The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-01-1989 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1,5-Y-3 MEETING DATE: 3/1/89 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA ITEM Fj� CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: SD -88 -015, Pierce, 14584 Horseshoe Drive, Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Approval of a 2 -lot Subdivision. Recommended Motion: 1. Review the Report to the Planning Commission 2. Review public input applicable to the Planning Commission Report 3. Close the Public Hearing 4. Refer the application back to the Planning Commission to consider the impact of the approval on Horseshoe Court. Report Summary: On January 25, 1989, The Planning Commission approved a 2 -lot subdivision for George and Ellen Pierce at 14584 Horseshoe Drive at the intersection with Horseshoe Court in the R -1- 20,000 zone district. On February 6, 1989, neighbors of the proposal appealed the decision citing the increased traffic impact on Horseshoe Court, inaccuracy of the tentative map, impact on neighboring property, questionable utility access, and CC &R's governing surrounding properties. Fiscal Impacts: r Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Motion and Vote A:agenbill one Planning Commission memorandum dated 3/1/89 Planning Commission minutes dated 12/14/88 & 1/25/89 Resolution SD -88 -015 Staff Report to Planning Commission Deferred Improvement Agreement Appeal Letter Correspondence Received ,N SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1,5-Y-3 MEETING DATE: 3/1/89 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA ITEM Fj� CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: SD -88 -015, Pierce, 14584 Horseshoe Drive, Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Approval of a 2 -lot Subdivision. Recommended Motion: 1. Review the Report to the Planning Commission 2. Review public input applicable to the Planning Commission Report 3. Close the Public Hearing 4. Refer the application back to the Planning Commission to consider the impact of the approval on Horseshoe Court. Report Summary: On January 25, 1989, The Planning Commission approved a 2 -lot subdivision for George and Ellen Pierce at 14584 Horseshoe Drive at the intersection with Horseshoe Court in the R -1- 20,000 zone district. On February 6, 1989, neighbors of the proposal appealed the decision citing the increased traffic impact on Horseshoe Court, inaccuracy of the tentative map, impact on neighboring property, questionable utility access, and CC &R's governing surrounding properties. Fiscal Impacts: r Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Motion and Vote A:agenbill one Planning Commission memorandum dated 3/1/89 Planning Commission minutes dated 12/14/88 & 1/25/89 Resolution SD -88 -015 Staff Report to Planning Commission Deferred Improvement Agreement Appeal Letter Correspondence Received 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: SD -88 -015, Pierce, 14584 Horseshoe Commission Decision to Approval of Background /Description DATE: 3/1/89 Dr., Appeal of Planning a 2 -lot Subdivision George and Ellen Pierce submitted an application for tentative map approval to create a 2 -lot subdivision at the corner of Horseshoe Drive and Horseshoe Court from an existing 1.018 acre parcel. Both parcels to be created meet all minimum zoning ordinance standards with regard to frontage, width and depth. The lots would be 20,130 and 24,216 sq. ft. in size. An existing 2,200 sq. ft. home fronts on Horseshoe Drive. The second parcel would use Horseshoe Court for access. Approval of this application would mean a total of six parcels would have access to Horseshoe Court as opposed to four parcels indicated in the Report to the Planning Commission. Horseshoe Court is a private 50 foot right -of -way with an 18 foot wide paved roadway. It is a portion of the original Kirkwood Estate, now owned by Kersten and Susan Kraft. These parcels, split off the Kraft property in 1975, developed and use Horseshoe Court for access. A deferred improvement agreement for Horseshoe Court was required at the time that subdivision was approved. Analysis In arriving at its recommendation, staff identified three major issues affecting this project. The first involves the compatibility of the parcels to the zone district. Though the lots would be smaller than a majority of the properties in zone district, both parcels created exceed all minimum zoning site standards for the R -1- 20,000 zone district. Much of the neighborhood concern involves this issue since the parcels that use Horseshoe Court for access are located in the R -1- 40,000 zone district. Neighbors find this an incompatibility of densities. The second issue involves a drainage swale that crosses the property and its relation to the siting of a future dwelling. The site is not subject to flooding but the Santa Clara Valley Water District has conditioned that no building is to be constructed in the swale. The final issue involves access to the parcel. Presently, Horseshoe Court, a private minimum access road, serves as access to five properties - one more than the subdivision ordinance allows without the granting of an exception to the design requirements. Due to the location of the proposed subdivision, findings to grant an additional exception to the design requirements are required in order to approve the project. If findings cannot be made for the exception, a condition of approval could be the improvement of Horseshoe Court to local street standards (26 foot wide pavement). Dedication of the street to the City is not an option in this case since the applicant does not own the right -of -way. Appellants have raised the issue of the accuracy of the tentative map. To resolve this, a second, independent survey could be required to verify the submitted plans. The standard distribution practice, required by the subdivision ordinance, to solicate comments from the appropriate agencies was followed. Since Planning Department files show no comment sheet was returned by the West Valley Sanitation District, staff assumes sewage disposal is available. The information of the appeal was not present at the public hearing before the Planning Commission and therefore was not considered in their decision. One member of the public spoke to this item at the hearing. He raised the issue of the applicant's legal access to Horseshoe Court which the City Attorney resloved. Staff Recommendation Refer the item back to the Planning Commission directing the Commission to consider the issue of neighborhood compatibility and impact of the approval on Horseshoe Court; items not brought to their attention at the public hearing. The Commission should report back on their findings regarding road improvement requirements and its effects on the neighborhood and compatibility of new parcels to adjacent neighborhood. StepheA E ie Planning irector SE /dsc PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 DECEMBER 14,19891- PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued DR -88 -091 Huang, 14590 Deer Springs Court, request for design review approval construct a 7,442 sq. ft., one and one -half story home and a var to exceed the 8 ft. maximum height limit above a major r�bl. in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code .-------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------�bjt;gjn ------------------------- 19. DR -88 -059 Abou- ter, 19400 Pinnacle Ct., request review approval for a 978 sq. ft. ' floor addition and a 5 er floor addition to an existing 4,120 sq. one -story a in the R- 1- 40,000 zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code. addition, the total floor area will be 5,651 sq. ft. Continued fro cto 6,198 8, Planning Commission meeting. Chairperson Guch noted that Ite through 7 were being Co ' ued. Staff requested removal of is Hearings Consent Calendar Item Commissioner Tapp quested removal of Public Hearings Consent ar Item 17. Commissioner er requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calenda m 18. SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 9, 1 12, 14, 15, 16, AND 19. Passed 5 -0 -1, Commissioner Kolstad absent. 8. SD -88 -015 Pierce, 14584 Horseshoe Drive, request for tentative map approval for a two -lot subdivision; lots to the 24,216 and 20,130 sq. ft. in the R -1- 20,000 zone district per Section 14 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie stated that Staff removed this Item pending the receipt of new information received from neighbors; Staff recommended the Public Hearing be opened and the Item continued to January 25, 1989, to allow an evaluation of the information received. Planner Caldwell introduced the Application and noted the following letters received: - William G. Clark, adjacent property owner, Re: SD -88 -015, dated December 6, 1988. - Robert and Dorothy Billner, 14578 Horseshoe Ct., dated December 13, 1988. Planner Jacobson reviewed the Application and summarized the issues raised by the neighbors: Question of access to the second lot which was to be graded off of Horseshoe Dr. Drainage swale crossing the property suggested the site was not suited for residential use Question of the drainage swale and its relationship to the proposed siting of the house Commissioner Kolstad reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:45 P.M. Mr. George Pierce, Applicant, felt the drainage swale referred to would not be a major problem; the drainage area would go around the house site. Ms. Jakita Cymbal, Westfall Engineers, confirmed that the drainage would be rerouted around the house; there would be no problem maintaining the required setbacks. Mr. Christian Kraft, 2021 Bella Vista Ave., Saratoga, owner of two adjacent parcels commented: - Concern was that two R- 1- 20,000 lots would be immediately adjacent to R- 1- 40,000 zoning - Questioned the zoning boundary in the area - Subdivision of this parcel, as proposed, may not be in the best inderest of the neighborhood - Secondly, the easement was on his property; he understood that the easement was granted with the clear understanding that a one acre site with a single family residence would remain - Finally, traffic on the easement would be increased by a considerable magnitude The City Attorney asked that if a specific document relating to the easement agreement and /or an easement restriction, such be presented to the City for review. The Public Hearing remained open. SIEGFRIED/TAPPAN MOVED TO CONTINUE SD -88 -015 TO JANUARY 25, 1989. Passed 6 -0 Waller, 20578 Third Street, request for buildin site an �,.... „ ..,.,,_ t—, t me in the RM -3.000 zone CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: January 25, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Tucker, Kolstad, Tappan Approval of Minutes: Meeting of January 11, 1989 BURGER/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1989, AS PRESENTED. Passed 6 -0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Roy Mollard, Applicant in Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 1, noted the length of time his Application had taken; now the Item was being continued to the Meeting of February 8th. Planner Jacobson responded that Staff had requested additional information since a variance would be required for square footage in excess of that allowed; the variance application had been made. He had informed the Applicant of the continuance. Report of Clerk on Posting of Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on January 20, 1988. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR -88 -080 Mollard, 13977 Albar Ct., request for design review approval to construct a new 5,930 sq. ft. two -story single - family dwelling in the NHR zone dis- trict per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to February 8, 1989, at the applicant's request to submit additional plans. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. SD -88 -013 Rivoir, 20411 Hill Ave., request for building site approval on two parcels measuring 27,704 and 28,837 sq. ft. in the R -1- 20,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Continued to February 8, 1989, at the request of the applicant. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. SD -88 -015 Pierce, 14584 Horseshoe Dr., request for tentative map approval for a two - lot subdivision; lots to be 24,216 and 20,130 sq. ft. in the R -1- 20,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Continued from December 14, 1988. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. DR -88 -087 Lohr, 14801 Gypsy Hill Rd., request for design review approval to construct a new 5,194 sq. ft. two -story single family home in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 5. AZO -88 -009 City of Saratoga, amendment to the City Code subsections 14- 25.110 (d) and 15- 80.090 (d) pertaining to the early warning fire alarm system. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from January 11, 1989. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. AZO -88 -010 City of Saratoga, amendments to the City Code Section 15- 06.280 concern- ing gross floor area, Section 15- 18.020 adding financial institutions as a permitted use in the PA zone district, and fencing. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from January 11, 1989. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairperson Guch noted that Consent Calendar Items 1 and 2 were being continued. Commissioner Kolstad requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 4. The City Attorney requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 5. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 JANUARY 25 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3 AND 6. Passed 6 -0. \property R -88 -087 Lohr, 14801 Gypsy Hill Rd., request for design review approval t construct a new 5,194 sq. ft. two -story single family home in the R - 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - -- Cioner Kolstad noted the expanse of the south side of the house and asked that la Gap- i ed; also, the addition of street trees to the front of the site would enhance the pr erty. Cssio r Tucker reported on the land use visit. Pg Dir for Emslie reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission a stated that Con 10 a dressed landscaping; Staff could be directed to insure that landsc ing screening ae southe property line and in the street area had been installed. Tlic Hearing as opened at 7:40 P.M. n Edwards, Pr 'ect Manager, commented that landscape screenin ould be installed on lhis subdivision; questioned why this lot was singled out for nsideration. He noted tproperty owners ided what ground cover and landscaping wo d be p lanted. Commissioner Kolstad aske hat two trees to soften the south side nd a street tree in the front horseshoe area be planted. Ap icant was agreeable to this request. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED T CLOSE THE PUBLIC HE ING AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 6 -0. KOLSTAD /SIEGFRIED MOVED PROVAL OF DR -88- 7 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION AMENDING CONDITION 10 REQUIRE ADD ONAL LANDSCAPE SCREENING TO SOFTEN THE SOUTH PROPERT LINE AND P SERVE PRIVACY AND ADDING A STREET TREE IN THE FRONT HOR SHOE AR SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. Passed 6 -0. 5. AZO -88 -009 City of Saratoga, amen en to the City Code subsections 14- 25.110 (d) and 15- 80.090 (d) pertai ' g to the early warning fire alarm system. A Negative Declaration has n prepared. Continued from January 11, 1989. The City Attorney reviewed discussions on th Amen ment; during the revision process, additional policy considerations arose which he wishe o bring t heir attention; in (h) Garage sprinklers: - The expansion of the garage only, wou trigger are irement for a sprinkler system; thus the question arose, if the residence was i the hazardous 're area, would the sprinkler system be attached to the early warning system He felt that it show not; if the home already had an early warning system, the garage should he. linked into the syste . - Audible warning devices: the dis ction between attached d detached garages had not been discussed. The Ordinance now ad that if the garage were at ched, the audible warning device would be required; if the gara were detached, the device wou not be required. Was there a distinction betty n attached and detached garages w respect to the early warning system? If the garage wer detached, and the house had the ear warning system, would the garage have to be conneyted to the system? He recommendation was that it would not; the garage would still have a sprinkler system. The Public Hearing waXopened at 7:40 P.M. MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT X40 EM. Passed 6 -0 Consensus reach d to accept the City Attorney's recommendation; amended l guage to read, Where the gara is attached to a dwelling located in the hazardous fire area, ands ch dwelling is required to be quipped with an early warning system, then a garage sprinkler shall b %Paed6-0. uired." BURGER' IEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. BURG /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AZO -88 -010 P THE MOD RESOLUTION AMENDING LANGUAGE IN (h) GARAGE SPRINKLER TO RE AA, "WHERE THE GARAGE IS ATTACHED TO A DWELLING LOCATED IN E ARDOUS FIRE AREA, AND SUCH DWELLING IS REQUIRED TO BE EQUIPP TH AN EARLY WARNING SYSTEM, THEN A GARAGE SPRINKLER SHALL B EQUIRED ". Passed 6 -0. 7 RESOLUTION NO. SD -88 -015 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF GEORGE PIERCE, APN 397- 20 -27, 14584 HORSESHOE DRIVE WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of 2 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -88 -015 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 12/14/88 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS., the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 11th day of October, 1988 and is marked Exhibit A in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: 1. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final approval. 2. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (pay required checking and recordation fees). 3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required. 4. Improve Horseshoe"Drive to City standards, including the following: (D.I.A.) a. Designed structural section 20 ft. between centerline and flowline. b. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (V -24). c. Underground existing overhead utilities. 5. Construct driveway approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use 2 1/2 a.C. on 6" aggregate base. 01 SD -88 -015, 14584 Horseshoe Drive 6. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe driveway as approved by the City Engineer. 7. Obtain encroach permit from the Engineering department approaches or pipe crossings of City street. 8. Engineered improvement plans required for: (D.I.A.) 1. street improvements. culvert under for driveway 9. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvements plans. 10. Enter into I'Defererred Improvement Agreement" for the required improvements marked "D.I.A." 11. No building shall be constructed on the swale or the swale shall be re- routed. 12. Future dwelling on site is to be limited to a maximum floor area of 3500 square feet and no more than one story in height. Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 25th day of January, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Comaissioners Guch, Burger, Tucker, Siegfried, Tappan, and Kolstad NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Harris 4 Chairman, Planning ission Vz- SD -88 -015; 14585 Horseshoe Dr. ATTEST: L( Secret#ry, Planing Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date CcYE D Date Received: FEB G 1989 caved: Hearing Date: _ CITY OF SARAi'OGA Fee f:iTY MANAGER'S OFFICE _ CITY'USE ON APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: Pillner, Kraft, LaDD & Clary; Address: 14578 Horseshoe Court, Saratoga Telephone: 867 -5 74 Name of Applicant: PIERCE Project File No.: SD -88 -015 Project Address: 1 ,29R4• No seshoe Drive, Saratoga Project Description: - ision Decision Being Appealed: acproval of 2 -lot subdivision by Planning Commission Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): SEE ATTACHED LETTERS (Billner, Kraft, Ladd, Clark) ATTACHED... 1. Impact /Burden on Horseshoe Court- number of individual accesses to private Court incorrect on staff report. There are presently 5 and i•.ith subdivision split there would.be 6 ... see letter(Billner) 2. Tentative parcel map.submitted by Pierce may not -be accurate. See Billner letter per discussion -with Mr. Emslie. ?. Impact on surrounding R- 40,000 zoning and impact on historical site. 4.. Utilities - pa.rticularly.sewer. 5. OlCC &t s,/ � erning historic Kirkwood /Blaney Estate property., SCIC L, ' 1, / ��'v� i. I /•� L � i„�.� �%J, `' _. � 2..�-� ��/1�.� ice' 7 Robert &,Dorot -Bill er David & Carol Ladd pellant's Si4nF o RKersten ane* Susan Kraf fiV> >_ m Bet 1 *Please do not sign this application until City offices. If you wish specific People it is presented at the appeal please list them on a separate be notified of this T((IS APPI, „TCATTON MUST 131E SUBMITTED WITUrN TEN (10) CALLrJDAR 1`fll: D_ '�•fL Ot� THE UCH ^1SI0 DAYS 01' Saratoga Planning Commission ATTN: City Clerks Office Betsy Cory February.5, 1989 RE: Subdivision SD -88 -015, PIERCE, 14584 Horseshoe Drive request for tentative map approval for a two lot subdivision Since we live on Horseshoe Court and are definitely affected by the above mentioned subdivision, we are requesting an appeal and rehearing on the following basis: 1. Impact /burden on privately owned Horseshoe Court. There is a distinct possibility that if another access would be granted for another residence off Horseshoe Court, meaning there are presently five (5) accesses already off the Court, and with the Pierce subdivision approval, there would be six (6) accessing the Court. In discussing the approval and construction of the Court with the Planning Director, there should exist at the City of Saratoga (1972) documentation covering the private Court for five (5) accesses only. With six (6) accesses to the Court, the Court would need to be upgraded to a City street and be under City maintenance.The City needs to be prepared to address such an issue. 2. In talking with the Planning Director, Mr. Emslie, there is the possibility that the parcel map submitted by Mr. Pierce may not be accurate. Dr. Kraft surveyed his property in the late 1970's and placed posts in cement on his property lines. This survey was recorded and of record with the City of Saratoga. There exists a post at least five (5) feet into what appears to be Mr. Pierce's property from the private paved Court. If one looks closely at the parcel map of the Kraft and Pierce property, there exists a parcel line across the property showing Pierce property not running with the outline of the existing private paved Court.There is also question of the validity of his parcel map as its doubtful the property was ever surveyed and the individual submitting the map did not sign the parcel map nor any indication to be a licensed surveyor according to the map. 3. Impact of R -20 zoning in an existing R -40 zoning area.The.area around the rear portion of Mr. Pierce's lot is all zoned R- 40,000. The City should try and minimise impact on existing historical site - Kirkwood /Blaney Estate built by Willis Polk in the early 1900's. Other properties built by Willis Polk include Montalvo (Saratoga) and Fioli (Woodside). All these homes contain at least 11,000 square feet and are considered true estates. The private Court is still owned by and a part of the historic site. We should try to preserve these historic areas rather that destroy what little we have left in our City. If Mr. Pierce is allowed to sub- divide his property, one must worry about a precedence being set for other vacant acreage presently zoned R- 40,000 still remaining on the Court. 4. Access to public utilities such as sewer. The sewer does not run in the Court, except to serve two newer homes, a vacant parcel and now the Estate home. Access is from.District #4 which serves homes also off Farwell and lower Douglas area. The sewer line runs near the creek and across the lower portion of our lot (Billner parcel). 5. Old CC & R's governing these surrounding properties which at one time or another was part of the Kirkwood /Blaney Estate and should be perused for restrictions. When we built our home in 1977 we abided by these CC &R's on record with the City at that time. The above items were all discussed with the Planning Director, Mr. Steve Emslie, and he is also looking into these items with true concerns. We hope you will look at these items very carefully as we truly have a wonderfully unique City here and hope we can do our best over the years to preserve it. Sincerely, Bob & Dottie Billner 14578 Horseshoe Court Saratoga, CA. ea.11,01 J 14568 Horseshoe Court p Saratoga, California 95070 /M �Dao tv t." lt� Vltrt�� _6&- caw �, , 14% /. S ca t•- . r Pediatric and Adult Urology Male Infertility Planning Commission City of Saratoga Saratoga, California 95070 RE: 88 -015 Pierce Subdivision Dear Sirs: John Kersten Kraft, M.D. A Professional Corporation Diplomat o f t he American Board of Urology 2550 Samaritan Dr. Suite D San Jose, CA 95124 (408) 356 -6177 The follwoing issues were raised by me during the oral open hearing before the planning commission in December 1988. 1. Easement rights which were granted by the estate of Kirkwood (previous owner of Bella Vista prior to my owning the property) may not be extended to future subdivision and certainly if subidvision is granted, this places an increased and unintended burden upon me and my property. 2. This subdivision would create two new R 20,000 lots in or adjacent to both R 40,000 lots and homes, and a historical building in Saratoga; further this new parcel would not be located on city served or maintained streets and may not have full available utility services, i.e. sewer and water. 3. Horse shoe court is not a city street and may not meet requirements for adequate fire and public safety protection. Creation of a new parcel with the intent to allow a new home to be built upon it would increase the number of active users to six homeowners Ladd, Bildner, Kraft, Clark, Pierce, and new parcel as well as an unbuilt parcel between Ladd and Bildner. I feel uncomfortable with whether more traffic:; can be handled safely over the existing pavement and easement. A flag access on Pierce's own property should be required to his new parcel as part of his subdivision. Because of the nature of the access and neighborhood, I feel it is not in the best interest of the city to grant this subdivision. I ask for an appeal of the current tenative approval and feel that upon review the subdivision will be denied. I remain available to speak with or give any additional written documents or information as may be required by the commission. Sincerely, q er sten 4-k-kl,�2Kraft, M.D. February 2, 1989 WILLIAM G. CLARK A PROFESSIONAL LAIN CORPORATION 255 NORTH MARKET STREET, SUITE 190 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110 TELEPHONE: (408) 292-2434 FAX (408) 292 -1264 City Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Tentative Map Approval - Pierce Property No. SD -88 -015 Dear Sir: D� uv E n U n FEB 61989 CITY OF sAFIAT0G41 CITY AI1NAGr -" G"ICL Please consider this letter an appeal from the Planning Commission's determination to allow the subdivision in the above entitled matter. The appeal is predicated upon a failure of the applicant to present competent evidence of a right of way for ingress or egress and to present competent proof as to the validity of the survey map he presented. Very tr y urs, V WILLIAM G. CLA WGC:se M E M O R A N D U M DATE: January 25, 1989 TO: City of Saratoga Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff RE: Addendum to Staff Report for Application SD -88 -015 On December 14, 1988, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on application SD -88 -015. Following public testimony, planning staff requested this item be continued to a future date in order to analyze and respond to concerns brought to our attention by neighbors. Neighbors questioned applicant George Pierce's legal access to Horseshoe Court. The City Engineer's office and the City Attorney have each reviewed the deed to the property and concluded the applicant does have a legal right to use Horseshoe Court as a non- exclusive easement for the purpose of ingress and egress. The issue of the drainage swale, which crosses the property, and its relation to the location of a future dwelling is a concern of neighbors. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has determined that the site is not subject to flooding; but the District conditioned that no building is to be constructed on the swale. An area is available on the lot to meet this condition and conform to minimum yard setbacks required by the zoning ordinance. However, it does not appear likely a 4518 sq. ft. home, which is the maximum allowable floor area for the site, can be built due to the constraint imposed by the swale. The issue of compatibility of the parcels to the zone district was raised. The proposal does create two lots which are smaller than the majority of properties in the zone district. Nevertheless, both parcels to be created exceed all minimum zoning site standards including frontage, width, depth and area. Recommendation: Due to the issues of neighborhood compatibility and physical constraints on the lot, staff can only recommend approval if consideration is given to applying conditions to the project relating to the future home to be constructed on the site. Based on site constraints and compatibility, conditions relating to a reduction in size and bulk should be considered. Staff recommends a 1 maximum of 3500 sq. ft. floor area be allowed on the house to be constructed, and that it be limited to one -story in height. The square footage limit was determined by the area not within the drainage swale that is available for development. The one -story limit is considered appropriate in an effort to reduce the bulk of the home in a neighborhood which is predominately characterized by single -story homes. mj 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Martin Jacobson �. DATE: 12/14/88 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -88 -015, 14584 Horseshoe Drive APPLICANT /OWNER: Pierce APN: 397 -20 -27 Q 14542 377-z6 - 60) 2o06, 7 8 14 6 75 04 /4552 45 71 '2 ,5; 397-20 -31 3,7-2r,-3r, 4 555 2 o017 e� 317 -20 -74 317-20- 75 78 397-2o-48 D3 14591 397` -2o•5g �'S) `� 997 20 -36 397- 2;,•47 19931 ! 7-20- 20- 14562 (t) 397 -20 -5 7 ?4i 8.5 397 20 - 30 1461 ji 145 3)7-2o -49 r 9c 397- 20 -37 397 -2o 46 y cv +* (2t' 14595 SF 397 20 -5o S`y 320 97_ 397 -2o•jg 45 14 bo 5 9 g 1463c 397-20-44 _ �gw ( QQ` 14,06 Q c+6o1 14 0 3 5. 377 -2o •28 14 6 cep 3�7 -20- g2 �/ 14 S B2 377 -20 43 �Q 397 20 -79 (to) y (4 io28 l�►1 14(0.5.5 if/ 397 -20 2> 397 - 20.53. �g 14 670' 17-26-42 Q i c1� 'yS�d C� 1�151� 145t73 7-20 11J� 14 5 go 397 -Zo -91 2oo2i H518 f,17 (141 377-z6 2o06, 7 8 14 6 75 s97 20_ 26 � . 397 -2D-54 /N90 S 41 � 39-2o -q0 2 o017 e� 317 -20 -74 317-20- 75 78 1469 5 397` -2o•5g �'S) `� '4 19931 19915 7-20- 20- / 377 -20 -70 397 -20 -5 7 rz <�6� '9 76Z 3 7 �` 2 00 1f S 20 -11 9 20oo0 397 20 -23 v 20046 RD -.. 397 20. 3q7• 20141 1 , 66 517 - Zo- 39 �2ooZ2 i998D 517 -20 40 397 -20-58 397 20-64 14990 , �. 397-20-59 �� 1463j File No. SD -88-01y PLANNER'S WORKSHEET ✓ Trails and pathways map checked ✓ Vicinity /locator map included ✓ Dimensions shown on plot plan �Jo Adjacent structures Directional arrow ✓ Trees labelled ✓ Plans reflect field conditions Heights shown on cross sections �4,& Consistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans MIA Natural and finished grade on cross sections .t _Height of underfloor & attic areas included in floor area calculations Roof pitch shown All sheets included in submittal with required reductions "A-Colors submitted Staff Reports ✓ Conditions from other agencies /department correct ✓ Consistent figures throughout report ✓ History files examined Correct address & application number on all pages of the report ✓ Description consistent with advertisement ✓ Plans labelled ✓/ Order of attachment consistent with list All attachments included ✓ Typographical errors corrected ✓ Dates on the resolutions correct LApplicant notified of recommendation ZApplicant notified that staff report available Fri. 3 -4:00 p.m. A:checklist 6/88 File No. SD -88 -015, 14584 Horseshoe EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 8/30/88 Application complete: 10/11/88 Notice published: 11/30/88 Mailing completed: 12/1/88 Posting completed: 12/1/88 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Chapter 14, the applicant requests a subdivision approval to create two parcels of 20,130 and 24,216 sq. ft. The site is located at 14584 Horseshoe Drive in the R -1- 20,000 zone district. An existing home on the site fronts on Horseshoe Drive, the other parcel to be created would front on Horseshoe Court. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning ordinance. No issues which could develop into a significant adverse impact were identified as a result of this project's approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of application by adopting Resolution SD -88 -015. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution SD -88 -015 3. Plans, Exhibit A MJ/ kah 1 SD -88 -015, 14584 Horseshoe Drive STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLD PARCEL SIZE: 1.018 acres; 44,346 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 7% PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to divide a 1.018 acre parcel into two lots of 20,130 and 24,216 sq. ft. The site is located at 14584 Horseshoe Drive approximately 850 feet from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road in the R -1- 20,000 zone district. At the west end of the property, an existing 2,200 square foot home fronts on Horseshoe Drive. The additional lot is proposed to front to the north on Horseshoe Court. Horseshoe Court is a 50 foot wide, non - exclusive right -of -way with an 18 foot wide paved roadway serving as access to 4 parcels. The preliminary title report to the property describes a legal access to the right -of -way. The front half of the property is landscaped with a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees. The rear portion to the east, is characterized by a thick cover of native vegetation. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan and meets all minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Each lot is to be greater than the minimum required 20,000 square foot parcel size. Minimum site standards such as frontage, width and depth are also exceeded. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval by adoption of Resolution SD -88 -015. K alul uI 11Pitattry MPPI) 3ERT C. KIRKWOOD, JR. anu -.;AN G. KIRKWOOD f6rs� to his wife , GEORGE A. PIERCE and ELLEN E. PIERCE, his wife in j0tltt ttttattrY, the real property situated in the of od Santa Clara County State of California, described as follows; PORTIOW OF LOT 3 shove upon, that cat d- y Gutzeit +s Subdivision,^ tirhich Map was riled for �recorin'the orrice or- the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on June 25, 1904 in Book F -3 of Maps, at•pag-e 73, and a portion of Section 7 Township 8 South, Range 1--West M.D.M., and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the Southeasterly line of Horseshoe Drive, distant thereon South 370 191 15" West 50.00 feet from the Westernmost corner of Lot 11, as said Drive and Lot are shown upon that certain Map entitled, "Tract No. 247 Saratoga Acres," which Map was filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, in Book 8 of Maps at pages 22 and 23; thence South 520 391 45" East and parallel with the Southwesterly line of said Lot 11 for a distance of 219.00 feet; thence Southeasterly on a curve to the right with a radius of 75.00 feet through an angle of 560 221 for a distance of 73.78 Peet; thence South 30 421 1511 West 42.00 feet; thene South 890 021 40" Ilest 171.70 feet to the Easternmost corner of Lot 12 of said Tract No. 247; thence North 520 431 15" West along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 12 for a distance of 169.90 feet to the Northernmost corner thereof on the said Southeasterly line of Horseshoe Drive; thence North 370 191 15" East along said last named line 175.00 feet to the Doint of beginning. _ CONTAINING approximately 1.018 acres_ TOGETHER WITH and as appurtenant to and for the benefit of the above described 1.018 acre tract, a non - exclusive easement for the purpose of ingress and.egress and for the installation and maintenance of public utilities over a strip of land 50.00 feet in width, the center line of which is more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the Southeasterly line of Horseshoe Drive, distant thereon South 370 191 15" West 25.00 feet from the Westernmost corner of Lot 11, as said Drive and Lot are shown upon that certain Map entitled "Tract No. 247 Saratoga Acres," which Map was filed for record in the Office -of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, in Book 8 of Maps at pages 22 and 23; thence South 520 391 45" East and parallel with the Southwesterly line of said Lot 11 for a distance of 219.01 feet; thence Southeasterly on a curve to the right with a radius of i00.00 feet through an angle of 560 221 for a distance of 98.38 feet and South 30 421 1511 West 39.96 feet to the terminus of said easement. No dwelling of,less than 1200 square feet, exclusive of %vPorches and garage, is to be built on this lot. Public in and for said ..... _ ...... w�i3X1T,�i...t1.,Li,a:- sa -y -- cw,1Ly all State, personally appeared ..................................... - .............. - .................... ....... ! �a -1 ....... - - - - -- .......Robert:: Kir�1�ocd. :........................................... Jr and �c� :, ,.. c� eEll s7•errs INN : AXIL HEM_ TIC" Y, mvr��scrrrs. isr_;aseL�•� CENTS alul uI 11Pitattry MPPI) 3ERT C. KIRKWOOD, JR. anu -.;AN G. KIRKWOOD f6rs� to his wife , GEORGE A. PIERCE and ELLEN E. PIERCE, his wife in j0tltt ttttattrY, the real property situated in the of od Santa Clara County State of California, described as follows; PORTIOW OF LOT 3 shove upon, that cat d- y Gutzeit +s Subdivision,^ tirhich Map was riled for �recorin'the orrice or- the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on June 25, 1904 in Book F -3 of Maps, at•pag-e 73, and a portion of Section 7 Township 8 South, Range 1--West M.D.M., and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the Southeasterly line of Horseshoe Drive, distant thereon South 370 191 15" West 50.00 feet from the Westernmost corner of Lot 11, as said Drive and Lot are shown upon that certain Map entitled, "Tract No. 247 Saratoga Acres," which Map was filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, in Book 8 of Maps at pages 22 and 23; thence South 520 391 45" East and parallel with the Southwesterly line of said Lot 11 for a distance of 219.00 feet; thence Southeasterly on a curve to the right with a radius of 75.00 feet through an angle of 560 221 for a distance of 73.78 Peet; thence South 30 421 1511 West 42.00 feet; thene South 890 021 40" Ilest 171.70 feet to the Easternmost corner of Lot 12 of said Tract No. 247; thence North 520 431 15" West along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 12 for a distance of 169.90 feet to the Northernmost corner thereof on the said Southeasterly line of Horseshoe Drive; thence North 370 191 15" East along said last named line 175.00 feet to the Doint of beginning. _ CONTAINING approximately 1.018 acres_ TOGETHER WITH and as appurtenant to and for the benefit of the above described 1.018 acre tract, a non - exclusive easement for the purpose of ingress and.egress and for the installation and maintenance of public utilities over a strip of land 50.00 feet in width, the center line of which is more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the Southeasterly line of Horseshoe Drive, distant thereon South 370 191 15" West 25.00 feet from the Westernmost corner of Lot 11, as said Drive and Lot are shown upon that certain Map entitled "Tract No. 247 Saratoga Acres," which Map was filed for record in the Office -of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, in Book 8 of Maps at pages 22 and 23; thence South 520 391 45" East and parallel with the Southwesterly line of said Lot 11 for a distance of 219.01 feet; thence Southeasterly on a curve to the right with a radius of i00.00 feet through an angle of 560 221 for a distance of 98.38 feet and South 30 421 1511 West 39.96 feet to the terminus of said easement. No dwelling of,less than 1200 square feet, exclusive of %vPorches and garage, is to be built on this lot. Public in and for said ..... _ ...... w�i3X1T,�i...t1.,Li,a:- sa -y -- cw,1Ly all State, personally appeared ..................................... - .............. - .................... ....... ! �a -1 ....... - - - - -- .......Robert:: Kir�1�ocd. :........................................... Jr and �c� :, ,.. i DEFERRED PAYMENT ACRMfENT BY OV',ER OR HIS SUCCESSORS IS INTEREST TO CONSTRUCT LAND DEVELOP ?'ENT I`TROVE - ENTS Project identification: This agreement between the CITY OF SARATOGA, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and TMAS B. FOSTER aad aEHAUTAE a. FOSTER hereinafter referred to as "Owner ". WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property described in Exhibit "A" but - wishes to defer construction of permanent improver.:ents beyond the time limits other%•;ise required and City agrees to such deferment provided Owner agrees to construct improvements as herein provided.. NOUT, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: I. AGREE`-= NT BINDING O :� SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST This agreement is an instrument affecting the title and posses- sion of the real property described in Exhibit "A ". All the terms, cove- nants and conditions herein imposed shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors in interest of O�,-ner. Upon any sale or division of the property described in Exhibit "A ", the terms of this agree ment shall apply separately to each parcel and the o,.-ner of each parcel shall succeed to the obligations imposed on Ocrner by this agreement. II. STREET AND DRAINAGE IYPROVEMENTS A. City and Owner agree that the improvements set forth in this section may be deferred because: B. Owner agrees to construct the following improvements on the pro- perty described in Exhibit "A" as well as required off site improvements in the manner set forth in this agreement: ` Improvements required by City Department of Public Works are :;�,n- erally described on Exhibit "B ". (Cross out improvements that are not re- quired.) 1. Curb and gutter 3. Drive:•:ays 4. Street grading, base and paving S. Storm drainage Facilities os 'es ter,_ -J h 9. Barricades and other it prove - ments needed for traffic safety LQ LiAvwI nor• 11. Relocation of existing fences, signs and utilities 12. Payment of a pro rata sham of the costs as determined b•; Dept. of Public Works of a s•.;_ drainage or street imorov c-: nt which has been, or is to be, provided by others or jointly provided by o�,-ner and others where such facility bonefits tr:c. property described in E xh.4.bit ".'' . C. Wien the Director of r-s!)iic Worr.s eetermines tnat the re±s ^ns for the deferment of the improvements as set forth in Section II no longer exist, he shall notify Owner in writing to commence their installation and construction. The notice shall be mailed to the current owner or owners of the land as sho%,-n on the latest adopted county assessment roll. The notice shall describe the wurk to be done by owners, the time 4lithin a:1iich the work shall commence and the time within which it shall be completed. All or any portion of said improvements may be required at a specified time. Each O;,ner shall participate on a pro rata basis in the cost of the improvements to be installed. If Owner is obligated to pay a pro rata share of a cost of•a facility provided by others, the notice shall include the amounttn be paid and the time when payment must be made. III. PERFOR.\t-1NCE OF THE FORT: Owner agrees to perform the work and make the payments required by City as set forth herein or as modified by the City Council. Owner shall cause plans and specifications for the improvements to be prepared by com- petent persons legally qualified to do the work and to submit said improve- ment plans and specifications for approval prior to commencement of the work described in the notice, and co pay "ity inspccction fees. The ;:ork shall be done in accordance with City standards in effect at the time the improvement plans are submitted for approval. Owner agrees to commence and complete the work within the time specified in the notice given by the Director Of Public Works and to notify the City at least 48 hours prior to start of ;cork. In the event Omer fails to construct any improvements re- quired under this agreement, City may, at its option do the work and collect all the costs from Oc:ner, which costs shall be a lien on all the property described in Exhibit "A" hereof. Permission to enter onto the property of the Owner is granted to City or its contractor as may be necessary to construct such improvements. IV.. JOINT COOPERATIVE PLAN Owner agrees to cooperate upon notice by City with other property owners, the City and other public agencies to provide the improvements set forth herein under a joint cooperative plan including the formation of a local improvement district, if this method is feasible to secure the installation and construction of the improvements. i V REVIEW OF REOUIREMENTS If Owner disagrees with the requirements set forth in any notice to commence installation of improvements he shall, within 30 days of the date the notice was mailed, request a review of the requirements by the City Council. The decision of this Council shall be binding upon both. the City and the Owner. VI MAINTENANCE OF I`•fPROVE� ENTS City agrees to accept for maintenance those improvements specified in Section II which are constructed and completed in accordance with City standards and requirements and are installed within rights -of -way or ease- ments dedicated and accented by resolution of tbe, City, after the expira- tion of one year from date of satisfactory completion, Owner to maintain said improvements at Owner's sole cost and expose at all times prior to such acceptance by City. Owner agrees to provide any necessary ter7orary drainage facilities, access road or other required improvements, to assume responsibility for the proper functioning thereof, to submit plans to the appropriate City agency for r.evie;a, if required, and to maintain said improvements and facilities in a manner which c :•ill preclude any 1azard to life or health or damage to adjoining propc ty. VII. BONDS Prior to approval of ir:provement plans by the City, Owner may be required to execute and deliver to City a faithful performance bold and a labor and materials bond in an amount and form acceptable to City, to be released by City Council in whole or in part upon completion of the work required and payment of all persons furnishing.labor and materials in the performance of the work. VIII. INSURANCE Owner shall maintain or shall require any contractor engaged to perform the work.to maintain, at all tines during the performance of the work called for herein, a separate policy of insurance in a form and amount acceptable to City. IX. INDE:•7_M7 The Otrner shall asst=e the defense and indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, from every expense, liability or payment by reason of injury, including death, to persons, or damage to property suffered through any act or omission, including passive negligence or act of negligence, or both, of the Owner, his employees, agents, con- tractors, subcontractors, or his employees, agents, contractors, subcontrac- tors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them, or arising in any way from the work called for by this agreement, or any part of the premises, including those matters arising out of the deferment of permanent drainage facilities or the adequacy, safety, use or non -use of temporary drainage facilities, the performance or non - performance of the work. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has executed this agreement as of CITY OF SARATOGA Director , Department of Public [storks IN WITNESS [;HEREOF, Owner has executed this agreement as of �1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ............................ county oj .... Santa Clara Sept. 2 76 the undersigned On. .......... ...... ...... .19 ..._ before me,.... ......... _._............................................ a Notary Public, in and for said State, personally appeared------------------------------------------------ Thomas Newton Foster and Geraldine Green Foster ----------------------•-----------.._.._.....--•---......-----.....---...........---••--••---•--...._........---....------....._--•----•---•---••----- ...... ......................known to me to be the persons. whose names ... ate•- - - -•.- subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged t me-�tthhatt - -hey. executed the same. My commission e ,., :_. - J / i Notary Public r 9111111 life I111711111111 Ills 1I 111III- In1112111327111101 OFFICIAL SEAL :..- "j, G�RTRUDE iMACHADO ��'� -` .^o { =, pi%' ' NOTARY PU3 LIC - CALIFORilIA :??J' COUNTY OF ALAIAEDA ®II[1pil /p11111I1�111IC)i,M i5on Expires June IS, 1977 - 13x F:E2:IIflt:® Or r No. Si 428731 -A Those parcels of land in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: BEGINNING at the most Southerly corner of Lot 11 of Tract No. 247 Saratoga Acres, filed on February 11, 1946, Book 8 of Maps, page 22, Santa Clara County Records; thence along the Southeasterly line of Lots 11 and 10 of said Saratoga Acres, N. 140-521 15" L., 177.79 feet, I4. 270 41' 45" L,, 142.34 feet, W. 450 34' 15" E., 165.82 feet and N. 890 35' 45" E., 179.0"( feet to the center line of Wildcat Creek; thence along the center line of Wildcat Creek and the Westerly line of land described in the Deed to Gustav Sutrot recorded October 16, 1945,.Book 1288 Official Records, 4 page 09, S. 520 33' 30" E., 56.44 feet, S. 210 34' 10" W., 69.13 feet, S. 470 08' 50" E., 66.22 feet, S. 180 36' 10" W., 84.43 feet, S. 160 14' 50" E,, 46.87 feet, S. 280 14' 50" E., 57.33 feet, S. 220 00' 10" W., 25.31 feet, S. 18° 35' 50" E,, 41.51 feet, S. 50 12' 50" E;., 46.73 feet and S. 320 47' 50" E., 17.28 feet; thence leaving said center line of Wildcat Creek, S. 860 49' 20" W., 276.64 feet; thence IJ. 780 56► W,, 25.06 feet; thence Southwesterly from a tangent that bears, S. 140 52' W., along a curve to the right having a radius of 75 feet, a central angle of 710 201, an are distance of 93,38 feet; thence S. 860 12' W., 59.52 feet; thence Westerly along a curve to the right, tangent to last described course, having a-radius of 20 feet, a central angle of 81° 15' 45 ", an arc distance of 28.37 feet; thence Northwesterly along a curve to the left, tangent to last described curve having a radius of 125 feet., a central angle of 400 07' 30 ", an arc distance of 87.54 feet; thence N. 520 39' 45" W., 16.50 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL TWO: A non - exclusive easement for ingress, egress and public utilities over the following described parcel of land: BEGINNING at the most Westerly corner of the hereinbefore mentioned Lot 11 of Saratoga Acres; thence along the Southwest- erly line of Lot 11 and the Southwesterly line of the herein - before described 4.22 acre tract, S. 520 39' 45" 13•2 219.02 feet; thence along the boundaries of said 4.22 acre tract, Southeasterly along a curve to the right, tangent to last described course, having a radius of 125 feet, a central angle of 401 07' 30 ", (Continued) CX.W( L_� 1 11,4 f I '.il ii'._ i I I . . pave 2 of description an arc distance of 87.54 feet and Easterly along a curve to the left, tangent to last described curve, having a radius of 20 feet, a central angle of 81 15 45", are 28.37 feet, and N. 860 12' E., 59.52 feet, and Northeasterly along a curve to the left, tangent to last described course, having a radius of 75 feet, a central angle of 711 201, an arc distance of 93.38 feet, and S-78' 56' E., 25.06 feet, N. 860 491 20" E., 26.29 feet; thence leaving; said boundaries S. 15° 521 W., 9.80 feet; thence Southwesterly along; a curve to the right, tangent to last described course, having a radius of 125 feet, a central angle of 71° 201, an arc distance of 155.63 feet; thence S. 860 12' W., 65.54 feet; thence alont; a curve to the left, tangent to last described course, having; a radius of 20 feet, a central angle of 820 29' 45 ", an arc distance of 28.80 feet; thence 14. _86° 17' 45" W., 50 feet; thence 14. 30 le 15" E., 49.46 feet; thence Northerly along a curve to the ft, tangent to last described course, having a radius of 75 feet, a central angle of 560 221, an arc distance of 73.78 feet; thence N. 520 39' 45" W., 219 feet to a point in the Southeasterly line of Horseshoe Drive; thence along said Southeasterly line of Horseshoe Drive, IJ. 370 19' 15" E., 50 feet to the point of beginning. EXHIBIT "B" 1. Dedica.te and improve Horseshoe Court to City Standard 50' wide street including R -36 gutter a.nd storm drain facilities as required by Director of Public Works. 2. Pavement thickness to be designed by Registered Civil Engineer. 3. Construct signs, barrica.des or other appurtenances as required. 0 0, ' Gerry G. Foster 14552 Horseshoe Dr. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Feb. 13, 1989 re: Appeal of approval for SD-88-015, Pierce Subdivision Dear Council Members; When my late husband and I subdivided our adjacent Horseshoe Court parcel in 1975, we were very thorough in our compliance with the requests and requirements of the City of Saratoga. We realized the long lasting effects of planning department decisions and wanted much the same result as the city - an environmentally sound development, especially since we would be living next door for many years. We did what the city asked as regards the utility and road improvements for our project. We spent the time and money to appropriately survey, design and engineer our project to adequately service the two known build-outs and the future remaining empty parcel. I don't think the present approval has taken adequate precautions to extend what we started 14 years ago. I felt very comfortable in 1974 that when the time came to sell our remaining parcel, we would be able to do so with the knowledge that a pew owner would only have to submit the appropriate bulding permit request. If you now allow the Pierce application to proceed to utilize and overload the road, you will not only have overlooked the original intent, but will directly or indirectly place a second financial burden on me for the future sale of my parcel, as I'm sure the city would want the road widened to an unsightly width. If you really think Mr. Pierce should be allowed financial gain at the expense of environmentally sound city zoning requirements, then require him to access the parcel from the appropriate and logical choice, Horseshoe Drive. I trust that you will make the right decision on this matter and preserve the integrity of an area that has been my home for the past 37 years. I will be represented at the March 1 meeting by my son-in-law, Glenn Kral. Sincerely and respectfully, Gerry G. Foster K December 298, 1988 Planning Director CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 9 WILLIAM G. CLANK A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 255 NORTH MARKET STREET, SUITE 190 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110 TELEPHONE: (408) 292 -2434 p�p��{{ FAX (408) 292 -1264 RECEIVED Re: Tentative Map Approval - Pierce Property No. SD -88 -015 Dear Sir: DEC 3 0 1984 PLANNING DEPT. I understand this matter was continued to the next hearing in order for the applicant to present evidence that he has a right of way to the subdivided lot. The title report accompanying his application did not show a recorded right of way. I respectfully suggest that whatever document may be presented to the Commission be reviewed by the City Attorney making sure it is in fact a grant of right of way rather than a grant of a license. It may be that this question is more pertinent to building site approval, but if in fact there is no right of way it would benefit all if the matter was simply withdrawn. Very truly yours,i� / O v WILLIAM G. CLARK WGC:se 12/10/83 To 'Whom It May concern: This As in reference to the notice of hearing on Wed. the 14th of December for SD -88 -015 Pierce, 14584 Horseshoe Dr, request for lot subdivision. We would like to point out three issues that may influence the planning commission's decission as to allowing this subdivision. First, The existing private road that the new lots driveway will have to come off of is owned by the Kraft's. Theirs address is not on Horseshoe and they may not have been notified of the hearing. Second, there is a currently dry creek that runs thru the middle of the .proposed new lot and because of the lack of rain may have been overlooked in the survey. Third, All houses zx in the vicinity of the proposed new lot are on one faa acre or larger lots and even thoough the area is r1- 20,000, a ? acre is not consistent with the existing houses in the immediate vicinity. S inc el�, avid Ladd 14568 Horseshoe Ct. Saratoga, Ca 95070 RECEIVED DEC 1 J 198$ PLANNING DEPT. r� :I B-e Wx,� /3, /N8 RECEWED PLANNING DEPT. "lie - -� a, puva&A,&a "Y W� JI-e- Ali" -d4lne_,el all ,ureR�e�.EC- O Alt Wuwo,w�) -,,(AX ..uu�,a.�, o�$� 71" ` U' 95-a7o 409 - 867 -557¢ WILLIAM G. CLARK A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION Op 255 NORTH MARKET STREET, SUITE 190 December 6, 1988 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110 TELEPHONE: (408) 292 -2434 FAX (408) 292 -1264 Planning Director CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Tentative Map Approval - Pierce Property No. SD -88 -015 Dear Sir: I received notice of a hearing on this matter scheduled for December 14, 1988. My property immediately adjoins the Pierce property on the south. I purchased my lot in 1965 and constructed my house in 1966. Mr. and Mrs. Pierce have been good neighbors all of this time. However, I feel that the subdivision of their lot and the ensuing construction thereon will aesthetically be disharmonious with the surrounding area. A structure built on that lot would appear to be' "crammed" in. When the lots along Horseshoe Drive were originally approved, it was contemplated that the Pierce lot would remain a one acre parcel. This is obvious from the location and manner in which the southerly line that separates the Pierce property from mine was drawn. It was intentionally delineated to create a one acre site. When I purchased my property, it was not reasonably contemplated that an approved subdivision lot would be requested.to be further divided. So far as I know, the Pierce property does not carry with it a right of way over the existing Horseshoe Court. The late Mr. Kirkwood and his family created this right of way to serve my lot and the lots subsequently developed by Dr. Foster. The Pierce property did not require a right of way as it fronts on Horseshoe Drive. Over the years, Dr. Foster and I paved and repaved this road and now the buyers of the Foster lots have joined in this obligation. Therefore, the Pierce lot will have no access unless, of course, Mr. Pierce is able to obtain a right of way dedication from Dr. Kraft, the present owner of the Kirkwood property. At this town on heari Very WILLI WGC:se time, I would oppose the subdivision. I will be out of December 14, 1988, and will be unable to attend the REC91VE-® PLANNING DEPT, APPELLANTS CORRESPONDENCE February 21, 1989 Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 RE: Appeal of approval of SD 88 -015, Two -lot subdivision by Pierce Dear Council Members: Reference: Staff Report (Revised) dated 6 -7 -76. Deferred Payment Agreement by Owner or His Successors in Interest to Construct Land Development Improvements (Note the improvements were under the major subdivision requirements). General Service Information, Planning Department - Bldg site/ Subdivision Approval booklet (City Subdivision Ordinance No.60). In referencing the above items and in a follow -up visit with Mrs. Newton Foster, further specific information follows. In 1976 Dr. T. Newton and Geraldine Foster submitted to the City of Saratoga a 3 -lot subdivision. The subdivision requirements for the Court appeared to fall into the major subdivision requirements for construction of Horseshoe Court as there already existed two homes accessing the Court - the original Estate property and Wm. Clark. These two accesses plus the 3 -lot subdivision placed the project into the "major" subdivision category with 5 residences accessing the Court. Minor subdivisions at that time, and presently, were to be 2 -4 lots. The Fosters' did not want to be placed into the "major" sub- division requirements as the costs involved would have been almost prohibitive to their 3 -lot subdivision as the construction of the Court costs exceeded $70,000 at that time. It was determined the original Estate home was serviced by two accesses, thus the City allowed an exception and allowed the 3 -lot subdivision to be placed under the guidelines for a "minor" subdivision. Thus, no curbs or gutter facilities were required and natural drainage was allowed. The 32' radius for fire protection vehicles was allowed with an 18' wide access roadway and the Court was constructed under the minor subdivision requirements. Although the Court was already considered at maximum use, the construction of the Court was allowed. If Pierce is allowed to access the Court with a (not - suitable. ) lot, the requirements for the Court would obviously be affected in regard to major subdivision requirements for a Court and need to be brought up to full City standards. See Exhibit B, document dated 8/25/76, "Dedicate and improve Horseshoe Court to City Standard - 50' wide street including R -36 gutter and storm drainage facilities as required by Director of Public Works ". The staff report prepared by Martin Jacobson as submitted by the Planning Depart- ment recommending approval of the lot split was incomplete when approved by the Planning Commission. The City Department of Public Works was not consulted prior to approval of the proposed lot split. In 1976 a "Deferred Maintenance Agreement" was entered into with Dr. and Mrs. Foster. This document should be perused and made available to the Council Members. (Note: Staff Report(Revised) dtd 6 -7 -76, SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, ITEM V). The residents Page 2 Appeal - SD 88 -015 (Pierce.Subdivision) who access the Court refuse to be responsible for any of these costs nor will dedicate any of their property to widen the private court to 50' wide. It is obvious with another access to the private court, the private Court would be over burdened and obviously was never meant to have any additional lot splits accessing the Court. An exception had already been made for the construction of the Court and its use is already at maximum capacity with the five (5) accesses already to the private Court. Any further use would be overburdening the use of the Court and the safety of the residents using the Court. The private Court is unique to the neighborhood as a small private street. To widen the street for one "Gn,sGFitabfie lot totally out of character for the surrounding properties, would be unthinkable. Again, the historical aspect of the old Estate governing the area should be a consideration. The impact of the financial gain received by one, Mr. Pierce, at the expense of five (5) others on the Court and at the expense of this beautiful historical area, seems inappropriate and certainly not a logical choice. See attached parcel map noting actual property stake (metal pipe) for the Estate property. The Pierce property does not abut the private court in the area as led to believe by proposed survey map submitted for Pierce subdivision. The present owners of the Estate property had their entire property surveyed in the late 1970's, a survey on record with the City of Saratoga. The entire private drive, except for the 32' radius turn around, is still owned as part of the original historical home site. The actual amount of land for this non - conforming lot split by Mr. Pierce may also be in question. We invite any of the Council Members to visit the private Court in its present natural state and consider the severe impact of the proposed lot split. We trust you will consider the above items noted and make the correct decision to preserve this rural historical area. Sincerely, Dorothy' and Robert Billner (40� 867 -5574 Enclosure: Documents: Staff Report(Revised) dtd 6 -7 -76 Deferred Payment Agreement by Owner or His Successors in Interest to Construct... Land Development Improvements General Service Information, Planning Dept. Bldg site /Subdivision Approval: (City Ordinance No. 60) Letter in opposition from 5 residents accessing Horseshoe Ct. Parcel Map CIcY Oil., sAItA I)CA 3;r,,t 7, 357f, STAI c RE-J ORT ' S!)f _1174 - T'wmas N. }'o,tert Horsesi!Oe ?rive, l:uiid: n� Si t e /rn2_. 3 Lots Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 Gc neral Plall and all requirements Of tilt.: :a :yin;, and Subdivisiun Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. A Negative Declaration was made and' filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office rClatiVE to the environmental impact of this project on 'March 27, 1975. 711e Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR- _1.174 Wxhibit filed April 15, 3.975 ) subject to the folluwi.ng conditions: I. CENERAL COhDI IONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ord- nance No. 60, including wi.t:hout: limitation the submission of a Rccord of Survey or Parcel Map, payinout of- storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established L•y Ordinance in effect at the time of tentative approval, submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work and compliance with applicable Health Department re;ulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Ref- erence is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's 'Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with 'the. following Specific Conditi••ns which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ** A. Construct standard turnaround having 32 foot radius. ** B. Improve Horseshoe Court to provide an 18 -foot wide access road using 2`." •A.C. on 6" A.B. minimum from Horseshoe Drive to turnaround. Actual pavement thickness to be based on subgrade R value. C. ' Construct standard driveway approaches. D. Submit complete improvement plans for acceleration and dreelerat:i.on lanes. E. Provideadequate sight- distance and remove obstructions of vies, as require -'. r. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will chsnge, retard or prevent flow. C. Convey drainage water to street or watercourse as spproved by the Director of Public Works. H. ]dove utilities (poles, pipes, etc.) as Pay be required. I. Engineered improvement plans required for street, access rood and storm sewer construction. J. Bond .,nd inspection fee as determined from engineered plans to be posted and paid. K. Prior to final approval, submit a grading, plan showing; col Lours, retaining vallo, cuts, fills, elevations and cubic yards of earth to be L. Prior to final approval, submit surface drainage plan of site .and roof drainage system. M. Cocply wlth requiremont:s of Santa Cla ra Cc,unty S:rllit.ac.oa n- J- ,Lrict ::a. 4 :a st.+tcd in itu letter dated April 16, 19.15. .I. (•.0::1;31)• with rouqulrowellts Of !,:lnin Clara Vall, :y �. :�t+ ".' 1)1: +11':.•:.1 :+'y r�ratrd letter datM April. J7, 1975. 14vrert (I<rvined) ltJ:. :iuJC•- .U.7 /•, 7i +a:ar,� IJ. 1'c::lcr .IUnr• � 1 •,; �, • 0. Construct a turuarc•und at the pl:OPOSt'd ::iLk' Of ),Itc,1 '•10" i;o%,it.J_. a 32 -four insudr radius. Gcit<:r approved t:y;:e turn_.cu.::.. u:•C n.•.e: '1,0 of tine Fire Chief . Detai is shall bP s;town on t;a? t-•:.t , ],!in!; l:l +,n:; ' ti r I arc-!! P. Provide a parkin;; area for four. (4) en:t:rfcr,cy ve;:i les at pr,` •osad bui'i�i.:, cite Of Parcel "B" or as required by tic Fi:e Chief. !)ctails �.:u,ll ba :;h,t,'a at: buildin; plans for ?arcel "B ". Q. Extension of existing water systetr, adjacent to site is r::ouired for fire protec- t ion. flans to show locatisn of hater mains and one (1) t,u:: fire hydrant must be submitted prior to final approval. Prior to fins_ approval, at: atiena:;te bond is to be posted with the City to assure completion: of vatcr system. R. Provide fifteen (15) feet minimum vertical clearance over the rued or driveway to building; sites. S. Existing tennis court fencing is subject to application and apprnvsl of a Use Permit. T. Sewane disposal is to be provided by sanitary se: ers installed .`.rid connected by the developer to one of the existing sewer mains of Sanit:lL'-J.On DistrieL NO. Final Approval of proposed. development is conLinge :.t upon the posting of an adequate bond by the developer with Santa Clara County Sar.iattion District '1o. 4 to assure completion of sewers as planned. U. Domestic water is to be furnished by Ssn Jose Water Works Cotspany. ** V. Enter into a Deferred Improvemetn Agreement for the improvement of Hor!-•cshoe Court to City standards inclodin , but not limited to storrt ervir, frcilities, curly and gutter and pavt:n.ent. Agret--eant to specify •'arcels A; B add C Chr:11 participate equally in any costs of suca future improvemetnE. Agreement r;hal.l also rpqui.rie dedication of all rights-of-way or easements necssary for such :improvements. iii. M-2-1ENTS A. Designer to sign all sheets on plans. B. Submit 3 sets of plans for plan check with plan check Tree. C. All utilities sre to be underground. D. Property is located in a potentially hazardous fire arc-a. Prior to is::unnee of building permit, remove combustive vegetation. fire-- rcrardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details stall be shown on the building pl.-ins. Donnie E:Irc,.1.. ;,nproved j 1'lan:IiIle Cor.r.tsaion A;+,enda: 6/4/76 ** AS APPROVED BY THE P1A_C::T':C CC•`f`fIS4I?`i al' 'f l'' >. !R: -XULAX N:'' i ":G /`-• i' DEFEPRED PAYMENT ACREE'MNT BY OI; :ER OR HIS SUCCESSORS I\ I::TEIIEST TO CONSTRUCT IA';D DEVF.LOi' :•!E \T I`:"!ZOVE'.E':TS Project identification: This agreement between the CITY OF SARATOGA, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and THOUS N. FOSTER and GERALDINE a FOSTER hereinafter referred to as "Oc,mer". UTHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property described in Exhibit "A" but wishes to defer construction of pemanent improvements be;ond the time limits other%.,ise required and City agrees to such defer:aent provided Owner agrees to construct improvements as herein provided. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: I. AGREE' \T BINDING 0:� SUCCESSORS-IN" INTEREST This agreement is an instrument affecting the title and posses- sion of the real property described in Exhibit "A ". All the terms, cove- nants and conditions herein imposed shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors in interest of O%:rer. Upon any sale or division of the property described in Exhibit "A ", the terms of this agreement shall apply separately to each parcel and the o;mer of each parcel shall succeed to the obligations imposed on 0%.ner by this agreement. II. STREET AND DRAI NAGE 1?1PROVEME \TS A. City and Owner agree that the improvements set forth in this section may be.deferred because: r 1 B. Owner agrees to construct the following improvements on the pro - perty described in Exhibit "A" as well as required off site improvements in the spanner set forth in this agreement: ; Improvements required by City Department of Public Works are g:n- crally described on Exhibit "B ". (Cross out improvements that are not re- quired.) 1. Curb and gutter 11. Relocation of existin fences, signs and utilities 3. Drive:.:ays 12. I'a )-ment of a pre rata share of 4. Street grading, base and the costs as determined b;; ::'.•0 paving Dept. of Public forks of a s'.0 =-M S. Storm drainage facilities drainage or s:recc i.provcment - os which has been, or is to be, provided by others or jointly provided by owner and others h "here such facility beleiics t ^c property d•scribed in Exhibit 9. Barricades and other improve - 'ments needed for traffic safety to Cc1._ T l . ' l i r e J� 1 0 C. ldner, the Director ei : soiic worr.s ecterr"'IcS cnac cne rea_•nns for the deferment of the improvements as set forth in Section II no lonher exist, he shall notify Owner in writing to commence their installation and construction. The notice shall be mailed to the current owner or owners of the land as shorn on the latest adopted county assessment roll. The notice shall describe the wurk to be done by owners, the time within %•;',rich the work shall commence and the time within which it shall be completed. All or any portion of said improvements may be required at a specified time. Each Owner shall participate on a pro rata basis in the cost of the improvements to be installed. If Owner is obligated to pay a pro rata share of a cost of'a facility provided by others, the notice shall include the amountto be paid and the time when payment must be made. III. PERFOR.\L.XNCE OF THE WORK Owner agrees to perform the work and make the payments required by City as set forth herein or as modified by the City Council. owner shall cause plans and specifications for the improvements to be prepared by com- petent persons legally qualified to do the work and to submit said improve- ment plans and specifications for approval prior to cormiencement of the work described in the notice, and to pay City inspection fees. The work shall be done in accordance with City standards ill effect at the time the improvement plans are submitted for approval. otnier agrees to co::Lmence and complete the work within the time specified in the notice given by the Director Of Public Works and to notify the City at least 48 hours prior to start of work. In the event Owner fails to construct any improvements re- q uired under this agreement, City may, at its option do the work and collect all the costs from Ot.ner, which costs shall be a lien on all the property described in Exhibit "A" hereof. Permission to enter onto the property of the Occner is granted to City or its contractor as may be necessary to construct such improvements. IV.. JOINT COOPERATIVE PLAN Owner agrees to cooperate upon notice by City with other property owners, the City and other public agencies to provide the improvements set forth herein under a joint cooperative plan including the formation of a local improvement district, if this method is feasible to secure the �. installation and construction of the improvements.. y V REVIEW OF REOUIMTENTS If Owner disagrees with the requirements set forth in any notice to commence installation of improvements he shall, within 30 days of the date the notice was mailed, request a review of the requirements by the City Council. The decision of this Council shall be binding upon both. the City and the Owner. VI MAINTENANCE OF I`MROVD ENTS City agrees to accept for maintenance those improvements specified in Section II which are constructed and completed in accordance with City standards and requirements and are installed %..ithin rights-of-way or case- ments dedicated and accepted by resolution of tire City, after the expira- tion of one.year from date of satisfactory compnetion, 0%,ner to maintain said improvements at Owner's sole cost and expczse at all times prior to such acceptance by City. Owner agrees to provide any necessary terynrary drainage facilities, access road or other required improvements, to assume responsibility for the proper functioning thereof, to submit plans to the appropriate City agency for review, if required, and to maintain said improvements and 'facilities in a manner which will preclude any ibzzard to life or health or (.],image to adjoining property. VII. BONDS Prior to approval of improvement plans by the City, Ot.•ner may be required to exc« ute and deliver to City a faithful perfor.ance bond and a labor and materials bond in an amount and form acceptable to City, to be released by City Council in thole or in part upon completion of the work required and pad -nent of all persons furnishing labor and materials in the performance of the work. VIII. 12 :SUIUNCE Owner shall maintain or shall require any contractor engaged to perfo m the work to maintain, at all times during the performance of the work called for herein, a separate policy of insurance in a form and amount acceptable to City. IX. INDE --MT1 The Owner shall assL^ne the defense and indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, from every expense, liability or payment by reason of injury, including death, to persons, or damage to property suffered through any act or omission, including passive negligence or act of negligence, or both, of the 0:-ner, his employees, a�ents, con - tractors, subcontractors, or his emDloyees, agents, contractors, subcontrac- tors, or anyone directly or indirectly emplrived by either of them, or arising in any way from the work called for by this agreement, or any part of the premises, including those matters arising out of the deferment o= permanent drainage facilities or the adequacy, safety, use or non -use of temporary drainage facilities, the performance or non - performance of the work. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has executed this agreement as of 0 CITY OF SARATOGA Director , Departr.ent of Public forks IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this agreement as of A.�et-0 1976 . 1J _" i G-3 ov-nc�iThomas Newton Foster er ne reea oa er (This document to be acknowledged with signatures as they appear on deed of title.) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Oz- 'r No. 0"J 428731 -A Those parcels of land in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: BEGINNING at the most Southerly corner of Lot 11 of Tract No. 247 Saratoga Acres, filed on February 11, 19116, Book 8 of Maps, page 22, Santa Clara County Records; thence along the Southeasterly line of Lots 11 and 10 of said Saratoga Acres, 14. 140 52' 15" E., 177.79 feet, 14. 270 41' 45" E., 142.34 feet, IJ. 45° 311' 15" E., 165.82 feet and 14. 890 35' 45" L., 179.07 feet to the center line of Wildcat Creek; thence along the center line of Wildcat Creek and the Westerly line of land described in the Deed to Gustav Sutro recorded October 169 1945J.-Book 1288 Official Records, page 409, S. 520 33' 30" E., 56.44 feet, S. 210 34' 10" W., 69.13 feet, S. 47°: 08' 50" E., 66.22 feet, S. 180 36' 10" W., 84.43 feet, S. 160 14'.50" E., 46.87 feet, S. 280 14' 50" E., 57.33 feet, S. 220 001.10" W., 25.31 feet, S. 180 35' 50" E., 41.51 feet, S. 50 12':,50" E., 46.73 feet and 5..320 47' 50" E., 17.28 feet; thence leaving said center line of Wildcat Creek, S. 860 49' 20" W., 276.64 feet; thence 1J. 78° 56' W., 25.06 feet; . thence Southwesterly from a tangent that bears, S. 140 52' W., along a curve to the right having a radius.of 75 feet, a central angle of 710 201, an arc distance of 93.38 feet; thence S. 860 12' W., 59.52 feet; thence Westerly along a curve to the right, tangent to last described course, having; a radius of 20 feet, a central angle.of 810 15' 45 ", an arc distance of -28.37 feet; thence Northwesterly along a curve to the left, tangent to last described curve having a radius of 125 feet., a central angle of 40° 07' 3011, an arc distance of 87.54 feet; thence 1q. 520 39' 45" W., 16.50 feet to the point of beginning.. PARCEL TWO: A non - exclusive easement for ingress, egress and public utilities over the following described parcel of land: BEGINNING at the most Westerly corner of the hereinbefore . mentioned Lot 11 of Saratoga Acres; thence along the Southwest- erly line of Lot 11 and the Southwesterly line of the herein - before-described 4.22 acre tract, S. 52° 39' 45" E., 219.02 feet; thence along the boundaries of said 4.22 acre tract, Southeasterly along a curve to the right, tangent to last described course, having a radius.of 125 feet, a central angle of 400 07' 30 ", (Continued) Page 2 of UescripLior, i an arc distance of 87.54 feet and Easterly along a curve to the left tangent to last described curve, havingiatradius of 20 feet,�a central angle of 81° 15' 45", an 2$.37 feet, and 11. 860 12' E., 59.52 feet, and ldorthea.sterly along a curve to the left, tangent to last described course, having a radius of 75 feet, a central angle of 100G01eetn I�. are distance of 93.38 feet, and S. 780 56' E., 860 491.20" E., 26.29 feet; thence leaving said boundaries S. 15° 521 w., 9.80 feet; thence Southwesterly along; a curve to t1�e right, tangent to last described course, having a radius of 125 ' feet, a central,angle of 7 an arc distance of 155.63 feet • thence S. 860 121.W., 65.54 feet; thence along a curve to the left, tangent to last described course, havindistanceuofo28 ?80 feet a central angle of 82° 29' 0 fI 0 42' 15" feet; thence 1d. 86° 17' 45" w•, 50 feet thence 14. 3 E,., 49.46 feet;'thence Northerly along a curve to the left, . tangent to last described course, having; a radius of 75 feet, a central angle of 561 221, an are distance of 73.78 feet; thinee N. 520 39' 45" w•, 219 feet to a saidtSouth the easterlyelinerof of Horseshoe Drive; thence E., 50 feet to the point of Horseshoe Drive, 14. 37 beginning. Li EXHIBIT "B" 1. Dedica.te and improve Horseshoe Court to City Standard 50' wide street including R -36 gutter and storm drain facilities as required by Director of Public Works. 2. Pavement thickness to be designed by Registered Civil Engineer. 3. Construct signs, barricades or other appurtenances as required. MM 4n PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING SITE /SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 3 The City Subdivision Ordinance (No. 60) requires the submission of a "Tentative Map" for review and approval of all major land divisions (5 or more lots), miner lot splits (2 -4 lots) and single building sites not previously approved in accordance with this Ordinance. Tentative maps are reviewed and conditioned to insure the logical and coordinated development of the City. Once approved and following compliance with the terms and conditions of the tentative map, this map becomes a final parcel map. PROCEDURE TO OBTAIN BUILDING SITc /SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 1. Obtain application from rrom Planning Department. 2. Submit completed application form and questionnaire, along with all maps and other documents and filing fee ($50 /lot for minor land divisions and single sites; $300 for first 10 lots of sub- divisions plus $10 /lot for each lot over 10). i 4. Each building.site / -ninor land division application is agendized for a Land Development Committee meeting 4 -6 weeks after submission for tentative approval. Subdivision applications are agendized for a subdivision sub - committee meeting, and then a Planning Commission meeting 4 -6 weeks after submission for consi- deration of tentative approval. Final approval.can be obtained (from the City Council for subdivisions and from the Planning Commission for minor land divisions and site approvals) once all tentative approval conditions have been complied with or otherwise resolved in accordance with the adopted Staff Report filed on the application. 0 APPRO "/1 USE PERMITS The Planning Depar; processing of all 1 ultimately be appr( Commission followi: hearing. Use Perm: establishment of c: zoning districts. not a matter of ri: Commission'may den: finds that the.imp, regulations would . use from adversely properties and use Article 16) PROCEDURE TO OBTAII, l.....Obtain applica; ..Department. 2.. Submit complet. questionnaire, maps, document: for.public not: in person to a went. 3: r:pplications m� one month prio Date Receiv Hearing Dat Fee, CITY ' U APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant:'.' Eillner,•Kraft, LaDD & Clark: Address. 14578 "'Horseshoe Court, Saratoga Telephone: '° ; 867 -5574: Name,- 'of APplicant PIERcE Pro J ect t File No • SD £? 8 015 Project Address 4SR4.UTnrseshoe Drive, SaratocaL Proj ect Des,cript ion•; _•'l,. ,, -1 nt-ZU'le i. v i s ion Decision Being Appealed: /A4 aroroval of 2 -lot subcivisioh by Planning Cbmmission Grounds" for the Appeal (Letter. may: be, attached) : • 1 § c: .SEE ATTACHED.';LETTERS (Billner, Kraft,. Ladd, Clark) ATTACHED...' 1.1Impact /Burden`on Horseshoe Court- number of individual accesses to, private' Court, incorrect on staff report. There are presently 5 .and.uith "subdivi ;sion` split there would. be 6 ... see; letter,(Billr Tentative.parc,el map submitted by�Pi,erce may not.be,.aceurate. Seeyti'1''lrner .letter per,,.,discussion -with Mr. Emslie �. Impact o.rl,Rsurrounding R- .90,000 zoning and impact on historical-9 4 Utilitias' �- particular -ly.:se sewer. O1 C j-s /g einin5;historic Kirkwood /Blaney Estate property. zy le ,1 Robert &;;Doroth Lill er. Davao f & .Carol :,Ladd: pell ant: 's Sign ZZ D8 ersten. and* Susan: Kraf fiTi i n Fiet 1 r . *Please:do not sign `this, application until Cit it is presented at the y,;ofrices. If you wish specific people, to be notified of this appeal 'Please list.-them-on a.'separate sheet • ' TILTS APPI..T TON MUST BE SUI)MITTrD IVTTIIIN TEN (10) CALC�JDAR DA ll�: D,1fL Ul '1'HL .UL�'�1�SI0, YS 0' masu�niinnmv�uxas�xnmms�n�� ME elll�I��ee�I�I1ri.�A�nwwauowav rv® John Kersten Kraft, M.D. A Professional Corporation Diplomat of the American Board of Urology r Pediatric and Adult Urology Male Infertility Planning Commission.':' City of Saratoga Saratoga, California 95070 RE: 88 -015 Pierce Subdivision'' 2550 Samaritan Dr. Suite D San Jose, CA 95124 (408) 356 -6177 Dear Sirs: The follwoing issues were raised by me during the oral open hearing before the planning commission in December 1988. 1. Easement rights which were granted by the estate of'Kirkwood (previous owner of Bella Vista prior to my owning the property) may not be extended to future subdivision and certainly if subidvision is granted, this places an increased and unintended burden upon me and my property. 2. This subdivision would create two new R 20,000 lots in or adjacent to both R 40,000 lots and homes., and a historical building in.Saratoga; further this new parcel would not be located on city served or maintained streets and may not have full available utility services, i.e. sewer and water. 3. Horse shoe court is not a city'street and may not meet requirements for adequate fire and public safety protection. Creation of a new parcel with the intent to allow a new home to be built upon it would increase the number of active users to six homeowners Ladd, Bildner, Kraft, Clark, Pierce, and new parcel as well as an unbuilt parcel between Ladd and Bildner. I feel uncomfortable with whether more traffic- can be handled safely over the existing pavement and easement.' A flag access on Pierce's own property should be required to his new parcel as part of his subdivision. Because of the nature of the access and neighborhood, I feel it is not in the best interest,of the city.to grant this subdivision. I ask for an appeal of the current tenative approval and feel that upon review the subdivision will be denied. I remain available to speak with or give any additional written documents or information as may be required by the commission. Sincerely, J. ersten raft, M.D... ; :, :, D�� D FEB 61989 : CITY OF SARATOGA C,'ITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Data Received:_ Hearing Date: Fee : CITY USE ON APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: Billner, Kraft, LaDD & Clark Address: 14578 horseshoe Court, Saratoga Telephone: 867 -5574 Name of Applicant: PIERCE Project File No.: sB- gg_015 Project Address: _ _ 1QSR4 Horseshoe Drive, SaratogA Project Description: subdivision Decision Being Appealed: anproval of 2 -lot Subdivision' by Planning Commission • Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): SEE ATTACHED LETTERS (Billner, Kraft, Ladd, Clark) ATTACHED... 1. Impact /Burden on Horseshoe Court- number of individual accesses to private Court incorrect on staff report. There are presently 5 and with subdivision split there would.be 6 ... see letter(Billner) 2. Tentative parcel map.submitted by Pierce may not -be accurate. See Billner letter per'discussibn•with Mr. Emslie. ?. Im.pact on surrounding R- 40,000 zoning and impact on historical site. 4. Utilities - particularly sewer. 5. 01 CSyyt�s g erning historic Kirkwood /Blaney Estate property.'. 1�,t 4-AIJI) ,O _^'�• `� -tee 2. �1��.t- Gii -� Robert Dorot Billner David & Carol Ladd. *.�.�� -APP01 ant's ign u DR ersten anc'• Susan Kraf !Ti 1 m Bet 1 *P ease do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. T11I1S APPI,JC,�TION MUST BE SUBMITTED 1ViTF1IN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF �`l i L' D— ,•f L`�U 1• 'f— I'— I L p �i'�1'� I 0. . February 5, 1989 Saratoga Planning Commission ATTN: City Clerks Office Betsy Cory RE: Subdivision SD -88 -015, PIERCE, 14584 Horseshoe Drive request for tentative map approval for a two lot subdivision Since we live on Horseshoe Court and are definitely affected by the above mentioned subdivision, we are requesting an appeal and rehearing on the following basis: 1. Impact /burden on privately owned Horseshoe Court. There is a distinct possibility that if another access would be granted for another residence off Horseshoe Court, meaning there are presently five (5) accesses already off the Court, and with the Pierce subdivision approval, there would be six (6) accessing the Court. In. discussing the approval and construction of the Court with the Planning Director, there should exist at the City of Saratoga (1972) documentation covering the private Court for five (5) accesses only. With six (6) accesses to the Court, the Court would need to be upgraded to a City street and be under City maintenance.The City needs to be prepared to address such an issue. 2. In talking with the Planning Director, Mr. Emslie, there is the possibility that the parcel map submitted by Mr. Pierce may,not be accurate. Dr. Kraft surveyed his property in the late 1970's and placed posts in cement on his property lines. This survey was recorded and of record with the City of Saratoga. There exists a post at least five (5) feet into what appears to be Mr. Pierce's property from the private paved Court. If one looks closely at the parcel map of the Kraft and Pierce property, there exists a parcel line across the property showing Pierce property not running with the outline of the existing private paved Court.There is also question of the validity of his parcel map as its doubtful the property'was ever surveyed and the individual submitting the map did not sign the parcel map nor any indication to be a licensed surveyor according to the map. 3. Impact of R -20 zoning in an existing R -40 zoning area.The area around the rear portion of Mr. Pierce's lot is all zoned R- 40,000. The City should try and minimise impact on existing historical site - Kirkwood /Blaney Estate built by Willis Polk in the early 1900's. Other properties built by Willis Polk include Montalvo (Saratoga) and Fioli (Woodside). All these homes contain at least 11,000 square feet and are considered true estates. The private Court is still owned by and a part of the historic site. We should try to preserve these historic areas rather that destroy what little we have left in our City. If Mr. Pierce is allowed to sub- divide his property, one must worry about a precedence being set for other vacant acreage presently zoned R- 40,000 still remaining on the Court. 4. Access to public utilities such as sewer. The sewer does not run in the Court, except to serve two newer homes, a vacant parcel and now the Estate home. Access is from District #4 which serves homes also off Farwell and lower Douglas area. The sewer line runs near the creek and across the lower portion of our lot (Billner parcel). 5. Old CC & R's governing these surrounding properties which at one time or another was part of the Kirkwood /Blaney Estate and should be perused for restrictions. When we built our home in 1977 we abided by these CC &R's on record with the City at that time. The above items were all discussed with the Planning Director, Mr. Steve Emslie, and he'is also looking into these items with true concerns. We hope you will look at these items very carefully as we truly have a wonderfully unique City here and hope we can do our best over the years to preserve it. Sincerely, Bob & Dottie Billner 14578 Horseshoe Court Saratoga, CA. John Kersten Kraft, M.D. A Professional Corporation Diplomat of the American Board of Urology Pediatric and Adult Urology Male Infertility Planning Commission City of Saratoga Saratoga, California 95070 RE: 88 -015 Pierce Subdivision Dear Sirs: 2550 Samaritan Dr. Suite D San Jose, CA 95124 (408) 356 -6177 The follwoing issues were raised by me during the oral open hearing before the planning commission in December 1988. 1. Easement rights which were granted by the estate of Kirkwood (previous owner of Bella Vista prior to my owning the property) may not be extended to future subdivision and certainly if subidvision is granted, this places an increased and unintended burden upon me and my property. 2. This subdivision would create two new R 20,000 lots in or adjacent to both R 40,000 lots and homes, and a historical building in Saratoga; further this new parcel would not be located on city served or maintained streets and may not have full available utility services, i.e. sewer and water. 3. Horse shoe court is not a city street and may not meet requirements for adequate fire and public safety protection. Creation of a new parcel with the intent to allow a new home to be built upon it would increase the number of active users to six homeowners Ladd, Bildner, Kraft, Clark, Pierce, and new parcel as well as an unbuilt parcel between Ladd and Bildner. I feel uncomfortable with whether more traffic can be handled safely over the existing pavement and easement. A flag access on Pierce's own property should be required to his new parcel as part of his subdivision. Because of the nature of the access and neighborhood, I feel it is not in the best interest of the city to grant this subdivision. I ask for an appeal of the current tenative approval and feel that upon review the subdivision will be denied. I remain available to speak with or give any additional written documents or information as may be required by the commission. Sincerely, c,- J. tersten Kraft, M.D. ) 14568 Horseshoe Court Saratoga, California 95070 It 4 � WL S City Clerk CITY Of SARATOGA 13777 f£Qitvale avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 2e: Tentative Map approval - pierce Property No. SD- 88015 Very t£ ? y »:Q£s, \ WILLIAM G. CLA » ^ File No. APN AUMORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING Gerry G. Foster 14552 Horseshoe Dr. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Feb. 137 1989 re: Appeal of approval for SD-88-015, Pierce Subdivision Dear Council Members; When my late husband and I subdivided our adjacent Horseshoe Court parcel in 1975, we were very thorough in our compliance with the requests and requirements -of the City of Saratoga. We realized the long lasting effects of planning department decisions and wanted much the same result as the city - an environmentally sound development, especially since we would be living next door for many years. We did what the city asked as regards the utility and road improvements for our project. We spent the time and money to appropriately survey, design and engineer our project to adequately service the two known build -OUts and the future remaining empty parcel. I don't think the present approval has taken adequate precautions to extend what,we started 14 years ago. I felt very comfortable in 1974 that when the time came to sell our remaining parcel, we would be able to.do so with the knowledge that a new owner would only have to submit the appropriate bulding permit request. If you now allow the Pierce application to proceed to utilize and overload the road, you will not only have overlooked the original intent, but will directly or indirectly place a second financial burden on me for the future sale of my parcel, as I'm sure the city would want the road widened to an unsightly width. If you really think Mr. Pierce should be allowed financial gain at the expense of environmentally sound city zoning requirements, then require him to access the parcel from the appropriate and logical choice, Horseshoe Drive. I trust that you will make the right decision on this matter and preserve the.integrity of an area that has been my home for the past 37 years. I will be represented at the March 1 meeting by my son -in -law, Glenn Kral. Sincerely and respectfully, Gerry G. Foster �O� ,ry OFFICE OF COUNTY a55ESSOR \ y\ '�0 SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ( \�aa� /'o olk SEC 7 TPBS RIW. MOM .� i0r�,p\1 opt Goo \�1 ►�` •fie � 1' Q 9 r CJ. 0► �e-c PG. �t 1�� b Ire •e 44 , ^� r ' z P.M. 531 - M - 48 ,1t 24 \� \ V �•.b�'' r 6 s — /�� 47 w Q 49 Z c > �9 �sd 1 s�� ° r r d I 018 / ac > '0c k �Z 46 r i N S0 _ uo . _ Q S • \�\ �� t i _ n° 1.18 �C (vl � �• ; � to ti - - W 79 Y, a \� v PM 564 -M -37 t r- of v : 28 r — 0► f� �, ` h I W ✓ItTA — —K N 1j, 78 i .r 51 . c- Z M A0 i► p �� G IS -------- +-- - - - - -- h-0 1065 AC. 0 To Whom It May Concern: 12/10/88 This is in reference to the notice of hearing on Wed. the 14th of December for SD -88 -015 Pierce, 14584 Horseshoe Dr, request for lot subdivision. We would like to point out three issues that may influence the planning commission's decission as to allowing this subdivision. First, The existing private road that the new lots driveway will have to come off of is owned by the Kraft's. Thelrt address is not on Horseshoe and they may not have been notified of the hearing. Second, there is a currently dry creek that runs thru the middle of the proposed new lot and because of the lack of rain may have been overlooked in the survey. Third, All houses an in the vicinity of the proposed new lot are on one Yaa acre or larger lots and even thoough the area is r1- 20,000, a i acre is not consistent with the existing houses in the immediate vicinity. Since el , avid Ladd 14568 Horseshoe Ct. Saratoga, Ca 95070 RECEIVED DEC 13 1988 PLANNING DEPT. r. • WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 100 East Sunnyoaks Avenue Campbell, California 95008 lele phone (40P, 378.2407 November 15, 1988 Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: TENTATIVE MAP (LAND OF PIERCE) Gentlepersons: SD -88 -015 SERVING RESIDENTS OF CITY OF CAMP14[ 1 1 TOWN OF LOS GAICIS C11 Y OF MON7F SEW No C17 Y OF SARA TOGA UNINCORPORATED A Fit A This office has reviewed the plans for the above project. The existing residence on parcel "A" is on Sewer. Sewer Service to the future residence on parcel "B" can be achieved with the following alternatives: 1) Connect a 4 -inch lateral to the existing main sewer on Horseshoe Drive, through a private sewer easement within parcel "A ". A pump will be required in the on -site plumbing system. 2) Construct a 200 -Ft sewer main extending from the end of Horseshoe Court to the property line. The proposed sewer extension will be a Public Sewer System and will be designed in accordance with the District's Standards. Please contact the undersigned if any questions arise. Ver tr y yours, J (, Jon than K. Lee Assistant Civil Engineer JKL /kt cc: Westfall Engineering 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 George Pierce 14584 Horseshoe Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 c (FORMERLY COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NC) 4) � SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. J U �j MEETING DATE: March 1, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning AGENDA ITEM: :]A CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Sphere of Influence /Urban Service Area Study Recommended Motion: Authorize staff to send a "letter of intent" to LAFCO. Report Summary: Council is being requested to authorize staff to proceed with the in -depth SOI /USA study by filing a "letter of intent" with LAFCO. The letter outlines the City's project and requests preliminary feedback from LAFCO on the possiblity of expanding the City's boundaries and the extent of environmental review that will be required. Fiscal Impacts: None at this time. Attachments: l) Staff retort. 2) Letter of Intent. M., *;-- �-A 17 -4--. 0919W o2 §&MZ1XQ)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council DATE: February 24, 1989 FROM: Steve Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Sphere of Influence /Urban Service Area Study ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Council direction at their 1/24/89 study session on this item was to have staff proceed with more detailed studies and proposals for extending the SOI and USA boundaries with LAFCO staff. In light of the recent sale of the Paul Masson Mountain Winery and the Saratoga Country Club annexation request, staff has stepped up its activity on this item and prepared this memo for Council action. We have recently met with LAFCO staff and arrived at the following proposal for proceeding with this project. LAFCO requires that cities take a comprehensive rather than piecemeal approach to the review and amendment of their SOI and USA boundaries. The Masson and Country Club annexations should be considered in light of larger issues associated with the City's overall growth plan. In response to LAFCO's concerns, staff is recommending that the City file a "letter of intent" to LAFCO outlining our overall SOI /USA objectives. This letter of intent would be scheduled for LAFCO review and response at one of their upcoming meetings. They would then give the City preliminary feedback on the project, and City Planning staff would then proceed with the comprehensive analysis. LAFCO would also provide the City with guidance on the extent of environmental review that would be required for the project. LAFCO meets on the second Wednesday of every other month. The next three meeting dates are April 12, June 14 and August 9. Materials must be submitted five weeks in advance of the meeting at which they will be considered. Staff recommends the Council authorize the sending of the attached "letter of intent" in time for LAFCO to consider it at their April 12 meeting. Staff anticipates making an oral and visual presentation to LAFCO at that time. We will then proceed with the comprehensive analysis of the potential expansion of the City's SOI and USA boundaries. 1 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council authorize the sending of the attached "Letter of Intent" to LAFCO. to en EmsjZie Planning Director 2 A:sphere DRAFT LETTER OF INTENT Sally Logothetti Assistant Executive Officer LAFCO 70 W. Hedding Street, 11th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 Dear Sally: The purpose of this letter is to express the intent of the City of Saratoga to perform an in -depth analysis of our Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area boundaries with the intent of expanding them in certain areas. We are also requesting that you schedule our letter of intent for LAFCO consideration at its April 12, 1989 meeting. We anticipate making an informal presentation to the Commission at that time, and look forward to obtaining preliminary feedback on our proposal and the extent of environmental review that will be required. The City of Saratoga General Plan mandates that we periodically evaluate our unincorporated Urban Service Areas and Sphere of Influence to determine if the areas are compatible with LAFCO's policies and are appropriate for annexation and urban development. Our General Plan policies further mandate that we control the density of development in hillside areas, including the Sphere of Influence, to protect the unique quality of the City's mountainous backdrop, conserve natural vegetative and topographic features, and preserve the quality of open space. As shown on the enclosed folded map, there are significant large areas with the potential for development in the County hillside areas that are very visible from Saratoga, but are not within the City's SOI nor USA. Recent activities in the unincorporated hillside areas have generated strong concern in the community about the potential for development and environmental hazards. These activities include a request from the Saratoga Country Club to annex a 50+ acre parcel to the City in order to expand the golf course area, residential construction in the Lomas Lane area, and the sale of the Paul Masson Mountain Winery to a private developer. Saratoga's pre -1984 SOI boundary followed our original Boundary Agreement Area, extending southwest up to Skyline Boulevard and adjoining the boundary agreement areas of Cupertino and Monte Sereno. In 1984, the boundary was retracted at LAFCO's request; the new line basically squared off the SOI along the City's existing Urban Service Areas (see attached map). It is our intent to re- examine the entire original SOI area to determine which specific areas may be appropriate to include again in our SOI or USA. In order to determine the most appropriate areas for annexation and application of City development policies, we intend to focus our analysis on the following issues: 1 1 1. y _ ,,� `� °� \ i� lam- I * % �i p(f:..'G f �• WE UluI l _ � earwu 0 0 _Mt. N r N \ �' •.'...�Z. �l ~V l / ` ,1 •: . ( TT'1� �'.� C mbria - 1 Park ur h� •. Z �Z viii r- ENO �! � ) ,Z� o � J� ' yam--••.- -��.�� ,�, .:..',/"� ~° - : ^; ^1r ��, ��-+,` \- -ter. (`"��°o-\,,;\�;�= : -_••, a nkP._. r- 1) Present and future service capacities Saratoga's direct provision of municipal -type services excludes utilities (which are provided by private utility companies), sewer service (provided by the West Valley and the Cupertino Sanitation Districts) and fire service (provided by the Saratoga and the Central Fire Protection Districts). However, both the fire and sanitation districts have indicated support for annexations to their districts should the City expand its SOI and USA boundaries. 2) Streets and transportation Nearly all of the developable parcels in the unincorporated area within the first major ridge to our southwest are accessed by roads emanating from Saratoga. Maintaining the rural character of these roads and preserving roadside trees and vegetation is an important City policy. Development in the hillsides will have a significant impact on our street maintenance and traffic patterns. We are currently in the process of updating the Circulation Element of our General Plan to address these concerns. 3) Land use /development control and open space preservation Saratoga's hillside zoning districts (Northwest Hillside Residential and Hillside Conservation- Residential) are relatively restrictive in terms of development control. Our design review, subdivision and geotechnical regulations provide stringent control over residential development in our hillside areas. We anticipate building on the County's Hillside Residential and Regional Park /Open Space zoning districts to create additional open space preservation and large lot zoning districts for Saratoga, for the purpose of preserving this important resource. The City already has strong General Plan policies relating to the preservation of open space and to encouraging the retention of Williamson Act contracts. 4) Noise and other environmental impacts Development in the hillsides will inevitably result in activities that will have significant noise and related environmental impacts. We intend to apply the strict policies from our recently adopted Noise and Safety Elements of our General Plan to areas that come under our jurisdiction. Thank you for your consideration of our request. We look forward to working with you on this important City project. Sincerely, Steve Emslie Planning Director Attachment: Two maps(the large folded map is not included in the Council packet) 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE 03, Of, ORIGINATING DEPT. Planning AGENDA ITEM: 9A CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: DR -88 -1001 V -88 -043, Prolo, 19841 Glen Una Drive, Appeal of Planning Commission approval to construct a 2,013 sq. ft. addition to an existing home. Recommended Motion: Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the variance and design review requests. Report and Summary: On January 25, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved design review applications for Dr. and Mrs. Prolo to construct a 2,013 sq. ft. addition to their existing two story home. On February 3, 1989, Councilmember Don Peterson appealed the decision citing the concern regarding the mass and bulk of both the existing and proposed structure and precedent approval of this variance may have. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Memorandum to City Council 2. Planning Commission minutes dated January 11, 1989 and January 25, 1989. 3. Staff report to Planning Commission 4. Resolutions DR -88 -100 and V -88 -043 5. Appeal letter Motion and Vote: r 04 M E M O R A N D U M To: City Council From: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director Re: DR -88 -100, V -88 -043, Appeal of Planning Commission Approval to Construct a 2,013 square foot Addition to an Existing Home Background /Description Donald and Joanne Prolo submitted an application for design review to construct a 2013 square foot addition to their existing 2 -story home and a variance request to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on the site by 2342 square feet. The site is a 1.68 acre lot in an established neighborhood of mixed one- and two -story single - family dwellings. The property is rectangular in shape but boardered on three sides by public streets. The site is characterized by mature landscaping including approximately a dozen ordinance size trees. Approval of the 2013 sq. ft. addition brings the total floor area on the site to 9362 square feet. This includes a 780 sq. ft. cottage and 1760 sq. ft. garage. Present zoning regulations allow 7020 sq. ft. of floor area on the site. On February 3, 1989, Councilmember Don Peterson appealed the Planning Commission's decision to approve the application. Due to the degree to which the home would exceed the maximum allowed floor area, 33 percent, the appeal indicates that approval of the application represents a fundamental change in Council policy and direction. Analysis For the convenience of the Council, the following information from the report to the Planning Commission is provided. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 1st Floor: 2nd Floor: Cottage: Garage: Total: 3740 sq. ft. 3082 780 1760 9362 sq. ft. 7020 sq. ft. K DR -88 -100, V -88 -043 - Prolo; 19841 Glen Una Dr. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE SETBACKS: Front: 60 ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 20 Rear: 20 Right Side: 50 Right Side: 25 Left Side: 25 Left Side: 25 HEIGHT: 26 ft. 26 ft. LOT COVERAGE: 22% (16,112 sq. ft.) 35% (25,644 sq. ft.) An issue which arose during the public hearing concerned neighborhood compatibility of the project. The Planning Commission directed staff to compare the floor area of this request to other parcels in the neighborhood. Staff research indicates that this proposal would bring the total floor area of the site to an amount considrerably larger than other dwellings in the immediate vicinity. The floor area of the site directly across the street at 19800 Glen Una Drive is 8815 square feet. The remaining surrounding sites floor area range from 2640 to 5884 square feet. Staff was unable to make the required findings to recommend approval of the variance. It was determined that denial would not inflict undue hardship on the applicants and that no physical circumstances with regard to topography or natural features exist on the site. The existing home already exceeds the maximum allowed floor area and the site is characterized by an unbroken 5% slope. Denial of the variance will also not deprive the applicants full enjoyment of their property. The present floor area on the site (7349 sq. ft.), is greater than would be allowed on any neighboring properties under present zoning regulations. Staff concluded that approving the variance would result in a grant of special privilege to the applicant since recent commission decisions denied varinace requests for increased floor area. The commission was split in its decision as two members agreed with staff and cast descenting votes to deny the request. The primary concern was the setting of a precedent with this application. A majority of the Commissioners made findings to approve the variance request. They found that unique physical circumstances exist on the property due to the presence of mature landscaping, which reduces impact from potentially excessive bulk, the property being boardered on three sides by public streets and the applicant being penalized by an over - improved garage. 3 DR -88 -100, V -88 -043 - Prolo; 19841 Glen Una Drive The Commissioners also concluded that were it not for the 1760 sq. ft. garage and 780 sq. ft. cottage, the total floor area of the residence, including the addition, would not exceed the zoning ordinance allowance. They reasoned that due to the distance the garage was located from the home, the addition would have little impact on the site. Commissioners felt a precedent would not be set by approving this project. Staff Recommendation: Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the variance and design review requests. StepheA Em ie Planning D rector SE /mj 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 11, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ^'f 1 C-) im L",� �') , Page 4 \requested to consideration for a continuance for a project redesign, Mr. Kocir noted his effor d a structural analysis from Staff. Chairperson Guch res ponded that the Commisspplicant to find a way to reduce the height of the pool cover to bring the project re ance with square footage requirements; Mr. Kocir stated he understood but exp ssed arding what else he could do. He agreed to the Continuance suggested. GER MOVED TO CONTINUE V -88 -025, A- 1088.1 TO FEBRU 8, 1989. 10. ZC -88- J. Lohr (Saratoga Parkside), 12764 Saratoga Ave., conside on of rezoning SD -88 -00 and subdivision approval for a four unit condominium, roject on 14,100 sq. ft. of property currently developed with a sing) family home. The equest is to rezone the property to RM -3,000 in order construct four units ilar to the current surrounding development kno as Saratoga Parkside. --- - -- - -- - ------------- ---- ------------------------------ - ---- - -- ---------------------------- Planner Caldwell review he Report to the Planning Commission dat January 11, 1988. The Public Hearing was open at 8:42 P.M. Mr. J. Lohr, Applicant, reviewed e project history and cited th ensity bonus granted. Planner Caldwell noted the following chnical corrections to aff Report: Density and Zn��g the formula sh ld read in part, 3, sq. ft. ParkinE and Circulation first paragra final sentence read, "A total of six (6) spaces outside the garages are required and six (6) are own." BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE T P IC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 6 -0. BURGER /KOLSTAD MOVED TO RECOM ND APPROVAL OF ZC -88 -002 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6 -0. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROV OF SD- -001 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6 -0. 11. DR -88 -104 J. Lohr (Sarat a Parkside), 12764 aratoga Avenue, request for design review appro for a four unit condo inium structure on a 14,100 sq. ft. lot in the R dential zone district, Gene l Plan designation PDR (planned developm t residential) per Chapter 15 o he City Code. ---- -- ------- - - - - -- ------------ ----- ----- ------------ -- - - -- ------------------------------------ Planner Caldwell reviewed t Report to the Planning Commission ated January 11, 1988; she noted that Condition 8 sho be amended to read. "Early warning fi alarm system shall be in- stalled and maintained in cordance with provisions of Section 14 -25.1 (b) of the City Code." The Public Hearing w opened at 8:48 P.M. Mr. J. Lohr, Appli t, questioned whether sprinklers were required (Conditio 4). City Attorney responded that b the sprinkler system and the early warning fire system were ing required. BURGER RIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:50 P.M. assed 6 -0. Commissi er Tucker was favorable to the two single story units off of Saratoga Avenu however, she wou have preferred a more continuous roof line. Chai erson Guch was favorable to the roof differentiation presented. GER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -88 -104 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTIO assed 6 -0. 12. DR -88 -100 Prolo, 19841 Glen Una Drive, request for design review approval to construct a 2,013 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing two -story home fora total of 6 822 s IN a d d q. . n a variance to excee the maximum floor area allowed on this site by 2,342 sq. ft., in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Kolstad reported on the land use visit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 JANUARY 11, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planners Caldwell and Jacobson reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:55 P.M. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing the Applicant, commented as follows: - Request was to construct 2,013 sq. ft. with 649 of the total to be constructed on the first floor under the existing roof line; 1364 sq. ft. would be a new second story addition which would be a continuation of the existing second floor - Reviewed the history of this Application and the needs of the Applicant for the space requested - Ten immediate neighbors approved the plans and signed a petition requesting approval - Applicants did not understand at the time of purchase, the limitation on allowable square footage - Reviewed Staff suggestion to either remove or put to another use, accessory structures on -site; both suggestions negated the reason Applicants bought the property - Accessory structures were quality construction; removal of such deprived the Applicant of part of the use of their property - Special circumstances; the main residence with the proposed addition was within the allowable square footage; since the accessory structures were away from the house, their square footage had no impact on the perceived bulk of the main residence - Reviewed the character of the area, the lot and the natural barriers between the surrounding Variance in addition, landscaping would be added along the property line Variance would not be granting a special privilege in relationship to other homes in the area, es- pecially since the main structure with the addition, would not exceed allowable square footage - Requested approval of the Application BURGER /HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:09 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Harris expressed concern about the square footage requested and questioned the size of the surrounding homes; she had reservations whether the variance findings could be made. Commissioner Burger stated that viewing the main structure, she did not have a problem granting this request.since the home was within the allowable square footage and not was very impactful given the size of the lot; she questioned whether a reduction in the size of the garage were possible. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the Commission had debated over the years the findings neces- sary to grant approval. A finding of compatibility could be made; however, variance findings were required in this case. He questioned the size of homes and accessory structures in the vicinity. Commissioner Kolstad felt the request was compatible with the.area He wished to make the findings; however, he was concerned that approval of this Application would set a precedent. Commissioner Tucker was favorable to the design; however, she had difficulty making a finding that this was not special privilege. She was agreeable to a review of the surrounding home sizes. Chairperson Guch concurred that reviewing the size of adjacent homes was desirable; she was favorable to the design proposed. As Commissioner Kolstad noted, if a vote were required imme- diately, she would have to vote on the square footage presented. She suggested a continuance. Ms. Fanelli stated the Applicant wished to know what was meant by compatible square footage; Commissioner Siegfried stated that the Commission wanted to know the total square footage. Commissioner Burger advised the Commission to make known what would be acceptable to them. Commissioner Harris noted that the intent of a Variance was to remove subjectivity from decisions. Ms. Fanelli stated that the question was whether accessory structures impacted the bulk of a home. Commissioner Burger favored a review of the size of surrounding homes; if such were approxi- mately 8500 sq. ft., she would accept this Application with a comparable square footage. Chairperson Guch asked how comparable square footage helped in making a variance finding. Commissioner Kolstad responded that comparable square footage may not justify a finding. Commissioner Siegfried agreed and suggested a review of the surrounding homes and accessory structures; if such were in the range of this request, the Commission could consider the possibility of making a variance finding on the grounds that the total square footage of the structures on -site were compatible with the surrounding area. Otherwise the Application would have to be denied. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 11, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 6 Ms. Fanelli asked if the Applicants found that the square footage was comparable, would it be possible for the Commission to make the necessary findings. Chairperson Guch responded that it would be possible to have a discussion on whether or not the findings could be made; she advised the Applicant that the Commission was unable to make the findings at the time. Commissioner Harris suggested the Applicant be offered an opportunity to attend a Study Session and present modifications wherein the Commission's concerns could be addressed. At that time the issue of compatibility with the surrounding area could be reviewed as well as consideration of how the proposed square footage could be reduced. Applicants were agreeable to a Study Session. Chairperson Guch asked that Staff research the issue of compatible square footage in the area. HARRISBURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -88 -100 AND V -88 -043 TO JANUARY 25, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD JANUARY 17, 1989. Passed 6 -0. eak: 9:30 - 9:45 P.M. 13. AZO- 88-009 City of Saratoga, amendment to the City Code subsections 14 -25.11 (d) and 15- 80.090 (d) pertaining to the early warning fire alarm syst . A Negative Declaration has been prepared. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- The City At ey reviewed the Memorandum dated December 16, 1988. The Public Hea ' g was opened at 9:55 P.M. SIEGFRIED /HAR S MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9 5 P.M. Passed 6 -0. The City Attorney clari that the amendment would only be added to th a sections of the Sub- division and Zoning Or ance that listed the circumstances when th arly warning fire alarm system was required to be t tailed. Commissioner Burger raised t issue of an expansion of an a ting home of less than 50% which, nonetheless, increased the tal square footage to over 5 0 sq. ft. Commissioner Siegfried concurred a suggested that the 50 may not be the appropriate number; he agreed with Fire Chief Kraule's ass ment of the situ ' n and added that safety concerns may not be greatly increased by a small expan ' n of an exist' home. Commissioner Burger questioned whether it the quare footage per se that triggered concern. Chief Kraule responded that this question w t source of an on -going debate; he cited the variables in putting out a fire, namely, the size o he home, how advanced the fire was when the Department was notified and the amount of r ur necessary to control the fire. He noted the increasing size of homes in the City and sta that me number had to be set; the 5,000 sq. ft. figure seemed the most appropriate numbe City Attorney advised the Commission at this Item coul Continued to a following meeting. The Commission reached consens on Staff Recommen tion Re: 2 Sprinkler Systems for Garages; a revised Ordinance Ame ment would be brought b k to the Commission for approval. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVE O CONTINUE AZO -88 -009 JANUARY 25, 1989. Passed 6 -0. 14. AZO -88 -010 C' of Saratoga, amendments to the City Code tion 15- 06.280 concern - gross floor area, Section 15- 18.020 adding ft ncial institutions as a ermitted use in the PA zone district and Sections 15- .010 and 15- 29.020 concerning fencing. A Negative Declaration has been p ared. The City AttorA reviewed the Memorandum dated December 21, 1988 The Publicy%aring was opened at 10:15 P.M. R MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:15 P.M. Pas %d 6 -0. Attorney stated that a revised Ordinance Amendment would be presented for review BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO -88 -010 TO JANUARY 25, 1989. Passed PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 JANUARY 25 1989 7. DR -88 -100 Prolo, 19841 Glen Una Df., request for design review approval to construct V -88 -043 a 2,013 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing two -story home for a total of 6,822 sq. ft.; and a variance to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on this site by 2,342 sq. ft. in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from January 11, 1989. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Memorandum of January 25, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 P.M. Ms. Fanelli, Representing the Applicant, stated that this was an unusual circumstance in that the site was surrounded on three sides by streets and was abutted by only one neighbor; this physical circumstance protected all parties involved from privacy intrusion or impact on the view shed. In addition, the accessory structures were physically separated from the main structure, and while they were counted in the total square footage, they did not contribute to any visible impact the addition would have. Applicants believed the Findings could be made and the neighbors were in favor of this request. SIEGFRIED/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he had made a site visit; while it was always difficult to make a variance finding, the intent of the Ordinance was to prevent impacts on the neighborhood and on the view shed. He did not feel that impacts would result from this request. Furthermore, in any remodelling, the site in question and the existing structures had to be taken into account. He did not feel that precedent would be set; the property was flat and surrounded on three sides by streets and while more visible from the street, the residence was set back from adjacent homes. There was mature landscaping on -site. He was persuaded by the fact that most of the excessive square footage was in an existing garage which was well separated from the home. He favored approval of the Application adding that the addition would compliment the existing roof line of the home. Commissioner Tucker noted her consideration of this Item over the past week and she agreed with much of what Commissioner Siegfried said; however, she felt that approval of this request would be a grant of special privilege. While the property was unique in that it was a double corner lot; the Commission had to be sensitive about what was allowed on corner lots. There had been discussion on other applications whether two -story houses should be allowed on such lots. While the site in question was not impactful since there was significant vegetation on the perimeters of the lot, she was concerned regarding the setting of precedence. The request was for a 33% increase in the allowable floor area; the necessary Findings could not be made. Commissioner Burger noted that the existing garage was well removed from the home; if the garage were not considered, the home would be about 600 sq. ft. over the allowable square footage. The existing garage would not seem to impact the request for an addition to the home. Commissioner Tappan noted that the Applicant had been victimized by an over- improved garage. Commissioner Siegfried acknowledged that the Applicants did get some benefit from this garage; however, the question still came down to the fact that there were existing accessory structures on the property, the addition proposed for the home was less than could have been requested if these accessory structures were removed. Finally, would the additions really impact the area; he felt not. Commissioner Burger concurred; she wished the Commission maintain a sense of practicality and allow what was acceptable to the neighborhood and would not impact the area. Commissioner Kolstad understood the Ordinance intent was to eliminate excessive bulk; he was not opposed to granting variances or making allowance for additional square footage if such were an enhancement to architectural interest, eliminated the perception of bulk and was practical. SIEGFRIED/TAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF V -88 -043 MAKING THE FINDING THAT UNIQUE PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE PROPERTY, NAMELY, THE SITE WAS FLAT AND SURROUNDED BY MATURE LANDSCAPING; IN ADDITION, THE SITE WAS SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY STREETS. THERE WERE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON -SITE, WELL REMOVED FROM THE MAIN STRUCTURE; THE PROPOSED ADDITION WAS LESS THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, IF THESE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WERE REMOVED Passed 4 -2, Chairperson Guch, Commissioner Tucker dissenting. Staff was directed to prepare a Resolution to be presented on Consent Calendar, February 8th REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Martin Jacobson DATE: January 25, 1989 PLNG. DIR. APPRV APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -88 -100; V -88 -043; 19841 Glen Una Dr. APPLICANT /OWNER: Prolo APN: 510 -02 -14 Q '-52 -oZ 15310 510-03- 02 I (3) i 1132 91 510 - 52-03 1 9300 53 05 510-02 -05 910-02-06) f 6 340 510 -03 -Of 53654, LARK W Y. 510 -62 -04 I537o 15400 510 -04 -lo 510-02 -/6 510-02 -fo ' 16397 (5) /5410 510 - 52-00 IBM. 04- 09 15345 5/0 -02 -11 15400 C 9fo -o2 -IS 5 k(A) 1 5416 1 54 5o 17 1'5427 510 -o2-12 510 -o4 -og 510 -d2 -1 15449 510 -op- 19 Cz) 510 -02 -24 14905` '6510.02 -04 19435 510 -o2 -13 19770 5io -oq -o7 I g8g1 1975 5/0 -02-14 510-0 06 GLEN UN i Too 510- 16 -oz9 File No. 17Ft B� -boa a, 43 Early Warning & Sprinklers required _Trails and pathways map checked — ZVicinity /locator map included Dimensions shown on plot plan I/ Adjacent structures ✓ Directional arrow Trees labelled _Plans reflect field conditions PLAT ,R'S WORKSHEET ✓ Heights shown on cross sections _,Consistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans Natural and finished grade on cross sections Height of underfloor & attic areas included in floor area calculations ✓Roof pitch shown ,,/All sheets included in submittal with required reductions Colors submitted Staff Reports ./ Conditions from other agencies /department correct /Consistent figures throughout report History files examined ✓ Correct address & application number on all pages of the report ✓ Description consistent with advertisement ./ Plans labelled Order of attachment consistent with list All attachments included ✓ Typographical errors corrected Dates on the resolutions correct Applicant notified of recommendation ✓ Applicant notified that staff report available Fri. 3 -4:00 p.m. A:checklist 6/88 File No. DR -88 -100; V -88 -043 19841 Glen Una Drive EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 11 -2 -88 Application complete: 12 -6 -88 Notice published: 12 -28 -88 Mailing completed: 12 -29 -88 Posting completed: 12 -22 -89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Articles 15- 45.080 and 15- 70.060, the applicant is requesting a design review approval to construct a 2013 sq. ft., 2 -story addition to an existing 2 -story home for a total of 9362 sq. ft; and a variance approval to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on the site by 2342 sq. ft. (33 %). The site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zone district at 19841 Glen Una Drive. PROJECT DISCUSSION: In addition to the existing dwelling unit, a 780 sq. ft. cottage and 1760 sq. ft. garage are on the site. The lot has a 5% north facing slope and is characterized by mature landscaping. No special circumstances exist to warrant approval of a variance for this project. Findings to recommend design review approval cannot be made due to the proposal's excessive mass and incompatability to the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of variance and design review applications by adopting Resolutions V -88 -043 and DR -88 -100. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions V -88 -043 & DR -88 -100 3. Plans STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD; Residential Very Low PARCEL SIZE: 1.682 acres; 73,268 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 5.2% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 48 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 2 Ft. Fill: 56 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 3 Ft. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Siding of beige stucco, red brick, and resawn lumber; finish roof of wood shakes. PROPOSAL LOT COVERAGE: 22% (16,112 sq.ft.) HEIGHT: 26 ft. SIZE OF 1st Floor: 3740 sq. ft STRUCTURE: 2nd Floor: 3082 Cottage: 780 Garage: 1760 TOTAL: 9362 sq. ft SETBACKS: Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 35% (25,644 sq. ft.) 26 ft. 7020 sq. ft. 60 ft. Front: 30 ft. 20 Rear: 20 50 Right Side: 25 25 Left Side: 25 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission's design review approval to construct a 2013 sq. ft., second -story addition to an existing 4809 sq. ft., two -story home for a total of 6822 sq. ft.; and a variance approval to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on the site by 2342 sq. ft. (33 %). The property is located in the R -1- 40,000 zone district at 19841 Glen Una Drive. The lot is generally square in shape and 1.682 acres (73,268 sq. ft.) in size. The land fronts on three sides with Hume Avenue, Glen Una Drive and Pepper Lane. A circular, asphalt driveway provides access from Hume and Glen Una. In addition to the existing 4809 sq. ft. home, a 780 sq. ft. cottage and 1760 sq. ft. garage are found on the property. The present total square footage of 7349 sq. ft. exceeds the amount allowed by the zoning ordinance by 329 sq. ft. The structures on the site pre -date the adoption of the floor area ordinance and therefore, are considered legal, non - conforming. A 400 sq. ft. carport connecting the house to the guest cottage, a pool and an equipment shed complete the structural improvements to the property. The site has a 5% north facing slope and is landscaped with turf, shrubs, and nearly 50 evergreen and deciduous trees -- approximately a dozen of which are ordinance size. No trees are intended to be removed by this proposal. Minimal grading is proposed. The neighborhood is characterized by a mix of one and two -story homes. To the north, on the only ajoining property, is a one -story home. Variance Findings The staff is unable to make all of the required findings to recommend an approval of the variance request. Denial of the variance will not inflict an undue hardship on the applicant. The existing home, cottage and garage are large at 7349 sq. ft., 329 sq. ft. more than allowed under present zoning regulations; making the home non - conforming. Additionally, no physical circumstances with regard to topography or natural features of this property are exceptional or extraordinary. The site is characterized by an even, unbroken 5% north facing slope. The site is not large enough to sustain this intensity of development under current zoning regulations. 7020 sq. ft. of structures is the appropriate size for the lot. Denial of the variance will not deprive the applicant full enjoyment of the property or privileges available to other properties in the neighborhood. The applicant owns the largest parcel on the block and therefore, can maintain over 7000 sq. ft. of structures - -not a privilege available to other property owners. Finally, in light of recent Planning Commission decisions, which denied variance requests for increased floor area, approval of this application would result in a grant of special privilege to the applicant. Options to the applicant include elimination of the 780 sq. ft. cottage and /or reducing the size of the 1760 sq. ft. garage and adding that additional footage to the home. Another option is converting portions of the existing accessory structures to other uses (hobby, music or exercise rooms). However, the applicant's representative has explained to staff that these options are not acceptable. Design Review Findings Like the findings made for the variance request, staff has been unable to make findings to recommend design review approval. The proposal incorporates some standards and guidelines of the design review handbook. These elements include multiple roof lines, balconies and varied siding materials for the upper and lower floors. Nevertheless, the structure will appear to overwhelm the neighboring homes. The proportion and tudor design are incompatible with the immediate neighborhood by not being complimentary in style to nearby homes. The bulk, mass and tudor architecture work together to call unnecessary attention to the residence. An option would be a reduction in size of the addition and conversion of the accessory structures to other uses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of variance and design review applications by adopting Resolutions V -88 -043 and DR -88 -100. Variance File No.V -88 -043 RESOLUTION NO. V -88 -043 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning•Commission has received an application for Variance Approval to exceed the maximum allowed floor area by 2.,342 sq. ft. at 19841 Glen Una Drive. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support his said application, and the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance in that were it not for the large accessory structures the applicant has inherited, an addition to the main house would be allowed. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to-other properties in the same zoning district in that the prop three sides. erty fronts on streets on Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district in that the applicant would be unable to add to the square footage of his home due to the large accessory structure. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent-with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district in that this is a unique situation considering the large accessory structure and frontage on streets on three sides. Granting the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that no adverse impact on the neighborhood is anticipated. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural. drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Donald Prolo for variance approval be and the same is hereby granted. Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of.this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 4. All applicable requireements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the Building Division when applying for a building permit. Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8th day of February, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Harris, Burger, Kolstad, and Siegfried NOES: Commissioners Guch and Tucker ABSENT: Commissioner Tappan Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of A(pplicant Date RESOLUTION NO. DR -88 -100 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval of plans to construct a second story addition to a home at 19841 Glen Una Drive; and WHEREAS, the Planning. Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at- which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to* present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: -The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the neighborhood is relatively level and the home is already a two story structure. -The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that the existence of mature landscaping and adequate setbacks interfere with neighbor's privacy. -The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no trees or soil is proposed for removal and no grade changes are necessary. -The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the addition is to an existing two story home. -The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning district in that two story homes exist in the neighborhood. -The project will not interfere access of adjacent properties exceed all minimum requirements. with the light, air, and solar in that setbacks to the home -The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that no grading is proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Donald Prolo for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to DR -88 -100, 19841 Glen Una Drive the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning'Department. 3. Applicant shall submit a geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional to include details on: a.) soils b.) foundation 4. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing the following shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits: a.) Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet no.'s, owner's name, etc. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8th day of February, 1989 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Harris, Burger, . Siegfried,'. and Kolstad,: NOES: Commissioners Tucker and Guch ABSENT: Chairperson, Plan l" ng Commission ATT T: Secretary, anning Commission T,ha above and regoing conditions are hereby accepted Signature f applicant Da e February 3, 1989 Mr. Steve Emslie Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: DR -88 -100 and V -88 -043 Dear Steve: The approval by the Planning Commission of this huge 9,362 square foot house and garages in Saratoga is extremely disturbing. After so many years effort on our part to reduce excessively large homes, a granting of a variance of this magnitude (33% above the allowable square footage) would appear to be a fundamental change in City Council policy and direction. Approval of this variance may set a precedence that may lead to even larger homes in other areas. My feeling is that our neighborhoods should be protected from homes with this amount of mass and bulk. I request that this application be appealed to the City Council. 1 Gloria Levy 19800 Glen Una Drive Saratoga, California 95070 T le� th All 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. � � . AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: �_1 _g 9 4k�T--- CITY MGR. APPROVAL)t# ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Dept. i SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SDR 1290 AND RELEASE BOND MT. EDEN ROAD, Lauren Hulse Recommended Motion: Grant "Final Acceptance" and Release Cash Bond of SDR 1290. Report Summary: The public improvement for the above project has been satisfactorily completed. y 1. Developer has maintained the improvement for over one year. Fiscal Impacts: NONE. Attachments: 1. . Resolution 36 =B. 2. Memo describing bond. Motion and Vote: -0 1"gl, a. Recorded at the request of, and --co :-e returned to: City Clerk i.ty of Saratoga 3777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 b. c� RESOLUTION NO 36 -B- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS mrr_ EpEN aDon u It appearing that on or about 2 -18 -88 , the.strest, storm drain and other improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to subdivision map avid on approved improvement plans therefore were completed and thereafter were maintained by the sub- divider for a period of not less than an additional year from date of satisfactory completion. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That portion of the City's previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision map: SDR Map of MR= No. 1290 recorded in Book 583 _ of Maps, at page 46 in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on 2 -25- , 19 88 and as set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby rescinded and the previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted, except the following: and all of the above streets which are accepted clared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga County of Santa Clara,1AStatedof California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the following described improvement bond or bonds are hereby ordered released: That certain Improvement Bond No. Cash dated 11 -25 -87 , and issued by Lapn g�3e The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the • day of 19-__, at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ; ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR �ti1EMOO RANDIIM 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 9507o (408) 867 -3438 TO: FINANCE DEPT. DATE: 2 -17 -89 FROM: Citv Engineer SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR 1290 Location: MOUNT EDEN ROAD The one (1) year maintenance period for ' has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected. Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu- tion -Irl R , which accepts the public improvements, easements and rights -of -way. Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve- ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be released. The following information is included for'your information and use: 1. Developer: Lauren Hulse Address: 21801 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga, Ca. 95070 2. Date of Construction Acceptance: 2 -17 -1989 3. Improvement Security: Type: CASH Amount: $6,000.00 Issuing Cc: Lauren Hulse Address: 21801 Mt. Eden Road Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Receipt, 5148 & 2560 4. Miles of public Street: 0.057 5. Special Remarks: The Finance is releasing ash bond Ro rt RSS /dsm of 6,000.00. S. Shook SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. -f AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: _ -Rq CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING i SUBJECT: GRANT CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR USE PERMIT 87 -001 and Release 50% Bond, Cypress Properties, Inc., Saratoga Ave. Recommended Motion: Grant Construction Acceptance for UP 87 -001 and Release 50% Bond. Report Summary. Cypress Properties, Inc. was required to install landscaping in the median between Lawrence Expressway and Kosich Drive. All improvements per approved plans have been completed. This Construction Acceptance will begin the one (1) Year Maintenance Period. Owner has provided cas bond, therefore, please release 50% Bond (Assignment Certificate of $25,000 and Cash Bond of $6,000.00). Fiscal•Impacts• None. Attachments: l.• Memo describing bond. Motion and Vote: Li a ®�m C �� o� ° ° `BOO C � 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM NDUM TO: City Manager & Finance Dept. DATE: 2-17 -89 FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for Use Permit 87 -001 Name & Location: Cypress Properties, Inc. ___________Saratoga Avenue -- -------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Public Improvements required for Saratoga Avenue have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: CYPRESS PROPERTIES, INC. Address: 3000 Sandhill Road L , Menlo Park, CA. 94025 2. Improvement Security.: Type: Assignment Certificate & Cash Bond Amount: $25,000.00 and $6,000.00 Issuing Company: UNION BANK Address: PALO `ALTO or Certificate No.: 44074 & Receipt No. 5543 3. Special Remarks: Release Assignment Certificate of $25,000.00 and cash -.bond of $6,000.00• RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook OFFICIAL RECEIPT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 PHONE: (408) 867 -3438 DATE - ^ 19 RECEIVED FROMp�� ' ADDRESS 7DOUQ� J1 ��4 L/ M GtiiLO �` L��%D�f FOR: AMOUNT: FOR: AMOUNT: REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS 0001 10.15 DESIGN REV APPLIC FEES 9000 9514 _ APPEALS 9000 9545 EIR REVIEVd.FEES 9000 9514 CONSTRUCTION TAX 9000 75.0 SUu�IViSiUN REVIEW;' F--ES 9000 9514 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX 9000 7550 CENTRAL PLANREZON FEE 9000 9514 BUILDING PERMITS 9000 9511 VARIANCE APPLIC FEES 9000 9514 ELECTRIC PERMITS 9000 9511 FINAL MAP REVIEW 9000 9514 GRADING PERMITS 9000 9511 SPECIFIC PLAN FEE 9000 9514 _. MECHANICAL PERMITS 9000 9511 PLAN CHECK FEES 9000 9514 __- y PLUMBING PERMITS 9000 9511 BLDG SITE REVIEW FEES 9000 9514 ROOFING PERMITS 9000 9511 XEROXING 9000 9890 _. INSP FEES 9000 9512 SALE MAPS & PUBL 9000 9890 " USE PERMIT FEES 9000 9514 STORf.9 DRAIN FEES 9170 9530 ENGR FEES 9000 9513 SURDIV PARK OED FEES 9310 9550 HILLSIDE DEV FEES 9180 9540 — , 'k,k 1 q APPLICATION NU. OR ADDRESS OF ` C �, 1 _ PROJECT: _�[— � �1U�• —. TU'I "AL' S 5543 RECEIVED ' _— _ UEPT NORMAN MAUI.:; PIUNI CENTEH. CAMPFIr.LL. CALIF Z CYPRESS PROPERTIES INCORPORATED 3000 Sand Hill Road, Building 1, Suite 150, Menlo Park, California 94025 (415) 854 -0333 Q� John L. deBenedetti Timothy G. Sheehan John M. Gatto February 14, 1989 FEB 15 1939 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE Mr. Arjan Idnani City of Saratoga Public Works Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Offsite Improvement Contract - Deposits Saratoga Station Saratoga, California Dear Arj an : The construction work involved with the referenced agreement is basically complete. We had placed serveral securities with the City of Saratoga to insure the completion. It is our understanding that the deposit would be reduced by one -half at time of completion with the other one -half being held for a one year period against the project warranty. The securities, originally placed to provide the required $62,000 bond, consisted of a check for $6,000 and two time deposits of $25,000 and $31,000 respectively. At this time, we would request that the City return the $6000 check and release the $25,000 time deposit and maintain the $31,000 time deposit for the required one year period. Sincerely, John M. Gat to JMG : j ac cc: Constance B. Seymour SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. p Or AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: LEO 1, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVALAR ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING PYS SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR -1530, 18450 & 18.470 Sobey Road 14269 Quito Road Recommended Motion: "Grant Final Acceptance" for SDR -1530 and release of "Securitv'Bond". Report Summary: The subdivision has been maintained for 3 years by the developer and also improvements have been installed and maintained for 3 years. Fiscal-Impacts: None. Attachments: Resolution 36 *B. Memo describing bond. Motion and Vote: Recorded at the request of, 1 s. ' nd '-co :ie returned to: b _ `o City Clerk a '. 0ity of Saratoga 3777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 RESOLUTION NO 36 -B- , RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS SDR 1530 It appearing that on or about 2 -17 -A the. street, storm drain and other hereinaf improvements as shown on the er referred to subdivisson map and on approved improvement plans therefore were completed and thereafter were maintained by the sub- divider for a period of not less than an additional year from date of satisfactory completion. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That portion of the City's previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision map: Map of Tract No._ recorded in Book __ of Maps, at Page , in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on , 19 and as set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby rescinded and the previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted, except the following: ' and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby de- clared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the following described improvement bond or bonds are hereby ordered released: That certain Improvement Bond No. FB003361 dated 7/1/85 issued by Fairmount Insurance ' and The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the _ da of 19_ at a regular meeting of the City Council f Saratoga by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: �` I - . CITY CLERK MAYOR Qq 9&M&T Q)0& .�w 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 05070 �5 �-- -� 008) 8W -3438 I Mll�ilORA NDUM TO: City Manager FROM: City - Engineer DATE: 2 -20 -89 SUBJECT: Tract SDR 1530 (Final Acceptance) Location: Scb v & Quito Roads All improvements required of SDR -.1530 to in the and agreed have been sates aeto r ly completed • Agreement dated Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Butler - Johnson Corp, Address: 14800 Nicora Ave San Jose; CA 95161 -2110 2. Improvement Security: Type: Security Amount: $63.000. Issuing Co.: Financial Guardian Address: 950 S. Bascca[I Ave Suite 3011, San Jose, Ca. 95128 Receipt, bond or Certificate No.:_EB00 61 3. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL s-303a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. � AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: _ .3-1 -89 •. . CITY MGR. APPROV 4 ORIGINATING DEPT: INFRE x, A ,� SUBJECT: FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL FOR SD 88 -021 Eugene Yau Yan Chau, Sobey Road (1 Lot) Recommended Motion: Approve Resolution No. SD 88- 021 -01, approving Final Building Site. Report Summary• 1. SD 88 -021 is ready for Final Building Site Approval. 2. All requirements for City and other departments have been Completed. 3. All fees have been paid. Fiscal-impacts: NONE. Attachments: 1. Resolution'No. SD 88- 021 -01. 2.• Resolution Approving Tentative Map. 3• Location Map, Motion and Vote: RESOLUTION NO. SD 88- 021 -01 • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF EUGENE YAIJ YAN CHAJ The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 1.0966 Acre Parcel as shown as "A" on the Final Parcel Map, prepared by Westfall Engineers and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga and be approved as one (1) invididual building site. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the vote: ' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: • day of CITY CLERK 19 by the following MAYOR RESOLUTION NO. SD -88 -021 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF 14478 Sobey Road APN 397 -04 -022 WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of 1 lot, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -88 -021 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 12/14/88 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the Categorical Exemption prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 1st day of November, 1988 and is marked Exhibit A in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: DONE. 1. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final approval. DONE. 2. Submit parcel map to City for checking and recordation (pay required checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). DONE. 3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 30 ft. half - street on,Sobey Road. *4. Improve Sobey Road to City standards , including the following: See Deferred Improvement. a) designed structural section 20 ft. between centerline and flowline. b) asphalt concrete berm. c) underground existing overhead utilities. *subject to Deferred Improvement agreement. 9 SD -88 -021, 14478 Sobey Road 5. Construct storm drainage system as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse. 6. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using 2 1/2 in. A.C. on 6 in. aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. With Building 7. Construct driveway approval 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 Permit ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat and oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base. 8. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by the City Engineer. 9. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 10. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. N.A. 11. Obtain encroachment permit from the Engineering Department for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City street. 12. Engineered improvement plans required for: Deferred 1) street improvements 2) storm drain construction Improvement. 13. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. 14. Enter into improvement agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval. N.A. 15. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. 16. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of West Valley Sanitation District. 17. All bridges and roads must sustain 35,000 lbs. loading. With Building 18. Sewage disposal to be provided b sanitary Permit• connected by the developer to one of the existingetrunk sewerslof the West Valley Sanitation District. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. 19. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. N.A. 20. Applicant shall, prior to final map approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. 10 I SD -88 -021, 14478 Sobey Road 21. Design review Permits. approval is required on project prior to issuance 22. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with Ordinances. applicable City Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said be void. these conditions resolution shall Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or a will expire. pproval Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed Unless pursuant to the re (10) days from the date of adoptionls Resolution shallubecometeffecti effective PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Plannin g Commission Of California, this 14th day of December, 1988 b State y the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Guch, Harris, Burger, Siegfried, and Tappan NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Kolstad and Tucker ATTEST: i Chairman, Planning Co 'ssion Aecre ary, P nning Commission 7he foregoing conditions are he"by accepted 4;turs o APplzcant Date 11 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Tsvia Adar DATE: 12/14/88 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -88 =078, SD -88 -021; 14478 Sobey Rd. APPLICANT /OWNER: Eugene Chdlu APN: 397 -04 -022 Q N In • 40 I� a9�4k fsY J T 141'1( s 1N 14f (i) 14444 (1) A714t7o 1,8) ,..•. 1y31� os -u, f s) 1 454 e a97•es -y U) 0 14t16e -31 W �, 1Y7 -01,97 14°07 H7.0.3 G) t 1446v } 14 Clot s!7•o4•te W 397-" -46 m (A) st !free -o+ O [1U IB97lo cu 141115 14411:5) 141.77 14949 (W 997.0+ -9l 397•°+-°1 if7•Ee -64 14314 391,04-1c 39"S -47 911 14161 m lt1 Go {4) (WC . !!7.016.11 -I+ .14!01 14411. 14914 14l7C 14ss6 14396 s7f -os-4t 317-0 + -4s »)O+-4i sl7b6JS °!7•°7`14 l4) 1467D »7.046-111 ( S1 I46t4 144ec 14e t4 C ro) I / 397-04-Z& X77.04-49 -0 -Q Is600 Iss64 1 14172 l57 -016.97 I 991,06 M. / _ 19666 !!7-016 -Ilo (e) 119"s-im CS) ft) 7 !I!7•o+ -016 [� ' �� (N f!7 -65- 16+6+ 6 If7e 14+70 /� MTM•p +/ I 14474W 16\30 . ss"S.4 004.1,9 =/ S17-437 3 -e6- wq s 1N 14f (i) 14444 (1) 39Te6 -7t 14710 1a7ao W0008ANk ]l7r o4.4L !f7 -°4.67 1» 4 »T. 0 Q •� 7.06 -S! � IBLo6 Iebe16 (Q 1,$) W te6et 197-°6 -74 !97 -"h, 14810 196-W ef7606 -7f 0lT 04-6e . '!7}oN Le M7 -e6 -61 lo"d 6t 14940 917••04 -N A 1 W f s) 1 454 e )ewl 1s+s7 +free -31 W lfr�+-► !79.01 -f1 t 1446v s!7•o4•te �Kel (A) st slo7 -03 -o IB97lo slree -elo 391,04-1c Ie16to IES4o leiee 3!1,01,. -4s / !!7.016.11 -I+ (s) llor °16-10 (11 Ipa+.e 1467D »7.046-111 14690 377-4-+4' ro) I / (e) X77.04-49 Is600 Iss64 '? 901 l57 -016.97 I 991,06 M. / _ 19666 !!7-016 -Ilo (e) IR9L (0 7 [� 3lra. -lob (I) C�) 6 If7e 004.1,9 =/ S17-437 3 -e6- wq •!!7 / 977.06 977 -o6 -ee (U f4) 14700 !91,09 -e0 14710 3!7.04.2lo Is6t7 3lo7 -e \ "69 18611 le +7s 911,0\ -es lm f90 IK \6 Ip \\I 9lo7 -a.•1s Q a77.741016 717.0. -107 O 92 [r 1471° 14720 J 18693 397 -e4•t7 9!7.04 -t8 !97' 16 -7e Ie674 Ip \II 7e t 997•°16 -\7 / 39Te6 -7t 14710 1a7ao W0008ANk ]l7r o4.4L !f7 -°4.67 1» 4 »T. 0 Q •� 7.06 -S! � IBLo6 Iebe16 (Q 1,$) W te6et 197-°6 -74 !97 -"h, 14810 196-W ef7606 -7f 0lT 04-6e . '!7}oN Le M7 -e6 -61 lo"d 6t 14940 917••04 -N A 1 I SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. S �J O AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: 03�/Tggsq CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of Purchasing Ordinance Recommended Motion: Adoption of proposed ordinance. Report Summary: The proposed ordinance will establish the authorization and procedure for purchase of certain supplies and services, as explained in the Memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) City Attorney Memorandum to City Council dated February 6, 1989. (b) Proposed ordinance. Motion and Vote: PAUL B. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR. HENRY D. CRUZ PAUL K. ROBERTSON ATKINSON • FAI3ASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 04042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney RE: Adoption of Purchasing Ordinance DATE: February 6, 1989 J. M. ATKINSON (1692 -1982) L. M. FARASYN (1915-1979) One of the items which has been listed on the legislative calendar for some time is the adoption of a purchasing ordinance to govern the acquisition of services and supplies required by the City to conduct its business. Submitted herewith is a proposed ordinance dated January 21, 1989, which has now been reviewed by the City Manager and all department heads. The ordinance has already been revised to incorporate their comments. The main features of the purchasing ordinance are as follows: (a) Application of the Ordinance One of the most important provisions of the ordinance is Section 2- 45.030 on page 2, which contains a listing of various contracts and purchases which are not subject to this ordinance. In general, the purchasing ordinance does not apply to contracts awarded pursuant to the State Public Contract Code, such as contracts for the construction of streets, storm drains, city buildings and other public improvements. If the amount of any such contract is less than $50,000, the City can avail itself of the informal bidding procedure set forth in Article 12 -15 of the City Code. In addition, the purchasing ordinance does not apply to the granting of franchises, purchase of utilities, employment agreements, the purchase of insurance, contracts for technical or professional services where the cost is paid by applicants (e.g., EIR, geotechnic and traffic consultants), contracts for educational, recreational and other services furnished by independent contractors where the cost is paid by persons using the service (e.g., instructors for classes offered by the recreation department), contracts with other public agencies and purchases made in compliance with the terms of a gift or grant. Although the ordinance also would not apply to the extension or renewal of an existing contract for technical or professional services to be performed by consultants, the ordinance would apply to the initial granting of such contracts, typically utilizing the "request for proposals" procedure set forth in Section 2- 45.140. (b) Centralized Purchasing System The ordinance establishes a centralized purchasing system, with the City Manager being designated as the purchasing officer. The powers and duties of the -1- purchasing officer are listed in Section 2- 45.040 on page 3, and a limited delegation of such powers can be made to a department head. (c) Authorization for Purchases The ordinance establishes the following levels of approval required for the purchase of supplies and services: Less than $100 - Purchase can be made out of petty cash without a purchase order (Section 2- 45.050). $100 to $5,000 - Purchase can be made by the purchasing officer (Section 2- 45.070). $5,000 or more - Approval by City Council required (Section 2- 45.070). In the event of emergency, purchases can be made without prior Council approval, but a report of the purchase must be submitted to the Council at its next succeeding meeting. (d) Method of Awarding Contract Depending upon the total amount of the contract, and the particular nature of the services or supplies to be purchased, one of the following procedures would be utilized: Less than $100 - Petty cash disbursement on approval of the purchasing officer or a City employee authorized by the purchasing officer to make the purchase (Section 2- 45.100). $100 to $15,000 - Open market purchase, based upon at least three informal price quotations (Section 2- 45.110). $15,000 or more - Use of the formal competitive bidding procedure (unless exempted) or the request for proposal procedure (Sections 2- 45.120 and 2- 45.140). Typically, competitive bidding would not be used for specialized or professional services, or where the particular service or product can only be obtained from a single vendor. The ordinance also contains general language to exempt the purchase from competitive bidding where the Council determines that such procedure is "impracticable or impossible, or would not be likely to result in a lower price to the City from a responsible bidder, or would cause unnecessary expense or delay under the circumstances." The request for proposal method would typically be used where professional or technical services are being sought or where the City is inviting a broad range of alternatives as opposed to a highly defined product or service. A good example of this situation would be a request for proposals to redesign the Civic Center. Even where the formal competitive bidding procedure is followed, the contract would not necessarily be awarded to the person offering the lowest price. The City Council may consider all of the factors listed in Section 2- 45.090 on page 5, and award the contract to another bidder based upon such considerations. -2- Finally, it should be noted that in preparing this ordinance, the City Attorney reviewed the ordinances of various other jurisdictions including Cupertino, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Sunnyvale. Although common features may be found between these ordinances, significant differences also exist. Aside from a general requirement in state law that cities must establish policies and procedures for the purchase of supplies, there is no state law regulating exactly what such policies and procedures should be. This matter rests entirely within the discretion of each city and the Council is certainly free to adopt any rules or regulations you deem appropriate. "PA Saratoga. City Attorney -3- ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING ARTICLE 2-45 TO THE CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH A PURCHASING SYSTEM The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: A new Article 2 -45 is added to Chapter 2 of the City Code, to read as follows: "ARTICLE 2 -45 PURCHASING SYSTEM Sections: 2- 45.010 Adoption of purchasing system 2- 45.020 Definitions 2- 45.030 Exclusions from Article 2- 45.040 Centralized purchasing system; Purchasing Officer 2- 45.050 Purchase orders 2- 45.060 Availability of funds 2- 45.070 Authorization for purchase orders and contracts; emergencies 2- 45.080 Use of brand names 2- 45.090 Basis of award 2- 45.100 Purchases under $100 2- 45.110 Open market purchases 2- 45.120 Competitive bidding; exceptions 2- 45.130 Formal bidding procedure 2- 45.140 Request for proposals 2- 45.150 Inspection and testing 2- 45.160 Joint purchase with other agencies 2- 45.170 Disposal of personal property s s s §2- 45.010 Adoption of purchasing system In order to establish efficient procedures for the purchase of supplies and services at the lowest possible cost commensurate with operational needs, to exercise positive financial control over such purchases, to clearly define authority for administration of the purchasing function, and to assure the quality of supplies and services purchased by the City, a purchasing system is hereby adopted. 1/21/89 -1- S2- 45.020 Definitions For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them, by this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: (a) Brand name means a product, item or material described by reference to its manufacturer's name or catalogue number. (b) Brand name or equal specification means a contract or purchase order specification containing a brand name to describe the nature, standard of quality, performance, and other characteristics needed to meet the City's requirements, and which provides for the submission of equivalent products. (c) Cost, as applied to a single transaction for the purchase of supplies or services, means the total amount to be expended by the City, exclusive of sales or use taxes. (d) Supplies means and includes all materials, supplies, equipment, products, and other items of tangible personal property. (e) Services means and includes labor, professional services and consulting services. Services shall not include incidental labor such as set -up, testing, and maintenance of supplies where the primary purpose is to purchase the supplies. §2- 45.030 Exclusions from Article The provisions of this Article shall not apply to any of the following: (a) The award of contracts for public projects governed by the provisions of the State Public Contract Code or the provisions of the City's informal bidding ordinance, as contained in Chapter 12, Article 12 -15 of this Code. (b) The award of contracts governed by any State or Federal law which prescribes a different procedure. (c) The granting by the City of franchises, rights, privileges, licenses or permits, including, but not limited to, a cable television franchise granted pursuant to Chapter 4, Article 4 -25 of this Code, a garbage collection franchise granted pursuant to Chapter 7, Article 7 -05 of this Code, or a franchise for installation of facilities granted pursuant to Chapter 10, Article 10 -25 of this Code. (d) The purchase of utilities, including, but not limited to, electricity, water, gas, or telephone service. (e) Employment contracts or collective bargaining agreements with any employees of the City. (f) The purchase of insurance, including coverage provided by any self insurance pool in which the City is a participant. 1/21/89 -2- (g) The extension or renewal of any existing contract for technical or professional services to be performed by consultants, unless the City Council elects to award a new contract pursuant to this Article. (h) Contracts for technical or professional services to be performed by consultants, where the cost thereof will be paid in advance by a person applying to the City for a permit, license or other approval. (i) Contracts for educational, recreational, travel or entertainment services furnished by independent contractors or consultants, where the total cost thereof is paid by the persons utilizing the services. (j) Contracts for supplies or services to be furnished by any other public agency. (k) The purchase of supplies or services made in compliance with the terms and conditions of any grant, gift or bequest to the City that is otherwise consistent with law. Ca §2- 45.040 Centralized purchasing system; Purchasing Officer (a) Except as otherwise provided by this Article, all purchases of supplies and services shall be centralized under the Purchasing Officer. (b) The City Manager is hereby appointed as the Purchasing Officer for the City, and as such shall have authority to: (1) Procure or supervise the procurement of all supplies and services needed by the City, in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this Article and any administrative rules and regulations as may be adopted by the Purchasing Officer pursuant hereto. (2) Exercise direct supervision over the City central stores and general supervision over all other inventories of supplies belonging to the City. (3) Establish or supervise the establishment of specifications for supplies and services required by the City. (4) Inspect or supervise the inspection of all supplies purchased by the City to insure quality, quantity and conformance with the specifications therefor. (5) Prepare and adopt administrative rules and regulations not in conflict with the provisions of this Article for the purpose of implementing the purchasing system established hereunder. (6) Sell, trade or otherwise dispose of surplus supplies, in accordance with the provisions of this Article. (c) The Purchasing Officer may authorize any department head to investigate, solicit bids, or negotiate the purchase or award of contracts for supplies 1/21/89 -3- or services independently of the centralized purchasing system, provided that all such actions shall be done in conformity with the procedures prescribed by this Article or by duly adopted administrative rules and regulations pertaining thereto. §2- 45.050 Purchase orders Purchases of supplies or services having a cost of One Hundred Dollars or more shall be made only by purchase orders signed by the Purchasing Officer, or other City employees as may be designated by the Purchasing Officer to act in his behalf. Nothing herein shall preclude the use of authorized petty cash funds for purposes intended by their establishment. §2- 45.060 Availability of funds Except in cases of emergency, the Purchasing Officer shall not issue any purchase order for supplies or services unless there exists an unencumbered appropriation in the fund account against which such purchase is to be charged. The appropriate account and funds shall be encumbered immediately after the issuance of the purchase order. §2- 45.070 Authorization for purchase orders and contracts; emergencies (a) The Purchasing Officer is hereby authorized to issue purchase orders and award contracts for supplies or services where the cost thereof does not exceed Five Thousand Dollars. (b) Contracts or purchase orders for supplies or services involving a cost in excess of Five Thousand Dollars must be approved or awarded by the City Council. (c) Notwithstanding Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Section or any other provision of this Article, the Purchasing Officer may purchase supplies or services having a cost in excess of Five Thousand Dollars in the event of emergency requiring the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, and precluding action by the City Council. In such instances, the Purchasing Officer shall submit to the City Council at its next succeeding meeting a written report describing the circumstances of the emergency, the supplies or services purchased, and the cost thereof. §2- 45.080 Use of brand names (a) Brand name or equal specifications may be used when the Purchasing Officer determines that: (1) No other design or performance specification or products list is available; or (2) Time does not permit the preparation of another form of purchase description which does not include a brand name specification; or 1/21/89 -4- (3) The nature of the product or the nature of the City's requirements makes use of a brand name or equal specification suitable for the procurement; or (4) Use of a brand name or equal specification is in the City's best interests. (b) Brand name or equal specifications shall state that substantially equivalent products to those designated will be considered for award. (c) Where a brand name or equal specification is used in a solicitation, the solicitation shall contain explanatory language that the use of a brand name is for the purpose of describing the standard of quality, performance and characteristics desired and is not intended to limit or restrict competition. 92- 45.090 Basis of award (a) Purchases of supplies or services will be made on the basis of the bid or bids most advantageous to the City. In addition to price, the criteria for determining the most advantageous bid shall include, but not be limited to the following: (1) Compliance with the bid specifications. (2) The ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the supplies or services required. (3) The ability of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the supplies or services promptly, or within the time specified, without delay or interference. (4) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience, and efficiency of the bidder. (5) The quality of the bidder's performance on previous purchases or contracts with the City. (6) The previous and existing compliance by the bidder with the ordinances of the City. (7) The sufficiency of the bidder's financial resources to perform the contract or provide the supplies or services required. (8) The quality, availability and adaptability of the supplies or services to the particular use required. (9) The ability of the bidder to provide future maintenance, repair parts and services for the use of the supplies purchased. (10) The number and scope of conditions attached to the bid. 1/21/89 -5- (b) Where a formal competitive bidding procedure is required and the contract is not awarded to the bidder offering the lowest price, the Purchasing Officer shall prepare and place on file with the records of such contract a written statement of the reasons for the award. Such statement shall be open to public inspection. S2- 45.100 Purchases under $100 The purchase of supplies or services having a cost of less than One Hundred Dollars can be made without a purchase order by the Purchasing Officer or other employee of the City having authorization from the Purchasing Officer to do so. A petty cash fund can be used for such purchases. S2- 45.110 Open market purchases (a) Purchases of supplies or services having a cost of One Hundred Dollars or more but less than Fifteen Thousand Dollars may be made in the open market without formal competitive bidding procedures, if authorized by either the Purchasing Officer or the City Council as provided in Section 2- 45.070 of this Article. (b) Open market purchases involving a cost of Five Hundred Dollars or more shall, whenever possible, be based upon at least three informal price quotations and shall be awarded on the basis of the price quotation most advantageous to the City. The Purchasing Officer may solicit price quotations either orally or in writing, or may utilize price information on file with the City or available elsewhere. S2- 45.120 Competitive bidding; exceptions (a) Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph (b) of this Section, all purchases of supplies or services involving a cost of Fifteen Thousand Dollars or more shall be made by contract awarded pursuant to the formal competitive bidding procedure set forth in Section 2- 45.130. (b) A contract for the purchase of supplies or services involving a cost of Fifteen Thousand Dollars or more may be awarded by the City Council without competitive bidding in each of the following cases: (1) Where the City Council determines that the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety requires the purchase to be made without competitive bids; (2) Where the supply or service required by the City can only be obtained from a single source; (3) Where the contract is for specialized or professional services such as, but not limited to, services rendered by architects, engineers, attorneys, appraisers, geologists, and other specialized consultants; (4) Where the City Council determines that use of the competitive 1/21/89 -6- bidding process is impracticable or impossible, or would not be likely to result in a lower price to the City from a responsible bidder, or would cause unnecessary expense or delay under the circumstances; (5) Where the City Council utilizes the request for proposal method of purchase, as set forth in Section 2- 45.140 of this Article. §2- 45.130 Formal bidding procedure Where formal competitive bidding is required, the following procedure shall be f ollowed: (a) Notice inviting bids. Notices inviting bids shall include a general description of the supplies or services to be purchased, the place where bid forms and specifications can be obtained, the time and place for opening bids, whether a bid deposit or bond will be required, and whether a performance bond will be required. The notice shall be published at least once, not less than ten days prior to the date set for final receipt of bids, in a newspaper having general circulation in the City, and shall be posted at the City Hall location used for the posting of legal notices. Notices shall also be sent to persons who have submitted a written request to the City to be notified of such bidding opportunities, and notices may be sent at the discretion of the Purchasing Officer to any additional persons. (b) Bidder's security. When deemed necessary by the Purchasing Officer, bids shall be accompanied by a bidder's security in the form of a cashiers check, certificate of deposit, money order, or unconditional and irrevocable letter of credit, payable at sight to the City, or a surety bond in favor of the City, in such amount as determined by the Purchasing Officer to be adequate for protection of the City's interests. Bidders shall be entitled to return of their bid security; provided, however, a successful bidder shall forfeit his bid security upon failure or refusal to execute a contract within ten days after mailing the notice of award, unless the City is responsible for the delay. The City Council may, on failure or refusal of the successful bidder to execute the contract, award it to the next lowest responsible bidder, in which event, the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City first to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, then toward payment of any other costs, expenses or damages incurred by the City as a result of such failure or refusal, and the balance of the security, if any, shall be returned to the lowest bidder. (c) Bid opening procedure. Sealed bids shall be submitted to the Purchasing Officer and shall be identified as bids on the envelope. Bids received after the deadline for submitting the same shall not be accepted and shall be returned to the bidder unopened. The bids shall be opened in public at the time and place stated in the public notice. All opened bids shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours from the time of bid opening until the contract has been awarded by the City Council. (d) Rejection of bids. If, in the opinion of the City Council, none of the bids is satisfactory, the Council may reject all bids and either purchase the supplies or services in the open market or readvertise for new bids. 1/21/89 -7- (e) Award of contract. Except as otherwise provided herein, a contract shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, taking into consideration the criteria listed in Section 2- 45.090 of this Article. (f) Tie bids. If two or more bids received are for the same total amount or unit price, quality and service being equal, and if a delay for readvertisement would not be in the public interest, the City Council may accept the bid it chooses or accept the lowest bid made by negotiation with the tie bidders at the time of the bid opening. (g) Performance bond. The City Council may require that a performance bond be furnished before entering into a contract with a successful bidder. The form and amount of such bond shall be satisfactory to the Purchasing Officer and in compliance with the contract specifications. (h) Waiver of irregularities. The City Council may waive any minor irregularities in the bids, based upon a determination that the same have no material impact upon the bidding process or other bids submitted. (i) No bids. If no bids are received in response to the notice inviting bids, the City Council may proceed to purchase the supplies or services without further competitive bidding. S2- 45.140 Request for proposals (a) The City Council may utilize the request for proposal method of purchasing supplies or services upon a determination that competitive bidding is not practical or advantageous to the City because: (1) Quality, capability, performance or qualification is overriding in relation to price; or (2) Delivery, installation, service, maintenance, reliability or replacement is overriding in relation to price; or (3) In the opinion of the City Council, the marketplace will respond better to a solicitation permitting a range of alternative proposals or evaluation and discussion of proposals before entering the contract. (b) Proposals shall be solicited in such manner as directed or approved by the City Council. The identity of persons responding to the request for proposals and the content of proposals submitted to the City may be kept confidential during the process of negotiation and until a contract is awarded. (c) The request for proposals shall state evaluation factors. Discussions may be conducted with responsible offerors and revisions to proposals, based upon such discussions, may be accepted. (d) The contract award shall be based upon the proposal determined by the City Council to be most advantageous to the City, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals. 1/21/89 -8- (e) The City Council may reject any and all proposals if such rejection is deemed to be in the best interests of the City. The Council may thereupon direct that new proposals be solicited or utilize any other purchasing method set forth in this Article. 52,45.150 Inspection and testing The Purchasing Agent shall inspect, or cause to be inspected, all deliveries of supplies or services to determine their conformance to specifications set forth in the purchase order or contract. The Purchasing Agent shall have the authority to require any tests necessary to determine quality and conformance with specifications. 52- 45.160 Joint purchase with other agencies Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article, the Purchasing Officer may issue a joint purchase order together with any other city, county, or public agency in the State for the purchase of supplies or services, provided the specifications for such supplies or services have been approved by the Purchasing Officer if the cost thereof is less than Fifteen Thousand Dollars, or by the City Council if the cost thereof is Fifteen Thousand Dollars or more, and provided further that at least one of the other agencies has solicited or advertised for bids in a manner similar to the applicable procedures set forth in this Article. 52- 45.170 Disposal of personal property The Purchasing Officer shall have authority to dispose of personal property of the City which cannot be used by any department or has become obsolete or worn out. The disposition may be accomplished by negotiated sale, public auction, exchange or trade in for other supplies or, upon a determination by the Purchasing Officer that the property has no commercial value, by abandonment, destruction or donation to a public body or a nonprofit charitable or civic organization. The disposition of any property having a value of Five Hundred Dollars or more shall first be authorized by the City Council." SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. s s s s s s 1/21/89 -9- The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1988, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 1/21/89 -10-