _�J:, t�.1 r..� _ems � i��;_, tneil- �. �n • -
I_2:7_� acre or loco, to a , a:..i -'r 2� horse �e T:'' r t T
.. ;^ 1�t..� � f , _ o • a ,z� ti z � :i_t . Tl:�e +loon
consi S is Of .461. Ac'' . w-liich. also should q al ifs' .o1' a h0:,:'se:
under tl e ,c c o:�.d_ .L_i onr� . - We believe. the:te are: sufficient grounds for revocation of their
horse permit 'anal denial of the. variance-, aS f011ows:
1. Ir st.f f l c i e ht ne t ' . quare ' f o o t age
T",
2. illegal use.
3. Ur_s a.fc conditions. :
4. Creoting LiichC lthy conditions. _
5.. DetZ rienta?_. to the valL�.e of . ad.j.'ce,-c 1:,ro)c'- ^t;;r;'
6. Interferring with our full.use and enjoyment of our
Property.
7. B,ncroacI ink on the right of ways of -three famii1ies.
and too close to the rigl t of sera.; %s of ttvo ot1-�ef fa,,; lies
Thanl you,
C1� l
"S. , . Moon
�iwr;, Linn 1`400n
,sr-- 1.�
MEMO TO:
SARATOGA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
1.
REGARDING: Renewal of Horse License H -52 for the Knapp property
on Wardell Road.
IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL
SOON CONDUCT A HEARING REGARDING CONTINUATION OF THE KNAPP'S
HORSE PERMIT:(LICENSE H -52). AS RESIDENTS OF WARDELL ROAD, ARROYO
DE ARGUELLO, AND VERDE MOOR (IN THE VICINITY OF THE KNAPP RESIDENCE)
WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO RENEWAL OF THE LICENSE FOR THE SAME USE AS
HAS EXISTED FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS. THE CORRAL AND BARN ARE BEING
MAINTAINED IN A NEAT AND CLEAN MANNER, AND THE PRESENCE OF THE HORSE
AT THIS LOCATION HAS NOT BEEN A PROBLEM TO US.
DATE NAME ADDRESS
�0 _
J
3��� l� ` ,_ � �i 1x,663 i`�"M v � /�� � � �•�.�
i
VERbF
Mno2 CT,
00PsE �a g�56
a V
O K'7 e %Or ,e.d e 0n110r
I UQrG�Q �C�'1Gr�
11I -14r,.,
- 108:3. l
fle.�p- aloer
ON Beebe
4
°
c (L(L � COh�c p�
? A�4
I
A «�JG
(AP PROP SCALE
1 "= JO 0/
Variance Hearing V:0 1?= y 1981 SQ
Background and History:
1) We purchased our Wardell Road home in 1969, moving from
another location in Saratoga, where we had resided for ten
years. One of the reasons for the move was to have an acre
where we could have a horse for our daughter.
We informally checked it out with either
Jim Huff or Stan �dalker before purchase and
they indicated "no problem."
2) Application for Horse Permit was made in Nov. 1970.
License H -52 was issued, and noted "compliance with Ordinances?,
and that buildings on adjacent properties are 100 ft. min.
Conditions (both of which were met):
. Location to be as specified by City (on page 2
of license).
. Bldg. permit to'be obtained for permanent stable.
3) Bldg. Permit #B5994 obtained.Nov.173 for small (121X161) barn.
• Plans submitted and approved
• Construction was delayed, but permit was renewed
until final inspection (estimated as between 176
and '78).
• Barn fully met code and passed all inspections.
• It's structurally rock - solid, and is attractive
design with shake roof.
4) In late 176 and early 177 the old dome on the adjacent property
was torn down and four new ones constructed.
The Moon house was built over 100 ft. from the barn,
but slightly under 100 ft. from the nearest corner
of the corral.
. About a year later the Moons built a pool somewhat
closer - still to the barn and corral.
. Question:
4 ^Jhy did the Cif:y issue permits for both the
Moon house and Moon pool without requiring
them to get the Variance?
(2) If the Moons object to horses, why then did
they move here when the barn, corral, and a
horse were already _Located as they are no\.�?
!-
lhy d�.d they %,'ait 11 years to objectt-, if i.t's
roEll l y so bad':
variance Hearing V( -)O � > May 1981
Background and History, Cont.
Item No. 4), Continued:
. The No. 3 requirement on the city copy of License H -52 states
that the corral (not the barn) should be relocated (not removed)
when lower adjacent property is subdivided.
*City Planning Commission please note:
This condition was added ,long after the original permit
was issued (probably at the time of subdividing in 176/77).
The original permit (copy given to the Commission) does not
have this condition.
. The location of the corral and barn to the Moon property is as
close to the Sterling and Fong pools and back fences and they are
not now nor have ever objected.
Mr. Upton, representing the city, approached
stating that the Moons objected to the horse
basis of flies and dust bothering them all o
*City Planning Commission, please note:
There was no horse there last spring
yet there were flies and dust around
natural condition in this area every
or horses or not. f
us last Nov. (1980),
and corral on the
f the previous summer.
and summer at all,
because it is a
summer, regardless
,max `Variance Hearing VY'' -0 13 May 1981
General Comments �Endorsements:
1) The number one Community Development Objective listed
on Page 1 of the 1974 General Plan is to, "maintain the rural
and residential character of Saratoga." We can't think of a
better way to maintain the rural character than a neat and well
kept barn It's for reasons such as this that many of us came
to Saratoga. Yet, there are those who would destroy this, bit
by bit.
2) Aside from the Moons, one hundred percent of adjacent
neighbors are in agreement that the barn, horse and corral are
no problem. (see signed memo and map to Planning Commission;
eight bogies delivered to City May 12).
3) Letters from the Sterlings and the Bogarts echo the
sentiments expressed to me orally by numerous other neighbors;
namely that the variance should be granted. (letters to be read
and presented). ;
r aC
12675 Arroyo de Arguello
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear City of Saratoga,
This is in response to a variance (v -550) for the Knapps
at 20885 Wardell Road, Saratoga.
We have lived at the above address which is also checked in
red on the enclosed slip for a little over four years. Our
backyard's northern corner is quite close to the barn in this
issue and it is in plain sight from our entire yard. During
our stay here we have never been bothered by its sight,-usage,
and the people who have done any work there.
We think this whole issue is stupid, and a waste of the
city's time. The barn is rather cute and charming and adds
to the country appeal of Saratoga. here is no noise, smell,
or inconvenience for us in 1_eaving .it there. In fact, my
children have enjoyed having a horse nearby to visit. If
the claim of some that there has been a fly problem is examined,
one has only to remember that at certain times of the year this
has occurred 1,egardless of whether a horse was in the barn or,
not becc.use there have been time periods when it was unused.
Furthermore, when heavy rains occurred in the winter of 178
anu �,.7e ex -perienced a I_ot of runoff directly through our yard,
there was no related problem b= ?cause of the barn.
As Long as it is kept :raintained and clean, we believe
th_).t is should stay. 'J �
,
'
`
ZR-
.. ............. ...........
cl'
C C
20751 Wardell Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
May 12., 1981
h4s. Virginia Laden, Chairperson
planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue:
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Ronald Knapp 20885. Wardell Road, Request for a Variance
to allow an existing corral and barn to remain in their
present location
Dear. Ms. Laden:
We understand that I,4r. Charles Guichard, Wardell Road,
has written to the city with a list of negative statements
supposedly reflecting the feelings of Mr.. Knapp's neighbors.
As long -time residents and neighbors of the Knapps, we
would like to clarify our feelings on this issue.
1. We are not, and have never been, upset by the exist-
ing corral and barn constructed. by the Knapps.
2. The barn is certainly not an eyesore.
3. The existence of the corral and barn -do not present
health problems.
4. A horseshoeing truck serving the Knapps on an average
of six week intervals creates much less traffic congestion
than the daily influx of.service vehicles along Wardell Road.
In conclusion, we feel that the Knapps are entirely with-
in their legal rights with the presence of their corral and
earn. illr. Guichard may speak for himself, but not for us.
cc: E. 6olger
lt. Crowther.
A. King
V. imonia
L. Schaefer
E. Zambetti
yours very truly,
David F. Diemer
Shirley E. Diemer
Douglas Diemer
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Members:
V-
C
21130 Wardell'Road
Saratoga, CAlifornia 95070
May 6, 1981
We understand several neighbors have complained about the barn owned by
Mr. Knapp of 20885 Wardell Road. Please add oul2names to this list.
We are not sure we can., attend your hearing on Wednesday, May 13th. If
we are unable to attend, the facts in this letter support our request that
this nuisance be removed.
FIRST: The structure itself i.T illegal. Building Department records indicate
the building permit issued in 1973 expired on March 25, 1974. Subsequent
notices to Knapp by the Building Department dated March 15, September 9,
and December II, 1974 were ignored`. if a "bootlegged" structure like .
this is allowed to remain, ordinances become a farce.
SECOND: The "horse permit" issued in 1970 was the type issued for a homeowners
ownership of a personal horse on his own land. This stable is now
a commercial operation; it is rented out for hire by Mr. Knapp. This
is not the intent of the ordinances regulating hourse ownership in this
area.
THIRD: Sanitary conditions are completely lacking. Due to the flimsy nature
of the construction of the barn they cannot be improved to the point
where they no longer present a health threat to the community. The
structure, even in winter, can be smelled some 70 feet away. In the
summer the stench is, at times, overpowering. Flies bring their
filth into neighbors barbeque areas a scant 30 feet away. Manure
water runoff is in danger of contaminating two swimming pools on the
downhill side.
FOURTH: Traffic safety problems on Wardell Road are further intensified by
existance of this structure. Each time a horse is shod a;- large
pick -up is parked by the blacksmith in the street. For about anhour
traffic is impeded while the horse is brought to the truck and shod.
An "attractive nuisance" of this sort brings wide -eyed youngsters.
A delightful experience; perhaps, but fraught with danger for the City.
Courts have invariably found in favor of plaintiff in "attractive
nuisance" cases where young children are involved. Since the Planning
Commission has the power, and in fact the duty, to abate this condition
the City would be held liable if a child was injured.
r•
FIFTH: Mr. Knapp does not "come to equity with clean hands" in requesting a
variance. He knew he was acting contrary to the ordinance in "bootlegging"
his stable without inspections. (Building Department records show this)
He placed it with callous disregard of his neighbors health
and welfare but protected his own. Between the stable and his home is
a dense grove of some 18 pine and redwood trees providing a screen to
him of flies, odors and sight pollution. His neighbors are not so
fortunate.
SIXTH: The structure does not esthically fit into the surrounding area. It is
an eyesore reducing the value of near -by residential property. In an
area bounded by$300,000.00,homes he has placed a flimsy structure of
plywood with a cinder -block foundation. The only advantage to his
neighbors is that such a building can easily be removed without Mr.
Knapp claiming financial hardship.
SEVENTH: The barn is a fire hazard to the three houZses up -hill from it. Hay and
grain are stored in a structure of this nature without a sprinkler
system of any kind�ofZ water outlet in the barn itself, as far as I
could determine. It would seem the-only water source was a 3/4" faucet
(with no hose attached) some 20 feet from the barn.
We join-9 our neighbors in not only opposing a variance, but specifically
requesting this non - conforming structure be removed. If it is condoned in LO
any way, A�e�orary variance is g i vqn� c" fie I the time for decisive
action on the part of the community will have passed.
In summary, we have shown that:
keep a horse has been continued
to the health of the community;
location; the selfish interests
is a jerry -built hodge -podge of
definitely exists for the three
homes down hill from the barn;
venture which is non - conforming
the structure is illegal; the permit to
under false pretenses; the stable is a threat
traffic problems are intensified by its
of the owners are patent; the structure
plywood in a residential district; a fire hazard
houses up -hill and could also existfcsr the four
the owner rents the premises as a commercial
in this area.
We pray that the Planning Commission take the necessary steps to abate this
nuisance by requiring the owner, Mr. Knapp, to remove the structure.
Sincerely,
C7�hlarles P�.Gjuic /hard
Mara et C. Gu i, hard
Z_
R
.
U=_`
I - r98i
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca 95070
O C( per 14,198
1
Att: City Council
Re: Public Hearing for appeal of horse license revocation
at 20885 Wardell Rd., now scheduled for October 21.
Dear Mrs. Callon and Council Members,
v
For reasons of family emergency (critical illness of my
father) we have had to be in Southern California for two extended
trips this month. As a result of this conflict we have been
unable to prepare our appeal for the Oct. 21 hearing, or for that
mom++ ^r, to .e:ren meet with our attorney regarding the appeal. We
have therefore requested by phone today (Wed.Oct.14), and by this
letter, a delay of approximately 2 weeks for this hearing.
In order that all testimony (pro or con) might be put to-
gether in proper context, and to avoid unnecessary repetition, we
urge you to defer the entire matter to the rescheduled date, rather
than to open a partial hearing on Oct.:;21, prior to our appeal.
Thank you for your support and understanding on this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Ronald J. Knapp
• August 11, 1981
MEMO TO: Saratoga City Planning Commission
FROM: Ronald and Patricia Knapp
RE: Horse License H -52
On Saturday (Aug.8) we received-notification from the
City Staff of another hearing on Variance Request V -550. We
trust that the following memo from us will clarify our position:
1. Our request of July 20 (via attorney Bill Garfield)
is still valid in asking for withdrawal of the Request
for Variance and for refund of the $125. filing fee.
This was a serious attempt to bring to a close an
unending debate, using your hearings and agenda time as
the forum, for settlement of a simple problem between
two neighbors. Much extraneous, irrelevant, and
argumenta-ti.ve material has been needlesly dragged before
=ydu by the one complaining neighbor. We were persuaded
by the Staff to apply for a variance as a simple and
expeditious way to retain our horse license. It has
proven to be neither simple nor expeditious, and should
not have been required.
Now that we have rescended our application for a
variance, it is not clear to us why more debate was
required on July 22, or why the hearing is being con-
tinued. If we had the right to submit the application,
we should also have the right to rescend it. We simply
request once more that the matter be dropped without
further debate and without action. There is no longer
a variance application before you for consideration.
2. We have been harrassed both privately and publically
by the Moons and in turn by the.Staff (on the pretext of
protecting the Moons "rights "). We hereby request that
our rights be given equal consideration by the City.
Our permit was obtained in a perfectly legal manner, and
all city requirements (including location of corral and
barn) were complied with. The permit clearly states
that it complied with ordinances. It was the city that
later added another requirement, without our knowledge,
onto their copy of our permit to allow development of the
Moon property, a non - complying key -lot, set behind other
houses on Arroyo de Arquello. (The depth of the lot is
under the 125 ft.,requirement). It was the Moons, with
City concurrance, that chose to locate a new house (and
later a pool) in close proximety to our property line,
providing an invasion of our privacy and establishing the
so- called problem of closeness to the already existing
corral and barn. (It should be noted that neighbors were
not notified of a public hearing, if ever held, regarding
this intrusion and non - complying development:)
The bottom line is that our rights have been violated,
not the Moons, through these and other similar occurrances.
Our actions have been legal and above -board and we expected
A
Memo Re. Horse License H -52, Cont.: 7
.the same of others, which did not occur.
3. We submit that the easement .question was brought into the
hearing as a diversionary tactic, and was not relevant to the
so- called concern by the Moons, of "flies, dust ", etc. The
building permit for the barn (B5994) clearly allowed locating
the corral and barn to within 20 ft. of the property line.
This was complied with. Furthermore, this is fully within the
legal use of the easement. As such, this should not have been
a relevant topic for these hearings. (Any dispute over:.legal
definition of the easement should be left to the involved
parties and civil courts for resolution.)
4. At the expense of being repetitive, we again, emphasize
that aside from the Moons, it was unaminous by our neighbors
within view of the corral /barn (as well as agreed to by the
County Health Dept.) that the corral was being properly
maintained and that it was not a problem to the surrounding
area. (Please note formerly submitted petition and map,
copies attached herewith). Many other long-time neighbors
have expressed support for us in this matter.
Mr. Mulligan of the Health Dept. discussed the maintenance
of the corral with Mrs. Knapp. His letter of July 17 (a copy
which you have) gave three simple recommendations, two of which
have been implemented, and the third as soon as we are,•able
to do the work* He also noted, with �Mrs. Knapp, that the
accumulation of dog manure not properly disposed of, from
three dogs, in the Moon patio area was a definite fly attract-
ant, and that dog manure does not break down quickly as does
horse manure. This is quite likely the reason why the Moons
may have had more flies than the rest of the neighbors. Mr.
Mulligan stated that dog manure should be picked up daily and
bagged, not buried, and disposed of in the trash barrel. This
was obviously not being done at the Moon residence.
5. We thank the members of the Planning Commission for their
patience, interest, and fairness in this matter. 17n,eonclusion,
we simply request closure of this matter in accord with the
July 20 letter to you from our attorney.
Thank you,
Ronald and Patricia Knapp
* The planting of a hedge beside the corral.
Saxes..- 1-mc�a , CR Qs070
l 1 � I 4 2 I
IVIs, v��'G,i�liCs� L adev� C hair perSoyl
'PI -
C �y o ,Scor6- -o L/
t=rue vas e, Wve-y)uel
6CL- M�096- ) CC\ qs o-7o
Ike :
IRD V) a -. a (I n� rt*ciw Km)) p ao '5$5
War-deA Rood , Raoues� t6ta* 1C_a
+(0 ccl llo w on Nexi 5619 evil hlkh
Dear N5. Lc d e n
Ns net'ghbors J - ke-, Knapp s -Qr 4e
P6-5i e,l,P -Ven yeaY -S we-, kave✓ b�ep-h ih supporf --
4 4-ke tr u-.tgl hc� rec ue-4 Noy a � �or a va, -[Cvtco
'�-cU C2tkD 1,U Qh ex iS�-t inC� P�tr r cal c�hci� �- � -b 1- �YY�cil �
IVN - PA-eA'v- �*e e-4 to ca: -1 on . Novi, ho we've � use, vzu( ,
like-, --ice - L4e-�- sup pot+ +em i v) 4-k4r laleJ hecxUeS�
4o wik raw 4-k is , variahce pvopoa,- l 'IF 1-I q so deS�t- .
�ur-k-�r vie bel t)eue) i� 15 9 ro ss ly a v Fco r
-(or Q Nly 4o rrnovf-,, o16 6 a heZV\ borhool ,
,s u v po s� (y v� h9 C� t uc� surv-ou "VI)s,
m
2 v)
40 --Hke-.
VC0ue,,
&I iv��s
barn
C.o v\ c I us i �� , we.,
o� . h o me-.S I'•n
h b.e-cause o-
cL Ui ci Co m &A , r
-�-� no e vtdQhca
e-, - s al �
a-vr . uUou,l (�
f
cL C 11 C4 �o-7 n
Zg7S/ Cc%4R6zLL. 32b _
SAP
�����
A(t ") o
Sa.-L�
1-2-7�Z
U¢-v
ct,)aA&W tCd
qy-" , C� ) C?.s-D 70
Si9/U� raj L �� >
C E 0 V E
NOV 3 i9a1 t
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA
Dear Council J�Jembers;
I�
Nov. 2, 1981
I wish to go on record as supporting Ronald and Patricia
Knapp in their appeal. of the revocation of their horse
license. Their barn and corral have always been well
maintained, and I don't find them objectionable in any way.
It is my opinion that people who move into a rural area
should be capable of appreciating their surroundings, or
at least be willing to adapt to them. Those who feel
they are obliged to I ► civilize" the neighborhood by forcing
out the animals and objects which create the rural atmos-
phere have obviously chosen the wrong place to live.
Horses would make much better neighbors.
Douglas Diemer
20751 Wardell -Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Sincerely yours,
4
1 ?-1
1
L 5..
O
Qq
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
0 0� (408) 867 -3438
November 9, 1981
Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Knapp
20885 Wardell Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Knapp:
This is to inform you that the City Council considered your
appeal of the Planning Commission revocation of your horse
license.
After conducting public hearings on October 21, 1981 and
November 4, 1981, the.City Council moved to• uphold your
appeal and reinstate your horse license. However, the corral
and stable are still in violation of the setbacks, and it will
be necessary for you to obtain a variance for them to remain
in their present location.
Please contact the Department of Community Development for
information on the appropriate procedure regarding the
variance. If you have any questions concerning the action
of the City Council, please do not hesitate to call at 867 -3438.
Sincerely,
J. ayne Dernet
ty Manager
JWD /RSS:cd
CITY OF SARATOGA
AG DA BILL NO.
DATE: October 22, 1981
DEPAR mENr: Administrative Services
SUBJECr: Amendment to Crocker - SHARP Credit Agreement
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Issue Sumnary
The City entered into a Credit Agreement with Crocker National Bank to provide
professional financial and lender services to the SHARP program on December 29,
1977. Subsequent to that time Crocker requested'an amendment to the original
agreement, and the City approved this amendment which reflected the bank's
escalating cost of funds, on April 2, 1980. The bank is proposing another
amendment to the Credit Agreement, to once again reflect the bank's increasing
cost of funds.
Recommendation
Authorize the requested Second Amendment to Credit Agreement.
Direct staff to look at other options for participation by a financial institution in the
SHARP Program.
Fiscal Impacts
In the past, some leveraging of SHARP funds was accomplished. The First
Amendment reduced this dollar multiplier advantage, and the proposed amendment
eliminates this advantage, such that all program funds utilized are SHARP.
Additionally, the proposed amendment lengthens the term of SHARP loans from 15 to 20 years,
thereby reducing monthly cost to the borrower.
Exhibits /Attachments
Memorandum
Amendment to City- Crocker Bank, SHARP Credit Agreement 10 -29 -81
Council Action
11/18: Jensen /Clevenger moved to authorize the requested amendment to the credit agreement
and direct staff to look at other options for participation by a financial institution
in the SHARP program. Passed 5 -0.
0MEW @a 0&M&UQ)(5z
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
N1EN10RAND�Tti -I
City Council, City Manager,
TO: and Assistant City Manager
FROM: HCD Coordinator
DATE: October 29, 1981
SUBJECT: Amendment to City- Crocker Bank, SHARP Credit Agreement
BACKGROUND:
The City first entered into a Credit Agreement with Crocker National
Bank during December of 1977, to provide professional financial/
lender services to the City for operation of the SHARP.
Prior to entering into this agreement, the City Council determined
that the SHARP should be a "revolving type program," where funds
lent out would eventually come back to the City to be used again.
The other option available to the City for operation of a CDBG-
funded rehabilitation program was a "front end subsidy" type program
whereby SHARP monies would have been used to "write down" the bank's
prevailing interest rate to a desired level, and prepay the difference
between the desired rate and the bank's prevailing interest rate,
for the full term of the loan. Under this approach, program funds
are stretched further, however, they are a one time shot and do not
come back to the City. The City Council choose the revolving type
program option.
During April of 1980, the bank requested and received approval to
amend the Credit Agreement to more closely reflect the bank's cost
of funds.
An original intent of the Credit Agreement was to achieve leverage
or a dollar multiplier effect by using primarily SHARP funds and some
bank money in various proportions, for each loan class offered under
the program. An example is presented on the next page:
I. Ze
B. 5%
A. 7%
Amendment to Credit Agreement
October 29, 1981
Page two
Original Agreement 1st Amendment
Proposed Amendment
Loan Class
ro % Defer.loan
Crocker$
-0-
SHARP$
100%
Crocker$
-0-
SHARP$
100%
Crocker$
SHARP$
-0-
100%
Deferred loan
30%
70%
15%
85%
-0-
100%
Deferred loan
50%
50%
35%
65%
-0-
100%
FUTURE IMPACT:
Whenever (under past agreements or that which is proposed) the City
makes a Zero Percent /Deferred Loan or a Guaranteed Loan, all funds
are SHARP. A Guaranteed Loan is one that the bank, using its normal
loan qualifying criteria, determines that the proposed borrower does
not qualify for the loan. Since the SHARP is designed to assist
those families that find difficulty securing conventional financing,
and the predominant amount of SHARP loans fall within the Guaranteed
category, the leverage or dollar multiplier factor has not been signi-
ficant. It is most useful when a 7% or non - resident owner loan is
made, and since only 12.5% of total SHARP loans have been of this
type, and usually requiring a lesser dollar amount, loss of this
leverage is not viewed as being significant.
In order to further assist the SHARP participant, it is proposed that
the loan term be extended from 15 to 20 years, thereby reducing the
monthly cost of the loans to the borrower.
Should the City Council choose not to authorize the proposed amend-
ment, it would be necessary to select another financial institution
for continued operation of the SHARP as the program is presently
structured.
Attachments: Original Agreement
First Amendment
Proposed Amendment
SECOND AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT
The City of Saratoga (the "City ") and Crocker
National Bank ( "Bank ") executed a Credit Agreement, dated as
of December 29, 1977, to document the rehabilitation program
arrangements whereby Bank agreed to make low interest loans
to certain City- approved applicants on the terms and subject
to the conditions set forth therein. The Agreement was
thereafter amended on April 2, 1980.
For good and valuable consideration, the City and
Bank now wish to amend the Credit Agreement in certain respects
as follows:
1. Paragraph 1 is hereby amended by addin.g follow -
ing the definition of "Disbursement Account "the follow -
ing: "Excess Funds. Paragraph 10."
2. Paragraph 5 is hereby amended by deleting the
"and" at the end of subparagraph (c) (iv) thereof and
inserting after the subparagraph the following:
"(,v) A written consent to the disclosure of
credit and other information by._the Bank to the
city duly executed by the applicant, in the form of
that attached hereto as Exhibit "A "; and"
3. Paragraph 5 is hereby amended by deleting the
"(v)" in'subparagraph 5(c)(v) and inserting in place
thereof "(.vi)" and deleting the period at the end of such
subparagraph and adding the following to the end thereof:
"; notwithstanding anything to the contrary in
this subparagraph 5 (c) (.vi) the Assigned:.Interest
Rate for loans made after the date of this First
Amendment will be in an amount equal to an
annual percentage rate of,
a. 7.00 (a "Class A Loan "); or
b. 5.00 (a "Class B Loan ")."
4. Paragraph 7 is hereby amended by deleting the
reference to "one hundred eighty (180):' in subparagraph
7(a) and inserting in place thereof "two hundred forty
(240) ".
i
5. Paragraph 8 is hereby amended by deleting
subparagraph 8(a)(ii) and inserting -in place thereof
the following:
"(ii) an amount equal to: a. in.the case of
a loan made prior to the date of this First Amend-
ment, the percentage required by the Credit Agree-
ment and b. in the case of a loan made on or after
the date of this Second Amendment, ninety percent.;
(90 %) of the aggregate outstanding balance of the
Note at such date, which amount shall be paid by
Bank debiting the General Account and crediting the
Consideration Account in such amount; and"
6. Paragraph 9 is hereby amended by deleting sub-
paragraph 9(b)(i_). and inserting in place thereof the
following:
"(i) a. in the case of a loan under the Program
made prior to the date of this Second Amendment, in
an amount not less than that required by Paragraph 8
..of the Credit Agreement; and b. in the case of a
loan under the Program made on or after the date of
this Second Amendment, an amount not less than ninety
percent (90 %) of the aggregate outstanding balances
of all loans under the Program, including the loan
(of whatever class, if any) to-be evidenced by such
Note; 11
7. Paragraph 10 of the Agreement is amended by de-
leting the period at the end thereof and adding the
following: "(the aggregate amount of such excess funds
credited to the General Account shall be referred to
herein as the "Excess Funds ") ".
8. Paragraph 23 is hereby amended by deleting the
reference to Exhibit "A" and inserted in place thereof the
following: "Exhibit 'B' ".
9. The Agreement is hereby amended by adding immediately
following paragraph 23 the following:
"24. Use of Loan Program Funds. Bank acknowledges
that the City will request that Funds remaining in the
General Account after two years from the date of this
Agreement will be paid to the City unless.the City ob-
tains approval of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to use such Funds for the Program for an
additional two year period. If such request is made,
Bank shall.promptly pay such Funds remaining in the
General Account to the City.
- 2 -
i
i
"25. Excess Funds. Excess Funds are credited
to the City by Bank crediting the General Account
in the amounts and at the times provided in Para-
graph 10 hereof. Any interest earned on the Loan
Program Funds in an interest bearing account shall_
be credited to the account in which such Loan Pro-
gram Funds are held.
"26. HUD Regulations. The terms and conditions
hereof are subject to the provisions governing lump
sum drawdowns for property rehabilitation, 570.513
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
regulations on Community Development Block_Grants,
24 C.F.R. Part 570."
Except as expressly amended hereby, the Credit Agree-
ment referred to above shall remain in full force and effect and
is incorporated herein by this reference and in all respects
ratified and affirmed.
Executed at California as of
the day of 1981.
Attest
CITY OF SARATOGA
By:
Title.
CROCKER NATIONAL BANK
By:
Title: 9 /Le0
Exhibit "A"
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
OF DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
You'are making an application for a loan from
Crocker National Bank ( "Crocker ") to improve your property
under a program established between Crocker and the City
In connection with your application, Crocker will
be obtaining and verifying credit and other- information
about you, including obtaining a credit report and verifying
the amount and sources of your income and your deposit and
loan balances. In the event Crocker decides to make a loan
to you,.certain information concerning the loan, including
the amount and other terms of the loan, will be disclosed to
the City to the extent necessary to carry out the program.
In addition, if Crocker does make you a loan and you prepay
or default on your loan, Crocker will disclose this fact to
the City as part of the program. -
In the event Crocker decides not to make you a
loan, this fact will be disclosed to the City by Crocker_
CONSENT TO DISCLOSURE OF INFORI- IATION
I have-read and understand the foregoing. I con-
sent to the disclosure by Crocker to the City of the credit
and other information described above.
Date:
Applicant
(To be executed in duplicate;
one copy to be delivered to
applicant, one.to Crocker.)
Z
CREDIT AGREEMENT
THIS CREDIT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement ") is made
and dated this 29 day of December, 1977, by and between THE
CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation (the "City "), and
CROCKER NATIONAL BANK, a national bank ( "Bank ").
RECITALS
A. On August 22, 1974 Congress passed Public Law
93 -383, commonly known as the "Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974" (the "Act ").
B. The City, pursuant to the Act, applied through
the County of Santa Clara for funds to implement, among
other things, a program providing low interest loans to low
• and moderate income households for the purposes of housing
.rehabilitation and property improvement, including upgrading
substandard housing units to meet the applicable building
codes.
C. The Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
* ment approved such application on June 29, 1977. Certain `
funds in the amount of $100,000.seleased to the City under
the Act have been allocated by the City for a housing reha-
bilitation program through Bank (the "Program "). Any and
all funds allocated by the County under the Act for implemen-
tation of the Program, including the $100,000 approved and
allocated to date for the Program during its initial period
of operation, will be referred to herein as the "Loan Program
Funds."
i
D.. The City and Bank have now reached final
agreement with regard to Bank's participation in the Program,
Bank, during the initial period of operation of the Program,
has agreed to make up to $145,000 in low interest loans to
City - approved applicants whom the Bank determines to be
creditworthy. In consideration of Bank's participation in
the Program, the City has agreed to keep the Loan Program
Funds or. deposit with Bank and to subsidize ,and guarantee
certain low interest loans pursuant to the Program, all as
provided more specifically in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above
Recitals and the mutual covenants and conditions contained
herein, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
. 1. Definitions. The following terms are defined...
in this Agreement as indicated below:
Act. Recital A.
Additional Information. Paragraph 5.(c).
�j� ,�G• ?i j� GAT'L _(;-Jr:r_nvQT, -A iVA-PH 'FA
Assigned Interest'Rnte. Paragraphs 5.(c)(v) & 6.
Class A Loan. Paragraph 5.(c)(v)a.
Class B Loan. Paragraph 5.(c)(v)b.
Class C Loan. Paragraph 5.(c)(v)c.
Consideration Account. Paragraph 4.(b).
Deed of Trust. Paragraph 7.(b).
Disbursement Account. Paragraph 4.(d).
General Account. Paragraph 4.(a).
General Ledger Account. Paragraph 8.(a)(i).
Guaranteed Loan. Paragraph 6.
<7 `�
Guaranteed Loan Account. Paragraph 4.(c).
Loan Program Funds. Recital C..
Loss Reserve Amount. Paragraph
Note. Paragraph 7.(a).
Program. Recital C.
2• Loan Commitment. Subject to the terms and
conditions contained herein, Bank hereby commits the aggre-
gate amount of $145,000 to be•loaned, pursuant to the Pro-
gram, to applicants recommended to Bank by the City.
3. Loan Maximum. Loans under the Program will
be made in amounts up to ninety percent (90 %) of the appraised
value of the real property which is the subject of the work
for which the proceeds . of the loan are to be used, determined
by Bank in its sole discretion.
4. Deposit of Funds. As a condition precedent
V,
to Bank's obligations hereunder, the City shall deposit
'
$100,000 of Loan Program Funds received from the federal .
government with Bank. The City hereby grants to Bank a
security interest in the Loan Program Funds and in all
accounts in which such Funds may be held from time to time
for the purpose of securing each and all of the City's obli-
gations under this Agreement: Said Loan Program Funds shall
be deposited in such proportion as the City shall determine ,
(subject to the provisions contained in this Agreement) in
the following accounts, the terms and conditions of which
'shall be established by Bank and the City;
• (a) A demand account which shall be desig-
nated as the "General Account ";
• (b) A demand account which shall be desig-
nated as the "Consideration Account ";
• —'(c) A demand account which shall be desig-
nated as the "Guaranteed Loan Account ";
(d) A demand account which shall be desig-
nated as the "Disbursement Account "; and
(e) Such other accounts as the City and Bark
may agree upon.
5. Responsibilities of the City. In connection
with each proposed loan and loan applicant under the Program,
the City shall perform the following functions:
(a) The City-shall assist each loan applicant
in completing the loan application form supplied by
Bank.
(b) Prior to submission of any applicant's
loan application form, the City shall determine the
applicant's eligibility for the Program and the amount
of the loan required and shall secure estimates on the.
work to be performed.
(c) The City shall furnish to Bank with
respect to each loan application the following items
and information (the "Additional Information "):
(i) A breakdown of the costs involved
in the work to be performed on the applicant's
real property;
4.
r .
(ii) A description of the work to be
performed;
(iii) A preliminary estimate of the value
of the real property offered as security for the
loan;
(iv) A copy of the proposed contract
between a licensed contractor and the applicant
for the work, or, in the absence of a proposed
contract, a copy of the lowest acceptable bid from
a contractor proposed to be reduced to contract
form; and
(v) Written indication of the amount of
interest which the City has determined shall be
• charged to the proposed borrower by Bank for such
loan (the "Assigned Interest Rate "). which Assigned
Interest Rate will be in an amount equal to an
v annual percentage rate of, at the City's option,
a. 7.00 (a "Class A Loan "); -
b. 5.00 (a "Class B Loan "); or
C. 3.75 (a "Class C Loan ").
(d) The City.shall retain control over, and
give Bank written authorization for, the disbursement
of loan proceeds, which disbursements shall be made by
'Bank only upon such written authorization to the Dis-
bursement Account.
(e) The City, shall, through appropriate 1
departments, determine and fully inform Bank of con-
struction progress, compliance with building codes and
I
Z
a
completion estimates, shall provide to Bank all other
information reasonably requested by Bank, and shall
assume all responsibility for assuring that the work is
in.accordance with the Program.
6. Credit Evaluation. Bank shall perform its
standard credit evaluation with respect to each applicant, :
make its judgment with respect to the creditworthiness of
such applicant, and inform the City of its decision relating
thereto. If Bank approves an application for a.loan under
the Program, it shall indicate its credit decision to the.
City and shall undertake to process the loan in accordance
with the provisions of this Agreement. In the event Bank '
does not approve an application for a loan under the Program,
it shall so inform the City. In the event any application
so declined is resubmitted by the City with the written
direction of the City to make the loan requested in the
application (a "Guaranteed Loan "), Bank shall make such
Guaranteed Loan. A Guaranteed Loan shall bear interest at
an annual percentage rate of 7.00, 5.00 or 3.75 as determined ,
by the City and indicated to Bank in writing (which rate
shall be the "Assigned Interest Rate" for a Guaranteed Loan)
and shall be subject to, in addition to all terms and con-
ditions of this Agreement, the special terms and conditions
relating to a Guaranteed Loan set forth herein. i
7. Loan Documentation and Provisions. Each
borrower under the Program shall execute and deliver to Bank
i
the following:
G.
C C
(a) A promissory note in the form of Bank's
standard form of promissory note for•home' improvement
loans (the "Note "). Interest payable under the terms
of the Note shall be at the Assigned Interest Rate.
The Note shall provide for repayment in equal monthly
installments of principal and interest of not less than
$30 each over a term of no longer than one hundred
eighty (180) months, as the borrower and Bank shall
agree;
(b) A deed of trust from the borrower, as
trustor, in favor of Bank, as beneficiary, in form and
substance satisfactory to Bank, covering the real
property which is-the subject of the work for which the
proceeds of the loan are to be used (the "Deed of
Trust "); and
(c) Such other documentation as Bank may, in
its discretion, require.
t 8. Loss Reserve Provisions. At the date of
execution of a Note, the Cit y hall `
y pay to Bank:
(a) If the loan is a Class A, Class B or
Class C Loan,
(i) an amount,(the "Loss Reserve Amount ")
equal to ten percent (10 %) of the aggregate out-
standing balance of the Note at such date. The
• Loss Reserve Amount shall be paid by Ban]( debiting
the General Account in the Loss Reserve Amount,
which amount shall be held in a general ledger
account of Bank (the "General Ledger Account ") and
no interest shall be payable thereon; and
7.
4
i
J
4
i
(ii) an amount equal to:
a. if the loan is a Class A Loan,
forty percent W%) ;
/ b. if the loan is a Class B Loan,
sixty percent or
c. if the loan is a'Class C Loan,
ninety percent
of the aggregate outstanding balance of the Note
at such date, which amount shall be paid by Bank
debiting the General Account and crediting the
Consideration Account in such amount; and
(b) If the loan is a Guaranteed Loan, an
amount equal to one hundred percent•(100%) of the
aggregate outstanding: balance of the Note at such date,,
which amount shall be paid by Bank debiting the General
Account and crediting the Guaranteed Loan Account in
such amount.
9. Conditions Precedent. Notwithstanding any
provision of this Agreement; Bank's obligation to make any
loan under the Program is conditioned upon:
(a) Bank having received the Additional
Information with regard to such loan; and
(b) There being at the date of execution of
each Note and following the deposit and payment of
funds as required under Paragraph 8 above:
(i) funds in the Consideration Account
in an amount not less than the sum of a. _Xe-rty
percents40 %)' of the aggregate outstanding balances
8.
C
C
(ii) an amount equal to:
a. if the loan is a Class A Loan,
forty percent W%) ;
/ b. if the loan is a Class B Loan,
sixty percent or
c. if the loan is a'Class C Loan,
ninety percent
of the aggregate outstanding balance of the Note
at such date, which amount shall be paid by Bank
debiting the General Account and crediting the
Consideration Account in such amount; and
(b) If the loan is a Guaranteed Loan, an
amount equal to one hundred percent•(100%) of the
aggregate outstanding: balance of the Note at such date,,
which amount shall be paid by Bank debiting the General
Account and crediting the Guaranteed Loan Account in
such amount.
9. Conditions Precedent. Notwithstanding any
provision of this Agreement; Bank's obligation to make any
loan under the Program is conditioned upon:
(a) Bank having received the Additional
Information with regard to such loan; and
(b) There being at the date of execution of
each Note and following the deposit and payment of
funds as required under Paragraph 8 above:
(i) funds in the Consideration Account
in an amount not less than the sum of a. _Xe-rty
percents40 %)' of the aggregate outstanding balances
8.
i
i
a
C
of.all Class A Loans b. . sixty percent y60 °l5,of
the aggregate outstanding balances of all Class B
Loans, and C. ninety percent) of the aggregate
outstanding balances of all Class C Loans under
the Program, including the loan (of whatever
Class, if any) to be evidenced by such Note;
(ii) funds in the General Ledger Account
in an amount not less than ten percent (10 °�) of
the aggregate outstanding balances of all Class A,
Class B and.Class C Loans under the Program,
including the loan (of whatever Class, if any) to
be evidenced by such Note, minus any amounts
charged against that Account pursuant to the
provisions of Paragraph 11 below; and
(iii)' funds in the Guaranteed Loan Account
in an amount not less than.one hundred percent
(100 %) of the aggregate outstanding balances of
all Guaranteed Loans under the Program, including
the loan to be evidenced by such Note if a Guaran-
teed Loan.
Bank hereby agrees to allow the City to withdraw funds from
accounts containing Loan Program Funds, but only oil the
terms and conditions and subject to the penalties, if any,
set forth in the documentation relating thereto,, for deposit
in the General Account for the purpose of meeting the account
balance requirernents set forth herein.
10. Adjustment of Account Balances. As of June 30,
1978, and semi - annually thereafter, Bank shall review (a)
9.
i
4
i
i
i
the aggregate Loss Reserve Amounts at that time held in the
General Ledger Account, (b) the balance of the Consideration
.Account, and (c) the balance of the.Guaranteed Loan Account,
and shall report to the City and credit to the General
Account any excess funds over.and above those required by
the terms of Paragraph 9 above to be held in such Accounts.
11. Default. In the event any loan made by Bank
under the Program remains in default for a continuous period
of ninety (90) days on account of non - payment of any sum of
money due pursuant to the terms of the Note or the deed of.
Trust, the City shall pay to Bank, at such time as Bank may,
in its sole discretion, demand, the following amounts:
(a) If the lo3n.is not a Guaranteed Loan,
the lesser of the then outstanding balance of the loan
or the aggregate funds then credited to the General
Ledger Account, which amount shall be paid by Bank
charging said amount against funds then held in the
w
General Ledger Account; or
(b) If the loan is a Guaranteed Loan, the
lesser of the then outstanding balance of the loan or .
the aggregate funds then held in the Guaranteed Loan
Account, which amount shall be paid by Bank charging
said amount against funds then held in the Guaranteed
Loan Account.
In cases in which all or a part of the loan is
charged against funds held in the Guaranteed Loan and /or
General Ledger Account, at such time as the outstanding
balance of the loan is paid in full, whether by charging all
10.
i
i
1
i
J
y
the aggregate Loss Reserve Amounts at that time held in the
General Ledger Account, (b) the balance of the Consideration
.Account, and (c) the balance of the.Guaranteed Loan Account,
and shall report to the City and credit to the General
Account any excess funds over.and above those required by
the terms of Paragraph 9 above to be held in such Accounts.
11. Default. In the event any loan made by Bank
under the Program remains in default for a continuous period
of ninety (90) days on account of non - payment of any sum of
money due pursuant to the terms of the Note or the deed of.
Trust, the City shall pay to Bank, at such time as Bank may,
in its sole discretion, demand, the following amounts:
(a) If the lo3n.is not a Guaranteed Loan,
the lesser of the then outstanding balance of the loan
or the aggregate funds then credited to the General
Ledger Account, which amount shall be paid by Bank
charging said amount against funds then held in the
w
General Ledger Account; or
(b) If the loan is a Guaranteed Loan, the
lesser of the then outstanding balance of the loan or .
the aggregate funds then held in the Guaranteed Loan
Account, which amount shall be paid by Bank charging
said amount against funds then held in the Guaranteed
Loan Account.
In cases in which all or a part of the loan is
charged against funds held in the Guaranteed Loan and /or
General Ledger Account, at such time as the outstanding
balance of the loan is paid in full, whether by charging all
10.
i
i
1
i
L or a part of- such loan against funds held in such Accounts
or upon Bank's exercise of any rights it may have at law or
inequity pursuant to the Note and /or Deed of Trust relating
thereto, Bank shall deliver to the City '(a) the Note, duly
endorsed by Bank to the City without recourse or warranty,
and (b) an assignment by Bank to the City-of the Deed of
Trust. Upon the delivery of the Note and assignment of Deed
of Trust to the City, Rank shall have no obligation or
responsibility to the borrower or the City with regard to
such Note, Deed of Trust or the loan evidenced by such Note.
12. Extent of Obligations.—The City's obligations
under this Agreement are absolute and unconditional. The
City, to the extent permitted by law, hereby waives (a) any
• defense of estoppel, laches or any statute of limitations to
such obligations, and (b) any defense that may arise by
reason of the incapacity, lack of authority, or termination .
-of existence or death of any borrower. The City also waives
deferral of such obligations arising by reason of the insti-
tution of proceedings by or' against a borrower under or `
pursuant to any federal or state bankruptcy or insolvency
law or other law relating to the relief of debtors generally,
and waives any defense to such obligations that it may have
as a result. of Bank's election of or failure to exercise any
Z •
right, power or remedy, including without limitation, the
failure to exercise diligence in collecting sums due under
any Note or to realize on any Deed of Trust, even when such
election or failure impairs or alters the rights of the City
against the borrower. The City hereby authorizes Bank,
11
without notice or demand or without affecting the City's
obligations hereunder, from time to timer (a) to renew,
extend, increase, accelerate, compromise, modify or change
the time for payment or., the terms of any Note; (b).'to take
and hold additional collateral. for the payment of any Note
and to release such collateral; (c) to accept and hold any
endorsement or guaranty of payment of any Note; and (d) to
release and substitute any such endorser or guarantor, or
any party who has given any security interest in any addi-
tional collateral as security for the payment of any Note,
or any other party in any way obligated to pay any Note.
The City hereby waives all presentments, protests, demands
and notices (whether required by statute or otherwise) or
nonperformance or of other default, dishonor, extension of
credit and of every other kind and nature.
13. Term. The initial term of this Agreement
shall be from the date of execution hereof through June 30,
1978, and shall be renewed annually thereafter for successive
one year terms unless terminated as provided in Paragraph 14
below. The terms and conditions of the agreement, as renewed,
shall be identical with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, except as modified by the parties hereto in
writing prior to such renewal date.•
14. Termination. Notwithstanding any provision
contained herein, this Agreement may be terminated by either
party hereto at any time upon sixty (60) days' prior written
' notice to the other party. Such termination shall not
affect the rights of Dank or obligations of the City hereunder
i
i.
a
i
t�
with respect-to loans made pursuant to the Program prior to
the effective date of such termination.
15. Opinion of City Attorney. As acondition
precedent to Bank's obligations hereunder, the City shall at
the date of execution hereof have furnished to Bank an
opinion of the City Attorney that:
(a) The City has all requisite power and
authority to enter into and to perform this Agreement;
(b) The City has taken all action as may be
required for the execution, delivery and performance
hereof; and
(c) This Agreement and any instrument or
document to which the City is a party, as contemplated
by this Agreement, are or will become upon execution
thereof by the City valid, binding and enforceable in
accordance with their terms.
• 16. Compliance. The City and Bank shall comply
fully with all state, federal and local regulations applicable
to loans, including, but not limited to, truth -in- lending `•
and similar requirements and any requirements of or limita-
tions established by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corpora-
tion, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Federal Housing Administration, Veterans Administration,
Federal Insurance Administration, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and such other agencies having jurisdiction
over Bank and the City and leans of the type contemplated
hereby.
Z
r
17.• Attorneys' Fees. Each party hereto agrees
that in the event of its default under this Agreement, it
will reimburse the other party for all expenses (including,
without limitation, attorneys' fees) incurred by such party
in connection with the enforcement of its rights hereunder.
18. Notices. Any communication between the
parties hereto may be given by mailing the same, postage
prepaid, to the following addresses:
TO BANK: Crocker National Bank
214 Saratoga Avenue
P. O. Box 699
Los Gatos, California 95030
Attn: Branch Manager
and Crocker National Bank
Installment Credit Administration
300 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, California 94103
TO CITY: City of Saratoga
1377_ 7 Fruitvale Aye.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attn: Administrat�ye AS s:u, t .
or to such other address as either party may,.in writing
hereafter indicate.
19. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and any
agreement, document or instrument attached hereto or re-
ferred to herein, integrate all terms and conditions men-
tioned-herein or.incidental hereto and supersede all oral
negotiations or*prior writings with respect to the subject
matter hereof. In the event of any conflict between the
terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement and any
other such agreement, document or instrument, the terms,
conditions and provisions of this agreement shall prevail.
I
IMEND%TIENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF
s TTTTTnMAT. naWTTI ..
SARATOGA AND CROCKER
it
aim F1 I&. wwwwr
AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT
The City of Saratoga (the "City ") and Crocker National Bank
( "Bank ") executed a Credit Agreement, dated as of December 29, 1977, to
document the rehabilitation program arrangements whereby Bank agreed to
make low interest loans to certain City- approved applicants on the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth therein.
For good and valuable consideration, the City and Bank now wish
to amend the Credit Agreement in certain additional respects as follows:
1. Paragraph 8 (a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to
delete the reference to "40o" and "600" in subparagraph
(ii)a and (ii)b thereof and to insert in place thereof the
phrases "550" and "75 % ", respectively.
2. Paragraph 9 (b) of the Agreement is hereby amended to
delete the reference to "400" and "600" in subparagraph
(i)a and (i)b thereof and to insert in place thereof the
phrases "55o" and "750 ", respectively.
Except as expressly amended hereby and by all previously executed
amendments or supplements, the Credit Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect and, together thereof, is incorporated herein by this reference and
in all respects reaffirmed.
Executed at Saratoga , California as of the
2nd day of April , 19 80
—� Attest
City Of / Saratoga
IYA
Title P�
CROCKER NATIONAL BANK
n L
By
Title /I
• —�