The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-01-1996 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. a —106 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 1. 1996 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant SUBJECT: Re- Allocation of FY 1996/97 Housing and Community Development Act Funds (HCDA) Recommended Motion: Amend FY 96/97 HCDA program to allocate funding from Saratoga' s Low Income Housing reserve to grant Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition $49,246 for a rehabilitation project at Saratoga Courts. Report Summary: An application was received from Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition (MPHC) on April 4 after staff's preparation of the Council report. The organization is submitting the late application totaling $49,.246 to request funding for a rehabilitation project at Saratoga Courts (Attachment 1) . MPHC was recently denied rehab funding from the Community Development Block Grant Urban County Competitive Pool on the basis that the organization should first seek support from the City of Saratoga (Attachment 2 & 3). Saratoga Courts is a MPHC property located at 18855 Cox Avenue in Saratoga. The 20 unit low income complex for seniors, is an older property in need of rehabilitation. The scope of work on the proposed project includes plumbing fixtures, landscaping, flat work, fencing, exterior structures, building surfaces, paving, siding and painting. The objectives are: to rehabilitate existing housing, to preserve affordable housing for the elderly and frail in Saratoga; and to complete the improvements in phases which minimize disruption to the residents. Saratoga has an established and mutually beneficial relationship with MPHC, which began in 1984 when the City loaned $50,000 of Community Development Block Grant funds to assist with the acquisition of Saratoga Courts. Since the complex was built in 1978, many improvements are currently required to maintain the property. To accomplish the rehabilitation project and preserve affordable rents for senior citizens, it is necessary for MPHC to secure rehab grant funds, or zero deferred rehab loans which will subordinate to existing funding. Page 2 - HCDA Fund Re- allocation The City currently has a balance of $84,815 in the Low Income Housing fund from which to grant Mid - Penisnsula $49,246 to complete the proposed rehabilitation project. Fiscal Impacts: Approving the $49,246 grant will reduce Saratoga's Low Income Housing Fund from $84,815 to $35,569. This reserve was established to develop future low - income senior housing in Saratoga, and there are no new projects currently planned for FY 96 -97. Granting this award will not impact the General Fund. Conseauences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Mid - Peninsula Housing will not be able to complete the anticipated rehabilitation project at Saratoga Courts. Follow Up Actions: Notify the applicant and the County of the City Council's decision; execute agreement with Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition if funded. Attachments: 1. Application from Mid - Peninsula Housing 2. 1/8/96 Letter from MPHC to City Manager 3. 1/10/96 Response from City Manager F: \cdbg \counapr.96 April 24, 1996 Mr. Harry Peacock, City Manager City of Saratoga ATT: Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Ms. Reeve: 1 1 ATTACHMENT 1 A, Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition 658 Bair Island Road, Suite 300 Redwood City, California 94063 Tel. [415] 299 -8000 Fax [415] 299 -8010 Please find enclosed our FY 1996/97 Community Development Block Grant application requesting $49,246 in grant funds for Saratoga Courts. Receiving this grant will allow Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition to make needed improvements to Saratoga Courts as outlined on the Scope of Work and Budget included with our application. Thank you so much to the City of Saratoga staff and yourself for your assistance to date. We look forward to the City's determination regarding our request on behalf of Saratoga Courts and its senior citizen residents. If you require additional information from us, please feel free to page me at (408) 231- 7796. 1 also want to let you know that I will be out of town May 1 -3rd; if you think you may need to talk with me during that time, I can make arrangements to call you as I will only be in Monterey. Sincerely, Celia Callender District and Human Services Manager 0 From: Celia Callender To: Fran Wagstaff Date: 4123196 Time: 09:58:44 City Of Saratoga Community Development Bloak grant Program/ Human services Grant program 1996/1997 APPLICANT ORGANIZATION NAME ADDRESS 1 , J j: (. \-C-- I -A tQ n ycl) (--'AL NAME /TITLE op PjtoPOMM Fran Wag f.,, Executive Director SIGNATURE Page 2 of 2 TELEPHONE NUMBER 1 Z.Cj %I I' ;1 2. G 9 -P < S y 'hi\(. -= �I 1' a:,�'� L_;c PROJECT NAME C_L; i_)l? l S DOLLAR AMT. Op FUNDS REQUESTED aRom CITY OT sARATOGA Zt�.(�, PROJECT ABSTRACT (Limit statement to space provided) r�(..a��, D. V" o` . 1 Y C,e G (I- w Lk �0'- 1 l r� 101 ° � 6ve,� tC.L� L \ecU✓ d�� 4 � The City of Saratoga does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, des, religion, age or disability in the provision of services and programs. MID PENINSULA HOUSING COALITION It is the mission of Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition and its affiliates to provide decent, safe, affordable shelter of high quality to those in need of it; to help establish financial stability in the lives of its residents, and to foster communities that allow citizens from all ethnic, social and economic backgrounds to live in dignity, harmony and mutual respect. Since 1970, Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition (MPHC) has been providing much needed affordable housing in the San Francisco Bay area and its environs. This area includes some of California's highest median home prices and apartment rents, and faces a severe shortage of affordable housing. MPHC continues to strive to provide housing for a wide range of low and moderate income populations in both higher cost residential areas and in neighborhoods suffering from years of disinvestment. Most of MPHC's housing serves those earning less than 50% of the area median income. MPHC has achieved recognition as a leading nonprofit sponsor and developer of affordable housing. MPHC maintains excellent relations with local governments, and has repeatedly won local backing and support for its activities over the past decades. In its 25 years of service, MPHC has constructed or rehabilitated over 2800 units of housing and another 750 units are in various phases of the development process from planning to construction. A variety of housing types has been provided, serving populations with diverse and special needs. This housing includes supportive housing for individuals with physical and /or developmental disabilities; single -room occupancy (SRO) housing combined with supportive services for very low income individuals, many of whom have physical or mental disabilities; transitional housing for homeless individuals and families; senior complexes with services such as meal programs and social events; family apartment complexes that provide on -site childcare centers and other supportive services, such as computer classes, afterschool programs, bi- lingual classes, etc. A. Description of Agency's Organizational Structure and Geographical Location Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, is governed by a volunteer board of directors comprised of experienced people from housing, finance, social service and business communities. The Executive Director reports to the board of directors. Positions reporting to the Executive Director in an immediate reporting line include Development staff (senior project managers, project managers and the office manager), Director of Housing Management, the Controller, Construction Administrator and the Human Resources Manager. Please refer to the organizational charts included with this CDBG grant application; the charts for both the MP Housing Coalition and its nonprofit affiliate, Mid Peninsula Housing Management Corporation, are attached. MPHC and MPHMC are both located at 658 Bair Island Road #300, Redwood City, California. B. Past Performance Providing established services and in meeting city of Saratoga grant requirements. Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition purchased Saratoga Courts in 1983; the City of Saratoga and MPHC worked closely together when Saratoga Courts was acquired by Mid Penn. Saratoga Courts is managed by MPHMC (please refer to brochure included with this application). Allowing for optimal property supervision, Saratoga Courts is included in a property portfolio supervised by a district manager who resides in Los Gatos. C. Project Purpose and Objectives Identify in measurable terms the desired outcomes and benefits of the project. Saratoga Courts, a MPHC property located at 18855 Cox Avenue in Saratoga, is in need of rehabilitation. The complex was built in 1978 and purchased by MPHC in 1983; the original construction was of inferior quality, and resultingly many items have required addressing prior to normal preventative maintenance and building improvement time lines. The 20 unit complex is a HUD 231, Section 8 senior complex; the resident population includes many 70+ year old senior citizens who are also frail. The proposed rehabilitation will be completed in phases which provide the least disruption to the residents. The complete scope of work includes plumbing fixtures, landscaping, flat work, fencing, exterior structures, building surfaces, paving, siding and painting. MPHC has recently completed the installation of new roofs and exterior lighting improvements. The multiple purposes of the Saratoga rehabilitation project are 1) to rehabilitate existing housing, 2) to continue to preserve affordable housing for the elderly and frail elderly households in Santa Clara County, specifically in the City of Saratoga and 3) to complete the rehabilitation project in expenditure and implementation phases that (a) will minimize the disruption to this special needs /elderly mini - community and (b) respond to multiple funding opportunities. The Urban County Consolidated Plan addresses the special needs of the elderly in Section 2 - Needs Assessment, page 12 - 14, and speaks to rehabilitation of existing housing and preserving existing affordable housing in Section 4 - Strategic Plan, Objectives #2 and #3, pp, 7 -8. D. Project Management Discuss how project will be administered, describe mechanism and time frames that your agency will use to monitor the project's progress and evaluate its effectiveness. The Saratoga Courts rehabilitation project will be managed and administered by Mid Peninsula Housing staff. All staff will interface with each other in Mid Penn's standard procedure and with outside vendors and other entities. The positions and functions include: 1) CM - construction manager (full project oversight), 2) MC - maintenance coordinator (bids and interface between CM and Property Manager), 3) DM - district manager (coordination with all staff and regulatory compliance) and 4) PM - property manager (site project coordination and interface with residents). Adherence to program funding and jurisdiction regulations will be followed as usual. E. Community Need for the Project Identify specific needs that the project is designed to meet. A specific community need in Saratoga and throughout the Bay Area is to preserve existing affordable housing such as Saratoga Courts. Senior citizens, some of whom may be frail and/or disabled, on fixed incomes are in need of subsidized housing such as Saratoga Courts. The 231 HUD Section 8 program at Saratoga Courts requires senior citizens to pay only 30% of their income for rent; this allows the residents who are on fixed incomes to pay a reasonable monthly amount for their rental housing costs. This project is designed to meet the need of a jurisdiction to maintain and preserve its existing housing stock and in this case to preserve a high percentage of its affordable rental housing. F. Project Beneficiaries Identify number of Saratoga clients served vs. total clients served by project (unduplicated clients) identify percent of very low and low income clients. Twenty -two individuals representing nineteen low income households will benefit from the property improvements planned for Saratoga Courts. The site includes nineteen units for residents and one for a site manager; the senior citizen population includes many frail or disabled elderly residents. G. Financial Information Included with grant application. SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET April 11, 1996 FUNDING REQUEST: FY 96 -97 Community Development Block Grant $49,246 REQUEST BY: Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition 658 Bair Island Road #300 Redwood City, CA 94063 (415) 299 -8000 (415) 299 -8010 Fax PROPERTY: DISTRICT MANAGER: Saratoga Courts 18855 Cox Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Celia Callender (415) 299 -8054 Pager (408) 231 -7796 CONSTRUCTION MGR: Holly Babe Faust JOB DESCRIPTION: 20 affordable housing senior units /minor improvements; site improvements (landscape, refuse enclosure, lighting, privacy fences, paving seal coat); plumbing fixtures, office /commons exterior and interior improvements; exterior siding; new property sign. PLUMBING FIXTURES Replace and strap 15 hot water heaters $ 5250 Replace one 80- gallon hot water heater at office $ 400 Replace 21 (E) hose bibbs to 42" $ 3750 LANDSCAPING, FLAT WORK, FENCING Replace 500 SF exposed aggregate walkway $ 1900 Grind concrete risers at 8 locations; feather in patches at tripping hazards $ 150 Seal coat all asphalt paving and re -stripe $ 4500 Replace landscaping and fill where trees have been removed; replace retaining boards at landscaping $ 250 Demolish and replace 20 (E) privacy fences @ 300 LF each; 4 feet high $10,000 EXTERIOR STRUCTURES Demolish and replace refuse enclosure and trellis top. $ 2500 LIGHTING/ELECTRICAL Overhaul 21 wall furnaces with electric ignitions $ 1400 (Consider PG & E replacement ?) Replace 5 wall- mounted large exterior conduit lights with light standards installed at grade $ 1900 BUILDING SURFACES Replace 10 sheets of delaminated exterior plywood with new 5/8" plywood; replace battens; paint to match $ 900 Install gutters and downspouts at all buildings $ 3500 APPLIANCES Replace 5 stoves $ 1300 OFFICE /COMMUNITY ROOM Install honeycomb plastic covering at trellis at patio $ 500 Replace (E) kitchen cabinets with an 8 -foot bank of lowers, (N) stainless double sink, small refrigerator $ 800 Install 3' X 3' operable sliding window in wall between commons room and little office; rock and trim, paint to match $ 650 Replace 2 pairs (E) double doors with double - glazed tempered wood french doors $ 700 Replace (E) single laundry door with double - glazed tempered wood door $ 175 SUBTOTAL $ 40525 CONTINGENCY $ 3445 OH/Gen Req $ 5276 TOTAL $ 49246 FINANCIAL INFORMATION BUDGET NARRATIVE Please provide the following information: 1. Human Services Grant request of $ This request, as a percentage of the total program budget equals 170 percent. TEa S PZ-Tk��- c r C.,�, s pro A W.�� Utz T p�ac� U�� dh _P,� TIC k�`�? 2. On what basis is the Human Services Grant portion computed? (Pro -rated based on number of clients served, or other methodology ?) N.; �3r �i- off- ��R y �- -��,.� P��o �.�� ►- �N�i��, Sc v�wiz- Wo�y� �� `�`.C.C��1iNCs T- 3Ei��•��T�� U� (qt=r- oRnF�i�t� \ 1,x.15 �4vc;, 3. What is the average cost per Saratoga client to whom direct services are provided? 4. Has your organization ever had funds withdrawn or contract terminated for cause, unsatisfa6tory performance or questionable costs on any financial statements or audit? If yes, please explain. 5. Is your organization currently on probation or under investigation by any agency which is or was a funding source within the past two years? If yes, please explain. 6. Please Complete: Iv` //_ , S cG Nu r,- Luw FUND BALANCES Nor tip If r u N UP eV4 ok N- A� SwuL� Cr�Sil rkc��U,�S Unrestricted Fund Restricted Fund Land, Bldg, & Equip. Fund Endowment Fund Actual Fund Balance End FY 94/95 Estimated Fund Balance End FY 95/96 Nor tip If r u N UP eV4 ok N- A� SwuL� Cr�Sil rkc��U,�S SARATOGA COURT 18855 Cox Avenue, Saratoga Saratoga Court, built in 1978, was purchased by MPHC in 1983. It is a 100' Section 8 elderly complex of twenty garden apartments, situated on 1.2 acres ad two churches, a bus stop, and one half block away from shopping facilities. All units in the complex are one bedroom and designed for elderly, with the exce the manager's unit which had an alcove added. Four unit clusters are arranged central landscaped courtyard which also accommodates an office and laundry ce separate building. Each unit has a private entrance court enclosed by a four fol and a rear porch. The one bedroom units have a total of 624 square feet of flo including abathroom with a glass enclosed shower and grab bars, a dressing roo . lavatory and a full kitchen. Sliding glass doors lead to the back porch. One space is assigned to each unit plus some additional guest parking. P.02 HUD ent to lion of )und a er in a fence, space with a TOTAL P.02 ATTACHMENT 2 A, Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition 658 Bair Island Road, Suite 300 Redwood City, California 94063 Tel. [415] 299 -8000 Fax [415] 299 -8010 January 8, 1996 Mr. Harry Peacock, City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Peacock, As you are aware from our conversation today, Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition is requesting a letter of support in our effort to secure rehabilitation funds for Saratoga Court through the County of Santa Clara. Saratoga Court, located at 18855 Cox Avenue, is a low income senior 20 unit complex; it is an older property in need of rehabilitation. In order to keep the rents affordable for senior citizens it is necessary that we secure rehab grant funds or zero deferred rehab loans that will subordinate to existing financing. We shall be submitting an application for rehab funds through the Community Development Block Grant Urban County Competitive Pool. Charlie Chew with the County has recommended that we apply for rehab funds through both that program and the City of Saratoga CDBG application process also. Please find enclosed the scope of work proposed and line item costs and total. Per your suggestion, we will be sending staff to the the Council meeting scheduled from tomorrow evening. If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Celia Callender by pager (408) 231- 7796 or me at (415 ) 299 -8000. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, All Fran Wagstaff Executive Director �O ATTACHMENT 3 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 COUNCEL MEMBERS: Ann Marie Burger Paul E. Jacobs January 10, 1996 Kaarere nMoran Karen Tucker Donald L. Wolfe Fran Wagstaff Executive Director Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition 658 Blair Island Road, Suite 300 Redwood City, CA 94063 Dear Ms. Wagstaff: The City Council at an adjourned regular meeting on January 9, 1996, approved your request for City support of your effort to secure rehabilitation funds for Saratoga Court through the County of Santa Clara. You may submit this letter to the County as documentation that the Saratoga City Council endorses your effort on behalf of low income seniors. For the City Council, A��4 / r-. X Harry Peacock City anager ]m SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. c� -7 O l MEETING DATE: May 1, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT. City Clerk AGENDA ITEM 0 ^ CITY MGR. SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL ELECTION 1996: ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BEFORE NOMINATION PERIOD Recommended Motion: Direct staff to prepare resolution authorizing candidates' statements of either 200 or 400 words; requiring that candidates pay costs of printing the candidate statement in the sample ballot; and setting advance deposit of $400 (for 200 -word limit) or $650 (for 400 -word limit). Report Summary: The next regular municipal election is November 5, 1996, and the nomination period extends from July 15 through August 9. The Council must make certain decisions before that time. Length of candidates' statements printed in sample ballot: The law sets the length of the candidates' statements at 200 words unless the Council authorizes 400 words. For the last several elections, the candidates' statements have been 400 words. Payment for candidates' statements: The law allows the estimated costs of the candidates' statements to be paid by the candidates in advance, with any excess payment being refunded. If the Council wishes, however, the City may pay for the candidates' statements. For the last several elections, the candidates have paid in advance. Fiscal Impacts: Cost of each candidate's statement is estimated at $400 to $650. Follow Up Actions: The resolution confirming these decisions and the resolution calling the election will be presented at the Council meeting of May 15. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Staff will assume that no changes to past procedure are intended and will prepare materials as for most recent election. Attachments: None. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITE MEETING DATE: MAY 1, 1996 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD SUBJECT: Rejection of Offer of Dedication for Emergency Access Road Easement located at 18500 -32 Aquino Way Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the Resolution rejecting the Offer of Dedication. Report Summary: Richard and Nancy Nelson, the owners of the properties located at 18500 and 18532 Aquino Way (APN 397 -06 -099 & 100), are requesting rejection of an Offer of Dedication for an Emergency Access Road Easement along the common property line for both parcels. The Offer was made in May, 1974, prior to installation of a fire hydrant on the access corridor serving the two properties at 14971- 73 Quito Road, south of the Nelson's property, and which would have benefitted from the Easement. The Offer has never been accepted by the City, meaning the Easement does not technically exist, and Central Fire District concurs that the Easement is no longer needed for its intended purpose due to installation of the fire hydrant. Consequently, staff recommends supporting the Nelson's request to reject the Offer for the Easement which is accomplished by adopting the attached Resolution prepared by the City Attorney. Fiscal Impacts• None. The Nelson's have reimbursed the City for the City Attorney's costs to prepare the Resolution. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Offer would remain intact. However, unless the Offer is formally accepted by the City, the Easement does not technically exist. Follow Up Actions: The Resolution will be recorded. Attachments: 1. Resolution rejecting Offer of Dedication. 2. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Nelson dated March 25, 1996. 3. Letter from Central Fire District dated April 27, 1995. 0 -04,'23/1995 21:52 0000000000 01 1 VL JLUt L PAGE 03 Co 13 7 ��LLIU 14b-2- '�`J613�'?7 09 FOR Rya . AT RECuE T Of jCcr 95a�p 0936 wA34 NO FEE JUN �0 10 37 OFFER TO DEDICATE EASEMENT FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS OFFICIALFECORDS ROAD $►NTA CLARA GOONT'f, GEONG£ A 1AANN hF.cilsTPAR RE00n''f!' For valuable consideration. the undersigned owners of the herein- after described real property, hereby warranting that they constitute all of the owners thereof, for themselves, their heirs. auccessoru and assigns, hereby irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, an easement for emergency access road, over and across that certain real property situated in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California. said property is more particularly described as follows& A pox.tion of Lots, 5 and 6 au said LOA C art shown u pga the 94P entitled, "Tract No. 538 ", which drat was -tiled for Xeoord on August 1, 1973 in Book 327 of Maps, at page 30 and rtose particularly described as follows c A stria of land 20 feet wide, the eslrtorline of Which is the dividing line between said Lots S and 6 above referred to. The undersigned understands that the Within offer can only be accepted by resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga and recordation of this instruatsnt shall not and will not constitute acceptance of the within offer to dedicate. -%i+s' offer shall be irrevocable and shall be binding upon our heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. The plural as used herein shall include the singular, and the singular shall include the plural. . 8xecuted this 22 day of Mar _ • 19A_ James V. Day Conctruttioe.0s..:tfte6 :',.. ' serer ry r u►yearM* 1 ,) STATE OF CALIFORNIA Y� r� WUNTY Or_-'LAnLA Clara Mere A.. 0W ■ *aW.1p,ac • Mawr pab"s b nwi I- -W +l.l.. o.e.•.rlb ap "and aLA l nuwn I. �, u. lw Ja - -- 1 of It., . arJ 1r...n r.. na r•• 1. _ 9■.+dwf e[ r ►. ,.wpreblr thM araeeMli the wilMn Irr.r+rr■rd. I.*...n u. n.r l.. I- rLt, prrs.w■ w4 •aacersi be WWII w I.•h ■mrM • n 1.'�dl ..1 rl•r o4pautie %%dele faawk and � •.•I,m•.L•1vA rr..w rh,l w�h i •rj••fNi.n ta,.'w.d ll•. �Ilhl■ t �nar�.•..r.l L.u.u.wr a i +. byh.. r.r a ttw.11ill...1 L• bwt•1 i dur, t.,r•. `. t;'ITY /:!lam .w, ,a,l■I .r=1. r i r O r1 R. 0. $,; 9 �s 257 -,y N 80 ' 3s PCL. 2 PCL. (l.37 AC. GR.) � 1 (1.35 AC. NET.) 151 AC. GR.�.` ^ 68 1. 2 2 AC.NE� v, ° 67 e�ti ►� rS c9. f. Saab asu '� Z77 11%2 81.3i , .06 AC. GR. AM 03 AC. NE E IDE � Ott Jn so.z9 ct.M. .6s. ►c 1.31 AC. GR. �o 1.20 AC. NET= t 65 T •r 0 s • "' 90 `Sac 100.53 Ij� 90 e� p1 NJ�I 35.90 ,' l.25 5 l. AC 4g rE -T I °i AC. GR. 74 1. 7 Ac' NE T r.7; 14873 2 �i f 3.49 AC. G R. 3.19 AC NET 48.e3 �• Y/�y\ 16 • 00 C, Ir �•iq ` \\ fagot / ? AT 4 0 O J J Z' 75 \ \ E3 K 010 10 v / 2.169 AC. a, . •ice l� � �! • ^fn : M ew S 270 IAA M. N 3 s 1.365 A• GR. c :A �a I ?� � \ &., d " s � A• al C. 16 s •� O 0 ; t `°" °are ► ►3 - - ...� ..3e/ s �E ( 3 eo •• � s a.; \ ` a►r L '1. ��.:a1�73s�s��..�._ • �'�J� �: 2-° t'� ___ Cl) . �t i gl `O 62N,..T � �,o 95 AC. � . ' b + �`, �3 -� b S tr A �. 70.04 p eo t .• �q °' _ _ ► a4 ey: r 2 �► 1.15 ;. 7 q.• S a _2t_ i. few s mi N bi . n t % n I CD o � �. T eSN ,,; 94 9.43 h °I 1 �i 4 /1 • p I _PAL • B i L - �2.r2 ► tsc.a� n �' r cc V ,97 AC. 2 0 1.258 AC. N�'T :mss �o2y�e r ISS.293QS2 _ 345b ry; PCB AC co x`44 Q3T a J I 6O C _4_727 M. 337 - M 93 O 1 a ! PCL. C -•N n °�� 6 .ec , *v�ir �r co 2c� 04 ► , _, o�t� 95 ,,.. ,,,.., Q Ro. R 0. S. ! 78 1e5.07 13 N1a N I J Li N' 23 X63_06 10 rRQC- r ��.9 ;' 9 "� P4! AC 141 4 N- 5384"��,so ?S J CL. A �c99 �tn R. 0. S 8 6 8 O 3/25/96 Mr. Larry Perlin Public Works Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 Dear Larry, The following is our formal request for the City of Saratoga to rescind the Offer to Dedicate Easement for Emergency Access Road (see enclosure). A fire hydrant has been installed behind our property eliminating the need for the easement. The Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District has inspected the property and sees no value regarding the easement (see enclosure). The two properties effected are 18532 and 18500 Aquino Way, Saratoga CA 95070. We are presently owners of 18532 (APN 397 -06 -099) and are in escrow to purchase 18500 Aquino Way (APN 397 -06 -100), effective closing date April 15, 1996. Enclosed also please find our check for $150.00 to the City of Saratoga for costs associated with our request. Sincerely, Nancy O. Nelson Richard A. Nelson on[v� SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 14700 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD LOS GATOS, CA 95030- 18 18 (408) 378 -4010 SINCE 1947 FAX (408) 378 -9342 27 April 1995 Mr. Dick Nelson 18532 Aquino Way Saratoga, California 95070 RE: Request to Abandon Easement for Emergency Access APN: 397 -06- 099,18532 Aquino Way, Saratoga Dear Mr. Nelson: I have reviewed your request to abandon the above referenced easement, (see attached documentation). The Fire District has no objection to your request. However, final approval will be granted by the City of Saratoga Engineering Department. If you have any questions, please contact me at my office Sincer , Chris Vearg on Deputy Fire Marshal II Fire Prevention Division CV:mo Attachments Seruing West Valley Cities of: Campbell. Cupertino. Monte Sereno, Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos and Adjacent County Areas SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ;( () �L- AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: MAY 1, 1996 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEF T. HEAD: .�, SUBJECT: Wildwood Park Improvements, Capital Project No. 955 - Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract. Report Summary: All work on the Wildwood Park Improvements (Capital Project No. 955) has been completed by the City's contractor, James A. Savattone Construction, and inspected by Public Works staff. The final construction cost for the project was $44,294, which is 2.7% above the awarded contract amount of $43,114. The increased cost was due to additional work required to relocate the existing swing set unit. In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one year maintenance /warranty period, it is recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the construction contract so that the requisite 30 day Stop Notice period for the filing of claims by subcontractors or material providers may commence. Fiscal Impacts• The ten percent retention withheld from previous payments to the contractor will be released 30 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion assuming no Stop Notices are filed with the City. The adopted budget contains sufficient funds in Capital Project No. 955, Account 4510 to cover the entire cost of the construction contract. Also, recall that the cost of this project is to be reimbursed to the City through proceeds set aside from a State Bond Act approved in 1988. Follow Up Actions: Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract and release the contract sureties and retention thirty days thereafter. The claim for reimbursement will be filed with the State Dept. of Parks & Recreation. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Attachments: 1. Contract Summary. 2. Notice of Completion. CONTRACT SUMMARY PROJECT: Wildwood Park Improvements, C.I.P. No. 955 CONTRACTOR: James A. Savattone Construction CONTRACT DATE: 4/19/95 CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 3/8/96 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $43,113.50 CHANGE ORDER INCREASE: $3,995.88 CHANGE ORDER DECREASE: $2,815.50 NET CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT: $1,180.88 FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $44,293.88 PERCENT +/- FROM ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: +2.7% Recording requested by, and to be returned to: City of Saratoga Department of Public Works 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed to be performed under the contract mentioned below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and the Contractor mentioned below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Owner on the 1st day of May, 1996. Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: April 19, 1994 Contractor's Name: James A. Savattone Construction Contractor's Address: 2827 S. Rodeo Gulch Road #4, Soquel, CA 95073 Description of Work: Wildwood Park, C.I.P. 924 This notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California. The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information or belief, and as to those matters that he believes to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on , 19 CITY OF SARATOGA BY: Larry I. Perlin Director Of Public Works ATTEST: Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk Gov. Code 40814 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL a -)O� AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: May 1, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: ComqW ity Development Q� 1 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: SUBJECT: SD 95 -009 & V 95 -014; Nagpal, 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. Applicants are appealing the Planning Commissions denial of their Tentative Parcel Map request to subdivide a 2.46 acre parcel, with an existing residence, into two lots. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning 'Commission's decision to deny the subdivision request. Project Description: Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 2.46 acre lot with an existing residence into two separate building sites. The residence would be retained on Lot 1 and a new single- family residence would be built on Lot 2. Variance approval is requested to allow the existing residence to maintain a nonconforming front yard setback. Though the structure's front setback is not changing, a Variance is necessary to allow the lot to be created. The subject property is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Report Summary: This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the February 28th public hearing meeting. A majority of the Commission did not feel that the proposed building site was appropriate and were prepared to move to deny the Tentative Map and Variance requests. At the suggestion of a Commissioner, the applicants and the Planning Commission agreed to continue the item in order to consider building restrictions for the proposed new parcel which may mitigate their concerns. The suggestions included consideration of a guest house (note: the applicant had stated to the Commission that the new house was for their parents); a second Nagpal, 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. City Council, May 1, 1996 Page 2 unit if kitchen facilities were required (note: the Commission was informed that a second unit is limited to 800 sq.ft. and that the Zoning Ordinance does not permit a Variance to be approved to increase the floor area) ; or, limiting the new house to a size that would "fit" into the back yard area (e.g. 2000 -2400 sq.ft.). At the March 13th meeting, the applicants' presented their proposal to restrict future construction on the new lot to a maximum of 3,400 sq. ft. in size and to no more than 22 ft. in height. They further proposed increasing the minimum required setbacks from their property line to keep a new residence as far from the existing adobe residence as possible. At the March hearing the Planning Commission considered the proposed building restrictions and determined that they did not go far enough towards ensuring a compatible development. The Commission denied the request 4 -0 (Commissioners Abshire, Asfour & Murakami absent). Issues: When the Planning Commission first reviewed this item, they were almost unanimous in their opposition to the map proposal based on the following concerns: • The new home would be situated in what is now the Nagpals' back yard lawn area, directly behind their pool. The Commission felt it would be difficult to build a new single family residence on this site that would not impact the existing adobe home in terms of views and privacy. • A new home on the "lawn" area would detract from the historical layout of the property and the adobe home itself. • Given the topographical constraints and the layout of the existing residential improvements, it would be difficult to build a home on the new lot that would be compatible with the existing development pattern of the neighborhood. As stated earlier in this report, the Commission continued the item to the March 13th meeting to consider building restrictions on the new lot to minimize its impacts. The Commission did not agree that restricting development of the lot to a 22 ft. tall 3,400 sq. ft. structure would achieve this - what the Commission was looking for were restrictions that would result in a new home that looked more like a typical guest house. Nagpal, 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. City Council, May 1, 1996 Page 3 Environmental Determination: An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared and noticed for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (in the event the City Council moves to grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's denial). Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: A notice of this item was mailed to property owners within a 500 ft. radius of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Planning Commission denial would be overturned and the two -lot Tentative Parcel Map would be approved. Follow -up Action: An appropriate Resolution will be placed on the next City Council agenda reflecting Council action on this appeal. Attachments: 1. Letter from appellants, Susie & Amil Nagpal 2. Planning Commission minutes dated February 28 & March 13, 1996 3. Planning Commission Resolutions SD 95 -009 & V 95 -014 4. Staff Report dated February 14, 1996 5. Tentative Parcel Map, Exhibit "A" jemes \exesumm \negpnl March 30, 1996 Members of the City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Appeal 19101 Via Saratoga, SD 95 -009 Tesoro Court CA 95070 and V 95 -014 Dear Council Members: This is an appeal to the members of the City Council of Saratoga in response to a recent Planning Commission decision to deny the above referenced request for a tentative map approval. In October 1995, after extensive review and discussions with the staff at the Saratoga Planning Department, my husband and I submitted a request for a tentative map approval to subdivide 2.46 acres. Over the months, we worked closely with our engineer and city staff, to ensure that City subdivision requirements and standards were met. The tentative map submitted for approval conformed with the City's prescribed requirements. The project was recommended and supported by City planning staff for approval. On 2/14/96, our project was continued to 2/28/96 due to a lengthy item (previous to ours) on the agenda. On 2/28/96, when the Planning Commission reviewed our request, there was much appreciation for the setting and beauty of our existing home. Our understanding was that the commissioners wanted us to review options that would minimize the impact on the existing home. We worked diligently with staff, and our engineers to address this matter. After much consideration, and in an effort to compromise, we proposed that: • the side setback (near the home) be increased to 50 feet (from the required 20 feet) • the height of the home be limited • the size of the home be limited On 3/13/96, we were completely astounded with the Planning Commissions actions. Within a matter of minutes, our compromise was dismissed by the four members of the Planning Commission in attendance at the time. It was proposed that the project be denied via resolutions to be passed on 3/27/96. When I asked if I may speak after this decision was rendered, (hoping to be referred back to a work group environment) I was advised that the public hearing was closed. On 3/27/96, the project request was denied. It has, frankly, been difficult to understand the logical basis for this denial. The commission noted that " the proposed subdivision and new building pad were incompatible the existing adobe residence and the surrounding residential development pattern ". The facts however are: * We submitted a request that conformed with the City's guidelines for subdivision. * City Planning staff recommended approval of the application. • No public opposition was present during any of the three meetings. • We offered a compromise which limited house size and height, as well as increased side setbacks. • The lots are comparable in size and character to other lots in the area. * The lots are not irregular, and infact curve with the road line. * The subdivision is not incompatible with the existing residence, or the surrounding residential pattern We truly agree with commissioners appreciation of the beauty and setting of our existing home. It is inf act this way because we have strived hard to landscape the premises, and maintain it. However we believe it unfair to use this very reason to conclude that the land may not be subdivided. If this were in fact raw and un- landscaped land, we are certain that this request would not have been turned down. We feel that, as property owners, we have made a reasonable request that has been turned down for no logical reason. We also feel that our good faith efforts at compromise were not given any serious consideration. We truly appreciate the ability to address this Council with our grievance. We hope, that you, as members of the City Council will appreciate our concerns and rights on this matter. We request your support to overturn this Planning Commission decision. Thank you for your support. Sincerely Susie and AYnit lad�� PLANNING COMMISSll` MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 4 - neighborhoods and that no adverse affects from the program has been experienced. He noted that the Prince of Peace Church was granted a use permit last year and that the congregation of Beth David now wants to implement the program in June and Ascension Church in August. He informed the Commission that flyers were distributed to residents within the 500 foot area of Beth David and Ascension Church, notifying the residents of the proposed program, inviting the residents to attend a February 1 meeting to gain information about the program and to voice any concerns that they may have. He indicated that only one neighbor attended the meeting to inquire how she could assist. Over 165 letters have been received from both San Jose and Saratoga areas in support of the program. He requested Commission approval of the use permit. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the letter included in the Commission's packet claims that the letter distributed by the Church should have been distributed to the neighborhood and not just to the parishioners. She requested that Mr. Stohlman respond to this statement. Mr. Stohlman stated that a flyer was distributed to the neighbors who reside within five hundred feet of the churches and that a form letter in support of the program was made available to the congregation. He stated that a letter was not mailed out soliciting a response. Chairman Murakami noted that speaker cards were received from the following individuals indicating support of the program: Eugene Meyer, 19447 Eric Drive; Andrew Estigoy, 10185 North Stelling, Cupertino; Joie Wesolowsky, 12069 Kristy Lane; Ronnie, Gordon, 4734 Durango River Court, San Jose. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that there was controversy about the program last year and recollected that one speaker made a comment that hosts would know more about the participants than one knows about ones gardener. He indicated that he would support the program. Chairman Murakami indicated that he was pleased to see that this program was working and that there was a condition included that would allow the Commission to review the use on a yearly basis. Commissioner Asfour indicated that he was present when a similar request was considered by the Prince of Peace Church and that he supported that request. Therefore, he could support the request before the Commission. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP -95 -007. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 3. SD -95 -009 & V -95 -014 - NAGPAL; 19101 VIA TESORO CT.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 2.46 acre lot with an existing residence into two PLANNING COMMISSI' FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 5 - MINUTES separate building sites. The residence would be retained on Lot 1 and a new single - family residence would be built on Lot 2. Variance approval is requested to allow the existing residence to maintain a nonconforming front yard setback. Though the structure's front setback is not changing, a Variance is necessary to allow the lot to be created. The subject property is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. (cont. from 2/14/96 due to late hour; City review deadline is 6/6/96). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that although the residence was not currently listed on the city's Heritage Resource Inventory, it was referred to the Historic Preservation Commission because of the 1930s hand crafted adobe brick structure located on site. He indicated that the Heritage Preservation Commission was interested in pursuing the property to learn more about its history and that it would consider whether this property should be included in the heritage resources inventory list at a later date. Staff finds that the lot split meets all minimum standards and was recommending approval of the lot split, contingent on the variance application being approved. He informed the Commission that a letter was received from the adjoining property owners, Marcia and Harry Ratner, expressing concern with the protection of their privacy, the oak trees and the topographical features on site. The Ratners were requesting that an 85 foot setback from their property line be required and that the new home be restricted to a single story. He recommended that condition 1 be amended to address the Ratner's concern regarding setback as follows: "Future development of Lot 2 shall require Design Review approval. The building site shall be left in a natural state until Design Review approval has been granted and Building Permits have been issued. An appropriate building location shall be determined at the Design Review stage based on tt current Zoning Ordinance regulations and City policy - the building envelope shown for Lot 2 on Exhibit "A" does not reflect accurate current setback Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the arborist report addresses the damage to trees that would occur as a result of the demolition of the main house. He informed the Commission that this portion of the discussion should be disregarded as the main house was not proposed to be demolished. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that condition 1 would require Planning Commission approval of the design review irrespective of whether the home was designed to be a one or two story structure. He recommended that Condition 1 be amended to so reflect. PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Asfour asked staff regarding its opinion about restricting the new home to one story. Planner Walgren responded that staff would not normally restrict the home to a one story structure on a parcel of this size. Staff would normally recommend restricting a home to one level if it was an infill development where single story homes existed. He stated that should the Commission wish to restrict the home to a one story structure, that the map so be conditioned. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission had discretionary review over the lot line? Planner Walgren responded that the Commission has discretionary review over the parcel map and the variance request. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Mrs. Nagpal, applicant, informed the Commission that she would not object to placing the existing home on the city's heritage resources list. She indicated that the reason for the request before the Commission was to allow for the construction of a home for her parents. She felt that the parcel was large enough to accommodate the lot split and that care would be given to preserve the existing trees. Commissioner Asfour asked Ms. Nagpal if she would want to have future neighbors look into the swimming pool area should the new home be sold in the future? He asked if there were other alternatives to the request. Ms. Nagpal responded that she would have preferred the lot to be configured a different way but that the engineers felt that the proposal before the Commission was the best solution. Other alternatives would require variances that she would be uncomfortable requesting. She indicated that a two story home may be proposed on the new parcel to preserve the existing trees. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the size that is being considered for the new home? Ms. Nagpal responded that the size nor the design of the new home have been discussed with her parents so as not to raise their hopes. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:17 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan stated that normally, a property owner should be able to do what is considered to be in their best interest. However, she indicated that she had a problem with the request before the Commission as the property does not lend itself to two separate lots based upon the configuration of the house and the location of the swimming pool. She felt that a lot split would create a problem in the future should the family no longer occupy the home. She stated that she could not support the request. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he could support a different lot line for the second lot, PLANNING COMMISSI FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 7 - MINUTES recognizing the fact that the first home was to be preserved. Commissioner Asfour stated that, generally, he supports the desires of individuals to build on their property and sympathized with the applicant's request. However, he recommended that alternatives be explored. Commissioner Pierce concurred with the comments as expressed by the other Commissioners. It was his belief that the property owners purchased the 2.5 acre site for the existing, beautiful home. He indicated that he would be inclined to approve a larger guest home on the property that would fit within the constraints of the neighbors. He stated that he was opposed to the lot split as requested. Commissioner Patrick also indicated that she was opposed to the lot split. She felt that the existing home was sited beautifully on the property. She felt that once the parcel was split, you would loose control over the entire site, including design considerations. She stated that she could support a guest residence. Commissioner Abshire stated that he agreed with the comments as expressed by his fellow Commissioners. He indicated that he opposes the request because it would create two meandering lots and with the fact that the existing adobe home was sitting in the middle of the parcel that it was designed for. Commissioner Asfour recommended that the public hearing be reopened to determine if the applicant would consider a continuance of this item for the purpose of reviewing alternatives. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that staff worked with the city's civil engineer on several different map alternatives before bringing this request to the Commission. The proposal before the Commission was the only alternative that met city standards. He indicated that staff spoke with the applicants about considering a larger accessory structure such as a guest house, noting that a guest home could not be used on a permanent basis. He also noted that City code does not allow for a variance of a secondary dwelling greater than 800 square feet. Chairman Murakami indicated that he was initially opposed to the request. However, he indicated that he could support the applicant's request based on the information provided by staff. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:26 p.m. Commissioner Asfour asked staff as to the maximum size of a guest home that would be allowed with or without a variance, excluding a kitchen facility? Community Development Director Curtis indicated that a guest house would be subject to design review and that as PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 8 - part of the design review consideration, the Commission can review its size. He reiterated that the purpose of a guest house was for temporary quarters. He indicated that a larger guest home could be considered as an alternative as long as it is designed so that a kitchen facility cannot be accommodated in the future. Planner Walgren indicated that the existing home was approximately 6,200 square feet and that even though it remains a single parcel, the maximum cumulative square footage that can be constructed is 7,200 square foot. Therefore, the guest home could not be larger than 1,000 square feet unless the Commission grants a variance from the allowable building floor area. Commissioner Pierce asked staff if the City had provisions for a granny unit. Community Development Director Curtis responded that secondary dwelling units are permitted to a maximum of 800 square feet with no variances allowed by code. Ms. Nagpal noted that the two lots, as proposed, conformed to city standards. She stated that she has considered the possibility of having neighbors living next door and that the request would be something that she would have to live with. She indicated that she would like additional time to discuss this issue with her family, staff and the Commission. She informed the Commission that alternative plans were considered and that it was her understanding that the alternatives did not meet setback requirements. Commissioner Siegfried stated that a possibility exists for the creation of two legal lots. Perhaps, then the Commission could consider approving a variance in setback, to accommodate a better situation. Commissioner Kaplan stated that it was her belief that the Commission was requesting that the applicant consider a guest residence in the appropriate location that would provide a place for her parents to reside on the lot. The Commission would be willing to consider latitudes which would allow the maximum lot coverage to be exceeded. She indicated that she was opposed to the lot split. Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not support the lot split as she did not support meandering lots. She stated that she would like to retain the lot as a single lot and that she would consider the approval of an accessory structure. Ms. Nagpal indicated that this was a legitimate lot split as setbacks and other code requirements were being met. She asked how the application could be modified to address the Commission's concern. She indicated that a guest home would be a concern because it would not allow for a kitchen facility. She indicated that she was not asking for anything special and that the only variance requested would be for the existing home. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that this item be continued to the next meeting to PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 9 - allow the applicant to consider the comments expressed this evening. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the tentative parcel map request before the Commission was a discretionary action and that the division of land must still meet the intent of land planning and development of the area, even if the request meets all technical code requirements. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPLICATIONS SD -95 -009 AND V -95 -014 TO MARCH 13, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). Community Development Director Curtis asked if the only alternative that would be acceptable to the Commission was a guest house without a kitchen? Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not oppose the lot split if it can be designed in a different way to allow the integrity of the existing structure to remain the same, even it requires the approval of a variance. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was not opposed to a lot line split so long as a condition was stipulated that would restrict the size of the home on the second lot. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that it could place restrictions on the new parcel relating to the new home to be built (i.e., design, location, height and square footage, etc.). Community Development Director Curtis stated that should the Commission approve a lot split with recorded restrictions, that the only way the condition(s) could be amended was to return to the Commission for the approval of an amendment. 4. UP -95 -008 - KOLOTOUROS; 20201 MERIDA DR.; Request for Use Permit approval to allow a nonconforming commercial trucking business to continue within a residential zoning district. The subject property fronts onto Merida Dr. and abuts Prospect Rd. to the north and Route 85 to the east. The parcel is 20,878 sq. ft. in size and is located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. (cont. from 2/14/96 to late hour; City review deadline is 7/22/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He stated that the continued use of the business would not be compatible with the nature of the residential district and does not meet the criteria that is necessary to approve a conditional use permit. Therefore, staff recommended denial of the use permit request. He informed the Commission that a letter was included in the packet that was unsigned in opposition to the request. Also, letters were distributed to the Commission this evening from neighbors supporting the continuation of the operation and one additional letter in opposition to the request. Commissioner Asfour indicated that it would have been beneficial to hear from the two PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 13, 1996 PAGE - 2 - Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 8, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -95 -004 - STELLA INVESTMENT CO. /DOUGHERTY; 22665 GARROD RD. Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide the 16 acre Lot 4 of the "Sung" subdivision into three individual lots of 4.7, 6.2 and 5.1 acres. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. (cont. to 4/10/96 at the request the applicant; City review deadline is 8/21/96). 2. DR -91 -026.3 - LEE /RUEHLE; 21097 COMER DR.; Request for a third, and final, one -year extension of a previously approved Design Review application to construct a new 5,221 sq. ft. two -story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is currently vacant, approximately 1.9 acres in size and is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 AND 2 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that City Attorney Riback as well as Planner Walgren were excused from tonight's meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. SD -95 -009 & V -95 -014 - NAGPAL; 19101 VIA TESORO CT.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 2.46 acre lot with an existing residence into two separate building sites. The residence would be retained on Lot 1 and a new single - family residence would be built on Lot 2. Variance approval is requested to allow the existing residence to maintain a nonconforming front yard setback. Though the structure's front setback is not changing, a Variance is necessary to allow the lot to be created. The subject property is located within an R- 1- 40,000 zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 13, 1996 PAGE - 3 - An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. (cont. from 2/28/96; City review deadline is 6/6/96). Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report. He recommended that the Commission discuss whether the applicant has responded to the Commission's concerns regarding the justification for creating two separate parcels as well as the size of the second home. Staff indicated that should the Commission feel that the applicant has responded to its concerns, that a resolution would be prepared for the Commission's approval. Should the Commission feel that its concerns have not been addressed and that it would be inappropriate to subdivide the property, that the Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for its next meeting. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan clarified that the entire issue of the subdivision of the parcel was before the Commission, not just the size, of the proposed second home. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Mrs. Nagpal, applicant, stated that at the last meeting, it was her understanding that the main concern of the Commission was the impact to the existing home. She proposed to locate the future home as far back into the building envelope as possible to minimize the impact to the existing home. She indicated that a two story home would be proposed because it would minimize the building footprint. She stated that the second home is proposed to be approximately 3,000 square feet, half the square footage allowed under the current zoning district. She indicated that she would agree to increase the side setback from 20 to 50 feet. She noted that alternative two would protrude outside of the building envelope and that it would require a rear yard setback variance. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was not impressed with the modifications proposed at the site visit. She felt that the Commission made it clear that it would consider a guest -type cottage and that the building was to be a low profile building, minimizing its impact. She did not see a 3,400 square foot two story home on either of the two alternative building envelopes doing that. Therefore, she would not approve the request. Commissioner Pierce agreed with the comments as stated by Commissioner Patrick. He felt that the existing home was a beautiful estate home and that the proposed lot with a proposed 3,400 square foot home would be inappropriate. He stated that he was enthusiastic about the possibility of a smaller guest home and indicated that he could not approve the request as proposed. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan stated that she had some real concerns from a land use stand point. She felt that the lot split would create a terrible, irregular- meandering configuration and that it has been the Commission's experience that once you do so, you create all kinds of problems for PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 13, 1996 PAGE - 4 - the future. She felt that the existing property was beautiful and that she would hate to see it disturbed. She felt that the size of the second home would be too small and that it would be out of character with that of the neighborhood. She referred to page 9 of the February 28, 1995 minutes where Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the tentative map request before the Commission was discretionary. As it was a discretionary review, she felt that the request was not good planning and would vote against the request. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the Commission include in its motion that it could not make the findings necessary to approve the tentative map and the variance applications and to direct staff to prepare resolutions for its next regularly scheduled meeting, to be placed on the consent calendar, should the Commission wish to deny the request. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO DENY APPLICATIONS SD -95 -009 AND V -95 -014 AND DIRECTED STAFF TO RETURN WITH RESOLUTIONS OF DENIAL FOR THE COMMISSION'S NEXT MEETING AS IT COULD NOT MAKE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY TO APPROVE THE APPLICATIONS. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, ASFOUR, MURAKAMI ABSENT). Vice - chairwoman Kaplan informed Ms. Nagpal that the appeal process would commence upon adoption of the resolution of denials by the Commission at its next meeting. 4. DR -96 -001 - FLICK/SMALL; 20140 RANCHO BELLA VISTA; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,421 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant 20,042 sq. ft. parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is located within an R- 1- 20,000 zoning district. Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that a letter from Peter and Christine Rutti, 20097 Mendelsohn Lane, adjacent property owners, was received and included in the staff report. The letter states their opposition to the windows proposed to the backside of the building. Staff felt that the design of the house was appropriate for the neighborhood, noting that second story windows were not an unusual characteristic in design for that neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the project. Vice - Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:51 p.m. No one offered public testimony. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:52 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -96- 001. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. RESOLUTION NO. SD -95 -009 RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP OF Nagpal, 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Tentative Parcel Map approval of two (2) lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -95 -009 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is not consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is incompatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing on March 6, 1996 at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, upon closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted 4 -0 (Commissioners Abshire, Asfour and Murakami absent) to deny the request upon finding that the proposed subdivision and new building pad were incompatible with both the existing adobe residence and site development and the surrounding residential development pattern; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was also unable to make the necessary Variance findings to support the associated building setback nonconformity created by the proposed subdivision and voted 4 -0 to deny that request as well. The subdivision cannot be approved unless the nonconformity is eliminated or the Variance is granted. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as.follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the Tentative Parcel Map for the proposed subdivision, which map is dated September 26, 1995 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Nagpal for Tentative Parcel Map approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. File No. SD -95 -009; Nagpal, 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 27th day of March 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick & Pierce NOES: None ABSENT: Siegfried Cha rman Pl nning Commission ATTEST: i Secreta y, Plannin Commission RESOLUTION NO. V -95 -014 RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING VARIANCE REQUEST OF Nagpal, 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for the Variance approval to allow. the existing residence on Lot 1 to be located roughly 55 ft. from the front property line when 69 ft. is required; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing on March 13, 1996 at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, upon closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted 4 -0 (Commissioners Abshire, Asfour and Murakami absent) to deny the request upon finding that the applicants have not met the burden of proof required to support said application based on the following findings: • Due to the absence of special circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district in that the applicants currently have an existing home of greater than 6,000 sq. ft. and would be permitted to build an accessory guest cottage on the property without the need to subdivide. The Variance is necessary due the proposed subdivision - to deny the Variance, and thereby the subdivision, the applicants would not be deprived of privileges enjoyed by their neighbors in the same Zoning District. • The granting of the Variance would, therefor, constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same Zoning District. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the Tentative Parcel Map, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Nagpal for Variance approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. File No. V -95 -014; Nagpal, 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 27th day of March 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick & Pierce NOES: None ABSENT: Siegfried tiL Ch ma Planning Commission ATTEST: Secret ry, Planning Commission REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION -Application No. /Location: SD -95 -009 & V -95 -014; 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. Applicant /Owner: NAGPAL Staff Planner: James Walgren, AICP Date: February 14, 1996 APN: 397-13-057 Director Approval: I V I U I V is T esoro Ut. File No. SD -95 -009 & V -95 -014; 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 11/06/95 Application complete: 12/06/95 Notice published: 1/31/96 Mailing completed: 2/01/96 Posting completed: 1/25/96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 2.46 acre lot with an existing residence into two separate building sites. The residence would be retained on Lot 1 and a new single- family residence would be built on Lot 2. Variance approval is requested to allow the existing residence to maintain a nonconforming front yard setback. Though the structure's front setback is not changing, a Variance is necessary to allow the lot to be created. The subject property is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application requests by adopting the attached Negative Declaration and Resolutions SD -95 -009 and V -95 -014. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Environmental Negative Declaration 3. Resolution SD -95 -009 and V -95 -014 4. HPC minutes dated December 19, 1995 5. City Arborist report dated December 5, 1996 6. Tentative Parcel Map, Exhibit "A" File No. SD -95 -009 & V -95 -014; 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density LOT 1 PARCEL SIZE• AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: LOT COVERAGE: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF STRUCTURE: LOT 2 PARCEL SIZE• AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: LOT COVERAGE: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF STRUCTURES: PROJECT DISCUSSION: Proposal 59,238 sq. ft. -11% 21% (12,740 sq. ft.) 6,240 sq. ft. 48,006 sq. ft. -11% NA NA Code Requirement Allowance 40,000 sq. ft. NA 300 6,260 sq. ft. 48,000 sq. ft. NA 300 6,060 sq. ft. The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval to subdivide an existing 2.46 acre parcel into two separate lots. There is an existing adobe style residence on the site which was developed prior to the City's incorporation in 1956. Heritage Preservation Commission: Though neither the structure nor the property is currently listed on the City's Heritage Resource Inventory, the Heritage Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposal and is researching the history of the property and the home to determine if it warrants inclusion on the inventory. As the attached minutes reflect, the HPC requested that any future development proposal of Lot 2 be brought back to them for comment. This has been included in the Resolution as a condition of Tentative Parcel Map approval. File No. SD -95 -009 & V -95 -014; 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. City Arborist: The City Arborist has reviewed the proposed lot split and has provided the attached comments. His report identifies significant trees which will need to be protected once construction plans are submitted for Design Review consideration. The Arborist discusses the impact of demolition of the existing home on Lot 1 on adjacent trees - this should be disregarded since the existing home is not proposed to be removed. Tentative Parcel Map: This application to divide the parcel will result in two separate lots of 59,238 sq. ft. and 48,006 sq. ft. in size. The resulting two parcels comply with all Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements with regard to minimum lot size, width and depth for the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. The new Lot 1 also meets all minimum standards in terms of allowable cumulative structure size and lot coverage. Staff is recommending approval of the Tentative Parcel Map contingent on the associated Variance also being approved. Variance: Variance approval is necessary to allow the existing residence on Lot 1 to be located roughly 55 ft. from the front property line when 69 ft. is required. The Variance request is for relief from a technical requirement; the residence is not moving, but by creating a new lot the Zoning Ordinance (as amended in 1992) requires that increased setbacks be applied. As a single existing parcel, the current front yard setback would be 30 ft. For "newly created lots ", the front yard setback is 200 of the parcel's depth - 69 ft. in this case. Staff feels that the following findings can be made to recommend approval of the Variance request: • That because of special circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Staff feels that the special circumstance in this case is the fact that the home's physical proximity to the front property line is not changing. It is an older, potentially historic, residence built prior to the City's incorporation. The Variance is necessary because of an Ordinance change, not because of a change in the structure. File No. SD -95 -009 & V -95 -014; 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. • That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limita- tions on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zone district. A grant of special privilege would not result if the Planning Commission supports the special circumstance identified above. • That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The location of the residence and its effect on adjoining properties will not change. RECOMMENDATION• Approve the application requests by adopting the attached Negative Declaration and Resolutions SD -95 -009 and V -95 -014. City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Date: Tuesday, December 19, 1995, 9 a.m. Place: Warner Hutton House, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type: Rescheduled Regular Meeting Note: This meeting was rescheduled from December 12 due to the lack of a quorum. The Commission members are encouraged to visit two sites relating to New Business items A and B prior to the meeting. The sites are: 1. 19101 Via Tesoro (at Chester) 2. 20261 LaPaloma Avenue (at Lutheria Drive) Commission members are also encouraged to keep all of the previously mailed packet materials for reference. I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Fine, Koepernik, Peck, Wyman, Peepad (late) Absent Cutler, Dutro Staff: Secretary White Guest Mrs. Garcia B. Approval of minutes dated 11/ 14/95 The minutes were unanimously approved as submitted. M/S Wyman /Fine. C. Posting of the Agenda Pursuant to Government Code Section 94954.2 the agenda was posted on Friday, December 8 and Friday, December 15. D. Oral and Written Communications 1. Letter from the State Historic Preservation Office Noted and filed. 2. Letter from the Public Safety Commission The Commission asked staff to keep track of any additional responses from the Public Works Director regarding this issue. 3. Letter from the Heritage Commission to the Public Works Director Noted and filed. 4. Final Draft of new Heritage Commission Development Review Policy Accepted with minor typographical revisions. Staff was directed to prepare the final statement. 11. Old Business A. Continuing discussion of the California Quality Act, the Mills Act and other Heritage Preservation concepts and issues. After general discussion, it was determined that more information was needed on the application of CEQA to historic resources in Saratoga. Staff was directed to continue the item for discussion at the next meeting. 111. New Business A. 19101 Via Tesoro, Evaluation of a potential Heritage Resource. The Commission unanimously agreed that this property was a potentially significant historic resource. Staff was directed to utilize all available resources in researching the history of the property for the purpose of preparing a property survey. The Commission will evaluate staff findings at a future meeting. In regard to the proposed subdivision, the Commission unanimously requested that the Planning Commission refer any future design review applications for the newly created parcel to the Commission for review and comment. M/S Wyman /Fine. B. 20261 La Paloma Avenue, Evaluation of a potential Heritage Resource. The Commission unanimously agreed that the structure had no significance as a potential historic resource. M/S Fine/Peck. BARRIE D. CO " TE and ASSOCIAZ ,.-� Horticultural Consultants 408 - 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 AN ANALYSIS OF THE TREES AT THE NAGPAL PROPERTY 19101 VIA TESORO COURT SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: James Walgren, Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate December 5, 1995 Job #11-95-291 BARRIE D. CO' TE and ASSOCIAT ILS Horticultural Consultants 408- 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 AN ANALYSIS OF THE TREES AT THE NAGPAL PROPERTY 19101 VIA TESORO COURT SARATOGA Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to present information about the health, structure and potential tree /construction conflicts which are encountered on the Nagpal property, 19101 Via Tesoro Court, Saratoga. Findings There are 48 trees over 10 inch diameter on this property, 25 Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia), 11 Blue Oaks (Quercus douglasii), 4 Valley Oaks (Quercus lobata), 7 Monterey Pines ( Pinus radiata), and 1 Cork Oak (Quercus suber). Tree calipers range between 11 inches and 39.4 inches. The most significant trees on the site are Coast Live Oak trees #10, 11, 38 and 48 and Valley Oak #13. These trees all have trunk diameters larger than 30 inches. There is an existing house on the site, more or less in the middle of the property, which affects these trees very little. Effects of Planned Construction on Trees The lot is to be divided into two parts, lot 1 and lot 2. This will obviously require construction in each lot much closer to the trees with greater impact than the existing house creates. This impact will be the greatest in lot #2 where a row of trees (mostly Monterey Pines), #39 through #47 form a dense line more or less across the center of the lot from north to south. Since all of those trees are crowded together, damaging each other's canopies, the loss of those trees will not be as significant as if they were individual, well spaced specimens. I see no way that a house can be built on that lot with the 20 foot setbacks without impacting several trees. Since trees #40 through #42 and #44 through #47 are Monterey Pines, however, I see no great loss in the removal of those trees if that becomes necessary. K AN ANALYSIS OF THE TREES AT THE NAGPAL PROPERTY 19101 VIA TESORO COURT SARATOGA On the other hand, protection of trees #1, 2, 38 and 48 are critical since those are very large, well formed specimens. In lot #1 the most important tree that would be impacted is tree #10, a 65 foot spread Coast Live Oak with a 39.4 inch trunk diameter. It may be necessary to remove tree #30, a Blue Oak in marginal condition in order to arrange access to the construction area. I suggest that the following steps be taken to preserve trees at this preliminary stage of development. 1. The most important trees on each lot should be fenced before any demolition or construction equipment is seen on site. Close attention to the fencing on the enclosed plan should provide instruction for contractors in that respect. Those fences must be installed before any equipment, including that used in rough grading or demolition, is allowed on site. As example, no demolition equipment shall be allowed between the existing house and trees #5, 8 or 10. All demolition of that side of the house must be done from the inside of the house. 2. A more intensive tree evaluation must be done once footprints of proposed buildings are prepared for the site. 3. All trenching for utilities or any other purpose, including water lines, must be shown on the plans and must be planned to avoid travel beneath the canopy of any trees. As an example, area drains must not travel beneath the canopy of trees which will be retained. As a preliminary step, I have calculated the values of the best trees which would most likely be affected by demolition procedures or grading. Once footprints for specific building plans are ready other trees could be valued according to the circumstances. 3 AN ANALYSIS OF THE TREES AT THE NAGPAL PROPERTY 19101 VIA TESORO COURT SARATOGA This includes trees #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 31, 38 and 48. Total value of those trees is $150,008. $84,781 of that value is on lot #2, and $65,227 of that value is on lot #1. I repeat that this places the value only on the largest specimens which are the most likely to be impacted by the demolition of the existing house and rough grading. These figures are conspicuously greater than those seen in most of our reports but that is because there are many exceptionally fine specimens on these properties which are of very large size. This implies that protection measures are even more critical than on most projects and for that reason, a 20% bond we request in many projects seems appropriate. That is $30,002. Respectfully submitted, Barrie D. Coate BDC:la Enclosures: Charts Map Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. i BARRIE D. COATE AND ASSOCIATES An Analysis of*Trees At The Nag Pal Property Saratoga Date: 4/20/96 To: Members o%f the Saratoga City Council Re: 19101 Via Tesoro Court Saratoga, CA 95070 Proposed Subdivision This is to note we support the proposed subdivision at the address noted above. i' ;73/-