Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAcirl 01., A=ZA BILL NO. Initial: Dept. Hd. DATE: December 15, 1982 C. Atty. DEPAFME1,T: Community Development C. Mgr. SU)JECT: A -841 - Wilson Development (Eugene Zambetti).., .2G6.25 Marion Road ------------- ---- --- ------ — ------ --- ---- — ----- - -- -- ?----- --- ---------------- Issue SL-=ary The site has an approved design review for a two -story dwelling (A -747, 1/28/81). The applicant wishes to modify the exterior and move the structure while main- taining essentially the same floor area (4148 proposed vs. 4151 approved);and. height (2716" proposed vs. 27' approved). Applicant feels that relocation, per his proposal, will be less impactive on existing homes to the east. Residents of the existing homes expressed concerns about a two -story structure on this sight being incompatible with the - immediate - neighborhood: In addition they would prefer that the access to the new site not be via their access road. Recc::rrendaticn I. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny 3. Staff-recommended approval of the design review to the Planning Commission. Fiscal Imcacts None noted. E:<h ibits /Attach7r_nts I. Letter of appeal 2. Staff Report dated 11/1/82 3. Planning Commission Minutes of 11/10/82 4. Exhibits "B" and "C" 5. Letter dated 11/30/82 and Exhibit from applicant regarding appeal 6. Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes re A -747 7. Correspondence Received Council Action 12j15: Moyles /Mallory moved to grant appeal subject to condition that two additional parking spaces be provided toward front of house in conjunction with staff and subject to staff approval. Passed 3 -1 (Cl.evenaer opposed, Fanelii not participating). WILSON OL 1 Development, J11c. 14370 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, (408) 867 -5110 November 11, 1982 City Clerk CIty of Saratoga 13777 Fruitbale Ave. Saratoga, Ca 95070 Dear City Clerk: Wilson Development, Inc. hereby formally files an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of A -841 Design Review for the construction of a two story single family dwelling at 20625 Marion Drive. This Design Review request was to change the design on an approved two story home. The new design did not change the size or height of the building, merely the architectural style and room layout. The Planning Commission denied the approval on the basis that a two story house should not be allowed on the lot even though there is a present approval for a two story home which can be built without further approvals required. We believe that the new design is more compatible with the traditional character of the neighborhood, and request that the City Council review this appeal at the earliest date possible. Very truly yours, WILSON DEVELOPMENT, INC. David S. Wilson President REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION IGMA s. DATE: Nov. 1, 1982 Commission Meeting: Nov. 10, 1982 SUBJECT: A -841 Wilson Development (Eugene Zambetti) 20625 Marion Road ---------------------------------------------- - - - - -- REQUEST: Design Review approval to construct a two story single family dwelling. OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: None PLANNING DATA: PARCEL SIZE: 23,265 sq. ft. ZONING: R -1- 12,500 SITE DATA: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential SITE SLOPE: 1.5% GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of this project has been advertised in the Saratoga News, posted on site, and mailed to surrounding property owners. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 1.5% NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Various native trees and shrubs are located along the creek to the rear, while non - ordinance size fruit trees occupy the bulk of the lot. Only the fruit trees will be removed. PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: HISTORY: A two -story dwelling of almost identical height and size as the current proposal was approved for this site by the Planning Commission on January 28, 1981 (A -747). No significant concerns were raised regarding the previous application. GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading is required. SETBACKS: Front: 57' Rear 91' Rt. Side 10' Left Side 30' HEIGHT: 27' 6" Report to Planning Commission SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 1st floor: 2,434 sq. ft. 2nd floor: 1,714 sq. ft. Total: 4,148 sq. ft. C Page Two FLOOR AREA: 4,012 sq. ft. is allowed by ordinance. This project is 3% over the permitted floor area, but within 5% variation able to be granted by the Planning Commission. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: COLORS & MATERIALS: 13% is proposed, 58% is allowed by ordinance. Dark wood trim and earthtone painted stucco with brick veneer at ground level. Roofing materials consist of cedar shakes. SOLAR: Good orientation. A moderate amount of roof faces south. LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING: The applicant has provided a plan which includes landscaping consisting of juniper and a blue spruce tree in the front yard and canary island pines to be planted in the eastern side yard. Staff recommends that in addition, some trees be planted along western side yard to mitigate privacy impacts. RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: This would be the only two story structure in the immediate vicinity, although there are other two story structures in the neighborhood. The proposed dwelling is compatible in terms of design with other dwellings in the vicinity. PRIVACY IMPACTS: Staff noted no significant privacy impacts as a result of the proposed second story windows. To the east, the windows faced the front yards of the adjacent properties. The majority of the rear yard area of the adjacent property to the west is screened by the existing dwelling and vegetation. Staff recommends condition (2) to provide additional landscaping on this side. RECOMMENDATION: Approve per Staff Report dated 10/28/82 and Exhibits "B" & "C" subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to issuance of building permits: (1) Any modifications to the proposed site development plan or elevations shall require the approval of the Permit Review Division. (2) Landscaping plans shall be submitted which indicate 3 15 gal. size native trees along the western property line in between the proposed structure and the neighboring parcel. (3) The existing structure on site shall be removed. Report to Planning Commission Approved: SL:mlh Page Three Sharon Leste , Planner Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11/10/82 Page 3 7. A -841 - Wilson Development (E. Zambetti), Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two -story single family dwelling in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district at 20625 Marion Drive Staff described the proposal and history of the project, noting that there was an existing approval for a two -story home on this parcel. The public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. Ben Warren, 20650 Marion Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He noted that there were no other two story homes within 500 feet. He also stated that there would be a serious parking problem because the driveway will be blocked and there would be no fire access. Bob Grant, 20646 Marion Road, also spoke in opposition to the project, comment- ing on the narrow driveway and the fact that no thought had been given to the proximity of his and Mr. Warren's homes. The possibility of moving the home back from Marion Road and alternative accesses were discussed. David Wilson, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project, discussing the setbacks, easement, driveway and access. The design for this home was discussed, along with the previously approved design now in effect. It was noted that the Tentative Building Site Approval had conditioned the site to have a design compatible with the neighborhood, but did not specify a two - story design. Commissioner Crowther commented that he would question whether this size of home and the two -story design is compatible with the neighborhood. He added that he would have no trouble with the size if it were a single story. Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Bolger agreed with Commissioner Crowther, stating that, as far as sensitivity to a neighborhood is concerned, he would like to see this as a single story home. He commented that he is concerned about the height and moving it back from the access road. Commissioner Nellis stated that he is not pleased with the present design, bas- ically for the reasons that Commissioner Bolger pointed out. He added that he feels that a two -story dwelling in that area is not compatible with the neigh- borhood. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he does not have any problem with the concept of having a one -story house; however, he does not know if that takes care of the concerns of the neighborhood. He explained that he feels that a one -story house of this square footage is going to be just as objectionable in terms of any view. He added that it is going to block out more view in terms of the back side; therefore, he would be inclined to vote for this particular design. Commissioner Monia stated that he feels this is a well designed home; however, he has trouble with the compatibility. He added that he feels that Commissioner Siegfried's point should be well taken and the neighbors may find that a 4,000 sq. ft. single story home might be more objectionable; however, that plan is not in front of the Commission at this time and the impact is not known. He indicated that he would prefer to see a single story home in this area and feels that this application has to be judged on its own merits. Commissioner Bolger moved to deny A -841. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion. Chairman Schaefer pointed out that there is a second story design already approved for this site. She stated that she feels that this is an attractive home, but she personally would like to see it moved back a little. The vote was taken on the motion to deny A -841. The motion was carried 4 -2, with Commissioners Schaefer and Siegfried dissenting. The applicant was notified of the 10 -day appeal period. 8. GF -328/ - NS -3.47 - City of Sa toga, Amend various sections of the Design Review Ordinance fo single family structures including increasing the allowable flo area by loo in the R -1- 40,000 district, allow- ing for a 20o riation in allowable floor area through the public hearing p cess and the inclusion of accessory structures in calculating al wable floor area It was noted that all of the revisi - 3 - discussed at the Committee -of- the -While WILSON Development, Inc. - 14370 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, (408) 867 -5110 November 30, 1982 Appeal: A -341 MR City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca 95070 Dear Councilmembers: On November 10, 1932, Wilson Development, Inc. presented the plans for a two story single family residence to the Planning Commission for Design Review approval. We felt that the plan as presented met fully the intent of the City's Design Review ordinance for the following. reasons: 1. As an in -fill, special attention was given to the placement of the house on the lot. A 30 foot side yard was maintained, rather than the required 20 foot, in order to protect the privacy of the most affected neighbors. The line of sight of these neighbors was protected by placing the building so the maximum of open space and vegetation was left. The elevations of the house were designed so that the lo�,.est roof lines were adjacent to the existing property owners. The orientation also gave consideration to future use of solar. 2. The floor area is within the variation allowable by ordinance. The height is below the allowed 30 feet. The impervious coverage is 13% compared to the over 20,0 of the nearest neighbors and the 58% allowed by ordinance. The required paving is limited by the use of the mutual easement designed to serve this property and the two adjacent properties. 3. None of the existing trees of ordinance size were to be removed and we had agreed to install new trees for the privacy of the neighbors. The Planning Commission denied this application on a 4 -2 vote on the grounds that there should be a single story home on this site to protect the neighbors' privacy. We are appealing this decision on the following grounds: 1. The Design Review ordinance allows two story homes as long as they meet the guidelines of the ordinance. For the above stated reasons, we feel that this home does meet these guidelines. Appeal: A -841 2. There currently is a Design Review approval on this site for a two story home. We have asked for a revision of those plans with this application because we feel the newly proposed home has a great deal less impact from a bulk and privacy standpoint. (See attached comparative drawings) The approved home is more box -like, is situated closer to the neighbors, has greater impervious coverage and generally seems less compatible than the traditional design before you. 3. The currently approved design was approved by the Planning Commission on January 28, 1981. Voting favorably for that two story home were currently seated Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Monia and Schaefer. On November 10, 1982, Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia voted against the new Design Review on the basis that there should be a one story home on the Site. Commissioner Schaefer voted for approval. It is our feeling that applicants have the right to expect some measure of consistency from the City officials in application.. of the ordinances. For these reasons, we are appealing to you for approval of the proposed Design Review. Very truly yours, WILSON DEVELOPMENT, INC. David S. Wilson President rVP�n 1 m.vr> /r.r e rro cv-e rw�¢rf u�i e PROFILE LOOCIW6, WWArb KA21oU 2oab -- -- �- 11ARIaN FOPG ti \ CeryrunY oww / I b 1 I sui.x.0 s.' -.r iuici>.! racrss us �.ua e.uce rnw.ucY rrJ�c�e uu. M.P�eN r.n {aYL I rcr:�G -SrL !; i5 ap IC N gut -,S'—'c PLAN ..r �'•i.' Losb ±ye:0u CP YnY�Li Gt¢�;.e -:-:.! .. "!a •.SIC t�:c4 > tee- 1�,•e v, T. IVILWV Development, Inc. 867 -51 �I J' / r f iii[ USC"[Nf VICW r��n PC.[/r�:il.p'LOU[.iva wc7� ko P7 -- WILSON )e -a� ♦/. A.roRO ell Dc[•clopmrnr, Inc. — PRcrscir uue VIED FIZOM rwioN ---ouTH (4- 4- P, C 0 U A/C 8f .2EQUEST: 17m" t� r" T_ 3ONING: 1XQX5t& 0. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Cify of Sarafoga AFP V RO V D C i : ___.p_ Amended: 11/22/82 DATE: �- c �- D_1 DATE: 1/5/81 --�� Commission Meeting: 1/14/81 SUBJECT A -747 Dr. Norman Baker Marion Road (Parcel B, SDR -1473) - ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Design Review approval for a two -story dwelling. 23,000 sq. ft.+ R -1- 12,500 ?ROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Size of Structure: Lower Level: 2,635 sq. ft. (including garage) Upper Level: 1,516 sq. ft. 2. Site Coverage by Structure: (including decks): 14.5 %+ 3. Site Slope: 1 %+ Slope at Building Footprint: 1 %+ 4. Height of Structure: Maximum: 27' At Mid -Point of Roof: N/A 5. Pad Elevation(s): 494.0' (within 1'+ of natural grade) Finished Floor: 495.5' 6. Exterior Facade: Materials: Cedar shingles, Wood trim Color: Natural color for shingles, dark stain for trim 7. Roof Materials: Medium Wood Shakes 8. Grading Required: Cut: -- yds.3 Fill: -- yds.3 Cut Depth: -- ft. Fill Depth: -- ft. Minimal Grading is necessary to prepare the site for the dwelling. . 6W71), =P6 4 Staff Report 1/ 5/ 81 A-.747 Page 2 9. Design: A. Number of Stories: Two. * *B. Setbacks: Front: 62 ft. Rear: 84 ft. Sides: 18 & 10 ft. C. Compatible with Existing Structures: See Comments. D. Compatible with Natural Setting: See Comments. E. Visibility /Screening: Existing vegetation will provide some.. screening of the rear elevation. F. Driveway Configuration: Off -set from common driveway. G. Accessory Structures: None proposed. H. Existing Vegetation: Oaks. I. Solar: 1. Building Configuration: Roof oriented southeast; poor solar utilization potential. 2. Roof Angle: 23 degrees; acceptable, not optimum. 3. Passive System: None proposed. 4. Active System: None proposed. J. Comments: As per Ordinance 3E -16, any proposed structure over 22' in height (measured to peak of roof) on an R -1 lot less than 10% in average slope must be reviewed under a Design Review public hearing. Final Building Site Approval for SDR -1473, which would create the Parcel B building site, has not yet been granted. This would be the only two -story structure it the immediate vicinity although there are other two -story structures on Marion Road. The current multi -story ordinance (NS -3.31) allows fewer but no more than 50% of the lots within a subdivision to be improved with multi -story structures. This would be the only two -story structure allowed in this subdivi- sion. Under Ordinance 3E -16, five criteria must be addressed in deciding to approve or deny a Design Review request for a structure over 22' in height. These criteria and the Staff Analysis are as follows: 1. 'The proposed structure shall not significantly impair the present or future a i itv of an a lacent proberty to uti izE solar energy: Staff prepared a shadow map for the proposed structure and determined that about 1,250 sq. ft. of the building envelope of an adjacent lot to the northeast would be shaded by this structure between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. (Prime solar exposure hours are from 9:00 a.m, to 3:00 p.m.). Staff does not consider this shading to be significant since the shading occurs only one hour in the afternoon and the southernmost portion of the lot is clear. Staff Report A -747 RECOMMENDED ACTION C 2. The proposed structure invasion o f the pri vac windows of the second screened by vegetation Additional landscaping privacy. shall not constitute of adjacent property evel of the structure or oriented away from would further enhance 1/5/81 Page 3 an unreasonable owners: Ali are either private areas. protection of 3. The proposed structure shall not unreasonably interfere with t e views 'of adjacent ro erties: One site inspection has revealed that although the structure is 27' in height, _. viewshed areas will not be adversely impacted. The structur will be screened from the east and south by riparian vegetation. 4. The proposed structure shall minimize disruption to natural topography, the natural drainage system, and existing vegetation: Due to the gentle slope o the site no significant disruption to natural topography will be required to accommodate the proposed dwelling. Natural drainage will only be disrupted by the increase in imperviou surface. This disruption will be minimized since site coverage will be less than a single -story structure. Drainage.for the site must be approved by the Department of Inspection Services. Specific conditions for the treatment of the drainage swale to the east of the site were added during Tentative Building Site Approval. No major vegetatic will be removed due to construction. 5. The proposed structure shall not be out of character with the existin g structures 'of the neighborhood: Although this would be the only two -story dwelling in the immediate vicinity, there are other two -story dwellings along Marion Road.. The proposed structure appears to be somewhat larger than the older structures in the vicinity. However, the height and size of the structure are mitigated by its varied roof height, it articulated front facade, the exterior shingles, and its distance from Marion Road which is twice the normal front yard setback. K. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration for SDR -1473 was approved by the Planning Commission which deals with the impacts associated with construction. L. Public Noticing: Notice of this public hearing was advertised by posting the site, publication in the newspaper, and by mailings to adjacent property owners. Approve per Staff Report dated January 5, 1981 and Exhibits "B ", "C ", and "D" subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits: A. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Inspection Services. Only these approved plans shall be implemented during construction. Staff' Report_ 1/5/81 A -747 Page 4 B. Any modifications to the proposed site development plan or elevations shall require Planning Department review and approval. C. Record an open space easement encompassing the 100 year inundation area on the final map. This is the partial intent of Condition III.D. of SDR -1473. D. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval. Approved: Michae F ores, Planner I MF /clh P. C. Agenda: 1/14/81 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1/28/81, Page 2 .q SDIZ -1307 (cont.) with the one -year ex cnsion on this matter. Staff stated that there is a letter from Mrs. Call, indicating that she would like to make the road improvements in conjunction with tire adjacent property. It was determined that th approval for the one-year extension should include the condition tiat. further extension will not he granted, since the road should h improved in that period of time. Commissioner Zambetti mo ed to approve the extension for one year for the Contract for Impr vement Agreement on SDR- 1.367. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the moti n, which was carried unanimously. It was noted again that further e tension will not be considered by the Commission. Veda Call, the applicant, st,ted that the road has been improved some, and a one -year extension is a recable with her. She commented that she will coordinate with Mr. acohsen, the adjacent property owner, on the improvements, and they ill share the cost of common improvements of Sobcv Road and the minimum a cess road from Sobcv Road within that op. r riod. O PU111,1 II EAR INCS 2. 4 747 - rman Baker, Marion Road, 'rwo - Story; Single - Family Residence, i�'inal Design Review Approval.; Continued from January 14, 1981 f described the current proposal. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the Emergency Ordinance, which this design falls under, would take precedence over the prior Two -Story Ordinance. Chairman Laden commented that the neighhorhood seems to he acceptable to this design, and it was noted that no correspondence had been received. Since no one appeared, Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, r.(hich was carried unanimously. It was clarified that there are tyro living units on the site. The drainage easement was discussed. It was noted that Condition C of the Staff Report requires the recording of that open space easement. Commissioner Zambetti. moved to approve A -747, per the Staff Report dated January 5, 1981, making the findings. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. r 3. llP -476 - Patrick Drumm, 18803 �icl'arland : \venue, Request for a Use Permit to allo a detached garage over 6' in height (15' maximum) to be located in the required rear yard-(3' from side and rear onerty lines). Continued from January 14, 1981 Chairman Laden explained teat this application had been approved in concept at the last meetin , for a-6 ft. setback for the side and hack vard. Staff commented that the applicant has submitted appropriate drawings, and there is a co ment in the Staff Report regarding the angle of the driveway, stati g "The 90o angle of the driveway shall be rounded to facilitate access and egress from the garage." -- Commissioner Zambetti moved t reopen the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Conunissioncr King, seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Mr. Drumm, the applicant, clar.i i.ed that the garage space is intended _.. for use as a Iarage only, and is in no ray intended for a husincs. lie stated that he is satisfied W th the 6 ft. setback, since it still gives access. Since no one else appeared, Commis.ioner Zamhett.i moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schac.cr seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. .q •:...ili` ✓?WI,ti4�f"i.:4 :�:Yti^.�i.•� iIl'X.M� ^. n'..:�:: is I']anning Commission Meeting Minutes - 1/14/81 Pagc 4 GPA- 81-1 -d (cont.) Commissioner Marshall _tated that this policy was created heCaUSe, at that time, it was point "I Out to the City Council that the City was inconsistent, and the p rpose of this policy statement was to allow a certain degree of flexi}ility, so that the General. Plan and the zoning map would he consistent ith each other. File public hearing was opened at 9:08 p.m. on GPA- 81- .1. -d. Staff explained to Lynn Be anger that thev had indicated to the City Council at a previous time that they would be taking four particular sites out of context becaus there had been sonic applications submitted. lie clarified that the hearin at _this time is not aimed at any specific parcel. Councilman Dale Watson stated hat he felt the General Plan Advisory Committee should review this i m, to deal with some of the policies which have been addressed. Commissioner Marshall moved to c se the public hearing on GPA- 81 -1 -d. Commissioner Bing seconded the mo ion, which was carried unanimousl��. It was directed that this item he eferred to the General Plan Advisory Committee for review. Br - 9-1 3: A -747 - 9:30 p.m. I Norman Baker, Marion Road, Two-Story, Single - Family Residence, Final Des.ien Review Aoorovai was noted that this item was noticed in the paper; however, the appropriate information for the mailings to the property oUancrs within 500 ft. was not submitted. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Since no one appeared, it was directed that this item be continued to the meeting of .January 28, 1981. 4. UP -47S - Saratoga Foothi is Development Corporation, Request for a Use Permit to alloy.' V model. home to be used as a temporary real estate sales off ke in the Saratoga Parksi.dc multi-family resi dential devclopm t, on the cast side of Saratoga Avcnuc about 4S0 ft. south of ucknalI Road Staff explained the present proposal.. They indicated that they do not anticipate any adverse impac s and believe there is sufficient parking. Commissioner Marshall. comment d that the Commission has requested in the past in neh' sui� divisions that iodel home sales offices be located so they do not impede the public right of -way. The public hearing was opened a 7:45 p.m. .Jerzy Lohr, President of Snrato , Foothills Development. Corporation, discussed the parkin and the 10_at:i.on Of the sale: office. Commissioner Marshall commented that he �.as su Besting that the model home sales office be moved to whore the parking i.s Ulithin the developm,:nt. Since no one else appeared, Commissioner 7amhettj . moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried Unanimously. Further discussion followed on the 1 cation, and it was determined that a condition should be added to the St f Report, to read "The model home sales of£i.ce shall be no closer to SaUltoga Avenue than Unit ?'4 of Complex ;Zifw.�.1'?i�'1v:M'W�.•: . \; T'Z.rt..'lG:IF�.'::� - 4 - loll r•. �'! Jr`.,i..'..'^.�rr�'Gk',�".��l '►K+r�+s74 .r' .*'ice. '- .^r <�� �`' .�D^-�f. *'cl. ^_'ii.!�. .r:.lv,F ;.;:rq;:,.y.t�.. T },: .ji, �.a.. . :iS {.., - .-�r'. -'�. Via^+. -".+: _ C�.,' rt9'• �' Y7- "?a�C*"� §�i;!:�- •""Tti_%\5; -�- .'?:r;a:P..'Llfy '3 °sY.'::f�t`S 'J O C111 1Z OF sAiz idr=C AGENDA BILL NO. 3 �' Initial: Dept. fld. DATE: December 3, 1982 C. Atty. DEP.�T: =: Community Development- Engineering C. Mgr. SUBJECT, PROSPECT RD, FROM BLANEY AVE. TO SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE ROAD (CITY OF SAN JOSE /CITY OF SARATOGA JOINT PROJECT) Issue SL.^rmary On July 19, 1979 the City of Saratoga entered into an agreement with the City of San Jose to share in the cost for the improvement of Prospect Road from Blaney Avenue to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, and traffic Signal modification at the intersection of Prospect Road and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. San Jose's share was $245,396.02 (69.90) and Saratoga's share amounted to $105,671.25 (30.1 %) for a total project cost of $351,067.27. At the onset of the project, Saratoga, deposited with San Jose, a prepayment amount of $95,321.00. We have recently been billed, by San Jose, for the $10,350.25 balance, which is $671.25 more than the $105,000.00 originally agreed and budgeted. Reccmnendation Approve and appropriate $10,350..25 payment to the City of San Jose. E Fiscal Imnacts The total amount of Saratoga's share is $105,671.25. $95,321.00 was deposited with San Jose in 1979. The. _$10,350.25 balance should be appropriated and paid from Fund 46 - Gas Tax. Exhibits /Attachments 1. 'Transmittal letter and invoice from City of San Jose 2. Agreement CcLnciI.ActR solution. .`increasing appropriation 12/1: Mallory /Moyles moved to approve payment and adopt resolution 1099.5. Passed 3 -0. CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 801 NORTH FIRST STREET SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110 (408) 277.4333 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS D. KENT DEWELL, DIRECTOR November 9, 1982 Mr. Robert S. Shook Director of Public Works City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Shook: 1982 'COMMUNITY DEVELOKIEiIT SUBJECT: Final accounting for Intersection Improvements and Traffic Signal Modification @ Prospect Rd. /Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd.; Street Widening Improvements on Prospect Rd. from Blaney Ave. to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road The City of San Jose and the City of Saratoga entered into a cost - sharing agreement dated July 19, 1979 (amended November 15, 1979). In accordance with the subject agreement the total project cost has been compiled as follows: E & I Construction TOTAL Less: Prepayment Deposit AMOUNT DUE Total Cost $ 58,877.17 292 ,190. 10 $351,067.27 City of San Jose 69.9% $ 41,155.14 204,24o.88 $245,396.02 City of Saratoga 12 n 1 °r $ 17,722.03 87,949.22 $105,671.25 $ 95,321.00 $ 10,350.25 Enclosed is a billing Invoice No. 73210 in the amount of $10,350.25 for Saratoga's share of the improvements. If you have any questions, please call Roy Fox of the Administrative Services Division at 277 -4941. Very t -ruly, yours, i'D. KENT DEWELL , Dir cto r Q j� Pub 1is Works Department RHT:HRF:VM:ez Enclosure fife ;f/ � . I N V O I C E CITY OF SAN JOSE PHONE 277 -4000 TO CITY of SARATOGA y. DIRECT ANY QUESTIONS TO THE 13777 Fruitvale Avenue ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT_ Saratoga, CA. 95070. REFERENCE (FILE OR ACCOUNT NO.) DKD:RF:LS:js DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLE OR SERVICES ® Amount due as the result of the final accounting prepared for a cost - sharing agreement with Saratoga dated July 19, 1979, approved 7/17/79(.12H) and amended 11/15/79• Traffic Signal Modification Prospect Rd /Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd: Street Widening improvements Prospect Rd from Blaney Avenue to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. City of Saratoga's Share $105,671.25 Less Deposit ( 95,321.00.) Amount due 10,350.25 *Prepayment deposit billed on Inv.#58669 and paid cc: Roy Fox, Transportation Administrative Services N", BIER 73210 DEPARTMENT Public Works DEPT. NO. DATE 57 11/8/82 QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO 'CITY OF SAN JOSE" FOR AMOUNT INDICATED MAIL YOUR REMITTANCE WITH ONE COPY OF THIS INVOICE TO: TO CUSTOMER FINANCE DEPARTMENT - TREASURY DIVISION ROOM 217, CITY HALL FORM 142 -41 REV i7 -721 SAN JOSE, CALIF. 95110 ACCOUNT CODE ND PRIME DETAIL 19,625.73 1409 1030120 101 724.52 1 429 1 030120 1 01 TOTAL li �0 o.,.350.2 A ` AGREEMENT Eif_�i1dEEtl THE CITY OF SAN JOSE AND THE CITY OF SARA10GA FOR INJERSECTIM IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIOIS Ar PrtOSPFCT ROAD /SARAiMA- SUNNYVALE ROAD, STREET WIDENI ;G I'•;PROVEMEIITS ON PROSPECT ROAD FROM BLANEY AVE. TO SARATOGA -SUNN YVALE ROAD", AIID FOR THE SHARING OF CERTAIN COSTS THEREOF THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this .1L_ day of 1979 by and between the CITY OF SAKI JOSE, a Municipal Corporation of the Sta e of ' California (hereinafter "City "), and the CITY OF SARATOGA, also a Municipal Corporation of the State of California (hereinafter "Saratoga "). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that certain traffic signal modifica- tions and intersection improvements be constructed at Prospect Road /Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, and that roadway be widened and improved on Prospect Road from Blaney Avenue to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road: WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of orderly and economic construction practices to complete said project under an agreement between Saratoga and City, providing for a construction contract or contracts for said project awarded and administered by City. NO1-I THEREFORE, for and in consideration of their mutual promises, covenants . and agreements, and subject to the terms, conditions and provisions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: 1. Scope of Project and Definitions. The proposed project consists of the necessary channelization and traffic signal modifications at the intersec- tion of Prospect Road and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, the 44idening and improve- ments of Prospect Road bet%•reen Blaney Avenue and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road as a 4 -lane facility, with a 5 -foot asphalt concrete walk. For the purpose of this agreement, the term "total project cost" shall mean the total of all costs incurred and expenditures made by tha City and Saratoga for preliminary engineering, preparation of environmental state- r ments or negative declarations corT-,,unity meetings and public hearings as requested, the preparation of plans and specifications, construction of said project, and construction engineering. 2. Public Pearines and Enviro -,mental State,- cnts_. City shall conduct all Public hearings and shall prepare all environmental statements that may be required for said project by existing icgislat�cn. 3. Plans, Spedfications and Estimates. City shall prepare or cause to be prepared, separate plans, specifications and estimates for said project and shall submit said plans, specifications dnd estimates to Saratoga for Saratoga's approval. 4. Sharing of Costs. Saratoga agrees to pay for a portion of the total project costs a sum equal to 30.1`G of the total project costs. 5. Prepayr.;ent. Within 15 days after award of contract or after July 1, 1979, which- ever is first, Saratoga shall pay to City its share of the total project cost, estimated at $95,321. 6. Award of Contract. Upon approval of plans, specifications and cost estimates by Saratoga, City shall advertize for bids of the construction of said project. If the lowest responsible bidder's proposal does not exceed the engineer's estimate of the construction cost by more than 10, City shall atirard a contract therefor to said lowest responsible bidder and shall supervise the construction of said project to completion. If said bid exceeds said estimate by more than 10 :-., City shall not award the contract until the lowest and responsible bid has been reviewed by Saratoga and Saratoga has approved the award of contract to said lowest and re- sponsible bidder. Saratoga agrees to complete its review and to notify City with- in seven (7) calendar days for the bid opening day. • o 7. Maximum Saratoga Participation. Saratoga's share of total project costs shall not exceed the anount of $105,000. In the instance Saratoga's share of total project costs should exceed the said aniount, the City shall notify Saratoga and request the Saratoga City Council's authorization for additional Saratoga participation for said project, which may or may not be granted. 8. Liability Insurance. City agrees to require any contractor engaged to perform said project to take out and maintain in full force and effect during the construction of said project for which tie is so engaged and until the acceptance of said project by City, a policy of public liability and property damage insurance insuring City, its officers and ei :iployces and Saratoga, its officers and employees, in connection with the construction of szid project. The terns, provisions and conditions of such policy shall be those which City normally requires in connection with the type of . t construction contemplated for said project; provie.ed, however, that City agrees to require such contractor to na:r.e Saratoga, its officers and employees as co- insured cn such policy. 9. final Accounting. Upon completion of the project, City shall pay the final construe - tion costs of said project and shall prepare and furnish to Saratoga a final account- ing of the total costs of said project. Said accountinq shall show the final con - struction costs of said project in it.s entirety. _ _2_ 10. Adjustment of Costs. Upon completion of the project and final allocation of costs, in the event that Saratoga's share of project costs is less than its initial deposit, reimbursement shall be made to Saratoga within 30 days after the final accounting by the City. In the event that Saratoga's share exceeds its initial deposit, Saratoga shall pay to City the difference. 11. Administering Agent. In the exercise of this agreement, City shall be the administering agency and, as such, shall possess all powers common to both City and Saratoga shich may be necessary to effectuate the purpose of this agreement, subject only to the manner of exercise of such pot•rer provided herein and the restrictions imposed by law upon City in the exercise of such powers. 12. Hold Harmless. It is mutually understood and agreed: a. That neither Saratoga, nor any officer or employee thereu:f, shall be respon- sible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by City under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to City under this agreement. It is also under- stood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, City shall fully indemnify and hold Saratoga harmless from any liability ir:posed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of a anything done or omitted to be done by City under this agreement under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to City under this agreement. b. That neither City, nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by Saratoga under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to Saratoga under this agreement. It is also under- stood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, Saratoga r shall fully indermify,and hold City harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by Saratoga under or in connection vtith any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to Saratoga under this agreement. 13. Termination. In the event that a contract for the construction of the project is not a•::arded prior to Septec:ber 30, 1979, the terns of this contract shall be void I with respect to said project, and any sums paid by Saratoga to City, pursuant to Paragraph 5 herein, with respect to said project shall be forthwith refunded, exce,t that preliviinary engineering costs for said project, if any, shall be deducted frc,:o such swot to tie refunded to Saratoga according to the sharing of costs as provid ^d in Paragraph 4. - 3 - 14. Records and Accounts. Saratoga and City shall keep, maintain and render available for inspectiun by each other, or each other's authorized represen- tatives, records and books which will provide a complete and accurate account of all costs, fees and expenditures made by Saratoga and City on said project. WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF the day and year first hereinabove set forth. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal corporation By ILLIAi4 W. BUR % 'C1 1ak Deputy City Att ney ATTEST: C";ty Clerk • APPROVED ASSTJ�FORM- C5y f Sa to< 'Attorney V ATTEST: ity Cl rk - 4 - CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation Bye • '��`'�a /`ayor Q'ara toga " i 14. Records and Accounts. Saratoga and City shall keep, maintain and render available for inspectiun by each other, or each other's authorized represen- tatives, records and books which will provide a complete and accurate account of all costs, fees and expenditures made by Saratoga and City on said project. WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF the day and year first hereinabove set forth. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal corporation By ILLIAi4 W. BUR % 'C1 1ak Deputy City Att ney ATTEST: C";ty Clerk • APPROVED ASSTJ�FORM- C5y f Sa to< 'Attorney V ATTEST: ity Cl rk - 4 - CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation Bye • '��`'�a /`ayor Q'ara toga " RESOLUTION ISO. 1099.5 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIA- TIONS AND AMENDING THE 1982 -83 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET WHEREAS, it is recommended that the following adjustment be made increasing the present budget appropriations: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of Saratoga adopted by Resolution 1099 be amended as follows: Transfer: $10,350.25 from general ledger account 46 -2900 gas tax (2106) fund balance available, to general ledger account 46 -2940 gas tax (2106) appropriations. Subsidiary: Fund 46 - Gas Tax (2106) Program 947 - Prospect Rd. - San Jose /Saratoga Joint Project Purpose: To appropriate the finds necessary to complete a joint project agreement between the City of San Jose and Saratoga, for improvements to Prospect Road from Blaney Avenue to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the _ day of , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk MAYOR ,�,3 CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. 3 7� DATE: 12 -7 -82 DEPARTMENT. Administrative Services ------------------------------------------------ SUaMCT: HCDA FY 1983 -84 Projected Use of Funds Issue Summary Initial: Dept. Hd. -( iii The second Public Hearing on City of Saratoga FY 1983 -84 proposed use of HCDA funds will be held on December 15, 1982. Activities to be undertaken during this time_ should be identified and subsequently transmitted to Santa Clara County,-HCD Division. Reccmnendation City Council identification of activities and corresponding dollar amounts for HCDA funded projects proposed to be conducted during FY 1983 -84 and transmittal to the County for review and comment Qo the same. Fiscal Impacts It is currently anticipated that $175,000 in discretionary CDBG funding will be available to the City during FY 1983 -84 plus program administration expenses. Exhibits /Attacham_nts 1- Eligible Activities Report, 12 -01 -82 2- Menu of proposed activities /projects, memo 12 -07 -82 3- Supplemental Report Council Action 12/15: Mallory /Clevenger moved to accept staff reocmendations and levels of funding designated in staff report, Part II, dated 12./9. Passed 5 -0. Fanelli /Clevenger moved to allocate remaining fund balance from Senior Wing construction for projects recommended by Richard Drake for Senior Wing. Passed 5 -0. ,F 3 r�r.�vfiaKSfv .At A £S .F�G�'P.a3F�! ^ia. REPORT C C TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 12 -1 -82 COUNCIL MEETING: 12 -15 -82 SUBJECT Eligible Activities - Housing and Community Development Act By virtue of recent legislative amendments to the Housing and Commmity Development Act, recipients of Block Grant funding have been granted greater latitude in proposing and completing eligible activities. The most significant amendment eliminates the need for presubmittal of City projects to HUD for approval, and places more responsibility on the grantee (City) for insuring that HCDA funded activities comply with the primary objectives of the Act. The Act establishes as its primary objective the development of viable urban comrunities, including decent housing and a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunity, principally for persons of low and moderate income. The overall objective of the Act can be achieved through a program where the projected use of funds has been developed so as to give mmaxirrn>tm feasible priority to activities which will carry out one of the three broad national objectives of 1 - benefit to low and moderate income families (i.e., family of 4, $25,050); 2 - aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; and 3 - the projected use of funds may also include activities which the City certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community where other financial re- sources are not available to meet such needs. The choice, by the City, of eligible activities on which block grant finds are to be expended represents the recipients determination as to which approach or approaches will best serve these primary objectives. Consistent with the foregoing, each recipient must ensure, and maintain evidence, that each of its CDBG funded activities meets - one.of the-broad national. objectives as contained in its certification. Fbllowing is a synopsis of HCDA eligible activities. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES Activities must comply with current CDBG regulations as published in the Federal Register. Eligible activities include those listed in Section 570.201 through 570.206 of the August 1980 Consolidated Community Development Block Grant Regulations. The major categories of eligible activities are: 570.201 - Basic Eligible Activities a. Acquisition of real property for a variety of purposes, as outlined in the regulations b. Disposition of real property c. Public facilities and improvements d. Clearance activities e. Public services f. Interim assistance to alleviate harmful conditions g. Payment of the non - federal share of a related grant -in -aid h. Urban renewal completion i. - Relocation j. Loss of rental income k. Removal of architectural barriers 570.202 - Rehabilitation and Preservation a. Rehabilitation of public residential structures b. Public housing modernization c. Rehabilitation of private property d. Temporary relocation assistance e. Code enforcement f. Historic preservation 570.203 - Economic Development a. Acquisition b. Public facilities and improvements C. Commercial and industrial facilities 570.204- Activities by private non - profit entities, neighborhood based non - profit organizations, local development corporations, or small business develop- ment corporations a. General activities b. Activities eligible under Sections 570.201 - 570.203, and 570.205 - 570.206 C. Community economic development or neighborhood revitalization activities 570.205 - Planning and Urban Environmental Design a. Development of a Comprehensive Community Development Plan b. Development of a policy - planning- management capacity C. Comprehensive planning activities 570.206- Eligible Administrative Costs a. General management, oversight and coordination. b. The provision of information and other resources to residents and citizen organizations participating in the planning, implementation, or assessment of activities being carried out with block grant funds. c. Provision of fair housing counseling services and other activities designed to further fair housing goals. d. Provision of assistance to facilitate performance and payment bonding necessary , for contractors carrying out activities assisted with block grant funds including payment of bond premiums in behalf of contractors. e. Applications for Federal programs, including the block grant program and UDAG program, may be prepared with block grant funds where necessary and appropriate to implement the applicant's comprehensive strategy for community development. f. Activities to facilitate the implementation of a housing assistance plan for necessary expenses, prior to construction, in planning and obtaining financing for the new construction or substantial rehabilitation of housing for lower- income persons. g. Environmental studies. 3. Benefit to Low and Moderate Income Persons All projects must principally benefit low and moderate income persons, or show clearly that they aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight or meet an urgent need, as defined by current HUD regulations. A project or activity will be considered to principally benefit low- and moderate - income persons if it meets one of the following standards: a. The project has income eligibility requirements that limit the benefits of the project to low- and moderate- income persons. b. The project does not have income eligibility requirements but the majority of the beneficiaries are low- and moderate - income persons. The following are examples: 1) Economic development projects which are designed to provide direct employ- ment opportunities for permanent jobs, the majority of which will be for low - and moderate - income persons if the persons expected to be employed are defined as low- and moderate- income prior to employment; it is not neces- sary that the incomes of persons employed by economic development projects be low or moderate after the project is completed. 2) A facility, such as a senior center, which is used principally by persons of low and moderate income. c. Removal of architectural barriers; such projects may be assumed to principally benefit low- and moderate- income persons in the absence of evidence to the contrary. C Eligible Activities Housing & Comity Development Act 12/1/82 d. A project which must be carried out prior to or as an integral part of a project which will principally benefit low- and moderate- income persons. An example is the extension of water and sewer lines to permit construction of low- income housing. e. A project which serves an area with less than a majority of low- and moderate - income persons where: - I) the applicant has no areas within its jurisdiction where low- and moderate - income persons constitute a majority, or 2) the applicant has so few such areas that it is inappropriate to limit the grant to projects in those areas. 4. Projects which prevent or eliminate slums or blight. S. Projects designed to meet needs having a particular urgency. These are projects which are designed to alleviate a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community which is of recent origin where the applicant is unable to finance the projects on its own, and other sources of funding are not available. A condition will generally be considered to be of recent origin if it developed or became critical within 18 months preceding the application for funds. Once a specific activity is proposed which appears to be eligible as per the above, it is necessary to determine which of the national objectives the project addresses, make that certification and further scrutinize the specific activity for eligibility. a0ge NI E M O�R7A�NiD L1 NCI uguw o2 O&M&KOO& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: Playor & City Council FROM: HCD Coordinator SUBJECT: HCDA activities proposed for FY 1983 -84 DATE: 12 -7 -82 Following are projects proposed by City Staff, the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council and the Los Gatos- Saratoga High School District. City Staff 1. Street and storm drain impwvements to one or more of the following, in order of recommended priority: a) 4th' Street est cost $70,000 b) Elva Street est cost 75,000 c) Springer Avenue est cost 62,000 Activity would generally consist of site clearing, excavation, grading and subgrading, modification.of the vertical alignment to accommodate storm water runoff where necessary, installation of aggregate base, asphalt concrete and A.C. beims. 2. Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP) requested $75,000. Utilizing past years carryover, program income and outstanding loan payments, the $75,000 committment should provide funds sufficient to complete one unit per month during FY 1983 -84. 3. Parks Use Analsis: To determine the extent of use, typical user groups, activities of user groups, desired activities, etc, for all City parks. Initiation of a user survey citywide, leading to the development of a new Master Park Plan. est. cost $10,000. 4. Development of a Citywide Pavement Man agement System. The goal of this activity is to optimize use of City street maintenance Ironies by establishing a com- prehensive, street condition data base and monitoring the information to identify priority street maintenance activity. Key components of the proposed project are: 1. Completion of citywide street surface condition field evaluation 2. Acquisition of necessary data processing equipment including the program needed to analyze collected evaluation data. 3. Input collected data. 4. Preparation of output report which: a. Identifies alternative approaches to maintain the pavement system together with costs for each alternative. b. Determine a year by year strategy to most effectively maintain City street surfaces, estimated cost $25,000. p. 2, mem Cont. 5. Accessibility imprrvements to the Village Library - modification of restrooms for handicapped /wheelchair accessibility. a) restroom modification est. cost $4,000. b) full accessibility improvements i.e., restroom modification, railing, ramping, signing, parking spaces, etc. est. cost $15,000. 6. Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council a) Senior Center Supervisor salary $10,000. b) Provision of Senior Programs: 1. Nutrition and Health Programs 2. Outreach continuation 3. Vocational Services 4. Money Management for older Adults. 5. Direct Health Services 6. Contingency ($500) requested for Programs '$10,000 total requested FY1983 -84 20,000 7. Los Gatos Joint Union High School - modification of portions of Los Gatos High School as follows: 1. Remodeling of football stadium to provide two restrooms available to the handicapped. 2. Construction of a viewing platform for the handicapped at the football stadium. 3. Construction of ramp access to auditorium. 4. Construction of handicapped accessible restroom near auditorium Requested Fy 1983 -84 $21,000 It is requested that the City Council identify those projects /activities it wishes to implement during FY 1983 -84 and the corresponding dollar amounts. This information will be forwarded to the County for further eligibility review. Tfie Council may modify their determinations up to April 1983. URI TO: FROM: SUBJECT uguw @0 O&M&OD)O& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Mayor & City Council HCD Coordinator DATE: 12-9-82 Supplemental Report & Recommendations - HCDA projects for FY1983 -84 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This supplemental report identifies an additional staff generated project proposal, and provides the City Council with staff recommen- dations for project proposal and funding committment for HCDA activity during FY1983 -84. Part I - Additional Project Proposal During the current FY the City Council has allocated the sum- of $84,325.00 for storm drain system installations in the Quito Area. This total activity consists of five seperate storm drain installations each connecting to the inplace system. When the Council made the $84,325.00 allocation to this activity it was at the conclusion of the budget development process, and this funding level committment represented an attempt to balance the budget. Essentially, to go as far as we could with the funding committed. It is currently estimated that $119,000 would be required to complete all five storm drain system installations, etc. 1. McCoy (from Carrick to Berwick) install one manhole, 2 catch basins and 350 linear feet of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP). est. cost $15,935.00 2. McFarland (to.Montrose & Devony,, install two manholes, 3 catch basins, and 385 linear feet of RCP. est. cost $19,565.00 3: Paseo Presada (Devon to Paseo Lado) install three manholes, 2 catch basins and 515 linear feet of RCP. est. cost $31,847.00 4. Paseo Presada (McFarland to Devon) install one manhole, 2 catch basins and 310 linear feet of RCP. est. cost $18,298.50 5. Devon (McFarland to Quito Road) install one manhole, 2 catch basins and 340 linear feet of RCP. est. cost $15,576.00 estimated cost sub total $101,222.90 (engineering costs) 18,000.00 Total estimated projeSost $119,222.90 p.2, Part I of memo, cont. With the FY 1982 -83 allocation of $84,325.00 available for this activity, the Council would need to allocate $35,000.00 of FY1983 -84 monies to complete all five storm drain system installations. Part II - Staff Recommendations for FY1983 -84 projects and level of funding: 1. Quito Area Storm Drain Systems $;35,000 2. SHARP 50,000 3. 4th Street Reconstruction 70,000 4. SASCC 20,000 $175,000 It is felt by staff that this proposed program represents an. acceptable Community Development Plan consisting of certifiable and eligible activities. . 1 AMZA BILL NO. 3(o I DATE: December 8, 1982 D�tt . M7,ATr: Community -Development ClYz or SARA1,CGN Initial: Dept. ild. C. Atty. C. Mgr. IFAJ SU^BMM A -840 QUITO SARATOGA CENTER INC., COX AND PASEO PRESADA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Issue SL--=ary Applicant requested Design Review approval to construct a two -story office building. Previous approval was granted on the subject site (A -725) for a one story office building, closely similar in design. The major modifications are in size and use,.' The applicant proposed to increase the size 7,470 square feet and change the use of the building to office use that requires.a lesser parking ratio use than the approved proposal. A traffic study is enclosed which determines that traffic generation would be reduced with this proposal. The major concerns which led to the denial of this proposal included design, size, traffic generation and intensity of use of the site. Rec=endation .1. Conduct a public.:hearing on the appeal. 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny.. 3. Staff recommended approval of the design review to the Planning Commission: C Fiscal Impacts N None Noted Etch i bi t s /Attach. -mn is I. Letter of Appeal 6. Design Review Staff Report (A -725) 2. Staff report dated 10/1/82 dated 9/18/80 3. Planning Commission Minutes 10/13/82 7._ Planning Commission Minutes dated 11/26/82 4. Exhibit "B" 8. Variance Staff Report dated 9/18/80 5. Traffic Study dated"10 /5/82 by Renato G. Martinez C.E. Ccuncil ;�_- tion 9. Planning Commission Minutes dated 9/24/80 ..10. Letter from Challenger Preschool 12/1: Moyles/Mallory moved to continue public hearing to 1/19 and study session 1 /11. Passed 3 -0. 1 /11: Council and Planning Commission reached consensus to delete second driveway of project. Related letter from Challenger Preschool attached as last exhibit, with staff response. 1/19: Moyles /Fanelli moved to apporve A -840 as amended by site plan suh mitted on 1/19/83. Passed 5 -0. r, ARTI -ILIR• M. SHELMN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2815 Mitchell Drive, Suite 200 P. 0. Box 4456 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: (415)937 -0110 r BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SARATOGA CALIFORNIA IN RE: Application No. A -840 Appeal to City Council. Quito- Saratoga Center, Inc. and Northwest Projects Corporation, Appellants. 0 f R1 '00 1 ""' " A L NOTICE OF APPEAL AND APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF APPELLANTS' DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION.NO. A -840 FOR THE SECOND OF TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS ON A BUILDING SITE AND PURSUANT TO A DESIGN PRE- VIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE CITY. This appeal to the City Council is by the property owner of record, Quito- Saratoga Center, Inc., and by the developer and applicant, Northwest Projects Corporation. It is from a denial of Design Review Approval by the City Plan- ning Commission on Wednesday, October 13, 1982, and is made pursuant to City Ordinance No. NS3.51; Article 24 of City Or NS3, including Sections 24.2 and 24.7 and Section 13.5 of City Ordinance NS -3. If- ir� Before setting forth the grounds for this appeal, appellants desire to call certain facts to the Council's attention. FACTS The property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Cox Avenue and Paseo Presada. Since the time of its inclusion within the Saratoga City limits, it has been zoned as a Neighborhood Commercial District (C -N). At the time of appellants' acquisition of the property, in January, 1980, it was improved with an "ARCO" filling station making f truck and auto repairs and a former church school complex used i as a music school. On November 26, 1980, the City Planning s� Commission approved appellants' Tentative Map for the property (SDR -1472) and, at the same time, granted Design Review Approval (A -725) for two new buildings on the property. On March 4, 1981 the City Council granted Final Map Approval for this 1.903 acre parcel, which was approved, as one (1) individual building site." (Resolution No. 1472 -02). Immedi- ately following this Final Map Approval, appellants commenced construction of the two - building complex, after demolishing the existing commercial buildings. The larger of the two buildings is now complete and -2- complies in every way with the approved Design Review criteria. This fixes the architectural design for the complex, since Para- graph 2 of subsection (b) of Section 7.15 of the City Zoning Regulations in the City Code states, "2. More than one building. Where there is more than one building or structure in a proposed development the architectural features and landscaping of all the buildings shall be harmonious. These features specifically include roofs, elevations, architectural style, surfacing materials and fenestration." (emphasis added) The following two plates demonstrate geographically that the second smaller building is essentially identical in design to the existing building, thus, complying with the mandatory design requirements imposed by the City.. The second of the two buildings,-like the first, is an office building. "Offices and office buildings" are a specified permitted use in C -N Neighborhood Commercial Districts (Section 7.2 City Code Zoning Regulations pp 249 -250). The second, smaller building, which is the subject of the design review, only varies from the larger building in that it is three feet lower in elevation; has an all- redwood, rather than stucco and redwood, exterior finish; is about 40 percent smaller; and contains 15 parking spaces more than the City Parking Ordin- ance requires (90 v. an allowed 105). -3- •.:... . 'ids ' -�' ���._ � ...- ..,.•,,. _, � ��. . � -••• �i�ii:: X�•1:' .• -e:.. ' °' •.h•. lt;•fY;y,.:r..?(ri•.P�7 =•e,i?.•:rv!M!� �__ _ _.,. XYyES,,.w- ,`.•s..er'rr.•� �y }t 6•i'' -:: °tom. %{..r�,������,,'���p� ^��'�•�'' /�1 �7 "'.";'t'91Y�`.�a-}� -�""�� �.s+r�i+�i! .:. • tea. � .+:.s ' �� v 1l'fl�.�vti. ley .'1'F' .j ♦' �'�• '�• • :.� 1. +Y)g•; �r. _ :'Lr:Nr.S °�;���'' '! .,J'.: ;•c r •j^ '7. •:IC•. �Ti:l ly �� 4 A .4, oR �n p �r ffie� sill, I'ky" iK .. ...... .. s IN Ln ti The height of the building under review is the same as the 22 -foot height approved for this smaller building when design review approval was originally granted for the complex by the Planning Commission. The design complies with the site area, frontage, width, depth, coverage, front - rear -side yard set backs and all other requirements of Article 7 of the City Code governing C -N zoning. As stated, the height is three feet less than its larger companion building and is less than the height of the building to the West, which houses the Challenger Pre - School. The windows of the second floor are oriented North to El Quito Park, which is separated from the site by a previously- approved r fence. To the East is the larger building in the complex and across the street to the South is the Quito Village Shopping Center, recently remodeled and up- graded by the appellants. The Planning Staff in its report dated October 1, 1982 recommended Design Review Approval for this Building "B" in the previously- approved complex stating, "LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING: The landscape plan indi- cates that the landscaping will be consistent with the approved plan and consistent with the existing landscaping for building "A ".. The plan also com- plies with C -N zoning requirements. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: Staff has noted no adverse impacts as a result of enlarging build- ing "B" in terms of design or parking." (emphasis added) "No privacy impacts will result from the second story windows of building "B" as they are oriented toward E1 Quito Park to the rear, Challenger Pre - School to the left and parking lot and Quito Shopping Center to the right and front. Staff has determined that the trip generation with this proposal will be less than what would have been generated with the original proposal, which included retail and customer service office uses." The only reason that Building "B" was presented once again for design review is that it was originally pro- posed as a financial building of the same height, but in a single -story internal design that had high ceilings. Building "B ", as now presented, has a slightly larger footprint (1,556 sq. ft.) than its approved "financial" counterpart and has two interior floor levels rather than one. The scale of the build- ing is approximately the same as is the architectural treat- ment and is significantly smaller than required by the City's Zoning Regulations for this specifically - permitted use. As shown by the October 5, 1982 report of the traffic engineering consultant submitted to the Planning Staff and Com- mission using the building for general offices rather than for a financial institution, as originally approved, will reduce maximum traffic generation to only one -third of the minimum projected for the financial institution (Appendix One attached hereto). r _ 4 -7- l GROUNDS FOR APPEAL 1. The Planning Commission exceeded its discre- tion in denying design review approval. This is so because: (a) Building "B" is a conforming permitted use under the C -N zoning; (b) Buildings "A" and "B" were both approved, as to design, by the City Planning Commission; (c) Building "A" was constructed in accordance with the approved design; (d) This set or fixed the design for the,pro- ject since Section 7.15 covering design review in Com- mercial Districts states, by use of the word "shall ", in mandatory terms that where there is more than one build- ing in a development, "the architectural featuri—_ ar,ri landscaping of all the buildings shall be harmonious. . ." specifically including, . . roofs, elevations, archi- tectural� style, surfacing materials and fenestration." (Section 7.15(b)2, quoted in full supra); (e) These provisions in the City Code must govern the Planning Commission as well as applicants; (f) Therefore, since Building "A" was con- strutted to a City- approved design, by ordinance, Build- ing "B" is required to comply with this same design; -8- (g) It is evident by comparing Plate One and Plate Two (supra), that Building "B" meets the design criteria of Building "A "; (h) The Planning Commission, sitting in a Design Review capacity, was limited to a determination of whether the design presented for Building "B" conformed to that established by Building "A "; (i) It follows that, by turning down an essen- tially identical design, the Commission exceeded its limited discretion. 2. Appellants have a vested right to complete the two- building complex because; (a) This is a single - parcel development on a Final Map approved by the City; (b) Pursuant to the City's Design Review approval for a two - building complex, the appellants razed the existing buildings and commenced construction of the complex; (c) Acting in reliance on the City approvals, appellants have spent several million dollars and have the complex over two - thirds completed; (d) The use remains a conforming, specifically - permitted use; the design having been previously approved -9- and fixed by the construction already in place. It follows that appellants have the vested right to complete the complex. 3. Denial of this Appeal would deprive appellants of this vested right. Such denial would be an invalid exercise of the City's police power under the constraints imposed on the City and the rights reserved to appellants in the Fifth Amend- ment to the United States Constitution and in Article I Section 19 of the California Constitution. 4. The Planning Commission did not permit appellants to be heard. Appellants Saratoga -based general manager was advised by the City Planning Staff that there was no need for t appellants to appear at the Council Chambers prior to 9:00 P.M. on the date set for the Design Review Hearing, October 13, 1982, since appellants' matter was the last item on a lengthy agenda. Appellants' principals had flown South from Canada to attend the hearing. They arrived at the City Council Chambers at 8:45_P.M. The hearing on their item was already in progress. When members of the Commission noted appellants' arrival, they interrupted the testimony to entertain a motion that the hear- ing be closed. The motion carried and appellants were not permitted to be heard at any time at the noticed public hearing. Counsel for appellants concedes that all items on the Planning -10- A Commission agenda were set at one time - 7:30 P.M. However, since appellants were told by the City Planning Staff that they need not appear before 9:00 P.M. and appellants' did appear at 8:45 P.M., while the hearing on their item was in progress, they were denied their right to be heard by the vote to close the hearing as soon as their presence was noted. This was an unnecessary act, rude in the extreme and damaging to this nation's image in Canada. Procedural rights and fair play are as deeply imbedded in Canadian law as in our own. Fortunately, the City Council will have an opportunity to correct the harm done since, under Section 24.7(b) of NS3.51, they are entitled to a hearing de novo before the City Council. Counsel for appellants requested a copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission as they related to the Design Review hearing. He was advised that because certain members of the City Staff were on vacation, the minutes would not be typed up until the week following the week in which this Notice of Appeal was required to be filed. Accordingly, appellants reserve the right to amend and supplement this appeal prior to the hearing before the City Council. DATED: October 22, 1982 Respectfully Submitted, ARTHUR M. SHELTON PROFESSIONAL CQRPORATION A. M.`SHELTO , Att rney for Appellants Quito- Saratoga Center, .. Inc. & Northwest Projects Corp. � C REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION * Amended 10/29/82 DATE: 10/1/82 Commission Meeting: 10/13/82 SUBJECT' A -840 - Quito /Saratoga Center, Cox Avenue and Paseo Presada REQUEST: Design Review Approval to construct a two -story office building ( Buildinq OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: None PLANNING DATA: PARCEL SIZE: 81,700 sq. ft. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial ZONING: C -N SITE DATA: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Commercial, E1 Quito Park, pre- school and single - family residential uses are adjacent to the site. SITE SLOPE: 3% NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 3% None Noted HISTORY: Building "B" has been granted building site approval (SDR- 1472), approval for a 2' height variance (V -539) and design review approval (A -725). With this application, the applicant is requesting to vary from the approved plans by enlarging the building footprint 1,556 sq. ft. and adding a second floor. In size, the building would be increased a total of 7,470 sq. ft. from the approved plan. No increase in height would result from this proposal and the design would not be significantly changed. GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading is required for this project. Report to Planning Comm )n A -840 - Quito /Saratoga enter 10/1/82 Page 2 SETBACKS: Front: 12' Right: To Building "A" - 89' Left: 88' Rear: 54' ( ORIGINAL: Front: 12' Right: To Building "A" - 80' Left: 98' Rear: 54'� HEIGHT: 22' to peak of roof SIZE OF STRUCTURE: lst Floor: 7,356 sq. ft. (Original: 5,800 sq. ft), COLORS & MATERIALS: 2nd Floor: 5,914 sq. ft. Total: 13,270 sq. ft. Redwood siding, bronze anodized windows LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING: The landscape plan indicates that the landscaping will be consistent with the approved plan and consistent with the existing landscaping for building "A ". The plan also complies with C -N zoning requirements. RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: Building "B" matches the design of Building "A" and is compatible with that building as well as adjacent structures. PARKING: In order to enlarge the building square footage of this project, the applicant has redesignated the uses of both buildings "A & B" to business- admini- strative offices which requires a lesser parking ratio (1 space per 400 sq. ft.). The original proposal was to include uses which required parking at 1 space per 200 sq. ft. This revised proposal, therefore, requires 90 parking spaces. The site plan indicates that 105 spaces are provided, therefore, having 15 extra spaces that may be used for employee parking. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: Staff has noted no adverse impacts as a result of enlarging building "B" in terms of design or parking. No privacy impacts will result from the second story windows of building "B" as they are oriented toward E1 Quito Park to the rear, Challenger Pre - School to the left and parking lot and Quito Shopping Center to the right and front. Staff has determined that the trip generation with this proposal will be less than what would have been generated with the original proposal, which included retail and customer service office uses. RECOMMENDATION: Approve per Staff Report dated 10/1/82 and Exhibits "B & C" subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits: A. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Inspection Services. Only these approved plans shall be implemented during construction. B. Any modifications to the proposed site development plan or elevations shall require Community Development Department review and approval. 2. Only those uses which require a parking ratio of 1 space per 400 gross sq. ft. shall be permitted on site. 3. Prior to approval of any signs for either building A or B, applicant shall apply for design review for a signage program. Report to Planning Commission A -840 - Quito /Saratoga Center Approved: Sharon Lester Planner SL /dsc P.C. Agenda 10/13/82 * Amended 10/29/82 10/1/82 Page 3 .ing Commission r Page 4 ing Minutes 10/13/82 l V -597 and A -839 Xcont.) There was a gene r 1 consensus that the findings for the variance could not be made. Chairman Schaefer stated that she felt that the findings could be made, since at he joint meeting of the Commission and City Council the consensus was very trongly reached that the Commission's 5% discretionary allowance would be. ncreased to 20 %, and that vegetation, etc. would be considered. She ma a \iome otion to approve V -597 and A -839, making the findings, i.e., the ant is making use of solar; taking into considera- tion the topography, ther homes in the area, and that the economics and market dictate that have a garage, and that a 6500 sq. ft. home on a one acre lot is noasonable. The motion died for lack of a s econd. It was noted that thicant could withdraw and resubmit when the ordi- nance is effective. s determined that the Design Review Ordinance is being discussed at tt study session and will then be heard by the Commission and City 1 at public hearings. Commissioner Monia moved tk continue this item for 60 days. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, Vhich was carried unanimously 7 -0. It was directed that it be continu d to December 8, 1982. 11. -840 - Quito- Saratoga Center, Cox Avenue and Paseo Presada, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 2 -story office building (Building "B ") Staff explained the project. The parking requirements were discussed. The public hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m. Neal Beaman, the architect, clarified that originally the project was meant to be a single story financial office, and it has now been modified to a two -story building. Kathy McBoldrick, 12860 Paseo Presada, stated that she lives across the street from the building that is adjacent to this one, and it is a mon- strosity. She expressed her opposition to this two -story building being built next to it. Joan Faunce, 18644 Bucknall Road, stated that she was the president of the E1 Quito Park Homeowners Association. She noted that their concerns were: (1) traffic through the area, (2) height of non - residential buildings in existing residential area, and (3) type of occupant in new buildings. She stated that they prefer limited use, with no retail or commercial. Terry Griswold, 12618 Paseo Olivos, commented on the cars parked in front of the buildings on Cox Avenue, and also on the traffic flow. She expressed her concern about the safety of the children who attend the preschool. Dr.Y I. Beebe inquired as to- feedback from the community. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the preschool operation and the traffic flow. Concern was expressed by the Commission relating to the intensity of the use, set- backs and traffic; specifically in regard to the preschool. Renaldo Martinez, traffic engineer, reported on a traffic study he had done for the applicant. He stated that from a traffic standpoint the proposed change would be definitely favorable, since there would be considerably less traffic. Discussion followed on the permitted uses in that district. Commissioner Nellis moved to deny A -840. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion. The motion was carried 6 -1, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting, stating that she would prefer that there be further discussion and compromise on the issue. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Discussion followed on a letter regarding the Parker Ranch area. Possible barricades were discussed. Staff noted that there is an off - street vehicle ordinance in the City, and they indicated that they will review it and 0 . -4- _ � i c• !t • GENERAL NOTES p R«u aur,o •...Ir � n� r:,"�n eae ....L,Irt r.uu , u. �.>.. � Ln�r c,.rLV. m vr,r�w r.tt a awmc. e,«.+ ' 1ai1 ....... n9. to tYQ ti' m wwnP U C N,y,�wr .«R �icux ror. ^rte n ,: ue, wYVr CLL,,. u. 49� . � Pwrr• rwwLrlc +n y+IM 9'+LTlwo . µI RI 91,[ <n., (( rYrRR � gbvrr�sulr.u�iavwrw ' I r v V) Y bu (a^[b Ylu:4W ririo s9 u.L. � - (rl yr +n +4 L�vbv V 9r:ua: t Rai A'T�•ry r.orn�t4 >r« . p . u r„e.�o�erLm "" rox nwon`• Y.�I,�Wtt re. . � -., T�v. - - -' -.� aye- • -�r��� "`I Ffif BUILDING B e%ISTING BUILDING rA -11 .\ 'z�ttr OFFICES V j 14- '�\ f.L,fy^ ♦ ? I '•,,�Te JJri') __ r -' I l- :«•T -t.al offi fs �bj'"%�", o� wf COX AVENUE CALCULATIONS . LEGAL DESCRIPTION r r. .n, n•wLrl ra _- . ... 'n.r.. I..r�[ru. .L�'-rur. .r, „[T :.r R....r.l wll .e.Y_ ,_ _ - ro+r o+a�ra 'vnaveyc +nor m �:�'°'w+['. •Ywr�,w ry rr..i ln�'. - fueV Nmw (rinY+) r .l.vw� elvlC wvf 41rWNH a �L td legit w bv�i( •r'raF rys.' . Irsuw a r trtr I . - c.rru.rr.. t ru e I.rn<.r1:. 9., •. r[rr µrrrtJ ^, oral l�rr Yr+ ra l7rrur .. ' v�iaarry Owyuu �mWU ,wi u `.r O41`.twL ecr r •_ r•r..r .... •_(rrr..rl .. w. Rrr RurV rr.. .. .. .. w �wc ...... 4 -._ :_._ . .. - = .rn nr�•rr �,-. 11�St S• ...nYrt *ra wvtuusRW' [u4 rr s.o o.la. rut' TtLLT p�L -. - Sr„ - :. , ♦ veyMU A Irfa R[T T nrL PrwT q tteMwW ?_ - '.:.:'ru[n9f site p{on - .;.:r,4. ". -,vtrw ` =C :L• 59it :yr .. ._t:. •. 7 -.17 Y. VICINITY MAP . �_ •_ ::•_r.. _. _ _ ..... - .. `(' n '' '�( /fib ( TELEPHONE t 415) 943-1105 October 5, 1982 Mr. Rick Jones Urban Design Group 210 -18 Gostick Place North Vancouver, BC V7M 3G3 CANADA Re: Dear Mr. Jones: RENATO G. N1ARTINEZ.'C.E, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANT P.O. Box 177 LOS ALTOS. CALIFORNIA 94022 RG M ASSOCIATED OFFICE: 146 MAIN STREET LOS ALTOS. CALIFORNIA Office Development - Northwest Corner Cox Avenue and Paseo Presada - Saratoga, California The proposed change of Buildil substantially. (907 TE Min. - Peak hour traffic for banks between 4:30 and 6:00 P.M. a bank, 15.1 %, as opposed to ig B from a bank to offices will reduce traffic generation Bank vs. 312 TE Max., Proposed Offices) *­ occurs at midday whereas office peak hour traffic is However, the peak hour intensity is slightly higher for offices, 15.0;'6 (137 vs. 47). From a traffic standpoint, offices would have much less of an impact on vicinity streets than a bank and consequently the change would be favorable. Sincerely,, Renato G. Martinez, C.E. RGM:RT Trip Ends Progress Reports - Offices Report 10, Table 10; Financial Institutions Report 11, Table 4. , P.O. BOX 177 • LOS ALTOS. CALIFORNIA 94022 • TELEPHONE (415) 948 -1105 ' APPENDIX ONE r TELEPHONE (41 5) 948-1105 October 5, 1982 Generator Sq.F t. TE /1000 sq.ft. Min Avg M ax % Peak Hour I RGM ASSOCIATE RENATO G. MARTINEZ. C.E, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANT P.O. Box 177 LOS ALTOS. CALIFORNIA 94022 OFFICE: 146 MAIN STREET LOS ALTOS. CALIFORNIA TI 130 -82 CITY OF SARATOGA OFFICE DEVELOPMENT , N.W. Corner of Cox Avenue - Paseo Presada Proposed Change to Building B Support Data Bank Offices 5,800 13,200 156.5 8.8 179.1 14.9 207.2 23.6 15.1% 15.0% AWDT /Pk.Hr. AWDT /Pk.Hr. Min 907/137 116/17 Avg 1038/157 19.7/30 Max 1201/181 312/47 Pk-Hr. Occurs Midday 4:30 -6:00 P.M. r . *Source Report 11, Table 4 Report 10, Table 10 * CalTrans District 4 Trip Ends Generation Research. AWDT - Average Weekday Daily Traffic. % Office vs. Bank 12.8% 19.0% 25.9% P.O. BOX 177 • LOS ALTOS. CALIFORNIA 94022 • T[fVePHPNE (415) 948.1105 APPENDIX ONE { C REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City ci Sarctoga D \I t; •/� /yq DATE: 9 /18/80 Commission Meeting: 9/24/80 SUBJECT A -725 Northwest Projects Corporation, northwest corner of Cox Avenue and Paseo Presada REQUEST: Design Review Approval for two commercial structures, one of which will house a financial institution and the other will house professional office /retail uses. SITE SIZE: 81,700 sq. ft. ZONING: C -N (Neighborhood Commercial) - PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: I.. Size of gtructures: Building A: Lower Level: 13;945 sq. ft. Upper Level: 8,736 sq. ft. Building B: .5,800 sq. ft. 2. Site.Coverage By Structures: 24 %± 3.- Site Slope:--, 1 %+ 4. Height of Structures: Building A: 25' Building B: 22' 5. Finished Floor Elevations: 6. Exterior Facade: Materials: Color: 7. Roof Materials_ Building A: Building B: Building A: 79.0' Building B: 80.5' Slumpstone with white cement coating, redwood horizontal siding, and white stucco. White and natural redwood. Flat, built up roof to be hidden by redwood parapet. Anodized aluminum panels (sample to be submitted for review). Report to Planning C., ission 9/18/80 Ar725 Page 2 8. Grading Required: The applicant has indicated that less than 1,000 cubic yards of cut or fill will be necessary to accommodate the project. Maximum cut or fill depth has been estimated at 1 foot +. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be reviewed by the Department of Inspection Services prior to issuance of building permits. 9. Design: Building A will be a two -story structure and Building B will be a single -story structure. Building A will utilize a landscaped balcony around the second floor. The balcony will be partially covered by a dark brown wooden trellis. The design of the building will be contemporary in style and will be compatible with the shopping center across the street. Building B will also be contemporary in design utilizing the same materials as Building A with the exception that an anodized aluminum roof will be used. The Planning Commission indicated at its Committee -of- the -Whole meeting that there were some concerns regarding the nearness of the balcony of Building A to the property line as well as whether or not two large maple trees could be preserved. No revised plans addressing these issues have been submitted. A variance is required for the height of both buildings (V -539) which must be approved prior to approval of this application. Sufficient parking for the project will be provided for the mixture of proposed uses as shown on the site development plan. (Retail Uses - 3,200 sq. ft., 16 spaces; Office Uses - 19,480 sq. ft., 49 spaces; Financial Use - 5,800 sq. ft., 29 spaces; 10 spaces provided for employee parking; 5 extra spaces provided in addition). Two loading berths meeting ordinance requirements have also been provided. Adequate landscaping around the perimeter of the site has generally been provided. However, only a 2.5' landscaping strip will be provided to the rear of Building B where 5' is normally required. This strip can be increased by removing the loading berth and the landscaping planter to the rear of Building B and moving the aisleway 2.5' further south. The - loading berth is not required since there is only 3,200 sq. ft. of retail sapce and the remainder is office space. (No loading berths are required for retail uses less than 5,000 sq. ft. and only one berth is required for 5,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. of gross office area.) The materials proposed by the applicant are acceptable and are similar to the materials used in the shopping center across the street. The applicant should be aware that the Flowering Plum and the Wild Strawberry will require more care and may be more susceptible to pests. Olive trees will.,-also be used in the plan but the Flowering Plum will be the dominant tree type. No lighting or signage programs have been proposed. A new Design - Review Application will have to be submitted to analyze these items. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per Staff Report dated September 18, 1980 and Exhibits "B ", "C ", "D ", & "E" subject to the following conditions: Report to Planning Cam_ ission A1.725 1. Prior to issuance of building permits: 9/18/80 Page 3 A. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Inspection Services. Only these approved plans shall be implemented during construction. B. Any modifications to the proposed site development plan or elevations shall require Planning Department review and approval. C. A revised landscaping plan showing a 5' wide landscaping strip along the rear property line behind. Building B shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection /occupancy. D. A solid masonary wall shall be erected between the park and the subject site. Design of this wall shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval. Approved: T% Micliael Flores, Planner I MF /clh P. C. Agenda: 9/24/80 t � AIA5 CITY 01: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 26, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. PI'M E: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Absent: f Minutes Commissioners King, Laden, Marshall, Schaefer, Williams and Zambetti Commissioner Siegfried The following cor ctions were made to the minutes of. November 12, 1980: On page 4, the iast s ntencc of the fifth paragraph should read: "Mr. Takamoto commented that one ier is 16 ft. in height between the parking area and ground below." On p ge 5, the last paragraph under A -741., the date for the study session should ead December 16, 1980, rather than November 16, 1980. With those charges, C mnissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to waive the reading of the minutes of November 12, 1980 and approve as distributed. The mo ion was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR I. SDR -1438 - Angelina Ar ta, Maudc Avcnue,.3 Lots, Final Building Site A roval Commissioner Zambetti mo cd, seconded by Commissioner King, to approve the above item on the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried unanimously. TENTATIVE BUILDING SITE APPROVALS 2a. Negative'Declaration - SDR -1472 - Northwest Projects 2b SDR -1472 -'• Quito- Saratoga Center, Inc. (Northwest Projects), Tentative ;A 725 Bui.l.ding Site Approval and Design Review Approval pproval for the construction of a 5,800 sq. ft. financial building and a i" 22,681 sq. ft. two -story office and retail building at the northwest corner of Cox Avenue and Paseo Presada; Continued from November 12, 1980 Staff described these applications and explained the mitigation measures which have been added to the Negative Declaration and the Staff Report for the .Tentative Building Site Approval. It was noted that at the last meeting the Commission gave their conceptual approval for this project. It was noted that Condition G should be added to read: "Two (2) specimen trees shall be planted to replace the two maple trees being removed." Arthur Sheldon, representing the applicant, stated that they accept the conditions of the reports. He thanked the Commission and Staff for their study and constructive criticisms during this procedure. Commissioner Marshall moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR -1472, on the batik Of the mitigation measures outlined. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion, which carried, with Commissioner 7.mhetti dissenting. Commissioner Marshall moved to approve SDR -1472, per the Staff Report dated September 18, 1980, as amended. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Schaefer and Zambetti dissenting. Commissioner Marshall moved to approve A -725, per the Staff Report dated September 24, 1980, Commissioner Williams seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Schaefer and Zambetti dissenting. Commis - v sioner Zambetti stated that the minutes of November 12, 1930 reflect his Xs it Tr reasons for voting no on these items. Commissioner Schaefer stated she r Planning Commission Page 2 M.inUtCS- 11/26/80 SDR-1472 and A-725 (cont.) was voting no I)CCaUSO OC the intcliSity of the development. Commissioner witliqms commented that the applicant his worked closely with the neighborhood association, as well as Staff, in developing a project which adds to this area Of Our City. 110 noted there are other two-story structures in the area. Commissioner Williams stated that this project 1 will provide lights for the park and help prevent vandalism, and he feels it will be an exceptional project when completed. Chairman Laden thanked the Quito Homeowners Association for all of their help and input into this project. It was noted that the homeowners associ- ation had contacted over 600 individual,,; in the neighborhood. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3a. Negative Dccla\ation - Request to add moped and scooter sales in the "C-C" District 3b. Requost to add n ped and scooter sales to the list of conditional uses in "C-C" the (COMMU ity-Commercial) District (GF-321(a) 4. UP-474 - Kongsli � Halcomh (R000r liziao), Request for a Use Permit to allow mo ed and scooter sale' s within a completely enclosed trYctur strU tUr in the "C-C" (Community- Commercial) District at 144 1.0 Big Basin Way The above three item- were discussed together. Staff described the proposal for UP-474. They co mcnted that the addition of moped and Scooter sales will have to be added to the list of conditional uses in the "C-C" District before a use permit C Uld he granted. Staff indicated that Findings must be made for the additi n of this use, which are listed in the Exhibit "B" of the Resolution. Th conditions the Staff Of Report For UP -474 were discussed and also the onditions of the Staff Report on the addition to the list of conditional use-,; in the "C-C" District. It was the consensus of he Commission that the addition to the list of conditional uses should icad: "Moped and Scooter Sales and sorvicell and in the definition of ML�c od.", after the word "pedals", should ho' added the words (as on a IT—CYCIC). Also, in the definition of "Motor Looter", 200 cc's should )c replaced with 1.25 cc's, and (larger engines up to 200 cc's in displ,i 1c, ent may be permitted if the other criteria for 'c motor scooters are complied p 1 c with and compliance is Certified by the p Planning Department) should d be added. The description of the iuses to be added to the list of c.n1it nal uses in the "C-C" District should be: "Moped and Motor Scooter Sal s and Service within a compictoiN• enclosed structure. Any sale or scrvi o of motorcycles, automobile-, off- road, or other vehicles that do not fit within the moped or motor scooter definition outlined are not P rmitted." It was rioted that there will be n'b outside display used by the applicant. The public hearing was opened a 8:00 p.m. Paul Sherry, a partner in the st re directly opposite the site, stated s C that they look forward to this d rmant corner being used. that with this proposal he 17001, He commented s t will be utilized tastefully and in a very nice, colorful but not Fla. Iv manner. He added that lie' felt the pro - ject wi�ll he a big addition to he Village, since. it I)rilllls -1 Continental flavor. Mr. Sherry stated that 110 !011lcl like to see the Commission allow Mr. Haag to clispi.ay some t1lillVs out -ide if 110 needs to, since he would like to see the business SLICCCCd, and ov rythi.ng the applicant has done has been in good tasto. Pat Stewart, Mr. Sherry's partner, s -ited that lie felt 200 cc's should he allowed, since that amount would he n oded by someone his size. Chairman Laden pointed out that a M,*lXiMUln of 2(0 cc's could be allowed, but with Staff rcvi.cw. Pat Lowey, owner of the Chevron station on Oak and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, stated that he felt the applicant was one of the best proprietors of the hardware store since it opened, a d he felt that Mr. Haag would not S. 2 4 c r REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City of Saratoga APPPOVED BY: : J� DATE :, �7) INIi;.l�: DATE: 9/18/80 Commission Meeting: 9/24/80 SUBJECT' V -539 Northwest Projects Corporation, northwest corner of Cox Avenue and Paseo Presada --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- REQUEST: To allow the construction and a 25' high commercial height. SITE SIZE: of a 22' high commercial structure structure where 20' is the maximum Approximately 81,700 sq. ft. ZONING: "C -N" (Neighborhood- Commercial) STAFF ANALYSIS: This application is part of a development plan for the site which would involve the removal of the existing commercial structures. Building A is a two -story structure (22,681 sq. ft.) which is proposed to be 25' in height and Building B is a single story structure (5,800 sq. ft.) which is proposed to be 22' in height. The applicant has indicated that it is practically "impossible" to build a two -story office building with the 20' height limitation and a two -story structur.e.is necessary.to_ make the project economically practical. Also, the roof height of the structures have been integrated in design and are necessary to screen roof mounted mechanical equipment. No adverse visual or shading impacts are anticipated if the proposed variances are granted due to structure location and the buffering provided by the adjacent Quito Park. The situation for this project is similar to the situation in the Azule Shopping Center where the Commission granted a variance for a 25' high structure (V -482) and one for a 25' high structure (V -504). A Tentativc Buifdi -ag _ite Approval application (SDR -1472) and Design Review Application (A -725) are also on this agenda for this project. FINDINGS- 1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship: The proposed variance is necessary to allow a two -story structure to be practically constructed and to allow the screening of roof mounted mechanical �} d Report to Planning Cd, fission V -539 9/18/80 Page 2 equipment. As the applicant has indicated, it is quite difficult to construct a two -story commercial structure with a 20' height limitation. The 2' height variation for the single -story structure helps maintain the design theme of the proposed office complex. 2. Exceptional Circumstances: The exceptional circumstance associated with the project is that the two -story structure requiring the five foot high variance allows for the maximum provision of parking and thus allows optimum development of the site. The height variation for the single -story structure allows some unification in design for the project which is considered desirable. The C -N district's 20' height limitation is restrictive. Ail increase in the height limitation for this district appears to be desirable considering the construction constraints for commercial buildings. Eventually the zoning ordinance (currently being revised) should reflect this change. 3. Common Privilege: The applicant would be deprived of a common privilege since other commercial structures in similar situations in the C -N district have been granted such variances. Adjacent residential areas allow a maximum height of 30' and would only require a Design Review (public hearing) for a structure over 22' in height. The impacts due to allowing higher commercial structures as proposed would not appear to be greater than for residential structures. 4. Special Privilege: The granting of this variance would not be a grant of special privilege since variances for commercial structures in similar situations have been granted. Also, if the zoning ordinance is amended to increase the height limitation in commercial districts (as anticipated) the structures would be in conformance with the revision. 5. Public Health, Safety, and Welfare: The granting of the variances 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 September 18, 1980 and Exhibits "C" & "D" subject to the following conditions: 1. Building A shall be no higher than 25' and Building B shall be no higher than 22'. 2. This application shall be subject to the conditions listed under Design Review Application A -725. COMMENTS: 1. This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its Committee - of- the -Whole meeting of September 2, 1980. Report to Planning Ccl__ fission V -539 Approved: t; MF /clh P. C. Agenda: 9/24/80 9/18/80 Page 3 Michael Flores, Planner I Planning (:0111 I11i.5 S i 011 Minutes - 9/ 24/80 SDR -1473 (cotilt.) are also conshstent with the General Plan. 5_3 Pa-c 6 c The motion was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. . 6a. Negative Doc Iar, ion - UP -463 - Richard Raynes ob. UP -468 - Richard Rayner, Request Eor a Use Permit to allow the construe tion of 1 recreational court on a lot with an average slope greater Ian 10'a on the cast side of Sohey Road about 700 ft. south of Siring Brook Lane Staff reported that hey are requesting that this item be continued. They indicated that he\' have some concerns because the house will have to be shifted and the have not seen a total site plan which shows the house and the tennis oil rt. The puhlic hearing was opened at 9:01 p.m. It was directed that thi_ item be continued to October 3, IN 7a N c g a t i Declaration - SDR -1472 - Quito - Saratoga Center, Inc. i 11-531 Quito- Saratoga Center, Inc., Request for a Variance to allow a 1.172 -22' high commercial structure and a 2S' high commercial A -72S structure to be constructed where 20' is the maximum height limit; Rcqucst for Tentative Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval for the construction of a 5,300 sq. ft. financial building and a 22,681 sq. ft. two -story office and retail build - in!, at the northwest corner of Cox Avenue and Pasco Presada Staff save a description of the project. They reported that the applicant has moved the building about 17 ft. further away from the intersection of Pasco Presada and Cox Avenue. They explained that this movement has eliminated two maple trees that exist on the site, but the applicant will put in specimen trees to replace them. Discussion followed on the possibility of a mid -block cross -walk to facilitate access from one side to the other, primarily because of the retirement housing. The Public Works Staff commented that they generally prefer them at intersections but have no problem with this proposal. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she has some very strong concerns about•having a two -story building placed in that area. The liublic hearing was opened at 9:32 p.m. Dave Moyles, 13179 Pasco Presada, representing the Quito Homeowners Association, stated that they have notified a lot of people and have met with the developers. He explained that their primary concern is traffic, the intensity of the use, not the building itself. lie commentcd that tile\' do not feel the traffic study which has been made is really an accurate assessment, and they feel they would like more inEormation. The egress and ingress were discussed. Mr. Moyles commented that students who are handicapped from GI Quito School use Pasco Presada and Cox Avenue For their daily walks, and lie suggested the use of median strips. Ile discussed their other concerns, including use of neighborhood streets for deliveries;,' -storm sewers, trees, bulletin hoard in shopping center, and a mid - street cross walk with a bench for the seniors. Mr. Movies also discussed the congestion at the Golden Mushroom Pizza Restaurant, along with the vandalism, drag racing, and consumption of alcohol in the park- - ing lot, lie stated that lie feels there should be additional security provided by the tenant or developer, and additional lighting. Mr. Moyles indicated that they favor the Professional - Administrative uses; they would not favor another restaurant. It was pointed out that there is a con- dition in the huilding site approval that no restaurant use is allowed on .,r 9 R•e!�yRi V e�4�oi!M+erriax,•y,yr Planning Commission l'age 7 Minutes 9/ 24/S0 V -S39 - SDR -1"172 A- 72S (coat.) the site. David Auld, 18873 Dundee Avenue, stated that he was concerned about traffic. Ile indicated that he would like some sort of moratorium in that area, since there are a lot of problems that are not resolved. Mr. Auld commented that lie felt a good exact traffic count was needed. I lie also suggested that the Commission consider a pedestrian overpass to make it safe for senior citizens and the school children. Kathy Lagoldrick, .1'_860 Pasco Presada, commented on the activities of the Golden Mushroom and the park in her neighborhood. She explained that she cannot get any sleep because of the activities in that neighborhood. Ms. Lapoldrick stated that there are bottles on her lawn and something needs to he done about the harassment to the neighbors. She stated that this particular project only disturbs her in terms of the density of the traffic and whatever the retail store is going to be; she is nervous about it possibly being a -11 type or something that will furnish more undesira- bles at that corner. Klaus Richter, the owner of the project, addressed the traffic. lie also stated that then had inherited the Golden Mushroom situation; however, the restaurant is now renovating and want to upgrade. Fie stated that they will try to keep the rowdy behavior to a minimum and will do every - thing possible within the terms of the lease. Fie commented that thev also want to provide the two cross - walks, one at the intersection and one at mid -st -cot, and will also provide beneches for the seniors. Renato Martine- gave a presentation on the traffic study that had been made. Commissioner Marshall commented that he had a problem with the base on which the figures have been constructed. lie asked if the Nest Valley College traffic had been taken into consideration for the peak hour traffic volume, which occurs in the morning and again in the early evening; also the area on Coe, extending from the existing shopping center back to Saratoga Avenue. Mr. Martinez explained the base figure and the calculations. Fie indicated that the anticipated traffic volumes reflected in the report are the worst possible conditions from the general projection of traffic. Fie stated that he feels it includes all of the current growth in that area but not the ultimate growth." Commissioner Marshall,' that the City ought to be doing some measurement of whati�tc ultimate traffic flow arc and what the design solutions are for that traffic flow in and around the shopping; center and adjacent streets. Ile stated that he felt the fact should be recognized that very shortly, with this addition and given any pressure in the future to develop in that area, there will be a very serious traffic problem in this area. Mr. Moyles commented that lie would like the Commission to keep in mind that their area will have to live with the aggregate consequence of all of the ultimate growth in that area. Commissioner Siegfried stated that lie had the following observations: 1) Ile feels some additional studv is needed that takes into account the condominiums that are being developed and other potential future develop- ment in that -area as far as traffic is concerned; and 2) There should be some way that we can constraill . the flow of traffic from this particular piece of property so that it would at least reduce the impact that this project has, to hopefuLly direct the traffic out of the residential area. Commissioner Kin; commented that lie had concern about the alternate use Of Building 11. Klaus Richter commented that they were not contemplating another restaurant and the alternate use would be offices. _ 2 _ �t Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes 9/24/3o V -S39 - SDR -1.17' - . \ -7'S (cont.) It was the general feclin; anlonl; the Commission that there is no problem with the variance application and they could act on it at this time and continue the other items. Commissioner Zamhetti stated that he has difficulty with a two -story building in that location and would be voting 110. Commissioner = anlbetti moved to close the public hearing on the variance application. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Marshall moved to approve V -S39 per the Staff Report, making the findings. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion, which was carried, With Commissioners Schaefer and 7ambCtCl dissenting. It was directed that a study sesion will be held on October 21, 193(1 on SDR 1 -172 and : \ -72S, and these items will he continued to the regular meeting on November 12, 193o. In the interim the concerns regarding the mitigation of traffic generation specific to this site and the neighbors' concerns re, ;aiding the night -time activities can he considered. It was pointed out to the applicant that consideration should be given to keep the congregation of the cars from the back of the lot. DESIGN RFVlEh' .. ... ...sou S. A -726 - Quito- Saratog Center, Inc., Sign Program at southwest corner of Cox Avenue an Paseo Presada, Final Design Review Approval Staff described the pro osed sign program. Staff suggested that all of the previously existing igns that don't conform to the sign program, as proposed by the appli ant, should be deleted. It was also noted that th re should be a condition which states that approval of this program d es not constitute approval of the exact signage shown as a rcprese tation. Rick Jones, of the Urban De ign Group, discussed the possibility of using some sort of architect ral decor at either side of the signage. It was determined that this ould be allowed, with the stipulation that logos per se do not fall witl'n that category, and the decor would he subject to Staff approval. Commissioner 7a11111etti moved to approve A -726 per the Staff Report dated September '18, 198[),-amended to read "All existing signs in the shopping center that do not conform to t e proposed program shall be removed and rcplaLcd within (i months. "; "Ap roval of this signage program does not constitute approval of the exac signage shown as a representation in the exhibits provided by the appli- t. "; and "Architectural sign design fcatures that are not logos arc Il owed subject t.o.Planning Department review and approval.. Said design features or details shall not he included in the square footage calculation of individual tenant signs." Commis- sioner Marshall seconded the motio , which was carried unanimously. 9. A -732 - Ronald Maas, Camino Barco, Single- Family Residence, Final Design Review Approval Staff described the present proposal stating that several huilding designs have, been proposed for this .ite in the recent past and have either been denied by the Planning Co mission or the City Council. Staff gave a comparison of this design and hat approved by the Architectural Review Committee and denied by the Cit Council. Commissioner Marshall commented that ic neighbors arc going to he looking at tile. back of this home and that needs to be addressed. He stated that he has difficulty with the fact that th slope calculations suddenly changed so dramatically. It was explain d by Staff that the site slope ,;K - 8 - V.- / ee r0�r1MU ?�T� iicv �;.�pll�I'!T 04.1%y. ,400 S 4455 Union Avenue San Jose, CA 95124 559 -3939 Saratoga City Planning Commission January 11, 1983 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Commission Members: Regarding the development of the property immediately adjacent to the property line of Challenger School, there would appear to be the potential for a traffic conflict between cars utilizing the driveway of the proposed office building and those entering Challenger School's. A possible solution might be a requirement that cars from the office building exit to the right only when turning onto Cox Avenue. Challenger is very willing to erect a sign advising its customers to make a right turn only when exiting onto Cox Avenue during the children's arrival and departure times. Please contact me if Challenger may be of further assistance in the promo- tion of traffic safety on Cox Avenue. Cordial y you s, i DUSTIN B. BAKER Administrator (OMEW oo §&MZ1xQX5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3138 OFFICE: Community Development January 12, 1983 Mr. Dustin B. Baker Administrator Challenger Schools 4455 Union Avenue San Jose, CA 95124 Dear Mr. Baker: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon Martha Clevenger Virginia Fanelli John Mallory David Moyles We have received your letter of January 11, 1983 regarding the development of the property immediately adjacent to the pro- perty line of Challenger School (Application #A -840). At their study session of January 11, 1983, the Saratoga City Council reached a consensus agreement to require the closing of the driveway to which you refer, thereby eliminating any traffic conflict. The final determination on this matter will be made by the City Council at their regular meeting on January 19, 1983. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, Ro ert S. hook Director of Community Development RSS:cd cc: Deputy City Clerk with attachment-/ CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO: 211 DATE: December 15, 1982 Initial: Dept. Head. City Atty : DEPARTMENT: Maintenance City Mgr - SUBJECT: Community Center Heating /Cooling Units Award of Contract Issue Summary The 1982 -83 Capital Improvement Budget includes $9,000 to cover the cost of replacing a heating /cooling unit and a cooling condensor unit in the Community Center. We have received five (5) formal proposals for this project with O.C. McDonald Co., Inc. submitting the low bid of $6,599.00. Recommendation Council should award the contract to O.C. McDonald Co. and authorize Mayor to execute the Contract. Fiscal Impact The funds for this project are included in the current Capital Improvement Budget and will come from the "Equipment Replacement Revolving Fund ". Exhibits /Attachments Summary of Bids. Council Action 12/15: Mallory /Moyles moved to award contract to O. C. McDonald in the amount of $6,599.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. Passed 5 -0. Date: —Nov. 3014 O Y), Time :-2 L) 0 P M CITY OF SARATOGA ATP CTTMMARV Job : U i-I A-1 v n H -e v jinw / l yi.r %r.rh (> 12175' r ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT Final Est. rY I k/ rVlxl�t�� 5l �n� Wfij if Acc a 7 '�i. Tu (v +bc► % NO1. 9Ga0 tQ,6,A4,cA)VAJk/,1 'O 7 :3 "e 7 7_ 117,AY A I N No Z 7 3! 1t P,a i. K z ,e Pic 'c -v !� ✓f `1. ..l erghtz, C. 79 T O 'T A L S. . I��G,S lave �1,31� %77G,J7 "Aw I k-; z--r CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO: J / O Initial: Dept. Head: DATE: December 15, 1982 City Atty DEPARTMENT: Maintenance City Mgr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- SUBJECT: Pierce Road Storm Drain Issue Summa The City received bids on November 29, 1982 for Pierce Road Storm Drain. Nine bids were received. The lowest bid was $39,235 which is in excess of the budgeted funds. This bid includes the 12" overlay and repair of street failure along that section of Pierce Road. Recommendation Award contract to low bidder, J.M. Inman, for a contract amount of $39,235. Fiscal Impact $35,000 - these funds were budgeted in the 1982 -83 fiscal year. An additional $7,200 must be appropriated to complete this project which will cover engineering, inspections and contingencies. This appropriation may come from either Gas Tax or Storm Drain funds. Exhibits /Attachments Bid Summary. Council Action 12/15: Fanelli /Mbyles moved to award to J.M. Inman and authorize Mayor to execute contract in the amount of $39,235, adopting resolution 1099.6. Passed 5 -0. DATE:- Nov. 29_,198L TIME: 2. P.M City of Saratoga Community Development Department -BID SUMMARY- 011Ct-'L 1 U1 � PROJECT PIERCE ROAD STORM DRAIN E'Engr. Estimate Description Install : 1 M 1 • • . 1 M 1 :Install 24 • ■® 1 1 1 11 Install 12" R.C.P. 1 1 , 1 ,1 Ili .11 11 .1 •11 Ii�� • - - •. • • ol,. • •11 11 ; :1 1 x•11 11 11 11 all 1 111 :11 111 • - �I 11 :11 1 1 11 .11 .11 I 11 11 11 11 Type 11 11 1 11 : 11 :11 I 11 11 11 11 iai -• • :,of Pierce '•.• 11 11 111 11 11 ® • 1 ® •11 • • •.• .® _ 11 111 ® •• 11 � 1 .1 X11 � 1 © 5% Contingencies : 1 City of Saratoga Community Development Department_ DATE:- Nov. 29,198L � BID S � TIME: 2 00 P.m. bneet 2 of 3 PROJECT Engr. Estimate halmer Gla e Pacific Under Piazza .e Description Quantity it nit is Amount P3517,745 Amount nit Amount it Amount it ArrlOUrit 1 Install 18" R.C.P. 35 17,745 4.32..22 470.24 47 23,829 2 Install 24 C.M.P. 35 45 1 575 75 2 625 5.23 2 28 .05 50 3 Install 12" R.C.P. 15 30 30 450 40 600 30 450 40.00 600.00 50 1 750 4 Concrete Standard Manh '950 4,750 1500 7,500 1070 5,350 1500 7 500 5 C=3truct tc 1 Each goo 650 650 750 750 1300 1,300.00 750 750 6 "C" one c assn 1 Each 500 500 800 800 975 975 1000 1,000.00 700 700 " 6,7 20 58.50 8,552 57-50 50 8- of Pierce Road 2 50 5 12,500 2.95 7,375 •20 5 500.00 3 7,500 9 Rip Rap 15 C.Y. 200 3,000 125 1 1,875 268.5 4,027.50 176.4 2,646.00 100 1,500 Sub -Total 47,215 47,999.50 48 709.29 49,879 + 5% Contingencies 1,820 Total 38,225 City of Saratoga Community Development Department DATE:- Nov. 29 -0198-L BI D S Uhn[MARY TIME: 2 00 p M ,)jjueL 3 U1 3 PROJECT PIERCE RDAD STORM DRAIN M,Engr. Estimate Description rl Instal 18 R. C. P. I nstall 24 C.M.P. Concrete •. • • o- l,. . •11 l�Li7iL��C • � ■:��'Fi�� �.I : 1 1 : 11 • 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 �•- I. Cil �- �I 1�1 11 • 11 • 11 11 EPO Aft- �• • �i1� ® .. 1 1 : _ of Pierce '•`.• • 11 11 111 " 11 - S • '.• ® 11 111 .� •.1 11 • •- - 1 ■ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARMOGA INCREASING APPROPRIA- TIONS AND AMENDING THE 1982 -83 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET WHEREAS, it is recommended that the following adjustment be made increasing the present budget appropriations: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of Saratoga adopted by Resolution 1099 be amended as follows: Transfer: $7,200.00 from general ledger account 87 -2900, local drainage facilities fund balance available, to general ledger account 87 -2940 local drainage facilities fund appropriations. Subsidiary: Fund 87 - Local Drainage Facilities Program 952 - Pierce Road Storm Drain Purpose: To appropriate the funds necessary to increase the scope of work to include overlaying the project area with 1'" asphalt. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the day of , , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk MAYOR CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO: 3� 9 Dept. Head,: DATE: December 15, 1982 City Atty DEPARTMENT: Maintenance City Mgr . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Rate Increase - Signal Maintenance Contract -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Issue Summar We have recently received a request from Signal Maintenance, Inc. for an increase in the rate which they charge monthly to perform the routine maintenance on our traffic signals. Our Contract with them provides that an adjustment "may be negotiated each year following the anniversary date of this agreement. These negotiations will be based upon the Consumer Price Index, San Francisco, and will be subject to the approval of the City ". The request points out that the C.P.I. increased 11.2% for the June 1981 to June 1982 period. This percentage applied to our current rate of $58.81 per intersection per month would add $6.,59 and bring the rate to $65.40. The request is that the new rate take effect on November 1, 1982. Recommendation Council should approve the requested rate adjustment and appropriate the necessary funds to cover the increase. Fiscal Impact The increase applied to the remaining eight (8) months of the fiscal year will cost an additional $316.16 and may cause the budget for account 41- 4156 - 712 -70 to be exceeded by that amount. Exhibits /Attachments Letter from Signal Maintenance, Inc. with attachments. Council Action 12/15: Mallory /Fanelli moved to approve requested rate adjustment and adopt resolution 1099'.7. Passed 5 -0. SIGNAL MAINTENANCE INC. MAIN OFFICE: 2720 E. REGAL PARK DR., ANAHEIM, CA 92806 • (714) 630 -4900 REGIONAL OFFICES: 3395 VISO CT., SANTA CLARA, CA 95050 • (408) 988 -5541 8841 PRODUCTION AVE., SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 • (714) 578 -7961 October 4, 1982 Mr. Robert S. Shook Director of Public Works City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Calif. 95070 R li E ,CE iVr -%D OCT 0 '11982 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJ: RATE ADJUSTMENTS, TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Dear Mr. Shook: With reference to paragraph Ninth (d) of our Agreement, I must again seek rate adjustments as provided therein. Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of the June, 1982 CPI Report which indicates an increase of 11.2% for the twelve month period. Applied to the current rate of $58.81, the requested adjustment is therefore in the amount of $6.59 per month per intersection. Also enclosed is a revised copy of the Labor and Equipment Schedules for extraordinary maintenance which reflect the same percentage increase. Inasmuch as I am quite late with this request, I ask that the effective date to be November 1, 1982, and will appreciate your advisement at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Very truly yours, SIGNA MAINTENANCE, IN . William C. Sondergard, President WCS:rms Enclosure cc: Robert Hudson Santa Clara Regional Office City of Saratoga ADJUSTED LABOR SCHEDULE SCHEDULE A Primary duties are as directed by lead man in assisting field technicians and accomplishing preventative maintenance procedures as directed. Traffic signalman assists field technicians as demand is made and assists with knockdowns and associated repairs. TRAFFIC SIGNALMAN - APPRENTICE $19.82/hr. $30.31 /hr. Primary functions are to assist and receive training from traffic signalman. TRAFFIC SIGNAL LABORER $18.38/hr. $28.11 /hr. Primary duties are to assist the signalman and crew in knockdown repairs and field modifications as directed. STRAIGHT OVERTIME TIME RATE OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT $27.58/hr. $42.18/hr. All repair work, both field and lab, subject to his approval and direction. Available for advice and opinion as covered by specifications (Plan, job inspection, etc.). ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN $24.12/hr. $36.90/hr. Provides liaison, assists traffic engineer on systems and provides technical data. LEAD MAN $21.83/hr. $33.42/hr. Primary responsibility to guide and assist field technicians and signalmen in the designated section area. TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICIAN - FIELD $21.26/hr. $32.51/hr. Primary duties are to field troubleshoot and repair field wiring, cabinet wiring, controllers, and perform routine duties of preventative maintenance. TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICIAN - LAB $21.38/hr. $32.74/hr. Performs complete repair and maintenance of all controllers, detectors and associated devices which are brought from the field for repairs. TRAFFIC SIGNALMAN $21.26/hr. $32.51/hr. Primary duties are as directed by lead man in assisting field technicians and accomplishing preventative maintenance procedures as directed. Traffic signalman assists field technicians as demand is made and assists with knockdowns and associated repairs. TRAFFIC SIGNALMAN - APPRENTICE $19.82/hr. $30.31 /hr. Primary functions are to assist and receive training from traffic signalman. TRAFFIC SIGNAL LABORER $18.38/hr. $28.11 /hr. Primary duties are to assist the signalman and crew in knockdown repairs and field modifications as directed. ADJUSTED LABOR SCHEDULE -2- SCHEDULE A Most of the work performed under extraordinary maintenance will be, as has been in the past, performed at traffic signalman rate and /or traffic signalman apprentice. (These rates for contract customers only.) NOTE: Straight time rate applies for the hours between 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 Noon Friday. SCHEDULE B EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE PICKUP TRUCK $ 5.73/hr. $ 43.02 /Day SERVICE LADDER TRUCK $ 5.73/hr. $ 43.02 /Day BOOM TRUCK $17.20 /hr. $114.70 /Day SAW TRUCK $36.56/hr. $250.93/Day COMPRESSOR & TOOLS $17.20 /hr. $107.53 /Day HYDRAULIC MAN /LIFT $17.20 /hr. $114.70 /Day ANY EQUIPMENT ITEMS USED, BUT NOT ON THE ABOVE LIST, WILL BE AT THE LOCAL PREVAILING RATE SCHEDULE. 0 G l�" �j Office of Information San Francisco, Ca. 94102 BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 450 Golden Gate Avenue Room 10450 - Box 36017 San Francisco, CA 94102 ( 415 ) 556 -4678 BLS 2 -51 EMBARGOED-FOR RELEASE 5:30 A.M. (PDT) Friday, July 23, 1982 SAN FRANCISCO - OAKLAND METROPOLITAN AREA CONSUMER PRICE INDEXES June 1982 The San Francisco - Oakland Metropolitan Area Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers advanced 1.9 percent from April 1982 to June 1982, accord- ing to Bruce Hanchett, Regional Commissioner of the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, Pacific Regional Office. The June 1982 index stood at 304.6 (1967 =100), 11.2 percent above its year -ago level. The Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for June 1982 was 303.4, 1.9 percent above April 1982, and 10.6 percent above the June 1981 level. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI -U) The food and beverages category rose 1.3 percent from April 1982 to June 1982 and 8.2 percent from June 1981 to June 1982. Housing costs advanced 1.7 percent over the two -month period and 14.3 percent above the year -ago level. Apparel and upkeep prices declined 0.2 percent from April but were up 5.4 percent over the year. Transportation costs rose 3.8 percent from April to June, and advanced 5.7 percent from April 1981. Medical care expenses rose 1.3 percent from April and 12.4 percent from t -lie year -ago level. Entertainment costs advanced 2.9 percent over the two -month period, and rose 13.7 —percent from a year ago. The attached table provides additional information on price changes in the San Francisco - Oakland Metropolitan Area. LABOR -SF 7/23/82 Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers: Indexes and percent changes for selected periods. San Francioco- Oakland, Cal. (1967 -100, unless otherwise noted) June 1982 Published indexes Percent change to Group Apr. May 1982 1982 Allitems .. ............................... 298.8 - All items (1957 - 59-100) ................... 355.6 - Food and beverages ....................... 274.5 - Food .... ............................... 283.4 - Food at home ......................... 281.3 287.1 ' Cereals and bakery products........ 292.2 299.8 Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs .... 262.8 269.0 Meats, poultry, and fish......... 266.5 275.2 Dairy products ..................... 240.0 238.4 Fruits and vegetables .............. 290.7 306.2 Other foods at home ............... 346.2 348.7 Food away from home .................. 284.0 - Alcoholic beverages .................... 193.7 - Housing .. ............................... 337.8 - Shelter . ............................... 366.3 - Rent, residential .................... 253.7 - Other rental costs .................. 343.5 - Homeownership ........................ 413.8 - Fuel and other utilities ............... 363.0 - Fuels ............................... 447.4 472.1 Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas 2/. 2 ^8.0 206.8 Gas (piped) and electricity ....... 449.0 474.8 Household furnishings and operation ... 237.3 - Apparel and upkeep ....................... 200.8 - Apparel commodities .................... 186.9 - Men's and boys' apparel .............. 195.1 - Women's and girls' apparel........... 173.7 - Footwear ............................. 207.8 - Transportation ........................... 287.5 - Private transportation ................. 288.1 - Public transportation .................. 267.9 - Medical care ............................. 321.9 - Entertainment ........................... 236.6 - Other goods and services ................ 258.7 - Personal care .......................... 243.9 - Allitems ... ............................... Commodities .............................. Food and beverages ..................... Commodities less food and beverages.... Nondurables less food and beverage... Durables ............................. Services .. ............................... Medical care services .................. Special indexes: Allitems less shelter ................... All items less medical care .............. Allitems less energy 3/ ................. Energy 2/ . ............................... Commodities less food .................... Nondurables less food .................... Nondurables .............................. Services less rent ....................... Services less medical care ............... 2/ June 1978 -100. 3/ December 1977 -100. 298.8 - 260.2 - 274.5 - 251.3 - 252.3 - 252.1 - 358.4 - 349.0 - June June 1981 1982 - Expenditure category - 304.6 11.2 362.4 - 278.1 8.2 287.2 8.4 286.2 7.4 297.8 6.4 271.1 10.7 278.0 11.6 239.9 .0 301.0 14.5 345.1 3.8 285.8 10.1 194.9 5.9 343.7 14.3 372.0 15.3 256.8 10.1 363.2 21.6 420.2 16.2 374.6 20.9 472.0 21.8 205.8 -.8 474.8 22.7 241.1 4.6 200.4 5.4 186.5 3.2 194.1 7.1 171.5 7.3 220.5 6.2 298.5 5.7 299.2 5.5 276.4 8.6 326.1 12.4 243.5 13.3 259.0 11.3 246.6 6.2 Commodity and service group 304.6 11.2 265.8 8.2 278.1 8.2 257.6 8.2 257.9 1.2 258.9 12.9 364.3 14.5 352.8 13.1 June 1982 from - Apr. 1982 May 1982 1.9 - 1.3 - 1.3 - 1.7 -0.3 1.9 -.7 3.2 .8 4.3 1.0 .0 .6 3.5 -1.7 -.3 -1.0 .6 - .6 - 1.7 - 1.6 - 1.2 - 5.7 - 1.5 - 3.2 - 5.5 .0 -1.1 -.5 5.7 .0 1.6 - -.2 - -.2 - -.5 - -1.3 - 6.1 - 3.8 - 3.9 - 3.2 - 1.3 - 2.9 - .1 - 1.1 - 1.9 - 2.2 - 1.3 - 2.5 - 2.2 - 2.7 - 1.6 - 1.1 - 271.8 - 277.7 8.5 2.2 - 296.9 - 302.7 11.1 2.0 - 156.3 - 158.8 11.9 1.6 - 199.4 203.9 209.7 3.2 5.2 2.8 248.5 - 254.6 8.1 2.5 - 246.4 - 251.6 1.6 2.1 - 265.0 - 269.6 4.7 1.7 - 383.3 - 390.0 15.2 1.7 - 356.8 - 362.9 14.7 1.7 - RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIA- TIONS AND AMENDING THE 1982 -83 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET WHEREAS, it is recomnended that the following adjustment be made increasing the present budget appropriations: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of Saratoga adopted by Resolution 1099 be amended as follows: Transfer: $317.00 from general ledger account 41 -2900, traffic safety fund balance available, to general ledger account 41 -2940 traffic safety appropriations. Subsidiary:, Fund 41 - Traffic Safety Program 712 - Traffic Control Maintenance Purpose: To appropriate funds necessary to cover an increase in the signal maintenance contract. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the day of , , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk ClYL Or Si+IvYiCG\ AGENDA BILL NO. 3 VlJ Initial: Dept. fid_ DATE: December 15, 1982 C. Atty. DEPAML E TT: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE AT 21072 COMER DRIVE, HONG Issue SL -=ary On November 3, 1982, the City Council held an Abatement Hbating and declared a Public Nuisance to exist at the above address. The Council allowed the owner, Mr. Hong, until December 15, 1982, to either abate the nuisance or make application for an Encroachment Permit with engineered plans and calculations for the retaining walls and plans for the pool fence. 'Mr. Hong,was advised that staff needed these plans and applications by December 2, 1982. Dispite three telephone reminders, Mr. Hong,had not as of December 3rd made any submittals. Recc=endatien 1. Direct City Attorney to take appropriate legal action Fiscal Impacts All costs.: are.recoverable from the property owner E:<hibits /Attach7,r is 1. Memo dated 10/21/82 2. Notice of Abatement Hearing 3. Sketch of property 4. Letter to Hong dated 5/6/82 5. Letter to Hong dated 12/10/81 Ccuncil Action f 6. Letter to'Hbng:-dated 10/29/81 7. Correction Notice dated 10/26/81 8. Correspondence received 12/15: Fanelli /Mallory moved to refer to Planning Commission for public hearing on modification of scenic easement and return the matter to City Council if any delays in the process are caused by Mr. Hong. Passed 5 -0. 1�IEti`1OR�ND�I�I 097T @:T 0&M&UQX5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: Director of Camiu lity Development DATE: 10/21/82 FROM: Senior Inspector SUBJECT: 21072 Comer Drive, Hong, Code Violations --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the Fall of 1981 the City received a citizen complaint about grading and retaining wall construction at 21072 Caner Drive. An investigation was made and a STOP WORK ORDER was issued on October 26, 1981. At that time apprcaniately 75 feet of redwood retaining wall has been constructed, and backfilled with material removed from a slope on the property. T}ie wall bas a maximum height of approximately 5 feet and requires a building permit as well as a design by a registered engineer. The wall appears under designed and is shaving some distress. Several hundred cubic yards of material were removed from the slope above the house and placed behind the retaining wall, thereby, creating a flat pad in the vicinity of the existing swimming pool. This grading requires a regular grading permit. During this operation, the swimming pool fencing was removed. The following violations exist: 1. Section 302 of the Uniform Building Code. Retaining wall constructed without permits. 2. Section-3.40.2 code of the City of Saratoga (Grading Ordinance). Grading of more than 50 cubic yards of earth without a permit. 3. Tract 5693 Scenic Easement. Construction of a structure within a Scenic Easement. 4. Section 3.50, Code of the City of Saratoga (swimming pool fencing). Failure to provide fencing around a swimming pool. Since the issuance of the STOP WORK ORDER, three letters have been sent requesting and finally demanding that the owners take care of these violations. To date no action has been taken by the Hongs. Should the City Council declare this a public nuisance and should the owner still not abate this nuisance, the City could then physically abate the nuisance. The cost of this abatement would then become a lien on the property. Rich OFFICE: 0919W oo 0&%kU00 (5� 1 :3777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Coaurnznity Development Linda Callon October 21, 1982 Martha Clevenger Virginia Fanelli John Mallory David Moyles Phil and Jeannie Hong 21072 Comer Saratoga, CA. 95070 Dear Mr. Hong: Pursuant to Section 1 -7.1 through 1 -7.4 -1 of the Code of the City of Saratoga, California, you are hereby notified that a hearing will be held on November 3, 1982 at 8:00 p.m. to consider the abatement of the following public nuisance located at 21072 Comer Drive, Saratoga, California. A.P.N. 503 - 017 -062. 1. Grading in excess of 50 cubic yards of earth without a grading permit, a violation of Section 3 -40 of the Code of Saratoga. 2. Construction of one or more retaining walls without a building permit, a violation of Section 3.8 of the Code of Saratoga. 3. Failure to provide fencing around a swimming pool, a violation of Section 3.50 of the Code of Saratoga. The City Council will consider at this hearing whether or not a public nuisance exists and may direct any such public nuisance to be abated, all costs of such abatement will become a lien attached to the property on which such nuisance is maintained and other persons or property pursuant of Section 1 -7.1 of the Code of Saratoga. Sincerely, Richard H. Harison Senior Inspector RHH /bc cc: City Manager City Attorney Mr. & Mrs. Porcelli Mr. & Mrs. Norling at?�� 01 C;Z 2107 CowlE& - AIOIV6 May 6, 1982 o0 O&MEIX00 (5� 1:3777 FRUII'VALE AVENUE . SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 008) 867 -3438 Mr. Hong 21072 Comer Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Grading and Retaining Wall at 21072 Comer Drive Dear Mr Hong, The winter rainy season is now over and it is imperative that you begin to correct the unpermitted grading and retaining walls as outlined in my October 29, 1981 letter (copy attached). I expect action on your part within.thirty (30) days. Very truly yours, RICHARD H. HARISON Senior Inspector cc:Mr. Porcelli 21020 Comer Drive Paul Smith - City Attorney dAULI ::��/ k 1:3777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-34:38 fl,fr. sIona M72 Comer Drive Sa-ratoga, CA 95070 1 c: Grading and '?etaini,1-1q, Wall ,'1072 Comer Drive Mr Honq: "'o date I have .r ece ived no response to mv of D 8 regarding the unPermit-1.-.-.ad grading and rat,-.i: ninq your property. This work does not ap- pear str, ct-ural], SIOUAI,!. nor has any winterization of -the slope_s ,,�!an F'ccoMP1_J.'.-'i'*"'--:!(_'1. Presently erosion on -the sane is car-rying mu k-. downhill on-0 you.r neighbor's property An(-:: also In Lo Calabazas Crocak. It is imperative that you correct this situation as as; as dircctcd in any previous !,.Ettter. Your z-.-rol't'irt attention to _1 _. - %_ - --ess, ­v. �j 4 S matter is a-- "ZHH/clh vi::_­y truly yours, Richard H. Harison � r Y (5�uw o2 0&MEUQ)(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 October 29, 1981 Mr. Phil Hong 21072 Comer Dr. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: "Trading and Retaining Walls 21072 Comer Dr. Dear Mr. Hong: Thank you for your call today in response to the "Stop Work. Order" issued by this department on October 26, 1981. 1 have enclosed a copy of the portion .of the Tract Map which speaks to the Scer.1c Easements on your property. As you can see, this area must be kept free of all structures, which includes retaining walls, unless spe- cii:ically approved by the City Council. in any case, the grading and re- Gaining walls constructed require Grading aad Building Permits respectively. Since this work was completed wihhout permits, the earth fill and retaining walls mi sc either be removed or permits obtained retro- actively. Should wish -to apply for permits, City Council approval must be a;:;;:a.ined t_ _rst. Ms. Sharon Lester, of_ the Permit Review Di- vis i on, will be able to assist you in this process. Should you choose to remove the work, please provide me with a schedule. Very truly yours, Richard II. Harison Asst. Director of Comrmunity Development P,HH/dsc Enc. L INSPECTION DEF '�UMENT - ,•.,�� ; City of Saratoga 13777. FRUITVALE AVENUE Phone: 867 -3438 C Notice NAME JOB ADDRESS -21012 Ccmv,) I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and have found the following violations of City and /or State laws governing same: You are hereby notifitd that no more work shall be done upon these premises until the above violations are corrected.. When corrections have been made, please call for reinspection. WaRte a z� � s Inspector DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG 0 a $ x Qq a � t REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 12/13/82 COUNCIL MEETING: 12/15/82 SUBJECT' Supplement to Agenda Bill No. 380 ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE AT 21072 COMER DRIVE, HONG ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Since the preparation of the City Council Packet for the December 15, 1982 meeting, Mr. Hong has submitted the items required by the Council at their November 3, 1982 meeting. These documents include a written request for modification of the Scenic Easement, map of the proposed modification and plans and calculation for the retaining wall and fence. The Scenic Easement on this property has been previously modified. At that time the City Council asked for a review and recommendation from the Planning Commission prior to taking action on the proposal. The plans and calculations submitted appear to be complete. A thorough.plan check has not been done but, it appears that the existing retaining walls can be made structurally sound. The swimming pool fence is also shown on the plans. I recommend that the Council: 1. Refer the proposed modification of the Scenic Easement to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. 2. Direct staff to complete a structural plan check of the retaining wall and grading, but withhold issuance of permits until the modification to the Scenic Easement is resolved. 3. Direct-Mr. Hong to immediately construct a fence as required by City Ordinance within the existing building envelope. Enclosures 1. Proposed Plans - reduced scale 2. Plans of previous modification 3. Request for modification Rob S. Shook Director of Community Development f I / op 1-11 1 XV; op -TP Loyyep, ml T./� '1 PER PeTAIL_ �IiE PLaN Ci Modification Approved August 16, 1978 .fication I Envelop OMER: 1. TO DETERMINE A►►RC smArE f Of POOL ON DLAV OF EXUVA7i i _U 1 7� CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA,CA 95070 RE:BUILDING PERMIT FOR LOT 2, TRACT 5693 OWNED BY PHIL HONG Dear Sir, It is to request the lot 2, Tract 5693 to be modify the existing buildI ng envelope per attached drawing. ATTACHMENT: A: MAP showing modification A -1: 24" X 35" 2 each A -2: 8Y" X 14" 10 each B: Engineered plans and calculations for. retaining wall,grading, and a pool fence. B -1: 24" X 35" 2 each B -2: 8Y" X 11" 3 page 1 each It is designed and calculated by Mr.Jon J Ewiglenben Civil Engineer Cal Lic #19469 25743 SPRING DRIVE, HAYWARD,CA 94542. Yours, Phil Honcf 21072 COMER DRIVE SARATOGA,CA 95070 Dec 7, 1982 * . . r 21083 Comer Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 November 24, 1982 Members of the City Council City of Saratoga Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City Council Members: Is fry 071 NOV Z 4 1982 Again, I urge you to allow for corrections to the grading done at 21072 Comer Dr. which has allowed for off -road vehicles to create a "road" of sorts. Pictures I submitted to Mr. Harrison clearly demonstrate that no problem existed until the grading took place. The contrast of the "before" and "after" photos is remarkable. I have enclosed a copy of a letter sent to Mr. Harrison explaining in detail my objections to what has taken place and trust that you will feel compelled to see that the situation is corrected. Thank you for your consideration. enclosure Yours truly, Janet Harris 21083 Comer Dr. Saratoga, Ca 95C70 : ?ove. -.bar 12� 1982 Pair. Rich Harrison City of Saratoga Saratoga, California 95C70 Dear Mr. Harrison: I was very sorry to 'near you use the sane response as 111'r. 'Tong s lal yer in stating that i'r. 7--long can't be held responsible for the off -road vehicles in the dills. What neither of you seems to understand is that =-s. "Ong is to blame for the "road' ,which has been created over his property to the hill above his house on Comer Drive. The rictures which accompany this letter show clearl,r that not one set of tracks was on that hill before Pr. Hong began his grading. There were two masons: 1) the bushes along the street provided for a barrier to access from. the street and 2) a deep cut in the rise from the street since the time of its installation was impossible for vehicles to traverse. ?Tith one sweep of the bulldozer's blade, however, all of these natural 'carriers were removed. The vegetation is gone and in its place ugly tire and skid marks. (See "after" rictur -1s) As a neighbor, I find the degradation to this property most unpleasant. But even pore i — ortantly j.s my concern as a citizen that an attractive and potentially dangerous nuisance has been created. I care about the safety of people who are drawn to this spot and are inercerienced at driving in such steep and slippery conditions. I worry for the pedestrians, equestrians, and cyclists who are exposed to the hazard of these drivers. `urely there are some ordinances which have been violated. Aren't we responsible for replacing vegetation which has been stripped? If not, how can erosion in the hills be - Minimized as further develon-nent ta'_es place ? - T'_ow can we T�.revent destruction'of the hillsides by off -road vehicles when insensitive residents make it so attractive for them? In closing, I do not blame Pir. :long for the vehicles which break dorm barricades such as at the top of Comer Drive. Such a nuisance is one with which we have had to learned to live and does not affect us so in;mediatel,r. I do _ °eel that he should be required to reeiedy the situation on the property in cuestion by replacing the vegetation. Thank you for hearing :iy co-�plairts. `lours truly, cc: ',7ayne Dernetz, Cit�r :_anager City Council