Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-05-1989 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
It SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECU'T`IVE SUMMARY N0. �� 9� AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: 4 -5 -89 -�—L� �ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING CITY MGR. APPROVA /)- SUBJECT: CONCRETE REPAIR FOR CALENDAR yEAR 1987 & 1988 Recommended Motion: The work on the subject has been completed and it is our recommendation that this work be accepted and Notice of Completion filed. Report Summary. The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting on June 3, 1987, awarded the contract for the above project to Hydrotech Pipeline, Inc.; the work on this project has been completed and it is recommended that the work be accepted. Fiscal Impacts: Total construction costs: $132,000. Attachments: Notice of Completion. Motion and Vote: r r� RECORDING REQUESTED BY I City Clerk AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO City of Saratoga S:. .d —, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. S' d S,a,. L Saratoga, Ca. 95070 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE M, NTA'fttP is hereby given that .......I .............. . the undersigned, ..... ?-fir.. R. Peacock ....................... ................................................................................................................................. ............................... .............................. /the agent of /" the owner....... of th............. certain lot............ piece..............., or, parcel ............. of land .situated in the ......... Clt y.. Af.. SaratQgd........................................... County of ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••.•.........• ................ State of California, and described as follows, to -wit: CCNCREPE REPAIR FOR CAIEMW YEARS 1987 and 1988 That .................... CITY OF SARATOGA ........................................................................................ ............................... ................................................. ............................... . as owner...... of said land, did, on the .................. day of MAY ... ............................... 19 ... U.......... , enter into a contract with ......................... �i. PIPII,I... ItIC. ................................. ............................... for ...........................C�. RFPAI12 .k�OR..CALtER..XFARS.1947.. &. 1958.......... ............................... ................................................................................................................................. ............................... I ................................................................................................................................. ............................... upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the ......... ............................... county of .................................. ............................... , State of California, on the................. ............................... day y f ..... March ............................:. , 19.B9 ...... That on the ................ 9�............................ da...o................... , 19............; i the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said ................... ........................................... ....................................... ..............................; That the name ...... and address...... of all the owner...... of said property are as follows: I CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 and the nature of ........ ............................... title to said property is ................ ............................... STATE OF CALIFORNIA ... Owner ............ ss. By . .............. ............................... Countyof .................................................... HARRY R. PEACOCK .................................................. ............................... ... ............................... beingduly sworn . .............................:............................................................. ............................... says: "! I am .......... /the agent of)" the owner...... of the property described in the foregoing notice. I have read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge. Subscribed and sworn to before me this ! i;l . day of ...................... 19 ....... ................................................. ............................... ICI } ................................................ ............................... ;! ' Delete words in brackets if owner signs. This docunrnt is only a @~.I I- which mey b proper for use in simple trensestions and in no we, wt., or is intendd to act, A. • subtitute for the w Nics of an ettorneM. The publisher does not make env werrenne. tihmer eamees, or imelirl .. m rn. i...i SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECU'T'IVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 4 -5 -89 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: Hakone Gardens - Entry Road Survey AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL /� Recommended Motion: Approve contract and authorize City execution thereof for surveying entry road to Hakone Gardens. Report Summary. The Engineering firm of CIVCON is performing survev work at Hakone Gardens relative to the Cultural Center. It is appropriate to do the additional surveving that will be necessary when the entry road is redesigned to accommodate the addi- tional traffic expected including tour buses. We have solicited the attached quotation to perform this work. Fiscal-Imioacts: $5,700 to $6,900 from General Engineering Program. Attachments: Letter Contract. Motion and Vote: CIVIL & CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS, INC. MAR 0 1939 1376 N. 4TH STREET ri I Y OF SARATOGq March 6, 1989 (408) 437 -1858 CALIFORNIA �� 951&iY ENGINEER'S OFFICE Job No. 89052 -1 CCB -89 -33 CLIFFORD C. BECK, R.C.E. KENNETH NELSON. R.C.E. Mr. Robert Shook, RCE City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Civil Engineering and Surveying Consulting Services for the Access Roadway to the Hakone Gardens Cultural Exchange Center Project in Saratoga, CA Dear Bob: We propose to perform those certain Civil Engineering and Surveying Services which concerns existing hillside roadway construction at the subject location. If exceptions to changing this work scope should be necessary, this would be related to the fact that we had to comply with new or unknown requirements imposed by others. To provide you with information about our engineering costs and what services are proposed, the following approximations are given. WORK DESCRIPTION Civil Engineering Consulting ESTIMATED COST RANGE Conduct topographical surveying necessary to prepare a topographical base map of the current roadway site including locating (in reference to at least two reliable property corners) all structures and specimen trees, etc. along the route of the current access roadway from Big Basin Way to the beginning of public parking lots. Field Survey Costs $3400 to 4200 Office Engineering and Mapping Costs $2300 to 2700 $5700 to 6900 CIVIL & CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS, INC. March 16, 1989 Job No. 89052 -1 Page Two The above work items are estimated 'range of costs' which are approxi- mate, and are provided for information only. Payment requests will be based on actual cost which may overrun the sub -item cost; however, the total engineering and surveying costs of $6900 (except where qualified will not be exceeded unless there is an amendment to our contract. All costs are billed by the actual measured time which shows on our firm's time sheets, and these are multiplied by the rates which are shown in our current fee schedule. All hourly charges for consulting time which is rendered prior to the ac- ceptance of this agreement is considered to be extra work and it will be charged accordingly. Later when more is known about what is to be expected relative to future Engineering investigations and services, we shall provide you with new cost estimates of consulting engineering for additional stages of work that you may require, the cost of which you must realize is very inde- terminate at this date. • A EXCLUSIONS 1. Soils and Geotechnical Engineering. 2. Payment of municipal or agency fees. 3. Construction staking:' 4. Quantity take -offs and estimates including bidding to contractors. 5. Any future new topographical or boundary Surveys and map preparation work which is required in excess of the work Description. G. Any initial construction consulting provided previous to contract acceptance. 7. Urainage structures design and hydraulic flow calculations. 8. Complete boundary surveying of property except that limited work which needs to be done to establish boundary controls in reference to work scope topo traverses. a • CIVIL & CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS, INC. March 16, 1969 Job No. 89052 -1 Page Three Additionally, it is to be understood that this proposal does not include work concerning applications for variance and zoning changes. As the quantity of work involved in these items can vary greatly, we can only do the work on a time and material basis. However, our firm will be able to provide some of these excluded services, if they are determined to be necessary during the course of the project time. B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional work requiring the services of outside consultants or other direct expenses shall be reimbursed at the rate of 1.15 times the direct cost. These services would be related to the procurement of other con- sultants to perform work not included in the proposed work scope. • C. EXTRA WORK Any additional work that may be required and not specified under Work Description will be considered as Extra work and will be charge on a time and materials basis. All revisions of completed work required by the client or change in the City or County policies, ordinances or requirements will be considered as Extra work and will be charge on a time and material basis. D. ABANDONMENT OR TERMINATION OF PROJECT If the project is abandoned or terminated and written or verbal notice given, payment will be due for all services performed up to the date of notice, including Extra Work and Reimbursable Expenses. E. FEES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS All fees for services performed will be billed monthly and shall be due and payable thirty (30) days from date of invoice. t ow CIVII & CONSTRUCTION CONSUITANTS, INC. March 16, 1589 Job No. 89052 -1 Page Four With the signing of this contract and the granting of your authorization to proceed, a retainer fee in the amount of $1500 will be required. This amount will be credited as partial payment of the total fee. The agreement shall be governed by the Laws of the State of California. Please acknowledge your acceptance of these terms, conditions and provisions by signing the enclosed copy of this agreement and returning it to our office. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. We are looking forward to working with you and your other consultants on this project. Very truly yours, liff d C. ec Regi or Civil Engineer CCBJrn The above proposal is accepted this _ day and this is your authorization at proceed. By: Title 1989 I IN SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 4 -5 -89 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING AGENDA ITEM 4 CITY MGR. APPROVAL I SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR 87 -014 AND RELEASE 500 of BOND Recommended Motion: Grant Construction Acceptance and Release of Cash Bond for SDR 87 -014, 14291 Springer Avenue. Report Summary. The work has been satisfactorily completed. This Construction Acceptance will begin the (1) one year maintenance period. Fiscal Impacts: Unknown. Attachments: Memo describing bond. Motion and Vote: C. F 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 u-= (408) 887 -3438 MEMnRANDUM TO: City Manager DATE: 3 -24 -89 FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for SDR 87 -014 Name & Location: 14291 Springer Avenue Public Improvements required for SDR 87 -014 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: Douglas Heeter Address: 129 Central Avenue Los Gatos, Ca. 95030 2. Improvement Security: Type: Assignment. Certificate or Deposit Amount: $5-,000.00 Issuing Company: Saratoga National Bank Address: 12000 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Certificate No.: 1319. 1320 3. Special Remarks: Please release one Assignment of Certificate of $2,500.00 No. 1319. i`ds,ra Rct)" t S . Shco? 0 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 5, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING i SUBJECT: SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PARKER RANCH AREA. Recommended Motion: AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL Adopt Resolution No. MV establishing No- Passing Zone and authorizing delineation of portions of Comer Drive and Star Ridge Court by double yellow centerline striping and also establishing a three -way stop at the intersection of Parker Ranch Rd. and Vista Arroyo Court. Report Summary We had been requested by residents of the Parker Ranch subdivision to review several traffic related matters of which two of the items will need Council action to implement; 1) three-way stop at Parker Ranch Road and Vista Arroyo Court 2) no passing zone (double yellow centerline) on portions of Comer Drive and Star Ridae Court. The Public Safety Commission endorses both of these items. Fiscal Impacts: The cost of the above improvements is estimated to be approximately $3,000 and would come from the Traffic Safety Budget (3033-3010). Attachments: 1. Resolution No..MV 2_ Report from Public Safety Commission. 3.• Various documentation concerning subject. Motion and Vote: 0.1L RESOLUTION NO. MV RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING NO- PASSING ZONE AND AUTHORIZING DELINEATION OF PORTIONS OF COMER DRIVE AND STAR RIDGE COURT BY DOUBLE - YELLOW CENTERLINE STRIPING AND ALSO ESTABLISHING A THREE -WAY STOP INTERSECTION AT PARKER RANCH ROAD AMID VISTA ARROYO COURT The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION I: The following intersections in the City of Saratoga are hereby designated as stop intersections. NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION Parker Ranch Road All vehicles traveling on Parker Ranch Road northeastbounl and southwestbound shall stop before entering or crossing the intersection thereof with Vista Arroyo Court. Vista Arroyo All vehicles traveling on Vista Arroyo Court north- bound shall stop before entering the intersection thereof with Parker Ranch Road. This section shall become effective at such time as the proper signs are installed. SECTION II: Based on an engineering and traffic study, the following designated portions of streets in the City of Saratoga shall be designated by double - yellow center - ine striping to indicate no driving to the left thereof: NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION Comer Drive from 100'± westerly of' Arroyo De Arguello to Diamond Oaks Court Star Ridge Court - from Diamond Oaks Court to Chiquita Court. Star Ridge Court from Chiquita Court to 500' southerly of the end of the cul-de -sac. This section shall become effective at such time as the proper striping is put down. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of April, 1975, by the following vote: h NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk MAYOR 7i 'T'OGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE •::. AR •• COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson March 27, 1989 CITY OF SARATOGA Martha Clevenger David Moyles CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICF9onald Peterson To: City Engineer Francisstutzman From: Community Services Director Subject: Traffic Safety Improvements to the Parker Ranch Area As you will recall, you made traffic safety improvements in recommendations were considered at their March 13 meeting. The address each of your recommendat a summary of the results of the your recommendations. recommendations for six basic the Parker Ranch area. These by the Public Safety Commission Commission made the decision to ions individually. Following is Commission's actions on each of 1. Regarding the installation of a stop sign on Vista Arroyo Court to clearly establish the right -of -way for through traffic on Parker Ranch Road, the Commission felt there should also be stop signs placed on Parker Ranch Road, making this T- intersection a 3 -way stop. They also recommended that stop sign ahead signs be placed on both sides of the stop signs on Parker Ranch Road. waif aide' -....2 . Regarding the installation of 25 mph regulatory signs at A %mred, both entrances off of'Prospect Road on Parker Ranch Road, the PSC /Zg /e9 felt this recommendation was justified, and endorsed it. service --+►3. Regarding the relocation of the existing not -a -thru- street Re $,we<< 1+i - sign from Burnett Drive at Parker Ranch Road to Farr Ranch Road 3/ze /89 at Burnett Drive, the Commission felt that this recommendation was warranted, and endorsed it. 4. Regarding the installation of a stop sign on Diamond Oaks Court at its intersection with Comer Drive /Star Ridge Court, the Commission felt that this was a proposal which needed more research, and decided to trail it until their April 3 meeting. 5. Regarding the installation of a stop sign on Chiquita Court at its intersection with Star Ridge Court, the Commission felt that this recommendation was not justified since there is adequate visibility in all directions. Therefore, they decided not to endorse your recommendation in this matter. Page 2 6. Regarding the painting of double yellow centerlines on Comer Drive from just westerly of Arroyo De Arguello to Diamond Oaks Court and on Star Ridge Court from Diamond Oaks Court to Chiquita Court; from Chiquita Court to approximately 500 feet southeasterly of the end of the cul -de -sac, the Commission felt that these recommendations, together with your specs for them, were definitely justified, and endorsed them. Please contact me if you have any questions. 011 0/5 F Id jm cc: PSC Erman Dorsey Yle J L. ;ice 13777 FRl1ITVALE AVE ULIFORNIA95070 o o ��, (408) 867 -3438 u \'/ V COUNCIL MEMBERS: March 9, 1989 MAR 13 1989 Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson CITY OF SARATOGA Francis Stutzman Dr. Hay CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE 12357 Parker Ranch Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Dr. Hay: This is to inform you that the Saratoga Public Safety Commission will be considering the installation of stop signs at the intersection of Parker Ranch Road and Vista Arroyo Court, together with other minor traffic improvements, at their regular March meeting. The City's Engineering Department staff is recommending: 1) The installation of a stop sign on Vista Arroyo Court to clearly establish the right -of -way for through traffic on Parker Ranch Road. 2) The installation of 25 MPH regulatory signs at both entrances off of Prospect Road, on Parker Ranch Road. 3) The relocation of the existing Not -a- Through- Street sign from Burnett Drive at Parker Ranch Road to Farr Ranch Road at Burnett Drive. 4) The installation of a stop sign on Diamond Oaks Court at its intersection with Comer Drive /Star Ridge Court. 5) The installation of a stop sign on Chiquita Court at its intersection with Star Ridge Court. 6) The painting of double yellow centerlines on Comer Drive from just westerly of Arroyo de Arguello to Diamond Oaks Court and on Star Ridge Court from Diamond Oaks Court to Chiquita Court; from Chiquita Court to approximately 500 feet southerly of the end of the cul -de -sac. This double yellow centerline stripe should be accompanied by the installation of Type D raised reflectorized pavement markers placed at 24 feet on center. The recommendations of the Public Safety Commission on these matters will be forwarded directly to the City Council for final disposition. March 9, 1989 01 13777 FRUITVALE AVE ' ' LIFORNIA 93070 (408) 8673438 JU COUNCIL MEMBERS: Dr. Hay 12357 Parker Ranch Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Dr. Hay: MAR 13 1989 Martha Clevenger both David Moyles CITY OF SARATOGA Donald Peterson - Francis Stutzman CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE The relocation of the existing Not -a- Through- Street This is to inform you that the Saratoga Public Safety Commission will be considering the installation of stop signs at the intersection of Parker Ranch Road and Vista Arroyo Court, together with other minor traffic improvements, at their regular March meeting. The City's Engineering Department staff is recommending: 1) The installation of a stop sign on Vista Arroyo Court to clearly establish the right -of -way for through traffic on Parker Ranch Road. 2) The installation of 25 MPH regulatory •signs at both entrances off of Prospect Road, on Parker Ranch Road. 3) The relocation of the existing Not -a- Through- Street sign from Burnett Drive at Parker Ranch Road to Farr Ranch Road at Burnett Drive. 4) The installation of a stop sign on Diamond Oaks Court at its intersection with Comer Drive /Star Ridge Court. 5) The installation of a stop sign on Chiquita Court at its intersection with Star Ridge Court. 6) The painting of double yellow centerlines on Comer Drive from just westerly of Arroyo de Arguello to Diamond Oaks Court and on Star Ridge Court from Diamond Oaks Court to Chiquita Court; from Chiquita Court to approximately 500 feet southerly of the end of the cul -de -sac. This double yellow centerline stripe should be accompanied by the installation of Type D raised reflectorized pavement markers placed at 24 feet on center. The recommendations of the Public Safety Commission on these matters will be forwarded directly to the City Council for final disposition. Dr. Hay March 9, 1989 Page Two The Commission `meetin9.will be;;on March 13, 1989. Commission meetings start at 7..:00 p.m. `aind' are held in the Senior "Lounge" portion of the Saratoga Community Center, directly behind City Hall. You are more than welcome to attend this meeting of the Commission. Feel free to contact me if you ;have any questions. Very truly yours, Todd W. Arcjo Community Services Director jm I March 3, 1989 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 8673438 Ronni Lacroute Secretary Parker Ranch Homeowners Association P.O. Box 3077 Saratoga, CA 95070 -1077 Dear Ms. Lacroute: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson ® \% 0 MA: G 1989 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE This is to inform you that the Saratoga Public Safety Commission will be considering the installation of stop signs at the intersection of Parker Ranch Road and Vista Arroyo Court, together with other minor traffic improvements, at their regular March meeting. The City's Engineering Department staff is recommending: 1) The installation of a stop sign on Vista Arroyo Court to clearly establish the right -of -way for through traffic on Parker Ranch Road. 2) The installation of 25 MPH regulatory signs at both entrances off of Prospect Road, on Parker Ranch Road. 3) The relocation of the existing Not -a- Through- Street sign from Burnett Drive at Parker Ranch Road to Farr Ranch Road at Burnett Drive. 4) The installation of a stop sign on Diamond Oaks Court at its intersection with Comer Drive /Star Ridge Court. 5) The installation of a stop sign on Chiquita Court at its inter- section with Star Ridge Court. 6) The painting of double yellow centerlines on Comer Drive from just westerly of Arroyo De Arguello to Diamond Oaks Court and on Star Ridge Court from Diamond Oaks Court to Chiquita Court; from Chiquita Court to approximately 500 feet southerly of the end of the cul -de -sac. I Ronni Lacroute Page 2 Parker Ranch Homeowners Association This double yellow centerline stripe should be accompanied by the installation of Type D raised reflectorized pavement markers placed at 24 feet on center. The recommendations of the Public Safety Commission on these matters will be forwarded directly to the City Council for final disposition. The Commission meeting will be on March 13, 1989. Commission meetings start at 7:00 p.m., and are held in the Senior "Lounge" portion of the Saratoga Community Center, directly behind City Hall. You, and other members of your Association, are more than welcome to attend this meeting of the Commission. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, rw Todd W. A o Community Services Director TWA /mlt t CI N1 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Traffic Safety Cottmission DATE: March 2, 1989 FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: Parker Ranch -'Request for Traffic Control Devices ----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Residents in the Parker Ranch Subdivision have asked staff to review several traffic devices within the subdivision. ate frost significant one was for a stop sign at Vista Arroyo Court and Parker Ranch Road. Staff has reviewed this intersection of Vista Arroyo and Parker Ranch Road and it is our conclusion that stop signs are not warranted at this location. The only stop sign that we could support would be one on Vista Arroyo Court which would only be to establish that Parker Ranch Road had the right- of-way at that intersection. There has not been a recorded accident here during the past six years which is about as long as the intersection has existed. A speed study taken March 1, 1989 is attached and shows the speed going northerly along Parker Ranch Road to be exactly where it should be, i.e. between 20 and 30 miles per hour. The traffic volumes are light. Staff reccemiends advance advisory signs indicating T intersections on both the north and south approaches to this intersection. Staff has no problem with installation of the Deer Xing signs as requested along Parker Ranch Road as it parallels Prospect Creek. In addition, I would reoottmend your consideration of the several items contained in the attached metro from Mr. Dorsey concerning other areas of Parker Ranch. RSS /df Attachment ■ ■ ■� ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■1 ■1■ ■111■ ■111 ■11 ■�i�111 ■11 ■�1 ■11 ■1 /■!/■ I!■ 1!■ 1 ■l1�11�11�� ■�R! ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 ■ ■/ ■ ■ ■!■ / ■ ■ / ■I ■■ ■■ miss Olson hills G ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■11 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■/ ■■ ■! ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■!1 ■1■ ■1111 ■111 ■1 /iF ■1 ■111 ■11i ■1111 ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 ■1 ■ ■1 ■11 ■111■ ■111 ■rArl ■� ■ ■ ■��■ ■1111■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 ■!! ■1 ■Iloilo ■■111■ / /1r■ ■!I ■ ■! ■1 ■! ■ ■ ■ ■!■ ■ ■ ■1 ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■It1 ■ ■ ■1 ■ ■ ■11l►1 ■1I. ■1 ■111 ■11■■■■■ ■ ■1 �■ ��■ �� ■ ■ ■� ■�� ■ ■�� ■ ■���� ■�1■ ■ ■ ■� ■ ■ ■�■ ■1111■■ ! ■1m11l1o1�1l11111l11'��11F ■111 milli ■milli ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■��� ■ ■ ■� ■ ■ ■/ /�H ■ ■ ■� ■■ ■111■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■ 1111 ■ ■11 ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■!UPON ■ill ■ ■�� ■ ■ ■1 ■11 ■ ■11 ■1 ■1 ■111II11N ■ ■1L.�11 ■11111 ■ ■MINION 11 ■1 ■11 ■ ■11 ■1■ 111 ■1/11�� ■ ■1F ■11 ■11 ■11 ■ ■11 ■ ■ ■1 ■1 ■� Iloilo ■ ■1milli //11111 smite 11 ■11 ■11 ■■ ■111 ■1 1111111■ 111■ 1■■■ 1 ►l111[l ■ ■11' ■11 ■11 ■11 ■11■■1■1r 11■ 1■ 11■■ 11■ 1■ 1!1/ ■1��Q ■ ■1F ■11 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■■� ■1 ■ ■� ■ Hill III ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ milli ■1 ■11 ■11 ■ ■11 ■1�1 ■ ■ ■� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� ■ ■N ■■ 11 ■1111■ ■111■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� ■� 11 ■11 ■1 ■� ■1��1 logo ■ milli ■ milli 11 ■11 ■� ■ ■ ■� ■ ■� ■� Iloilo 1111111 ■■■1■ ■ ■ ■� 1 ■ ■11 ■1 ■ ■11 ■ ■ ■ ■� FEB P I 15 1989 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE Mr. Robert S. Shook Public Works Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Shook: P.O. Box 3077v-• -�- Saratoga, CA 95070 -1077 �? , February 10, 1989 As the Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association, I am writing you to request a survey at the intersection of Vista Arroyo Court and Parker Ranch Road for the implementation of a stop sign. Due to lack of sight distance at this intersection, it will be inevitable that there will eventually be a tragic mishap if no stop sign is erected. The average speed of northbound traffic on Parker Ranch Road is approximately 35 to 40 miles per hour. It is especially difficult to emerge from Vista Arroyo Court safely since there is no way to see the traffic coming up the hill on Parker Ranch Road. Thank you for your attention to our request. Sincerely, Ronni Lacroute 4 0 nose 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SARA"I'OGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 o �� (408) 867.3438 o COUNCIL MEMBERS: September 15, 1988 Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman Mr. Ronald S. Hay 12357 Parker Ranch Road Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Mr. Hay: This is to update you concerning activities in the Parker Ranch Sub- division. The developer, Ken Blackwell, is working on the correction, a "punch list" of items on the municipal improvements, including the horse trail sytem. When that work is completed the City will "accept" these improvements and the street dedication. We will then be in a position to have sheriff patrol of the system. We will also be in a position to install advisory signs and other traffic control devices which were not a part of the subdivision requirements. These would include deer crossing signs, T- intersection signing at Vista Arroyo and Parker Ranch Road. We are also reviewing the advisability of a stop sign on Vista Arroyo at Parker Ranch Road. In addition there is a condition to close the gate between Star Ridge Court and Parker Ranch Court when these acceptances are made. I hope this information will be helpful to you. y truly y obert . Sho City Engineer RSS /df cc: Erman Dorsey ogu)y @2 §&Mk0Q)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO:. City Engineer DATE: May 13, 1988 FROM: Erman Dorsey, Sr. Engr. Tech SUBJECT: Traffic Review - Parker Ranch A recent review of all of the streets in both units of the Parker Ranch subdivision has prompted the following recommended traffic improvements: 1. Install R2(25) - 25 MPH regulatory signs at both entrances - off of Prospect Road, on Parker Ranch Road. 2. Relocate the existing W53 (Not a Through Street) sign from Burnett Drive at Parker Ranch ltd. to :Farr Ralk.Rd. at Burnett Drive. 3. Install R1R (Stop Sign) on Diamond Oaks Court at its inter- section with Comer drive /Star Ridge Court. 4. Install R1R (Stop Sign) on Chiquita Court at its intersection with Star Ridge Court. 5. Paint doable yellow centerlines on Comer Drive from just westerly of Arroyo De Arguello to Diamond Oaks Court and on Star Ridge Court from Diamond Oaks Court to Chiquita Court; from Chiquita Court to approximately 500 feet southerly of the end of the cul -de -sac. This double yellow centerline stripe should be accompanied by the installation of Type D raised reflectorized pavement markers placed at 24 feet on center. 6. The gate on the private access driveway between the cul -de -sac at the end of Star Ridge Ct..and the cul -de -sac at,the end of Parker Ranch Court should remain closed in order to prevent circulation between these two streets. Double yellow centerlines have already been placed on Parker Ranch Court at the downhill "S" curve; on Parker Ranch Court from just south - westerly of Vista Arroyo Court to Vista Arroyo Court; from Vista Arroyo Page 2 5 -12 -88 Court to Burnett Drive; from Burnett Drive to just northeasterly thereof; from just southerly of Prospect Road to Prospect Road; and on Burnett Drive from Parker Ranch Road to Farr Ranch Road. These double yellow centerlines were placed by Blackwell Homes at the City's request, based on residents inquiry. We also had Type N nine button reflectorized signs installed at the head on position for Burnett Drive at Parker Ranch Road and at Vista Arroyo Court at Parker Ranch Road. If a speeding problem develops on these new streets, the use of a traffic enforcement unit should be imple- mented from time to time. Presently Tract No. 6526 has been accepted by the City and traffic enforcement can be.used.on Parker Ranch Road from Prospect Road to..immediately southwesterly of Vista Arroyo Court; on Burnett Drive from Parker Ranch Road to 4001 feet easterly thereof; and on Farr Ranch Road from Burnett Drive to 1,4001 feet southerly thereof. Tract No. 6528 which contains the remainder of all the streets in Parker Ranch has not yet been accepted at this time, and are not public. The streets within Parker Ranch will continue to be monitored for any traffic related problems that may arise, as all of the streets within the City of Saratoga are monitored for problems. Erman Dorsey -- Attachment: Sketch. Prior action on similar requests. bh • �ht M 5 � 6GALG v yS P liisfo /l/ � l . uoflc � � %% i "o-I r// c 0'1 Yel/o"i ,"a um" r r F ®MA 12182 Parker Ranch Road Saratoga, Ca. 95070 May 5, 1986 Mr. Robert S. Shook City Engineer City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Mr. Shook: IMAYQr1986 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We wish to call to you attention two very dangerous road conditions existing in the Parker. Ranch area. These have become apparent now that we are experiencing more traffic with the opening of the other access from Prospect Road. There are no stop signs in any direction at the intersection of Parker Ranch Road and Vista Arroyo Court. The vehicles traveling northeast toward Cupertino from the Country Club on Parker Ranch Road top a rise which creates a visual impairment (blind intersection) for vehicles coming down (north) Vista Arroyo Court and for those pulling into and out of driveways northeast of the intersection. Drivers come up over the hill at high rates of speed, and we have already had several near misses. Those of us with driveways northeast of the intersection are taking our lives in our hands pulling into and out of our driveways. It is also dangerous for drivers coming down Vista Arroyo Court, since there is no clear -cut right -of -way, and visibility is impaired by the design of the intersection. Stop signs should be installed immediately at Vista Arroyo Court where it intersects with Parker Ranch Road, and at Parker Ranch Road, for northeast - bound traffic. There is no reason to stop the southwest -bound traffic on Parker Ranch since there are no driveways, etc. beyond the crest of the hill in that direction. Another stop sign should be installed at the corner of Burnett Drive and Paraker Ranch Road. This is another intersection with no stop signs. Burnett Drive traffic does not presently have to stop and often pulls directly into the path of oncoming traffic on Parker Ranch Road. People on bicycles and many drivers have had to take emergency evasive action at this intersection and have had to slam on the brakes or lay their bikes down to avoid drivers turning the corner from Burnett Drive onto Parker Ranch without stopping or even looking uphill for oncoming traffic. Just a few days ago, a car coming out of Burnett at high speed without stopping was unable to make the turn and went into the lot on the west side of Parker Ranch near the high tension towers. It took a tow truck to remove the vehicle. A stop sign should have prevented this accident. C /�ai,/,Di y Doi k !!rt -sa�'e Sptss� /Ine�r�„��rrssd' Cl6 r,_ Did) Mr. Robert S. Shook Please take action to see that these dangerous conditions are corrected before someone is seriously injured or worse. Thank you. Very truly yours, Br a L. Reynolds AlLova L.nolds Y P. S. Please see enclosed map for stop sign locations. 2 ' ' -tai .Z' ` • \ • � - -� i— • ,��� \ \? ;� t UN/ T TWO _ATC y MIA �i } �• �- se.' P ',` TRACT 6528 �• - '�� � ' �r - --._ _..._..•• � , ''r �� �,• � ��' TRAVEL, UN I T ONE 1' - - -- - -.+-�- ; •� , • _ 1 \ i i��h TRACT 6526 ._� ���.`�.• �`��; �:�. _ ••. - °`� x •�^' r; AGE , ¢• . '``� / PMA 7 LO T DIVISION LINE SE DIVISION LINES y Q Al •� .` , ,� - ~ ��' -;v '�'��` j iA PARC ARCEL 1 i. � •'ter. -r• - r. �0, s r —'�.. 1I ;rI U OC�' A I:NI!F SAILATOGA. C-'ALI!•ORNIA 95070 I Io,i;l }iO7 ('0 UNUI1, NIEMIiERS: Karw, Anuurson Martha Clevenger August 22, 1986 Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Paterson Blackwell Homes P. 0. Box 817 Campbell, Ca. 95008 Attn: Mr. Ken Blackwell Gentlemen: Recently, it has been brought to our attention that some traffic safety measures need to be implemented on Parker Ranch Road, Burnett Dr. and Vista Arroyo Ct. in your Parker Ranch development. The initial request from a resident was to install stop signs (see attached letter). After reviewing the situation, we feel that with the installation of double yellow.centerlines with reflectorized pavement markers to bring the alignment of the roadway to the attention of motorists along with the installation of nine button reflectorize signs at the "head on" position at top of "tee" intersections, would certainly increase the safety for vehicles and residents in this area. A sketch showing these installations is attached for consideration to implement them. As you are aware, the City has not yet accepted these streets into its system, and the above described safety measures would be your responsi- bility to install. After the acceptance of the streets the City would then accept the maintenance responsibilities, including the striping and signs. Should you have any questions on any of the above please contact either myself or Erman Dorsey of this department. Very truly yours, q bert S. h ok ty Enginee _ Attachment cc: Bryce L. Reynolds CITY L'HIT L. w . r0 V V NOT TO SCAL C I 1 p } L EG E�YO _ Oair71 Dbuile Yel/o,,-1 Centiv -1me Sfrip cwi t%! Typ e D Cavemen Markers (? / 2 0 . C. Type Al 14arke SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. fl MEETING DATE: April 5, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning AGENDA ITEM: V CITY MGR. APPROVAL le SUBJECT: HP -16, Heritage Resource Designation for 20600 Lomita Avenue Recommended Motion: Report Summary: Conduct public hearing, introduce ordinance. The Heritage Preservation Commission is recommending approval of HP -16, Heritage Resource Designation for property at 20600 Lomita Avenue. The property meets the criteria established in the City Code for designation. Fiscal Impacts: None. Staff report with attachments. Motion and Vote: CK - �Ie n t" 0q /g I q OTTT o9 0&T&&1XQ)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SAR.ATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council DATE: 3/24/89 FROM: Valerie Young, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR HERITAGE- RESOURCE DESIGNATION AT 20600 LOMITA AVENUE (HP -16) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Heritage Preservation Commission received an application for Heritage Resource Designation for property at 20600 Lomita Avenue, known as the Hannah McCarty Vineyard House. Designation of the property was a condition of subdivision approval at the same address. After careful consideration of the application and supporting materials, the Commission determined that the property meets the criteria for designation, per Section 13- 15.010 of the City Code. At their March 1, 1989 meeting, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the designation. RECOMMENDATION The City Council should conduct the public hearing and, if it can make the findings for approval, introduce the ordinance designating 20600 Lomita Avenue as a Heritage Resource. A second reading is required at the next Council meeting, and the ordinance would go into effect thirty (30) days after the second reading. Valerie You Associate P1 nner 0 Attachments: 1) Ordinance HP -16 2) Heritage Commission minutes, 3/1/89 3) Designation application and supporting materials 1 I] :I . New (,__. RK H l N UTcs A. HP -16 - Application for Heritage Resource Designation,, 20600 Lomita Avenue, Hannah McCarty House Young gave a brief staff report, highlighting the completeness of the application and the photographs submitted. There was discussion on a discrepancy in the date of construction; it should be 1877. There was discussion on the selection criteria for designation; it was noted that the property met criteria (a), (b), and (c) for inclusion on the Inventory. M/S Landsness /Ansnes to accept the application and recommend to the City Council approval of the designation because the property meets criteria (a), (b), (c), and (e) of Section 13- 15.010 of the City Code for designation of a heritage resource. Motion passed unanimously. B. Review subdivision application for 20271 Merrick Drive Young gave a brief staff report and showed the plans for the 3 -lot subdivision, noting that property is listed on the Inventory; she encouraged the Commission to focus their comments on the historic preservation issues. Mike Kenrich, 20270 Merrick Drive, spoke to the Commission as a concerned neighbor. He expressed his interest in seeing the house preserved and was attending this meeting to learn of the Commission's purpose and activities. He noted that the proposed residences for the new lots were to be single -story but still would have a significant impact on the neighborhood. After a significant amount of discussion, Commissioners expressed their opinions as follows: Ansnes - The Inventory listing includes the structure and the property surrounding it. Any new construction will have impacts. She noted the difference between this application and the Lomita Avenue subdivision was the location of new residences; this one would be in front of rather than behind the historic house. Koepernik - New garage should be in keeping with historic house. Lot configuration and sizes are problematic; new house sizes should be similar to others in neighborhood (1600 -2000 sq. ft.). Major trees should be protected. Cameron - Concurred with Koepernik's comments; felt that the Commission's role is not to support development per se, but to provide positive advice on how to make Applicant agrees tr4s application shall to final map apprc. . and that Heritage shall become effective at time of final not be withdrawn prior Resou. Designation map or whereafter. Date Received Designation # Hannah McCarthy Vineyard Home Commonly Known as The Pronger Home HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION APPLICATION FORM (No Fee) PROPERTY ADDRESS 20600 Lomita NAME OF RESOURCE Historical Inventory #33 PROPERTY OWNER _Chris Pronger OWNER ADDRESS 20600 Lomita, Saratoga, CA / General Delivery, Jackson, WO 83001 OWNER PHONE OWNER SIGNATURE n. ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 517 -12 -032 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site or structure, including major vegetation features, outbuildings /walls/ fences, and any major alterations from the original condition: This historic residence is a combination of a pioneer style frame house with greek revival elements on the front porch and four outbuildings.One of the outbuilding, built in approximately 1915 has been ordered demolished by the planning department due to improper setbacks. The other outbuilding consisting of the summer kitchen (which no longer has the kitchen), the outhouse which now has city sewers connected, and the garage. Extensive renovation has been done to all the structures over the past 75 years. The wood siding is typical of the pioneer period. The gabled roof encloses the house, which is level with grade at the rear and is about four feet above grade facing the street. The windows are double hung and the roofing is wood shake. The structures are all in their original locations and have all been restored. 1 PROPERTY SIGNIFICANCE A. Briefly describe historical and /or architectural importance of the property, including dates, events and persons associated with the property: This was the vineyard home of Hannah McCarthy (1834- 1893). She built the house and its outbuildingsafter the death of her husband, Martin in 1877. Employees lived and maintained the property and the vineyards until as late as 1981. The vineyards however were abandon in the early 1900's and the farm was used for chicken farming through 1950. Hannah McCarthy was born in Wexford, Ireland and came to the United States in 1852. A year later she married Martin, the founder of McCarthysville, who died in 1864. She became an enterprising businesswoman and owned many properties in Saratoga. When she died in 1893, her funeral was held at her residence and she was buried at the Catholic Cemetary in Santa Clara. The home has never left the possesion of of her children and their children. The home which has been commonly known as the Pronger Home is currently owned by Chris Pronger. B. List sources used to determined historical value (i.e. books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates — attach copies if available): Heritage Resource Inventory List C. Does this site /structure have a county, state or national landmark designation? Santa Clara County Heritage Resource List 2 B. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE Pioneer ..Some Greek Revival C. YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION 1890 D. NAME OF ARCHITECT OR BUILDER Unk E. APPROXIMATE PROPERTY SIZE FRONTAGE 220 feet DEPTH 212 feet ACREAGE 1.043 F. CONDITION OF STRUCTURE AND /OR SITE Excellent X Good Fair Deteriorated sidin, new G. IS STRUCTURE ALTERED OR UNALTERED? & Some Sewerecconnected. basicdati up H. IS STRUCTURE ON ORIGINAL SITE OR HAS ITgBEENnMOVED? All structures on original site. I. PHOTOGRAPHS Please attach photographs showing all four elevations of the structure or site. Indicate date taken. IMPORTANT Prior to submitting an application for heritage resource designation, the following should be read carefully: I, the applicant, understand that by applying for designation of my property as a heritage resource, that such property will be subject to the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Saratoga City Code. I also agree that these provisions will be complied with as well as any conditions upon which the applicatio��n is granted. pp // Signature 17� P Date "Z Address �Y��✓�� /� �« y �i�C S G/� u'�'G' 3 Ud ) Phone 3 ��.,.,. u�, �xs_. �.._,_._ � ".. <��•w..._�cnr1i_�.rsSis::Y� �. .�•:za,,...: �,.e.,�. - .. _ - _ _ _� t - - 7 - -' ? XIM Al �A •._. � •�- - f�� :tee -:r,� - '� _ �.� -� A lip* RV I r fj tylt f t" .4 9.1. I HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY ( #33) IDENTIFICATION 1. Common name: None 2. Historic name: Hannah McCarty's Vineyard House 3. Street or rural address: 20600 Lomita Avenue City: Saratoga Zip: 95070 County: Santa Clara 4. Parcel number: 517 -12 -032 5. Present Owner: Norman Pronger Address: 20600 Lomita Avenue City: Saratoga Ownership is: Public: 6. Present Use: Residence Zip: 95070 Private: X Original Use: Residence DESCRIPTION 7a. Architectural style: Pioneer (Greek Revival) 7b. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This historic residence is a combination of a Pioneer style frame house with Greek Revival elements in the front porch and facade with wide wood columns and caps. The horizontal wood siding is typical lapped siding of the Pioneer Period. The gabled roof encloses the house, which is level with grade at the rear and, following the hill, is about four feet above grade facing the street. The windows are double hung with small panes and the roofing is wood shake. The structure is currently being restored. (photograph here) 8. Construction date: Estimated: 189077 Factual: 9. Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: Unknown 11. Approx. prop. size Frontage: 220' Depth: 220' approx. acreage 12. Date(s) of enclosed Photograph(s): 1988 13. Condition: Excellent: 14. Alterations: Good: X Fair: Deteriorated: No longer in existence: 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land: Scattered buildings: X Densely built -up: Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: Other: 16. Threats to site: None known: X Private development: Vandalism: Public Works project: Other: 17. Is the structure: on its original site? X Moved? 18. Related features: Garage, cottage in rear. Zoning: Unknown? SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and /or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site). This was the vineyard home of Hannah McCarty (1834- 1893). She built the house 13 years after the death of her husband, Martin, in 1877. Hannah McCarty was born in Wexford, Ireland and came to the United States in 1852. A year later she married Martin McCarty, the founder of McCartysville, who died in 1864. She became an enterprising business woman and owned many properties in Saratoga. This home was built at the end of Aloha Avenue, in a vineyard, and was one of the finest in the community at the time it was built. Mrs. McCarty was held in high esteem by the community for charity towards the less fortunate persons in the area. When she died on March 4, 1893 her funeral was held at her residence with many in attendance from many areas of the State. She was buried at the Catholic Cemetery in Santa Clara. 20. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: 2 Arts /Leisure: Economic /Industrial: Exploration /Settlement: 1 Government: Military: Religion: Social /Ed.: 21. Sources (List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates). Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory, 1975 & 1979; Butler, Valley of Santa Clara, 1975. 22. Date form prepared: 4/88 By (name): SHPC Organization: City of Saratoga Address: 13777 Fruitvale Ave. City: Saratoga Zip: 95070 Phone: 867 -3438 Locational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks): NORTH 9ikl EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 4/5/89 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA ITEM PIE CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Appeal of SD -88 -018; Planning Commission denial of a two -lot subdivision creating parcels of 1.5 and 1.35 acres in the R -1- 40,000 zone Applicant & Appellant: Mrs. Smilja Maynard Location: 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council receive pertinent testimony and move to deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission disapproving this two -lot subdivision. Report Summary: The Planning Commission was unable to make necessary findings to approve the two -lot subdivision because of concerns regarding the compatibility of the development with the surrounding neighborhood. Because the adjoining lots are larger than the proposed lots and the need to construct an access bridge across San Tomas Aquino Creek, the Planning Commission concluded that the proposal was impactful of the neighborhood, and denied the application. The Planning Commission also found that the proposal was substantially the same as a previous application without the need for a variance for lot width because of the dedication of an easement to the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which the Planning Commission concluded circumvented the intent of the ordinance. Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: Motion and Vote A:agenbill None 1. Planning Commission minutes, 1988 2. City Council minutes, 1985 3. Correspondence 4. Staff reports, 1988 09uW QT §&M&UQ)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council DATE: FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of SD -88 -018; Planning Commission denial two -lot subdivision creating parcels of 1.5 and acres in the R -1- 40,000 zone -------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended Motion 4/5/89 of a 1.35 Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, receive pertinent testimony and move to deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission disapproving the two -lot subdivision. C)vArvi Pw The application is for a two -lot subdivision of a 3.3 acre parcel currently developed with a single family residence. The subdivision would create a developable lot to the rear of the existing residence and would be accessible from Bainter Way. The application also includes the dedication of .45 acres to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. This dedication results in the creation of the undeveloped parcels of 1.35 acres and the developed parcel of 1.5 acres. In order to access the developable parcel, the application proposes a 25 ft. corridor which bisects the Water District easement as well as traverses San Tomas Aquino Creek with a bridge to Bainter Avenue. Although the Water District's easement will remain open space, the access corridor provides minimal frontage on to Bainter Avenue, technically creating a "flag lot" condition. Background The applicants submitted a variance for a 127' lot width where 150' width is required and subdivision application for a similar development in 1985. The Planning Commission reviewed the application and was able to make variance findings to approve a substandard lot width. However, the Planning Commission's approval of the variance and subdivision required stringent conditions regarding the development of the resulting parcel. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission conditions limiting the height of a future residence to 22 feet and the adjoining neighbor appealed the approval of the subdivision. The City Council reviewed the appeals and approved the appeal which reversed the Planning Commission's approval of the variance and subdivision. Findings cited by the Council included: the precedence set by granting a variance to create a lot; and the applicant's appeal of the height restrictions were moot since the variance findings could not be made. Primary concern expressed by neighbors involved the visibility and intrusive nature of a home constructed on the created lot. Also, concern existed regarding the bridge crossing of San Tomas Aquino Creek and potential erosion and flood hazards which may result. The applicant indicated that the creek bank was concrete and that the subdivision was a proper use of the property. In 1988, the applicants submitted a request for a two -lot subdivision similar to the previous proposal without the need for a variance. Primarily, the revised application included the dedication of a portion of the lot to the Water District. The dedication results in an average lot width which now conforms to the City's minimum lot width. The reason for this is that the additional dedication causes the lot width to be measured in a location prescribed by code which conforms with the 150' minimum lot width. With the exception of the easement dedication, the current proposal is substantially the same as the 1985 application. Staff discussed with the Water District their position on the acceptance of the easement. If the Water District were unwilling to accept the easement, then the dedication could not be completed resulting in a substandard lot width. Attached to this report is a letter from the Water District indicating that the dedication is satisfactory, and that bridge plans to cross the easement and the creek should be reviewed by the District. The Planning Commission received the initial staff report on January 11, 1989 when they expressed concern regarding the compatibility of the necessary access bridge and the size of the resulting lots and the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission directed staff to provide additional information regarding these issues. Staff reported that the bridge to cross San Tomas Creek would be a substantial structure which would incorporate steel beams providing necessary reinforcement suggested by the City Engineer. Staff also prepared an analysis of neighborhood lot sizes indicating that nearby lots range from .9 acres to 4.47 acres. While lots smaller than the proposed lots exist in the neighborhood, staff noted that the properties adjacent to the subdivision which front directly onto Saratoga /Los Gatos Road are larger than the proposed lots. Therefore, the proposed subdivision would be inconsistent with the size of parcels in the immediate vicinity. Staff concluded in its follow -up report that based on Planning Commission input regarding the bridge and land use compatibility, to revise its recommendation to deny the subdivision. At the February 8, 1989 public hearing, the Planning Commission received the testimony of affected neighbors, the applicant's attorney and engineer. The minutes of the Planning Commission hearing provides a detailed account of the positions each party provided. The Planning Commission reviewed the findings necessary to grant a subdivision and concluded that the request be denied. Specifically, the Planning Commission found the following: 1. The site was physically unsuited for the proposed density because adjacent lots are larger than those lots proposed. 2. The development proposed access from a bridge which would significantly impact the rural character of the neighborhood. 3. The need for the variance was eliminated by a dedication of an easement which circumvented the intent of the ordinance. Analysis Staff feels that the proposed subdivision creates significant affects on the surrounding neighborhood which cannot be adequately mitigated. The parcels created will locate a home within the view shed of an adjoining neighborhood; the Bainter access is narrow and substandard, and the creek crossing places severe constraints on the design of the bridge which would result in a structure inconsistent with the surrounding character. Staff feels strongly that developing established neighborhood presents sensitivity and compatibility. The address solutions to the concerns Commission and the neighborhood Therefore, staff cannot recommend applicant's appeal. Stephen Em sl ie Planning Director SE /dsc new lots in the midst of an extraordinary issues of application did not adequately expressed by the Planning to resolve these concerns. that Council affirm the Attachments: 1. Planning Commission minutes, 1988 2. City Council minutes, 1985 3. Correspondence 4. Staff reports, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 11, 1989 Page 2 7. SD- Maynard, 29330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., request for t map royal to create atwo -lot subdivision of 1.5 and 1.35 of partially ed property in the R -1- 40,000 zone district. ------------------ - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- -------- ----------------------------- 8. V-88-038 Drumm, Mon ere Way, request riance approval to allow an addition to b tructed on a ng residence within 6 ft. of the western property ere required in the R- 1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the e. -------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------- Chairperson Guch noted that Pub ' ings Consent ar Item 1 was bein Continued. Commissioner Harris reque oval of Public Hearings nt Calendar It 7. 15UKkj ;x/KU OVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALM %% 2 - 6 AND 8. Passed 5- missioner Siegfried absent. r tea information on the o e es , 7. SD -88 -018 Maynard, 29330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., request for tentative m approval to create a two -lot subdivision of 1.5 and 1.35 acres of partially developed property in the R -1- 40,000 zone district. ------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Harris noted the letters submitted at the hearing and due to controversy surrounding this Item, asked that this Application be continued. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planners Caldwell and Jacobson reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Doug Anderson, Applicant's Representative, stated Mr. Maynard was present at the hearing. The Public Hearing remained open. Commissioner Harris requested clarification on lot sizes in the area; the McLaughlin's letter in- dicated that surrounding properties had larger lots; in addition, she questioned the relationship between Santa Clara Valley Water District (letter of November 17, 1988) and the bridge on -site. Commissioner Kolstad requested that issues raised in the Lucas' letter be addressed. Chairperson Guch asked for information on the proposed bridge across San Thomas Aquino Creek and the necessary access; she requested a Continuance of this Item pending receipt of information. Planner Caldwell stated that Santa Clara Water District's letter was in response to the plans pre- sented; as stated in their letter, "Plans for a bridge crossing or for any work in the vicinity of the future District right -of -way should be sent for District review and issuance of a permit prior to an construction." Condition 18 of the Model Resolution addressed this requirement. Commissioner Harris, citing the area's rural character, asked that the bridge design be reviewed; the City Attorney responded that a Condition requiring design review of the bridge could be added. Commissioner Kolstad had no objection to the design chosen for the bridge. An acceptable density for the parcel was clear upon visiting site; in addition, there were no privacy issues. He did not feel there was a need to continue this Item. Commissioners Harris,Tucker and Chairperson Guch favored a Continuance. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE SD -88 -018 TO FEBRUARY 8, 1989. Passed 3 -2- 1, Commissioners Burger, Kolstad dissenting, Commissioner Siegfried absent. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page FEBRUARY 8, 1989 Commissioner Siegfried not on; the Commission had carefully considered the project at e item; such requests were rassea 7-u. usually approv PUBLIC H ARIN 8. SD -88 -018 Maynard, 29330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, request for tentative map approval to create a two -lot subdivision of 1.5 and 1.35 acres of partially developed property in the R- 1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Continued from January 11, 1989. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Memorandum Re: SD- 88018, dated February 8, 1989. Planner Jacobson reviewed the Staff Report and presented a map comparing the Maynard property with adjacent sites. The Public Hearing was open at 8:50 P.M. Mr. Doug Adams, Representing the Applicant, commented as follows: - Cited Staff Report statement, "Ile Planning Commission will find on the attached map that lots created will be smaller than adjacent lots. Staff recognizes that smaller lots exist in the vicinity." - Cited the map presented in the packet and noted that while there were larger lots on both sides of the site in question, there were smaller parcels to the south of the subject site - Did not understand the Staff Recommendation; Staff had previously approved this request - Proposal was for approval of a two -lot subdivision which met the zoning requirements - Did not believe that there would be any damage or harm that would come to any of the adjoining lots from approval of this application. Mr. Don Lucas, 19370 Saratoga -Las Gatos Road, Los Gatos commented as follows: - Construction of the bridge was not of concern; a bridge could be engineered to cross anything - Lot size was not necessarily the concern either - Concern was this highly irregular piece of property; the tail -end of the parcel was a remnant - Applicants had tried to give this portion of the parcel to the Santa Clara Water District in order to create a conforming lot - If the property were to be developed, access from Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. would be the reason- able entrance, rather than trying to build a bridge over the creek Noted the changing contour of the creek which occurred during the rainy season - Granting the Applicant's request would create a non - conforming, completely irregular parcel - This was the third attempt the Applicant had made to obtain approval of the request - Precedent had already been set for denying lot splits which created non - conforming parcels - Respectfully requested that the Commission deny the Application A response to Chairperson Guch's question regarding access, he stated that he objected to creating a buildable lot which had only 122 ft. width/frontage; secondly, he objected to taking access for the southern portion of the site by way of a bridge. Mr. Frederick Dorr, Property Owner across the Creek, stated that in his deed restriction, and he believed, in the Applicant's deed restriction, Bainter Avenue had the right -of -way. The outer corners of the Applicant's property on the south end had not been staked off to show the right -of- way easement. He asked that the property be resurveyed to ensure that the bridge would not encroach upon the Bainter Avenue right -of -way. Ms. Jacita Cymball, Westfall Engineers, commented as follows: - With regard to Bainter Avenue and its right -of -way, she confirmed that the property line was within the right -of -way easement - If Bainter Avenue were ever widened, a portion of the property would have to be used - There was no question the bridge would ever interfere with Bainter Avenue roadway The bridge would clear the creek, which was well- defined and was very deep at this point. Confirmed that the bridge itself would not encroach into the right -of -way - In addition, the road could not extend over the flood plane area, which was in fact, the creek Secondly, while the lot was not rectangular, it did comply with the zoning ordinance - Reviewed the dimensions of the proposed bridge per request of Commissioner Harris - Cited an existing bridge on Bainter Avenue as an example of a similar bridge in the area 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 4 Ms. Sally Lucas, 19370 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga, commented that the creek changed dramatically during the time they had lived in the area, despite the fact that there had been limited changes during the past few years. She did not understand how, by dedicating the tail -end of the property, including the creek, to the Santa Clara Water District in order to create a frontage, would result in a conforming lot. She disputed the contention of Mr. Adams regarding lot sizes in the area and cited examples of adjacent lots which were much larger. She concluded that it would take a major bridge to complete this project; the existing bridge referred to was much smaller in size. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:05 P.M. Passed 7 -0 Commissioner Kolstad visited the site and noted the drop in elevation at the rear portion of the site. He observed the perceived lot sizes as opposed to specific lot lines and felt he could approve the application as presented. He did not have any problem with the bridge and felt that, if anything, the bridge would improve the southern portion of this site and the immediate area. Commissioner Siegfried disagreed with the above comments; this was the third review of this request. While he could understand the owner's desire to go forward on this application, it raised a question about the implications of the ordinances that, by giving away a portion of the property to the Santa Clara Water District, a non - conforming lot could be converted into a conforming lot. The question was, did such meet the intent of the ordinance? He felt that it did not. It would be difficult to vote against an application that conformed to the ordinance requirements; however, if the majority of the Commis -sion wished to approve the Application, he asked that severe restrictions be placed on any house built on the lower portion of the site and noted the visibility of this house. Commissioner Burger reviewed the history of the application and noted that the City Council's decision clearly reflected the viewpoint of the neighbors. She would not approve the application as presented and noted that the solution presented in an attempt to create a conforming lot, was one of the most convoluted approaches she had seen. She would not be voting in favor of the lot split. Commissioner Tucker stated she would be voting in favor of the Application; it was a conforming lot. In addition, she felt the access off Bainter Avenue may in fact, be safer than access from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. She saw no reason not to go forward with this application. Commissioner Tappan abstained on this item, having not been present for the previous hearing. Commissioner Harris concurred with Staff Report statement, "Staff feels that developing new lots in the midst of an established residential neighborhood presents extraordinary issues of sensitivity and compatibility..." She cited previous problems with this Application and felt very strongly about the construction of a bridge in this neighborhood; such would be incompatible with the exist- ing neighborhood. She could not make Finding 2, "The site is physically suitable for this development at this density... "; installing a bridge of the size proposed would significantly impact the rural character of this neighborhood. Chairperson Guch concurred with Commissioner Burger's comments. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO DENY SD -88 -018. PASSED 4 -2 -1, COMMISSIONERS KOLSTAD, TUCKER DISSENTING; COMMISSIONER TAPPAN ABSTAINING. measuring 27, 704 and 28,837 sq. ft. in the—R-1-20,000 zone d' ter 14 of the City Code. Continued from January 25 ------------- - - - - -- ----------------------------------------- - - - - -- -------------------- Commissioner Burger report d use visit. Chairperson Guch noted the letter reset Coats ,dated February 3, 1989. Planning Director Emslie and Planner Jacobso a Report to the Planning Commission. The City Attorney pointed out th ge on the Smith p as located directly on the property line. The City d' any information whether the stru a ally constructed in the first place; ven if it was legally constructed, the garage ha a for some time. B e property line, it was anon- conforming structure and a non- ing a cture could not be grandIt thered. Therefore, even making the assumption t r 0 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1985 3- 10/16/85 t. She then brought up the possibility of discussing State Senator Robe s bud roposals, including retention of the deductibility of state and loca ome taxes federal income tax purposes. There was consensus for Councilm Hlava to write tter to Congressman Roberti on the deductibility issue o Councilmember Ion reported on the upcoming hearings on Route She requested that reservation r the next Peninsula Division meeting be for herself and a staff member. Mar Clevenger commen taffg ia eon the recent recept' or the new City Manager and reported on the most recen a ue of Californ s meeting and the West Valley Mayors and Managers meeting. At the Mayor's request, the City flffl er fined a map he had prepared showing the current arterials in Santa Clara Co d the proposed Highway 85. He reported that CalTrans expected to deliver f information on the effect of the freeway on the arterials within 7 -10 d C 'lmember Callon suggested that that information, as well as info on the t on Saratoga traffic of building no freeway through Saratoga, b uested in wri She also noted that the question of who makes the decision location of interc s must be asked. Councilmember Hlava ght up the question of what Nnure current Route 85 if the freeway i Wilt; Community Development Died that the City expected to to er Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., but he whether the City was required do so. Council r Fanelli requested that the Council be given a copy he resolution appo' Councilmembers to standing committees. E. Action Referral Log - No comments. V. ^PUBLIC HEARII�S A. Tentative building site approval for two lots and variance approval for l one lot to have a width of less than 150' at 19930 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. 1. Appeal of approval of above (Appellant, Mr. and Mrs. D. Lucas; applicant, Mrs. S. Maynard) (Sat 1606, V -703) 2. Appeal of condition of approval of the above (22' height restriction) (/appellant /applicant, Mrs. S. Maynard) Community Develormt. Director explained application and appeals. In response to Councilmember Callon, he stated that the application was essentially the same as that submitted several years ago. The public hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. Don Lucas, 19370 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., spoke as an appellant against the application. He felt an approval would increase the value of the Maynard property and decrease the value of his because of the "gerrymandering' map. He stated that his house was on the level of the Maynard's current house and above the level of the proposed house. He felt the proposed access was unsatisfactory because the bridge could not be built permanently because of erosion of the creek banks. Smilja Maynard, 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., spoke as the applicant. She stated that the current application was more stepped into the hill than the previous map. She felt the proposal was not "gerrymandering," but was rather a proper use of their land. Mrs. Maynard then spoke as the appellant against the 22' height restriction. She felt that 22' did not allow enough height to build a two -story home. That height would not interfere with her view or her neighbors' views, she said, because many evergreen trees prevented. the proposed house from being seen. In answer to Councilmember Callon, she stated that there is no access possible other than a bridge over the creek similar to bridges built by others in the area. 4- 1Q/16/85 Community Development Director explained that a boot - shaped piece of land shown differently on different maps is part of the subject property. Charles Door, Bainter Avenue, submitted a map showing that the boot- shaped piece is in the county, not the City of Saratoga; he questioned the City's right to make a determination on the property. Mr. Door also objected to 6e lack of provision for the continuation of Bainter on Mrs. Maynard's map. He felt the proposed access could be a traffic hazard, that the creek was too unstable for a bridge, and that access from the current sewer line would be impractical. Sally Lucas spoke as another appellant against the application, saying that, contrary to Mrs. Maynard's assertions, the trees do not screen the view permanently because they are deciduous. Mrs. Maynard rose again to say that the creek had been cemented on both sides, and a bridge could be built across it. Emily Door, Bainter Avenue, opposed the application, saying that the creek had changed a great deal in recent years, making it unsuitable for a bridge. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:36 p.m. City Manager reported that a letter opposing the application had been received from Michael and Ann Bond, 15440 Via Colina. Community Development Director confirmed that part of the property is in the County, but there was no need to annex it. In response to Mayor Clevenger, he described three maps which had been approved with variances and the specific circumstances justifying the variances. Mayor Clevenger stated that she did not believe the Council had in recent years approved any variance to create a lot where the lot was not wide enough to start with. Noting that when the application had been disapproved five years ago the Council had expressed concern about setting a undesirable precedent, she felt that the same concern was still valid. Councilmember Fanelli felt that a variance was not the appropriate procedure to create a lot. If there was enough public demand for this type of project, she believed the Council should change the rest,:'_ctions in the ordinances rather than granting such variances. Councilmember Callon believed that conditions had not changed since the application was denied previously, so the variance was not justified. CLEVENGER /FANELLI MOVED TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL OF THE APPROVALS OF SDR 1606 AND V 7703, REVERSING THE PLANNING CU+aSSION APPROVALS. Passed 4 -0. Mayor Clevenger noted that the appeal of the condition of approval was now moot and required' no action. Councilmember Fanelli requested that staff write the Planning Commission a memorandum explaining the Council's vote and the reasons for it. She feared there might have been misunderstandings in the past, and she wished to clarify the Council's reversal of the Commission's decision. agreemen - 'nsuring the City. After discussion of the stud cted by the Associatio rea Governments on the question the l f inform ation concern ing c veness of self -' a City Managas directed to keep informed on deve ranee. VII. AWOURNMERr The meet reed to a closed session on personnel at ,,s L e 47— Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk i, i. • J U f RESOLUTION NO: 2281 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REVERSING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, SMILJA MAYNARD, the applicant, has applied to the City of Saratoga for subdivision and variance approval to divide into two lots the property located at 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, such applications being identified as SDR- 1606 and V -703, and WHEREAS, on September 11, 1985, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga conducted a public hearing on said applications, and following the conclusion thereof, the Planning Commission approved the applications; and WHEREAS, DONALD and SALLY LUCAS have appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council and the applicant has also appealed the condition of the variance approval restricting the height of any new structure on proposed Lot B; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 1985, the City Council conducted a de novo public hearing on the appeals, at which time any person interested in the matter was given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff reports, minutes of proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission relating to said applications, and the written and oral evidence presented to the City Council in support of and in opposition to the appeal, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga, at its meeting on October 16, 1985, by a vote of 4 -0 did resolve as follows: 1. The appeal by DONALD and SALLY LUCAS from the Planning Commission was upheld and the decision of the Planning Commission was reversed with respect to both the subdivision and variance approval. 2. The City Council was unable to make the findings required for granting the variance and, in the absence of such variance, the property could not be subdivided as proposed. 3. The appeal by the applicant was moot upon reversal of the subdivision and.variance approval granted by the Planning Commission. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 7th day of November, � -1- Ee 1985, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Callon, Fanelli, Hlava, Moyles and Mayor Clevenger NOES: None ABSENT: None A-ld MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK a • —2— O CORRESPONDENCE 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CAUFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265 -2600 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER November 17, 1988 Mr. Martin Jacobson City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Jacobson: Subject: SD88 -018, 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road RECEIVED NOV ti i )sat) O ANNING DEPT This is in reference to the proposed subdivision for Ms. Maynard between Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and San Tomas Aquino Creek. The area shown for the future residence is not subject to flooding from the 1% (100 -year) flood on San Tomas Aquino Creek. The proposed creek dedication to the District is satisfactory. An ingress egress easement should also be transferred to the District over the future - driveway. Arrangements for the dedication and easement transfer should be made with Mr. Vince Lico of our Real Estate Department. There should be no overbank drainage from the developed portion of the site to the creek. An outfall to the creek should be designed in accordance with District detail Sheets 8 -12 which will be furnished on request. In accordance with District Ordinance 85 -1 and 87 -3, the owner should show any existing well(s) on the plans. The well(s) should be properly registered with the District and either maintained or abandoned in accordance with District standards. Improperly constructed or abandoned wells can be a hazard and may be a source of groundwater contamination. Please call Mr. Dave Zozaya at 265 -2600, extension 382, for information regarding permits and the registering of, or abandonment of, any wells. Plans for a bridge crossing or for any work in the vicinity of the future District right of way should be sent for District review and issuance of a permit prior to any construction. urs ver t y William F. Carlsen Division Engineer Design Coordination Division cc: Westfall Engineers 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Le WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 100 East Sunnyoaks Avenue Campbell, California 95008 Telephone (408) 378 -2407 November 14, 1988 City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE SD88 -018 Lands of Smilja Maynard Saratoga -Los Gatos Road Gentlepersons: SERVING RESIDENTS OF CITY OF CAMPBELL TOWN OF LOS GA TOS CITY OF MONTE SERENO CITY OF SARA TOGA UNINCORPORATED AREA G�FpT This office reviewed the tentative map for the above development. For sanitary sewer service, the developer is required to construct a 110± -foot, 6 -inch main sewer extension. The terminus of the existing sewer is located at the southeasterly corner of the proposed parcel "B." The proposed sewer will be a public sewer system designed in accordance with this office's requirements. All fees due this office must be paid and an Improvement Bond must be posted prior to the recordation of the parcel maps. We will be working closely with the engineer for the approval of the proposed sewer extension. Please call me if you have any questions. very truly yours, Jonathan K. Lee Assistant Civil Engineer JKL /mk cc: Smilja Maynard 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Westfall Engineers, Inc. 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 (FORMERLY COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4) RECEIVED JAN 1 Q 1969 PLANNING DEPT. January 9, 1989 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga., California. 95070 Attention: Steve Emslie Re Public Hearing 7:30 P.M,..January 11, 1989 SD -88 -018 - Maynard, 19330 Sara- toga -Los Gatos Road Dear Mr. Emslie- Because the subject property is bordered by and in an area of larger properties we are strongly against a subdivision which would significantly alter the rural duality of the area in question. we are particularly against any variance in the code which might be necessary to accomplish such a. subdivision. Sincerely, / William T. McLaughlin, Marlene M. McLaughlin 19310 Saratoga -Los Gatos Pd. Saratoga, CA. 95070 0 • Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: APPEAL APPLICATION Do ezSS M 14 36 3 S& rjv • ('08) —V7—, Ma VIA Q S�-$8 -018 3 3 0 SdL V- ;,Ib�, Date Rec ived: Hearing Date• Fee : �U CITY'USE C • l�� G• un S It: 'CA q S07 O rd 06. —`OS GG`T�d �at�4�6-1 �. wp Lu�. Sv%C�Ui�1 Q� T Decision Being Appealed: t'' lau�;,� a,� e k t- . Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): T7 0-v A Pclla 's Signature *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. T(fTS APPi,TC,tTTON MUST BE SU[fAfITTI~D 1VITFiIN TCN 1`flL D— ,1TL p 'flfE UL! !7!;- , (10) CALENDAR DAYS Or 0 S A L L Y 5 L U C A S jl--� 6" /1 F�l Azle,." ol i Q�-) Is i i i III Piling i i /3 S A L L Y S L U C A S ol I (2�) or A � /5 S A L L Y S L U C A S -3 -i w - - 14, e STAFF REPORTS AGENDA ITEM # $ M E M O R A N D U M Date: February 8, 1989 T : Saratoga Planning Commission From: Planning Staff.��4 i Re: Application SD -88 -018, Maynard On January 11, 1989, the Saratoga Planning Commission held a public hearing on the above referenced application to create a 2 -lot subdivision of 1.5 and 1.35 acres at 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. The Commission directed staff to research and provide additional information on three issues: i) a comparision of proposed Maynard parcels to nearby properties ii) the bridge crossing over San Tomas Aquino Creek iii) an overview of the previous application and decision to divide the property. Attached is a map of the area comparing sizes of nearby parcels. The smallest lot is 0.90 acre and the largest is 4.47 acres. The City Engineer, City Geologist and the Santa Clara Valley Water District have reviewed this application and the proposal to bridge San Tomas Aquino Creek. The City Engineer expressed no concern over this issue. The City Geologist's review states that appropriate design and construction could mitigate potential constraints the creek imposes. The Water District requested that the plans for the bridge be routed to the them for review and permit issuance prior to any construction. The Creek dedication was termed "satisfactory" by the District which also requested an ingress /egress easement over the future driveway. Staff has also solicited comments from the Engineering Department concerning the bridge's design. Their oral comments indicated that wood could be used for construction, but suggested steel "I" beams. would probably be necessary for structured reinforcement. The overriding factor is the requirement that the bridge sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading as required by the Fire and Water Districts. The previous application for a lot split involved a variance request to reduce the minimum site standards for width from 150 feet to 127 17 feet. The Commission agreed with the staff report and granted the variance and subdivision. On appeal, The City Council overturned the decision, denying the variance and therefore the subdivision. Minutes of the meeting reveal a concern over setting an undesirable precedent by granting the variance. 'A councilmember noted an inappropriateness in creating a lot by granting a variance. What contrasts the present application with the previous one is the variance request. The latest application does not require the granting of a variance for subdivision approval. Due to the dedication of land to the Water District, the lot's width is measured at a different location. The change in the measuring location results in the new parcel meeting minimum zoning ordinance standards. The following findings are required to be made by the Commission to approve the tentative map: 1) the proposed map along with the design is consistent with the General Plan. 2) the site is physically suitable for this development at this density. 3) design of the subdivision or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage. 4) the design of the subdivision and type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. Previous action and public input resulted in the denial of the subdivision because variance findings were not present. As mentioned above, the proposal is substantially the same as the previous proposal except that lot width is measured in a new location per code definition. However, issues relative to site density and compatibility with the surrounding community as well as required access improvements remain. The Planning Commission will find on the attached map that lots created will be smaller than adjacent lots. Staff recognizes that smaller lots exist in the vicinity but cannot ignore the established density pattern. While, lots fronting on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road are larger in size, lots with alternate access tend to be smaller on the south side of the State Highway. Evaluating the request in terms of the adjacent land use and actual density, the request appears inconsistent with the findings above. The bridge is a significant component of this proposal. While the Commission can retain design control over the structure, engineering and safety standards will take precedent. Staff has reservations regarding the required access improvements and feels that an additional specific bridge design should be evaluated by engineering and safety offices prior to recommendation of approval. Staff feels that developing new lots in the midst of an established 2 Will residential neighborhood presents extraordinary issues of sensitivity and compatibility. Although not suggested in terms of this application, the Planning Commission may wish to take up the issue of infill lot splits as a policy discussion to examine current standards for approval, at a "subsequent meeting." RECOMMENDATION• After reviewing the findings necessary to grant the subdivision as well as the Planning Commission's concerns and questions, staff cannot recommend approval of this subdivision. /9 / 3?710- -/0-2 -23 14 Z 31 997-09 ,r5 19467 �1'; �s7 -io- 07 I.OS A4 • Goa 19199 19431 1533S 377 -05.14 397-/0• o( 1.05 Aa (6) 14244 S17-01 -016 397vo -os I.o$�;c. 19222 one 397-001) .07 9188 C9) 1 113 7r A 397-09- 08 2.25 AG • 397 -/0 -04 1.do• Ac • V Iv-Obroa S,4 i? 351 I . oo A,& R _ 717 -i0-oS _ Q It 329 19400 11544o elo -oL- a} • � ps 317 -QO1- 09 o- ct,•o2 2.07Ac 14370 `r - elo•ov -off• ��OS 65141 19221 +.47 A`. 14330 " o9 -oq 397 -p�_3S O p • r9310 // S10-04,01 3.o4 Ac.. r MAy,�,�►ao — . 3.a4 �.cit�s. :• � »r9o. I - • 2.0 Ac / (Q120 • •- Sl0-oro-Se eio -ob -s8 2.60 pe 0.43 Ae (4) '_ 19249 • 9q sro -ob -12 . 11202 510-06 -'s4 - (r•) 1610 -p` -Ss HZV l 19 2� rER I.Oc A4: src -oos- slo .0 1X1234 a)o- 1 142 ?s 06-47 0.g3A. c _ 19 2 39 f4� 6 c" . 19203) lw,, 9$'A 81a- ore -5g G P�� 112yy 610 -4x -4` !1 .910 - 04:;45 0-92A (C) met: slo-c9g, Slo -o6 -e9 sro -ol. ' �g287 19244 6ro -O(o�1 510-04e -37 ►4266 �, • .. _ Cs) sro -oy -� c REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Martin Jacobson DATE: 1/11/89 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -88 -018; 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. APPLICANT /OWNER: Maynard APN: 510 -06 -06 Q N ti %'00_ 3! /9290 S!O -OL -44 �1 14za7 - _AI ai File No. SD -88 _ olg PLANNER'S WORKSHEET ✓ Trails and pathways map checked ✓ Vicinity /locator map included ✓ Dimensions shown on plot plan _Adjacent structures ✓ Directional arrow Trees.labelled ✓Plans reflect field conditions Heights shown on cross sections ��Consistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans 1 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 ✓ Pland 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 a File No. SD -88 -018 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 9 -30 -88 Application complete: 10 -28 -88 Notice published: 12 -28 -88 Mailing completed: 12 -29 -88 Posting completed: 12 -22 -88 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Article 14- 20.070, the applicant is requesting tentative map approval to create a two -lot subdivision. The parcels are to be 1.5 and 1.35 acres and located in the R -1- 40,000 zone district at 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. PROJECT DISCUSSION: Approval of this application permits the creation of a two -lot subdivision and two remainder parcels. The remainder parcels, totaling 19,602 sq. ft., are to be dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The two parcels to remain as private property will meet or exceed minimum zoning regulations. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated by this project. Staff is able to make findings to recommend approval of the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the application by adopting Resolution SD -88 -018. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution SD -88 -018 3. Plans MJ /mj (0 SD -88 -018, 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD PARCEL SIZE: 3.3 acres; 143,748 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 12.3% SITE DIMINSIONS: PROPOSED CODE REQUIREMENT Frontage: 115 Ft. 100 Ft. Width: 150 150 Depth: 345 150 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting tentative map approval for a two -lot subdivision in the R -1- 40,000 zone district at 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Two remainder parcels, totaling 19,602 sq. ft., are proposed to be dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Parcel 'A' fronts on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and is 1.5 acres (65,340 sq. ft.). A'single- family dwelling, detached garage, pool and pool house are on the property. Parcel 'B' fronts on Bainter Avenue, and technically is a flag lot with a 25 foot wide access corridor that is approximately 300 feet long. The access corridor to Bainter Avenue is proposed to bridge San Tomas Aquino Creek. However, the parcel will resemble a more conventionally shaped lot due to the dedication of the two remainder parcels to the Water District. In effect, the Water District land will remain as perpetual open- space. The total area of parcel 'B' is 1.35 acres (58,806 sq. ft. }. Using the zoning ordinance's slope /density formula, the minimum average lot size per dwelling unit that is required for this site calculates to be 1.15 acres. A previous application to divide this property was denied on appeal to the City Council based on the applicant's inability to meet minimum site standards. The appeal was heard November 7, 1985. This application is virtually the same as the previous one. The appeal was made by a neighbor who based his objection on the incompatibility of the project to the neighborhood. The applicant also appealed a condition of approval the Planning Commission placed on the permit. The Commission's approval restricted the house to a one -story design in order to lesson the impact on the neighborhood. Due to the dedication of land to the Water District and relocation of the boundary between parcels 'A' and 'B', the proposed lots exceed all minimum site standards required for the zoning district such as width, depth and frontage. Without the Water District SD -88 -018, 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road dedication, the applicant cannot meet minimum site standards without a variance approval. The topography of parcel 'A' is relatively level, with a gentle slope to the east. Parcel '8' drops steeply from the boundary with parcel 'A' to a level pad proposed for a future residence. The property then drops steeply again to San Tomas Aquino Creek. No ordinance size trees are affected by this project. Should this project be approved, the po, be 21 feet from the rear property line, requires a 50 foot minimum rear setback. of the application should be conditioned relocation or demolition to meet minimum approval. 31 house on parcel 'A' would while the zoning ordinance For this reason, approval to require the pool house's setbacks prior to final map RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application by adopting Resolution SD -88 -018. �� � ;1, '� � }� • - � '� ` �a `. � fir% .. _�� - � J/ - '� . � ..r• � �' _r, ,'� yam. lk OOF 41W An Awpppp Ak IL Amw ;- - .GVW tra mr- �M - low, ti r-la PL f. t f. 4L 1, 1- • a-- O ,c R ` a ff . - % k XIS W W 7TW' f • 5) AV A- a —- A . i ,w P�` sw F � a m r-r -�• r` � '' - - r .� yam! �.`� �. �.' �� �s. V 1 �� � � � ♦ '�'� r+ ;� jam. 4V _ �, if . If Ir it ep 1_ i ,. � � �/ it +•; `L'. �� �.._ . lift r tot ALI + s r sue! �r • "� ru Ilk r � EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 4/5/89 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL r6 D� ORIGINATING DEPT. City Attorney AGENDA ITEM 1 CITY MGR. SUBJECT: Draft Ordinance Prohibiting Open Burning Recommended Action: Discussion of proposed ordinance and direction to staff on any desired changes; set date for public hearing. Report Summary: This ordinance was prompted by a recent bonfire at the Christmas Tree farm on Saratoga Avenue. Although the burning activity was conducted with the approval of the regional air quality control board and pursuant to a burn permit issued by the Saratoga Fire District, the fire generated a considerable amount of smoke and produced complaints from the adjacent neighborhood. While agricultural burnings are common in rural areas, staff does not feel this activity is appropriate for a suburban city. The ordinance will prohibit open bonfires and rubbish fires, with the sole exception of cooking fires within a barbecue or similar container and fires ignited by the Fire District or another public agency for training or safety purposes. The ordinance also will eliminate the existing provisions in the Uniform Fire Code which authorize the fire department to issue permits for open burning. Admittedly, the proposed ordinance is very restrictive. The Council may wish to consider whether additional exemptions should be included, such as controlled campfires maintained at proper locations in connection with the activities of a community organization, with proper supervision by a responsible adult. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: Proposed ordinance. Motion and Vote: I -% ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING SECTIONS 6- 15.120 AND 16- 20.130 TO THE CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT OPEN BURNING AND THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR OUTDOOR FIRES The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: A new Section 6- 15.120 is added to Article 6 -15 of the City Code, to read as follows: "§6- 15.120 Open burning (a) No person shall ignite or maintain, or authorize any person to ignite or maintain, any outdoor bonfire, rubbish fire, or other open burning, including, but not limited to, the burning of trash, garbage, tree trimmings, or waste materials from construction, demolition, agricultural or landscaping activities. This prohibition shall not apply to: (1) Outdoor open fires solely for the purpose of cooking and confined within a barbecue or other container designed for such purpose; (2) Fires ignited or maintained by a fire district or other public agency for training or safety purposes. (b) Any violation of this Section shall constitute an infraction." SECTION 2: A new Section 16- 20.130 is added to Article 16 -20 of the City Code, to read as follows: " 116- 20.130 Section 11.101 amended concerning bonfires and outdoor rubbish fires Section 11.101 of the Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 11.101. Bonfires and outdoor rubbish fires. Notwithstanding Section 4.101(4), no permit shall be issued to kindle or maintain any bonfire or rubbish fire in violation of Section 6- 15.120 of the Saratoga City Code." SECTION 3: 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 -1- phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. 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 , 19891 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK VIC "W&TV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL IWO MEETING DATE: April 5, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT : Cemmuiilty Services SUBJECT: Montalvo Foot Race AGENDA ITEM A— CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended Motion: Authorize the issuance of a Special Event Permit for the Montalvo Foot Race on April 15, 1989 rather than April 22, 1989 as originally approved. Report Summary: On February 15, 1989, the Council conditionally approved a Special Events Permit for the Montalvo Foot Race originally proposed for April 22. Since that approval was granted, it has been necessary to change the date of the foot race to April 15. The applicant has now satisfied all conditions associated with the Permit; hence staff's recommendation that the applicant's request be accommodated. Fiscal Impacts: None are anticipated. Attachments: Report from Community Services Director to Council dated February 15, 1989. Motion and Vote: U [L SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: February 15, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT: Corm mitt' Services AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE 10K MONTALUO FOOT RACE ON SATURDAY, APRIL 22, 1989 RECOMAENDED MOTION: Approve in concept the holding of a foot race as proposed on April 22, 1989, conditioned on compliance with all requirements of the City's Special Events Ordinance. Approval includes authorization for the CcmTunity Services Director to issue a Special Events Permit when he determines that all conditions have been satisfied. REPORT SUMMARY: Bradford Martin, a physical therapist who lives and works in Saratoga, is requesting authorization to hold a 10K run in the Montalvo area on Saturday, April 1989, from approximately 8:00am to 10:00am. The race would be limited to 150 participants, and profits from the race would be used for the maintenance of hiking trails behind Montalvo. The race route, in addition to public roadways, involves private roadways and areas within the jurusdiction of the County Parks Department. Therefore, the City's approval of the race would be for only that portion of the route which is within the City's jurisdiction. A.map outlining the route is attached. The requirements for a Special Events Permit include the following: a) Payment of a $50.00 non - refundable filing fee. b) Payment of $250.00 fully - refundable clean-up deposit. c) Mr. Martin assume financial responsibility for law enforcement personnel which may be required by.the Ccnuunity Services Director. d) Mr. Martin obtain a Certificate of Insurance naming the City of Saratoga as a primary insured party for at least $1,000,000.00 in liability coverage. This race is almost identical to the one the City approved last year which was held on April 23,1988. FISCAL IMPACTS: None are anticipated: ATTACHMENTS: a) Map showing route of foot race. b) Correspondence from Mr. Martin outlining details of event. .t W: 10 NAY R Ae 1/.c,�la 7�?o�ru rrRu� WA 15 R M I l IE MARK 2�-= 5 SHFRIF� Stog Volv4eers AL 8 Siq,QgTD G 64Cas6 qA Q s Rc/ ywy9 I �S O N y 4 q Iraq Y � T k 2Q s A�eS k °" � %q R r O ,V F� SOHN �. 6� St, A 4 P,9 o h N H F R yiU�l _44 PEA C4 Svnse Nill C L IVUna st"aAt IFiviisk ParKir,9 Lot *y -aO Pledmoht'� © Peach N'i II -�© 6Leh Una -;, Hume -4 (g)L_arK PePPer ---?Q par --� ® ParK dr. Mendelsohn -)Q Bonnie Brae Cn. -,� (Q Hill --� ® Mo,+41vo gj. Bonnie Brae WY--P d Mendelsol r, ova Paf-kwcay © Vic Ker+ ®Low► i ® A l Ag -?© Ko M"na- --� s +. -®Hwy q -4 EIevol ed tual Ku y ID pAway ai one (� 9 � ® Mw +atvo Rd --� EkA+rahce of Mo4alvo --P, Finish. VIOL UNTEE g s a) Ex i+ of M e h}aly c Pri veway j Pi ed ni o nt 6) Mid Peal. t (l I wile m4rk c) Peucl, !}+ ll len Una I'h)trssc+ioh d) 6(,e. Una §Sense+ ?- �►�ersed+ b e) Park Pepper Z mAe MttrK F) 14i0 6}u}aoH oN ParK (� A4ev,de.Iso6h/ParK/ *.oy y Area. h) Rill 4 M044alvo Rol. I) dohnie. Brae Wy 3 Mile Marv. J) gorinle Brae Wy Memdelsohn K) McNdelsol%h 4 air+ area_ L) Komi" if Aloha M) Kow"OL yw,ile Mario Wainer S4zt+ion N) KOmiha ' QaK 5+ 0) S +. Ckarles 4 Dal< e�. P) Si-. 6arlks 4 6'S s4. Q) UaK sf. e` q" 9 R) X l b6A 4 qwy 9 5) % wy q , Simile MarK T) Nwy 9 /VicKery /Moh-kkvo M. area (A) E vI+rahce To M a,*alvo 1, rr Locrouf � ROCKY _ / 10 4L 0 51zthorL tove Temple -5otLii, orchard faved f Orthopedic Physical Therapy Specialists of Saratoga Nov 1 �, 1988 Dear Mr. Argow: City Of Saratoga Todd Argow 13777 Fruitvale Ave This letter is to outline the specifics related to the Villa Mont a 1 vo Run and Walk. for Saturday April SS, 1969. The start of the run and walk would be at 8:00 am. The park should be opened at 6:45am so the volunteers can set -up. The start and finish will be in parking lot #4. Participants will be directed toward the appropriate lot. Parking will start in #4 and them #3 & 2. The lots will be blocked off until the prior lot is full. There will be a volunteer at the gate who will be checking names of runners at the gate. Only runners, volunteers and workers at Montalvo will be allowed in. This is to insure that only registered runners will be parking. The number of runners is limited to 150 and walkers to 50. Participants will be encouraged to ride together, this should allow for adequate parking for everyone. Prior to the start, volunteers will be instructed as to their duties. Volunteers will be placed a various locations on the run and walking course prior to the start of the event, see rnap. Volunteers are to warn runners about traffic and are riot to stop traffic unless a vehicle may endanger a participants safety. Voulriteers are posted on the trails for direction and promoting safey. The walking event will riot be timed and is in no way to be a competitive event in any sense of the word. No place awards will be given to walkers. There are two water stations on the running course and one on the walking course. The water station consists of a table with cups of water and a trash can placed a slight distance after the water table. The locations of the tables are displayed on the map. The sanitary facilities to be used are the restrooms in parking lot #4. The Red Cross, a paramedic and myself will be available for first aid if needed. There w.ill be communication on the course via two -way radio. The running course will be marked with white chalk arrows and the walking. course with white flour or small cardboard arrows on wooden stakes if it rains. The running course will be marked the previous day if it is clear or race day morning if it is raining. Both the walking and running course will be inspected prior to the event. The trails will be marked race day morning or late Friday afternoon before the event.. Following the race, the parking lot area, walk and run course will be cleaned of any trash related to the event. The course will then be inspected with a Park Ranger for the approval on clears -up and verification in writing that the course has been cleaned to satisfaction in order to receive a full refund of the cleaning deposit. Post -race activities consists of displaying the times on a board, medals and ribbons will be given, free refreshments, and a random drawing for prizes donated by local merchants. 18805 Cox Avenue, Suite 130 • Saratoga, CA 95070 • (408) 866 -1070 A All runners except these registered for breakfast will be expected to leave at this time, about 9:45am. These people having breakfast will meet on the patio in front of the house if it is sunny, or under the covered walk -way in front of the pavilion or in the pavilion if passible, if it rains. No kitchen facilities will be used. The food will be prepared and delivered. We will need tables and chairs to seat 50 people. These can be set -up race day morning, I should have volunteers to help and will certainly do everything possible to clean -up. The breakfast should be over no later than 10:45 am. I am expecting to have music in the form of horns and strings after the race and or during breakfast. There will be no sound amplification devices used for music or at any time during the event. The string instruments would need to be inside if it is raining. I will need to obtain permits from the City of Saratoga, Santa Clara Parks Dept, and Cal- Trans. Two off -duty Sheriffs will be present for traffic central. A public liability insurance policy will be purchased. This will be in the amount of one million dollars per claim with no aggregate limit and one million dollars for property damage. The parties to be named as insured in which the coverage is primary will be; Orthopedic PT Specialists Of Saratoga, Montalvo Association, City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, and the State of California it's officers and agents. Coverage is through American National Fire Insurance Company. Flyers about the race will be handed out at a preceeding run called the Great Race held in Saratoga. An article in the Saratoga News will probably appear prior to and or fallowing the evnt. There will be a banner in Saratoga which will read; Orthopedic PT Specialists Of Saratoga Presents The Villa Montalvo Run, Sat April 22nd. Phone 866 -1070. All entrants must pre - register either at my office, The Runners Factory in Los Gatos, and at the Montalvo office if the association agrees. A separate fee for the breakfast will be charged. Participants will be given their T -Shirt at the time they register. If you agree to the outlines in this plan I will need a writtent approval contingent upon the fact that all needed permits will be obtained, all fees paid, thy insurance policy is recieved, and the event is held as outlined in this plan and or as outlined by changes made by parties involved such as the City, County, Association, or Cal- Trans. Enclosed is a $ 50.00 for permit. I will give you the cleaning deposit later. If you have any questions please call soon. Sincerely: Bradford F. Martin SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 1 MEETING DATE: April 1 ARg CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: EN(',1`1RPRTNr, ) l SUBJECT: STOP SIGN ON SUMMER DRIVE AT FREDERICKSBURG DRIVE Recommended Motion: Adopt. Resolution No. MV establishing a stop sign on Sumner Drive at its intersection with Fredericksburg Drive. Report Summary:- We had been requested by Debra-Herrick of 12708 Fredericksburg Drive to look into installing stop signs at the intersection of Sumner Drive and Fredericksburg Drive (3 way stop). Upon reviewing this intersection we cannot justify the installation of 3 stop signs. There is no sight distance problem and no accident history (went back 8 years). Sumner Drive may be used.by some drivers taking a "short cut" between Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue during P.M. peak commute. We are recommending that a stop sign be installed on Sumner Drive at its intersection with Fredericksburg Drive. The Public Safety Commission supports this recommendation. Fiscal•Impacts: The estimated cost for this stop sign installation would be approximately $200.00 and would come from the Traffic Safety Budget (3033 - 3010) . Attachments: 1. Resolution' No. MV 2.. Report from Public ni. Safety Comssion. 3. Report to Public Safety C mnission from City Engineer. Motion and Vote: RESOLUTION NO. MV- RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTION OF SUMNER DRIVE AND FREDERICKSBURG DRIVE The City Council of the City of Saraotroga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION I. The following intersection in the City of Saratoga is hereby designated as a stop intersection NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION Sumner Drive All vehicles traveling on Sumner Drive southeasterly bound shall stop before entering Fredericksburg Drive. This section shall become effective at such time as the proper signs and /or markings are installed. The above and foregoing was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: • AYES: NOES: ATTEST CITY CLERK MAYOR rJ o �� O1S ,:.Ry x,f4, • O 4Y � CITY TJ c.� -'�' • 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE IV NIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MAR 2 7 1989 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson March 27 , 1989 CITY OF SARATC�C �'{ Martha Clevenger David Moyles les CITY ENGINEERS OFFICEonald Peterson To: City Engineer Francis Stutzman From: Community Services Director Subject: Stop Signs on Sumner and Fredericksburg This is to inform you that the Public Safety Commission considered your recommendation to install a stop sign on Sumner Drive at its T- intersection with Fredericksburg Drive. They were aware that a resident from the neighborhood was also recommending the addition of stop signs on Fredericksburg Drive which would have made the intersection a 3 -way stop. A number of Commissioners visited the site, and felt the proposal to install stop signs on Fredericksburg Drive was without merit. The PSC supported your recommendation to install a stop sign on Sumner Drive, and proceed with other minor traffic improvements as suggested in your report. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Todd W. Ar w 3m cc: PSC Erman Dorsey Qo 0&MZUQ)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Public Safety Carmission DATE: February 1, 1989 FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: Stop Sign Request - Fredericksburg Drive and Stunner Drive We have been requested by Debra Herrick of 12708 Fredericksburg Dr. to look into the possibility of making the intersection of Fredericksburg Drive and Sumner Drive a "three way" stop intersection. Presently there are no controls at this intersection. There is no sight distance problem, on all three approaches, driving at a reasonable speed. In some cases Sumner Drive is possibly being used as a short cut from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. to Cox Ave. via Carmel, Blue Meadow, Sumner, Fredericksburg to Ccx, particularly during the P.M. peak comrute when traffic backs at the Cox Ave. signal. In the past eight years there have been no accidents at this intersection. At this time, the only recommendation would be to place a stop sign on Sumner Drive at its intersection with Fredericksburg Dr. in order to clearly assign right -of- way. Also, double yellow centerlines along with reflectorized markers should be placed on all three approaches to lessen the tendency for "cutting the corners" while making a turning movement. Attached is a copy of Debra Herrick's letter, and a sketch prepared by the Engineering Dept. showing the proposed reconrended traffic improve- ments. In addition, we are recommending that speeding be monitored along Fredericksburg arrive by the sheriff's patrol. Vs. Shook ineer RSS /df Attachment A� W-M r ��L vn:Fc-- AA JA L4 C �01) n -ivv/ /Y W W t V J A f l } f U F L[ SCLI L E: o �w. n C II W r E O i ^ I u � t O 1l It Al n u ii II II � ., II M �i. I \� A// \ / Ir Ali ti % Q z Al Ay fi /I �l l/ � AL • 50' N %I �l 4' p 1 -*41' IN 'Ile i 1 ♦�\ Pyre �/� ��' I �\ s N, / y Ilk I/ 1 (� i // I SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 5, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: 3 -Way Stop at Oak Street and Komina Ave. AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVALge Reco:r� �nu�d Motion: Adopt .Resolution No. MV- designating the intersection of Oak Street and Komina Avenue as a stop intersection. Report Summary: We have been requested, by the Principal of Saratoga School and numerous parents to look into the possibility of installing stop signs on Oak Street at both of its approaches to Komina Avenue (there is an existing stop sign on Komina Avenue at Oak Street). After making field vehicle & pedestrian counts and conducting speed surveys along with observation of the congestion, we recommend that the intersection of Oak Street and Komina Avenue be a three -way stop intersection. We also recommend that the mid -block crosswalk existing in front of the school on Oak Street be relocated to the northerly side of Komina Avenue at the stop sign. (See attached sketch for locations etc.). The Public Safety Commission unanimously endorses the above recommendations. Fiscal Impacts• The cost for the above recommended traffic safety improvements is estimated to be approximately $750 and would come from the Traffic Safety Budget (3033 - 3010). Attachments: 1. Resolution No.-MV 2. Report from Public a e yCommission. 3.• RepotrSt to Public Safety COMMission from City Engineer (containing data Motion ande Vote: sketch).. RESOLUTION No. MV- . RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTION OF OAK STREET AND KOMINA AVENUE AS A STOP INTERSECTION The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION I. The following intersection in the City of Saratoga is hereby designated as a stop intersection. NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION Oak Street All vehicles traveling on Oak Street northerly and southerly bound shall stop before entering or crossing Kcmina Avenue. This section shall beccu a effective at such time as the proper signs and /or markings are installed. The above and foregoing was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: • NOES: MAYOR ATTEST: , CITY CLERK U, 0MV � O� *�i%C 0 13777 FRUITVALE , °\VENUE NI,-\950-10 (408) 867 -3438 NC 1L MEMBERS: MAR 2 7 1989 March 27, 1989 To: City Engineer From: Community Services Director Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger CITY OF SARATOGA David Moyles CITY ENGINEER'S OFF1Innald Peterson rancis Stutzman Subject: 3 -Way Stop at Oak and Komina The Public Safety Commission considered your recommendations to establish a 3 -way stop at the T- intersection of Oak Street and Komina Avenue together with the relocation of a crosswalk to one side of the intersection. The Commission considered these recommendations at their March 13, 1989, meeting. After some discussion, the Commission unanimously agreed to endorse your recommendation, to the City Council. The Commission also stated they were especially pleased with this staff report, and indicated it was one of the best staff reports they had received from your staff in the Commission's history. Please contact me if you have any que8 ions. Todd W. A ow Jm cc: PSC Erman Dorset ,t 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Public Safety carmission DATE: March 2, 1989 FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: Stop Sign Request - Oak Street @ Komim Avenue ----------------------------------------------- We have been requested to look into the possibility of install- ing stop signs on Oak Street at its intersection with Kanina Avenue, by the Principal of Saratoga School and numerous concerned parents. Presently, Oak Street is a straight through street with a 25 mph speed limit, from Sixth Street to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (State Route 9) with the side streets of Sixth Street, Komina Avenue and Third Street having stop signs at their entrances to Oak Street. The westerly side of Oak Street is extensively used for parking all of the time. There is an existing school crossing across Oak Street in front of Saratoga School approximately 100 feet northeasterly of Komina Avenue. We conducted vehicle and pedestrian counts at this intersection for two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon (7:00 to 9:00 A.M. & 1:30 to 3:30 P.M.), while children were arriving and departing from school. The results of these counts are attached, of which show that during these periods the intersection is very busy. We also conducted a speed zone survey on Oak Street just southwesterly of Kcmina Avenue between 7:30 & 8:30 A.M. of which the 85th percentile was 34.7 MPH; 50 per cent at 31.0 MPH; the 10 MPH pace was 26 to 36 MPH with 82% of the vehicles travelling within the pace. (Speed Study is attached). There is no significant accident history at the intersection of Oak Street and Kcmi.na Avenue (one property damage accident within the past four years). A collision diagram is attached. We reccmTend that stop signs be installed on Oak Street at both of the approaches to Komina Avenue, in order to improve the safety of this intersection and the adjacent school. Along with the reccnarendation to make this a 3-way stop intersection, we also recommend relocating the mid -block crosswalk in front of the school to the immediate northeast side of the intersection (at the proposed southwest bound stop on Oak). Along with the above reccmmiendation we also recommend that the c orcement be utilized for speed control in this area. . Shook Ci y ineer RSS /df Attach C /Ty pF SARA TOGA INTERSECTION VOLUME STUDY D/a TE : Z 28 89 DA y: Faesaa 7• - M: p - -- -v—_ WEATHER: C /�i' , RECORDED B Y : Rabe` Ciir���raop REMARKS: To tit / - 2 W� -N.'- 0% 5� .s A �\ n W .ny O 7 90, 09 2i� 2128109"- ?.'W AM io 9:00 r4" ciry of saaarocq INTERSECTION FLUME STUDY DA T4ff : 22 9 DAY. 22;ee50�z y TIME: FROM: I.3o TO WEATHER: %ter,- RECORDED B Y : Pobeif C�iris�Q� REMARKS •. 72, z�� /— ZI/our Z;9"n� S., 0% ti h 5� A �\0� ar Q \�O 100 y "-\ LF /% ae Z ..9 2/28/89- /0010 Aov io 301,30 pM "L C rr OF 64 AU rOGA rly TER S E C TION VOL IlA E SrjjD y DATE:2 /2889 FDA y. % esd4 7:00 q:ooAw 1: 3o T-o : 3: 3o Piy WEATHER: C /eQr RECORDED B Y : REMARKS: Ta tQ / 4 i%tir ourf" /z h Asf zti. �.y ) 5� O� 6 0% 'o a A \O� Q y M 2/2 889 - 7900AM io 9.00AM /: So PSI to 3010Jo f \ \cs► \'o vs, \p S ged 0000ti -9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i AN ■ ■1 ■I ■ ■ ■1 ■ ■■ 111■■ 1■■■■ ■■■I /NI ■ ■■ ■■■ ■■ ■I ■■■ ■■■ ■ ■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■1111111 ■ ■■ 111■■ 1■■■ ■ ■ ■l�NI ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 ■ ■� ■� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■1 ■1 ■ ■ ■1 ■ ■■ 111■ t1■■ t ■■■ % ■N1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ !! ■ ■�!! ■! ■! ■ ■!� ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■��!■ ■tit ■ ■ ■! ■ ■ ■ ■ ■! ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� ■ ■1 ■1 ■t ■1 ■ ■ ■■11 ■ ■1 ■ ■��!!■ ■fit■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 1111■■■■■■■ ■■11■ ■1■■■ / /!!■ ■111■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■!■■■ ■1 ■11 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■1111 1111■ / / ■�� ■ ■[�I ■■ - - -- 111 ■1 ■1 ■1 ■■ ■111 ■ ■1 ■�I1�11 ■IJ1 ■■ 111 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■11 ■ ■1!'� ■ ■� l ■ ■u1 ■■ 111 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■111 ■� ►! ■ ■ ■�� ■ ■LJ1 ■■ 111 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�� ■�! ■ ■11f! ■ ■tl1 ■■ CITY OF SARATOGA COLLISION DIAGRAM INTERSECTION: �i4K .t�'� 'Or AND _ &OAI/ //VA 4Wo fAF&& PERIOD: 4 Y_—Q_7 FROM: 9B5 TO: ,/ate, .lj 1989 PREPARED BY: _ Z' Dorsey DATE: 3 z B9 t NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 1 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY sa m INJURY OR FATAL 1 TOTAL ACCIDENTS SYMBOLS MOVING VEHICLE +i}*'>-BACKING VEHICLE "a" NON-INVOLVED VEHICLE -996--- PEDESTRIAN Q PARKED VEHICLE d FIXED OBJECT 0 FATAL ACCIDENT 0 INJURY ACCIDENT .vra. 0 'o TYPES OF COLLISIONS REAR ENO HEAD ON SIDESWIPE OUT OF CONTROL LEFT TURN RIGHT ANGLE �O SHOW FOR EACH ACCIDENT I. TIME OF DAY, DAYS, DATE 2 WEATHER AND ROAD SURF !-IF UNUSUAL CONDITION EXISTED 3 KITE- IF BETWEEN DUSK AND DAWN rRAFFic SAFETY IAWROYIMINrs OAR Sr 11WHIMA AMC, .0466 ,lo 4wo Qp�nt�d/ �j Oj O el y(f,v.j O/ O 40 604 lr o, r ➢�'`�� 2 J�sin. ere 0 \ /o -� IN