HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-1996 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA% SARATOGA GCITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2"-NN 1 AGENDA ITE
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
DEPT. HEAD
SUBJECT: Resolution prohibiting parking on portions of Titus
Avenue
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution.
Report Summary:
The attached Motor Vehicle Resolution, if adopted, would impose
parking restrictions along the west side of Titus Avenue in the
immediate vicinity of the Christa McAuliffe Elementary School.
The reason for the request is to maintain adequate visibility for
motorists entering and exiting the school parking lot. Staff has
reviewed the request with a representative from the Sheriff's
Department and believes the request has merit. Consequently,
staff recommends that the Council adopt the Resolution to
officially sanction the parking restrictions.
Fiscal Impacts:
The estimated cost to paint the red curbs and install the
necessary signage is $250 which would be funded from Activity 33
(Traffic Control) in the adopted budget.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The Resolution would not be adopted and the School District's
request would be denied.
Follow Up Actions:
The necessary curb painting and signs will be installed.
Attachments:
1. Motor Vehicle Resolution.
2. Letter from Cupertino Union School District with vicinity map.
June 17, 1996
Superintendent Patricia A. Lamson
Board of Education Debbie Byron
Barry Chang
Sandra L. James
Emily Lee Kelley
Cupertino Union School District Roberta Pabst
10301 Vista Drive • Cupertino, CA 95014 -2091 • (408) 252 -3000 • Fax (408) 255 -4450
Mr. Larry I. Perlin
Department of Public Works
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Perlin:
I would like to request consideration for the installation of three red curb markings at Christa
McAuliffe Elementary School. The locations for the red curbs are indicated on the attached
construction site map of the school. The purpose for this request is to increase the visibility for
drivers leaving the school parking lot.
I look forward to your response regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Jerd Ferraiuolo, Director
Facility Modernization
JF;dp
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Nerheed Pour Um$
Temporary Modulnrs
Phasing Plan
®Phase Ii Selective Demolition of Entire School.
Completion of 10 Classrooms (Intr L extr),
Staff Rm (Intr L extr), restroons and Site E14ctrlcai
as Indicated In the Project Bid Schedule.
6/17/96 - 8/23/96
Phase 2. Completion of oil other Work.
6/17/96 - 1/31/97 to
Staging Plan
Contractor's Trallm
and Lay Dorn Areas
:)m
j///////////////� ME= Restrooms
Q�
Q
U)
McAuliffe Elementary School '
0 b 20 40 60
12211 Titus Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 "
a
s
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-�p (� AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 4, 1996 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. FINANCE
SUBJECT: AWARD OF PURCHASE OF COMPUTERS UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTRACT
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Move to declare Dell Computer Corporation to be the lowest
responsible supplier for the goods.
2. Move to award purchase to Dell Computer Corporation for the
computers in the amount of $31,708.56 under government contract
#CMAS3 -94 -70 -0012.
Report Summary: The Technology Master Plan replacement schedule
calls for upgrading the desk top computer inventory to Pentium
based units. The City has thirty -one (31) existing 286 and 386 PCs
that lack sufficient speed, memory and disk space to support a
Windows environment or run most applications. All eleven (11) 286
PCs, and most of the twenty (20) 386 machines, are well beyond
their estimated useful lives and can no longer be considered
reliable. The Plan replaces roughly half of the computers this
year and the remainder next year.
After discussing the acquisition with the City's technology
consultants, staff solicited quotes from qualified vendors in
accordance with Article 2 -45, Purchasing System, of the Municipal
Code. A summarization of the quotes follows:
Dell (Government Contract) $31,708.56
Ameridata (State Computer Store) $35,067.00
ComputerLand $35,673.87
ComputerWare $50,685.60
Staff recommends awarding the purchase to Dell under the Government
Joint Purchase Contract. Both staff and the City's technology
consultants are confident that Dell's products will perform well in
our environment. This recommendation is further supported by the
fact that Dell consistently ranks in the top 5 manufactures as
determined by PC Magazine and is in wide use at other
municipalities who have implemented systems similar to the one
planned here. Finally, this contract offers a substantial discount
and the vendor pays freight.
Fiscal Impacts: $31,708.56 for the computers. Funding for the
purchase has been approved by Council in the 1996/97 Budget for
Program 8085 - Management Information Systems.
Follow Up Actions: Execute order with Dell and coordinate
installation with City's computer consultant.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Technology
Master Plan can not be implemented.
c: \execsumm \exsm0828.96
BB /2B/96 15:54:54
DELLFAX 1 -5 -> 488 741 1132 DELL COMPUTER CORP Page 082
DIOLL QUOTATION
MR THOMAS PHIL August 28 1996
STATE /CITY /COUNTY SALES
P 0 BOX 200072
AUSTIN, TX 78720
SKU #
QTY
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
PRICE
EXTENDED
PRICE
I
220 -1446
1
Dell 5133 /GXM, Medium Desktop,
2,441.00
2,441.00
With 2MB Video Memory,
Integrated 3COM 1OBase -T,
Integrated Audio
310 -0019
1
Microsoft System Mouse
310 -1234
1
WIN95 Spacesaver Quiet Key,
104 Key Keyboard, Factory
Installed
311 -0002
1
16MB RAM, 2 SIMMS, EDO
311 -0061
1
256K Pipeline Burst Cache_Car4
313 -0044
1
U.S.Robotics V.34 Sportster
28.8 Data /Fax Modem
For Windows 95
Factory Installed
313 -0078
1
8X IDE CD -ROM Drive,
Factory Installed
320 -3524
1
Ultrascan 15TX Trinitron Color
Monitor, Model# D1526TX -HS,
13.7" Viewable Image Size
340 -1652
1
1.44MB Floppy Drive
340 -5729
1
1GB EIDE Hard Drive
420 -5024
1
Windows NT Workstation 3.51,
.CD Documentation
900 -9010
1
3 Year Limited Warranty Upgrd;
.00
.00
Year 1 NBD On -Site,
Years 2 & 3 Upgrade to NBD
_ - -""
For your convenience, we have listed your sales representative,
your quote number and your customer number which will provide
you with faster service when you are ready to place your order.
Sales Representative:
NICHOLE GRIMMETT
Prices and tax rates are subject to change. Quote #: 8832862 Customer # • 2049270
Business Leasing Program is provided by Leasing Group Inc.;Leasing Fee -$35
DELL MARKETING LP.. 2214 WEST BRAKER LN, BLDG 3 AUSTIN,TX 78758
(800)727 -1100 (TEL) (800) 365 -5329 (FAX) JWV_c
88/28/96 15:55 :28 DELLFAX 1 -5 -> 488 741 1132 DELL COMPUTER CORP Page 803
�LL QUOTATION
MR THOMAS PHIL
STATE /CITY /COUNTY SALES
P 0 BOX 200072
AUSTIN, TX 78720
August 28 1996
SKU # QTY DESCRIPTION UNIT EXTENDED
PRICE I PRICE
365 -1234
412 -0035
* * * * * * **
On -Site*
1 ReadyWare Installation Fee
per System
1 MS Office Pro 7.0 for Win95 /NT
CD & Manual, Bookshelf,
US English, Factory Installed
on Dell Optiplex Systems
0 CMAS # 3 -94 -70 -0012
This quote is subject to the terms of
the agreement signed by you and Dell, or
absent such agreement, is subject to the
applicable Dell standard terms of sale.
SUB TOTAL 2,441.00
TAX 201.38
SHIPPING & HANDLING .00
OTHER .00
Thank you for calling Dell TOTAL $2,642.38
X IZ ,m1, 1y
For your convenience, we have listed your sales representative, Sales Representative:
your quote number and your customer number which will provide NICHOLE GRIMMETT
you with faster service when you are ready to place your order.
Prices and tax rates are subject to change. Quote #: 8832862
Business Leasing Program is provided by Leasing Group Inc.;Leasing Fee -$35 Customer #: 2049270
DP,LL MARKETING L.P.. 2214 WEST BRAKER LN, BLDG 3 AUSTIN,TX 78758
(800)727 -1100 (TEL) (800) 365 -5329 (FAX) 1WV-c
F
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 9, -7 (D AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 4, 1996 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Award of construction contract for re- siding and painting
the Warner Hutton House.
Recommended Motion (s):
1. Move to declare Louis Leto Construction to be the lowest
responsible bidder for the work.
2. Move to award a construction contract to Louis Leto
Construction in the amount of $10,346.
3. Move to authorize staff to issue change orders up to an amount
of $2,000.
Report Summary: In 1992 when the Warner Hutton House was moved
from the Highway 85 corridor to the Civic Center complex, the
exterior of the house was painted by the Saratoga Rotary Club.
Since then, the paint has started to chip and peel on the south
side of the building. This is the side of the house that is
exposed to direct sunlight and as the paint has peeled, it has
exposed the old redwood siding underneath. The siding has severe
dry rot around the entrance doorway and the office windows and
staff has determined that the complete south side siding needs to
be replaced. Staff therefore requested bids from local contractors
utilizing the informal bidding procedures contained in Article 12-
15 of the City Code to:
1. Remove and replace all the exterior siding on the south
side (approximately 1,000 sq ft) of the house.
2. Complete preparation of the house before painting to
include caulking in all wood cracks and joints.
3. Prime all new redwood siding.
4. Apply one coat of semi -gloss paint to match existing
colors of the house.
Two contractors responded to the City's solicitation for bids as
follows:
1. Louis Leto Construction $10,346
2. Saratoga Builders $12,995
Louis Leto Construction of Saratoga, the low bidder, is the same
contractor who reinforced the roof and installed the gazebo and
arbor structures' at the Warner Hutton House. Staff is satisfied
with the past performance of this contractor and feels the amount
of the bid is a fair price for the contemplated scope of work.
Consequently, staff recommends declaring Louis Leto Construction
to be the lowest responsible bidder for the work and awarding a
standard construction contract to this firm in the amount of their
bid, $10,346. Further, it is recommended that Council authorize
staff to issue up to $2,000 in change orders to the contract to
cover any unforeseen circumstances which may arise during the
course of the work.
Assuming the Council concurs with the above recommendations, the
contractor has indicated that work could begin in September.
Fiscal Impacts: Sufficient funds to cover the contract and
recommended change order amounts exist in the FY96/97 budget in
Activity 8084 (Facility Maintenance), in Account 4530 (Repair
Services).
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The low bid
would not be accepted and the work would not be performed. Council
can direct staff to re -bid the work, however staff does not expect
that lower bids would be obtained due to the lack of interest shown
by contractors to the initial bid solicitation.
Follow -up Actions: A standard construction contract will be issued
and the contractor will be authorized to proceed.
Attachments:
1. Bid Proposals.
WARNER HUTTON HOUSE RE- SIDING PROJECT
Scope of Work
1. Remove all siding on left side of two story portion of house
(approximately 1,000 sq. st.)
2. Insulate walls with R13 insulation.
3. Install new lx redwood siding to match existing.
4. Paint exterior of home:
1) Power wash entire house.
2) Caulk -in wood cracks, joints etc. with caulking material
(no caulking in horizontal seams of redwood siding
boards.
3) Pre -prime all new redwood.
4) Wash all gutters and down spouts with vinegar and water
solution.
5) Scrape off all chipping paint, sand to feather edges and
spot prime bare wood.
6) Completely mask off all windows, cover cement walkways.
7) Apply one coat semi -gloss paint to match existing colors
to siding, doors, wood trim, eves and gutters.
8) Paint front and rear porches.
la
PROPOSAL & ACCEPTANCE
L L 8820
z
P o, �s �x o� :
Samoa 4-1. a a J f�. 3'D 7 a
. I:
L J
NAME 4u 5 G,
ADDRESS /.J % % / J e
NAME W Q ✓ h e
ADDRESS
CITY 3a r 6 -1-u 4-A- STATE Z4 ZIP 9"+` O 70 CITY
TELEPHONE _ F6 7- 3 y 3 :P' - ? e/-7,- 1 TELEPHONE
STATE
ZIP
c S, /s' y i h c/
All
/� 1. � � � ►z. �O cs w � r Gtr .�- s' n, � '� a� / %� / H y Z� �
' � C
4
r "T`u r3�`7 z
'. ir,. .x.s•1� ...,t i ..:aa W. ,..S:u,..'�. � k'aratJ � u �..#. L
a x'5....4 �Q�
;.b
- a9YSu�1
.,z S
aCceptance of ropo0
MATERIAL AND LABOR A$ REQUIRED INACCORD`ANCE
SPECIFICATIONS. .;, ws �•y`
Y J +� � THE: ABOVE PRICES- SPECIFICATIONS''AND CONDITIONS ARE SATISFAC-
SUrH I / TORY AND ARE HEREBY ACCEPTED. YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO COMPLETE
SUM OF�Gy GO.A,S% 'T%ti�.tt it,,�,��,tDOLLARS $/D � G bu
THIS
PAYMENT TO BE CONTRACT AS SPECIFIED PAYMENT WILL BE MADE AS OUTLINEC
-
MADE'AS FOLLOWS /0 f!�7 `j Q d-. l e 4 S TO THE LE
All material is guar teed to Ife as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike SIGNATURt OR COMPANY
manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications
involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra
charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or
delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. Our
_jworkers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
NOTE: THIS PROPOSAL MAY BE WITHDRAWN BY US IF NOT ACCEPTED WITHIN DAYS.
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE
REar�M 4RC460 •
...... V, r1 Qon� inlorl D� nor -._.:
n
PROPOSAL
Warner.Doc Date: July 24, 1996
Proposal Submitted To: Job Location
City of Saratoga
Att: Robert L. Rizzo
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070 - - -- SAME - - --
Age of Home -
Phone # (408) 867 -3438 ext 247
We hereby submit specifications and estimate for a the repair of the Warner Hutton home as follows:
SCOPE OF WORK
1. REMOVE ALL SIDING ON LEFT SIDE OF TWO STORY PORTION OF HOME
( APPROXIMATELY 1,000 SQ. FT.).
2. INSULATE WALLS WITH R13 INSULATION.
3. INSTALL NEW 1X REDWOOD SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING (IF POSSIBLE).
4. PAINT EXTERIOR OF HOME (SEE ATTACHED BIDS).
NOTE: THE ABOVE REPAIRS DO NOT GUARANTEE THE STOPPAGE OF LEAKS.
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
Page - 1 of 4
SARATOGA BUILDERS / CITY OF SARATOGA
We Propose hereby to furnish material and labor - complete in accordance with the stated specifications,
for the sum of * * *$ 12,995.00 * **
THE SUM * *12,995 ** DOLLARS AND * *00 ** CENTS
Payments to be made as follows: SEE `SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS'
Allowances to be: PAINTING - $ 2,860.00 (INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSAL)
Note 1. Asbestos Information:
Was your home built prior to 1979 "
Do you know of any asbestos within your home ?
If yes - explain
Note 2. This proposal does not include any asbestos inspections, handling, removal or disposal of any
kind. This will be charged as an ADW (Additional Work Authorization).
Note 3. Any ideas or discussions that you may have had with the representative from Saratoga Builders
will NOT be included in the scope of work to be done unless specifically mentioned in this
proposal. PLEASE CHECK EACH ITEM OVER CAREFULLY TO MAKE SURE ALL
WORK YOU REQUESTED IS INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSAL.
Note 4. ALL WORK IS WARRANTEED UNLESS SPECIFIED FOR ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF
COMPLETION. ANY PROBLEMS MUST BE REPORTED TO US WITHIN THAT YEAR.
NOT INCLUDED IN THIS WARRANTY IS NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR OF PRODUCTS
AND /OR MATERIALS OR ANY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED.
All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner
according to standard. practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra
costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the
estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents, or delays beyond our control. Owner to
carry all necessary insurance's. Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance.
Saratoga Builders
Liz
Owner
Note: This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within -10- days.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL - The prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are
hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payments will be made as outlined in
this proposal.
NOTE: YOU MAY CANCEL THIS TRANSACTION, WITHOUT ANY PENALTY OR
OBLIGATION, WITHIN THREE (3) BUSINESS DAYS FROM THE DAY YOU SIGN THIS
PROPOSAL (SEE 'NOTICE OF CANCELLATION').
Signature
Date of Acceptance:
Signature
Page - 2 of 4
I
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
>- S
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Sunland Park Landscape Improvements - 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 Sunland Park Landscape Improvements (Quito Road
Landscaping) has been completed by the City's contractor, Lone Star
Landscape,Inc., and inspected by Public Works staff. The final
construction contract amount was $72,912, which is 2.3% above the
awarded contract amount of $71,269. The increased costs were due
to extra mulch material placed over the landscape area, and some
moving around of plant material and irrigation components to better
suit the site.
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 Activity No. 39
(LLA -1) , Account No. 4510 (Contract Services) to cover the final
cost of the construction contract.
r
Follow Up Actions:
Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction
contract and release the contract sureties and retention thirty
days thereafter.
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: Sunland Park Landscape Improvements
CONTRACTOR: Lone Star Landscaping, Inc.
CONTRACT DATE: 11/01/95
CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 09/01/96
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $71,269.00
CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT: $1,643.00
FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $72,912.00
PERCENT +/- FROM ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: +2.30
�k
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 4th day of September,
1996.
Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: November 1, 1995
Contractor's Name: Lone Star Landscape, Inc.
Contractor's Address: 960 Taylor Street, P.O. Box 1028, Alviso, CA
95002
Description of Work: Sunland Park Landscape Improvements
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
Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing
Completion and knows the contents therec
true of his own knowledge, except as to
therein stated on information or belief,
that he believes to be true.
officer of the City of
Notice of Acceptance of
f ; and that the same is
those matters which are
and as to those matters
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
ATTEST:
Harry R. Peacock, City Clerk
Gov. Code 40814
CITY OF SARATOGA
Larry I. Perlin
Director of Public Works
Jr
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 7--7 6 5 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEF T. HEAD:
SUBJECT: 1995 Pavement Management Program - 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 1995 Pavement Management Program has been completed
by the City's contractor, Granite Rock Company (Pavex), and
inspected by Public Works staff. The final construction contract
amount was $227,629.73, which is 12.1% below the awarded contract
amount of $258,830.53. The contract savings were due to lower than
estimated final pay quantities for various contract items,
primarily asphalt tonnage, and a deduction in the contract amount
to cover corrective work performed by the City's Street Maintenance
Program contractor.
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 Activity No. 31
(Street Maintenance) , Account No. 4510 (Contract Services) to cover
the final cost of the construction contract.
Follow Up Actions:
Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction
contract and release the contract sureties and retention thirty
days thereafter.
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: 1995 Pavement Management Program
CONTRACTOR: Granite Rock Company
CONTRACT DATE: 10/04/95
CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 10/10/96
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $258,830.53
CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT: ($31,200.80)
FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $227,629.73
PERCENT +/- FROM ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: -12.1%
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 4th day of September,
1996.
Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: October 10, 1995
Contractor's Name: Granite Rock Company
Contractor's Address: P.O. Box 50001, Watsonville, CA 95077
Description of Work: 1995 Pavement Management Program
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
Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing
Completion and knows the contents therec
true of his own knowledge, except as to
therein stated on information or belief,
that he believes to be true.
officer of the City of
Notice of Acceptance of
f ; and that the same is
those matters which are
and as to those matters
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
ATTEST: Director of Public Works
Harry R. Peacock, City Clerk
Gov. Code 40814
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. .2-;-1 0, AGENDA ITEM V 4
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: 1995 Street Maintenance Program - 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 1995 Street Maintenance Program has been completed
by the City's contractor, California Pavement Maintenance Co.,
Inc., and inspected by Public Works staff. The final construction
contract amount was $156,750.02, which is 24.4% above the awarded
contract amount of $125,975.18. The increased cost was due to
additional street preparation and repair work resulting from the
deferral of the work from last fall to this summer, and extra work
authorized to correct deficiencies in the 1995 Pavement Management
Program contract work.
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 Activity No. 31
(Street Maintenance) , Account No. 4510 (Contract Services) to cover
the final cost of the construction contract.
Follow Up Actions:
Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction
contract and release the contract sureties and retention thirty
days thereafter.
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.
J
CONTRACT SUMMARY
PROJECT: 1995 Street Maintenance Program
CONTRACTOR: California Pavement Maintenance Company, Inc.
CONTRACT DATE: 10/04/95
CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 6/30/96
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $125,975.18
CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT: $30,774.84
FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $156,750.02
PERCENT +/- FROM ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT:
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 4th day of September,
1996.
Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: October 4, 1995
Contractor's Name: California Pavement Maintenance Co., Inc.
Contractor's Address: 9390 Elder Creek Rd., Sacramento, CA 95829
Description of Work: 1995 Street Maintenance Program
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
Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing
Completion and knows the contents therec
true of his own knowledge, except as to
therein stated on information or belief,
that he believes to be true.
officer of the City of
Notice of Acceptance of
f; and that the same is
those matters which are
and as to those matters
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
M 1A
ATTEST:
Harry R. Peacock, City Clerk
Gov. Code 40814
Larry I. Perlin
Director of Public Works
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2- o3
MEETING DATE: September 4, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
AGENDA ITEM 614
lopment
SUBJECT: DR -96 -021 - Basu; 21777 Vintage Lane
Appeal of Planning Commission approval of a Design Review request
to construct a new two -story residence with a maximum height of 26
ft. on a vacant hillside parcel. The appellant is Jalil Saffarian
who owns the adjacent parcel to the east.
Recommended Motion:
Deny the appellant's request and uphold the Planning Commission's
approval of the Design Review application.
Project Description and Background:
The applicant is seeking approval to construct a new 5,528 sq. ft.
two -story residence with a detached garage on a vacant, hillside
parcel. The subject property has a net site area of 1. 57 acres and
is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district.
The site is characterized by moderately steep, south -east facing
hillside topography and contains many ordinance protected oak trees
and native grasses.
During the geotechnical review for this project, several fault
traces were discovered on the property through the originally
proposed building site. Based on the recommendations of the
geologic and geotechnical consultants, a soil stability setback
line was established in order to ensure that all habitable
structures would be located an appropriate distance from the fault
traces. Consequently, the applicants, Dipak and Radha Basu, were
required to redesign the proposed home in a new location. The
residence was relocated further to the southeast and is now
proposed at a lower pad elevation than the originally submitted
plan. Additionally, the garage was detached from the main
residence in order to comply with the established soil stability
setbacks for habitable structures. The current design has received
geotechnical clearance from the City's Geotechnical Consultant.
Summary of Planning Commission Action:
The application was heard by the Planning Commission on July 24,
1996. Staff's review of the project concluded that the Design
Review findings could be made and staff recommended approval of the
project with the conditions as listed in the Resolution. The
attached staff report includes the analysis and findings supporting
this recommendation. As the attached minutes reflect, opposition
to the proposal was expressed at the July 24 public hearing. The
adjacent property owner to the north, Marie Gaspar, felt that the
proposed home should be moved further to the south in order to
preserve her existing views, while the adjacent property owner to
the east, Julil Saffarian, felt that the home should be relocated
further to the north in order to- reduce the privacy impacts to his
property. After reviewing the neighborhood concerns, the Planning
Commission approved the project, as proposed, by a vote of 5 -0,
with Commissioners Patrick and Siegfried absent.
Appeal:
The appellant, Jalil Saffarian, owns the adjacent parcel to the
southeast which is currently vacant. Mr. Saffarian has stated in
his grounds for appeal that he feels that the proposed home should
be relocated in order to increase tree preservation and to decrease
adverse impacts on the views and privacy of the neighboring
properties. He has also expressed concern regarding the height of
the proposed residence and its effect on the existing ridge.
Tree Preservation: Based on the geologic constraints of the
subject property and the location of the existing trees, some tree
removal will have to occur in order to develop this property. The
conditions of approval require that extensive landscaping be
installed, including trees of an equivalent replacement value to
those which have been approved for removal. The appellant objects
specifically to the removal of tree #26. The City Arborist has
recommended that this tree be removed based on its poor condition.
The City Arborist suspects that the tree has root collar disease
and has indicated that the tree is very susceptible to further limb
failure. Two large branches have already failed. Although the
City Arborist has recommended the removal of tree #26, it is not in
conflict with construction and staff is not requiring that the tree
be removed.
Height: The City Code defines a minor ridge as a ridge that is 50
ft. or more above two points 150 ft. distant from the top of the
ridge on either side. According to this definition, the closest
adjacent minor ridge is located to the west of Pierce Road and does
not place any further height restrictions on the subject property.
As proposed, the 26 ft. maximum height is consistent with City Code
requirements.
Alternative Location: The appellant has suggested relocating the
house further to the north in order to increase tree preservation
and decrease privacy impacts. Unfortunately, several trees would
still need to be removed in order to accommodate the grading
necessary to construct the residence, as well as the required
driveway and turn around. Additionally, moving the house further
up the hill may increase the impacts of the proposed home on
existing views and privacy.
Recommendation:
At the July 24, 1996 public hearing, the Planning Commission gave
careful consideration to the proposed project. Prior to the
meeting date, they visited the Basu property, as well as the
Saffarian property and the upslope Gaspar property, to assess the
existing site conditions and the potential for impacts on
surrounding neighbors. Ultimately, they found that the necessary
Design Review findings could be made to approve the application
with the conditions as listed in the approved Resolution. Based on
this review, staff recommends that the Planning Commission decision
be upheld and that the appeal be denied.
Public Notice:
A public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 foot
radius of the subject parcel and published in the Saratoga News.
Follow Up Actions:
A Resolution will be prepared reflecting the City Council's action
which will be placed on the agenda of the next regular City Council
meeting.
Attachments:
1. Appeal letter
2. Planning Commission minutes dated July 24, 1996
3. Resolution DR -96 -021
4. Staff Report dated July 24, 1996 (with attachments)
5. Additional Correspondence received
Jalil Saffarian
21519 Saratoga Heights Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 741 -8624
City of Saratoga
City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Grounds for appeal of the July 24, 1996 Planning Commission approval of the Basu
residence.
Members of the City Council:
We are appealing the Planning Commission's approval of the Basu residence at
21777 Vintage Lane. As an adjacent parcel owner, we did not receive proper notice in
accordance with the City of Saratoga's guidelines. Our notice was mailed to Lot D, a
vacant parcel, as opposed to our mailing address at 21519 Saratoga Heights Drive. We
learned of the Basu proposal only two days prior to the July 24, 1996 Planning
Commission hearing, an inadequate amount of time to research and present the following
grounds for this appeal:
First, the approved building site is located in a position that is inconsistent with the
city of Saratoga ordinance Article 15- 13.010(a)(b)(c) (see exhibit A). If the Basu's were
to move the structure north up the hill, and reposition as shown in exhibit D (attatched),
ordinance trees #11 -16, and 18 could be preserved.
This proposal would be compatible with the City's 94 foot rear setback
requirement (indicated in exhibit D). The closest point of the home to the rear property
line is 102 feet, this distance would be preserved. The west side of the house has a a
substantial amount of room for northward repositioning which would preserve trees while
keeping within the City of Saratoga's 94 foot rear setback limit. The area in question
currently consists of vineyards, which the Basu's propose to preserve. We request that the
trees to the front of the home be given priority of preservation over the vineyards to the
rear of the home. The proposed repositioning (see exhibit D) would eliminate the need for
massive tree removal as called for in the pending plans.
The other issue in regards to the location of the structure is the unnecessary
infringement on our views and privacy from Lot D, the adjacent parcel to the east of the
Basu's Lot. This is inconsistent with the City of Saratoga ordinance Article 15-
45.080(a)(b) (see exhibit B). The alternate placement we propose would move the home
further from Lot D, this would reduce the interference with our privacy, especially with
the preservation of trees #11-16 and 18.
Second, we are appealing the height of the structure. The pending plans call for a
26 foot high structure, the maximum allowable by the City of Saratoga under 15-
13.100(c) (see exhibit Q. We ask the City to evaluate section 15- 13.100(b) (see exhibit
C), and consider the ridge that runs along the east side of the Basu's lot, bordering Lot D.
With the proposed removal of 14 trees as proposed, this minor ridge will be very sparse
and the height should be restricted under this section.
Also, we request a reduction of the structure's height pursuant to 15- 45.080(a)
(exhibit B), which says [the Planning Commission should not grant design review unless it
finds that the height, placement, and elevation of the proposed structure do not
unreasonably infringe on views and privacy of adjacent lots]. The height of the proposed
structure infringes on the views and privacy of our Lot D to the east and Marie Gaspar's
home to the north.
Finally, we are appealing the removal of tree #26, a 45 foot Valley Oak that is
positioned along the border of Lot D and the Basu's lot. The horticultural report indicates
this tree to be in poor to fair condition, but is expressly inconclusive (under specific trees,
page 16 of the report to the Planning Commission). Recommendation #2 in the
horticultural report states that the only reason this tree should be removed is to assure
reasonable safety (see page 17 of the report to the Planning Commission). Per the findings
on tree #26 (under specific trees, page 16 of the report to the Planning Commission), the
only reason this tree would jeopardize safety is a proposed walkway and picnic table area.
The burden of moving the proposed walkway and picnic table is outweighed by the benefit
to the community of preserving this tree.
We urge the councilmembers not to foresake a protected 45 foot Valley Oak for a
picnic table and walkway. Also, we would like you to consider the additional infringement
of privacy on Lot D with the proposed location of the picnic table along the border, and
the removal tree #26. If tree #26 is removed, the Basu's will have an open view into Lot D
from their family room and kitchen. It would be desireable for the Basu's to be able to
open their kitchen and family room views.as.they intend, but it would be at the cost of our
property rights of privacy and view preservation as written in Article 15- 45.080(a)(b) (see
exhibit B).
Based on the aforementioned reasons, on behalf of my family and myself, we urge
the City Council to call for a repositioning of the Basu's dwelling and a rejection of the
proposed walkway and picnic table area. Doing so would conserve trees, privacy, and
views; it would also protect the neighboring property rights guaranteed by the city of
Saratoga under 15- 45.080(a).
Sincerely,
Jalil Saffarian
. . fKH161T 0-
Article 15 -13
HR: HII.LSIDE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sections:
15- 13.010
Purposes of Article.
15- 13.020
Definitions
15. 13.030
Permitted uses.
15- 13.040
Conditional uses.
15. 13.050
Development criteria.
15- 13.060
Subdivision of sites.
15. 13.070
Site frontage, width and depth.
15- 13.080
Site coverage.
15- 13.090
Front yard, side yards and rear
yard
15- 13.100
Height of structures.
15- 13.110
Accessory uses and structures.
15- 13.120
Fences, walls and hedges.
15- 13.130
Signs.
15- 13.140
Off- street parking and loading
facilities
15- 13.150
Design review.
15- 13.I60
Storage of personal property
and materials.
15- 13.010 Purposes of Article.
In addition to the objectives set forth in Section 15-
05.020, the hillside residential district is included in the
Zoning Ordinance to achieve the following per:
(a) To maintain to the maximum degree feasible, the
natural environment and existing rural character of the
area to which the district is applied.
(b) To encourage development on gently sloping sites
having natural screening features in preference to develop
on steep, visually exposed sites.
(c) To implement the open space element of the
General Plan by ensuring maximum preservation of open
space, including major ridgelinm densely wooded areas,
and riparian vegetation.
(d) To prevent development that would be subject
to significant uncorrectable geotechnical or flood hazards.
(e) To implement the Northwestern Hillside Specific
Plan as adopted by the City on June 2,1981, for the area
included within the Specific Plan boundaries. (Ord. 71.113
§ 2 (part), 1992)
15- 13.020 Definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth in Article 15-06
of this Chapter, all of which are applicable to this Article,
the following definitions shall apply to certain terms used
herein:
15- 13.040
(a) City's geologic maps mesas the Ground Movement
Potential Maps, as adopted by the City in Section 16-
65.020 of this Code, including the geologic data and text
report to be utilized in conjunction therewith.
(b) Major ridge means a line connecting the points
of highest elevation at the top of and parallel to the long
axis of the lines of hills designated as major ridges as
generally shown on the map entitled "Major Ridges - HR
District" adopted as part of this Article.
(c) Minor ridge means a ridge other than a major
ridge that is fifty feet or more above two points one
hundred fifty feet distant from the top of the. ridge on
either side. (Ord. 71.113 12 (part), 1992)
15- 13.030 Permitted uses.
The following permitted uses shall be allowed in the
HR district:
(a) Single - family dwellings.
(b) Accessory structures and uses located on the same
site as a permitted use, including garages and carports,
garden sheds, greenhouses, shade structures, recreation
rooms. home hobby shops, cabanas, structures for housing
swimming pool equipment and one guest house.
(c) Raising of vegetables, field crops, fruit and nut
trees and horticultural specialties, and the processing of
such products as are so raised or grown on the premises.
(d) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with
the regulations prescribed in Article 15-40 of this Chapter.
(e) Stables and corrals or the keeping for private use
of not more than two horses on a site. The minimum net
site area shall be forty thousand square feet for one horse
and eighty thousand square feet for two horses, except
that in the equestrian zone only, a second horse may be
kept if the net site area is at least forty thousand square
feet. All horses shall be subject to the regulations and
license provisions set forth in Section 7- 20.220 of this
Code.
(f) Swimming pools used solely by persons resident
-on the site and their guests.
(g) The keeping for private use, of a reasonable number
of domestic dogs, cats and other small mammals, birds,
fish and small reptiles, subject to the regulations as set
forth in Article 7 -20 of this Code, and subject also to
the restrictions and standards prescribed in Section IS-
11.020(h) of this Chapter.
(h) Public parks, trails and other publicly owned open
spaces. (Ord. 7I.113 § 2 (part), 1992)
15- 13.040 Conditional uses.
The following conditional uses may be allowed in the
HR district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant
to Article 15 -55 or Article 15 -56 of this Chapter. The
297 (samwg. 5.95)
filed with the Planning Director on such form as he shall
prescribe. The application shall include the following
exhibits:
(1) Site plan showing property limes, easements and
dimensions, structure setbacks, building envelope, topogra-
phy, location of all trees over twelve inches in diameter
as measured two feet above grade. and areas of dense
vegetation and creeks.
(2) A statement of energy conserving features proposed
for the project. Such features may include, but are not
limited to, use of solar panels for domestic hot water or
space heating, passive solar building design, insulation
beyond that required under State law, insulated windows,
or solar shading devices. Upon request, the applicant shall
submit a solar shade study if determined necessary by the
Planning Director.
(3) Elevations of the proposed structures showing
exterior materials. roof materials and window treatment.
(4) Cross sections for all projects located on a hillside
lot, together with an aerial photograph of the site if re-
quested by the Planning Director.
(5) Engineered grading and drainage plans, including
cross sections if the structure is to be constructed on a
hillside lot.
(6) Floor plans that indicate total gross floor area,
determined in accordance with Section 15- 06.280 of this
Chapter.
(7) Roof plans.
(8) Landscape plans.
(9) Preliminary title report showing all parties having
any interest in the property and any easements, encum-
brances and restrictions which benefit or burden the proper-
ty.
(10) Such additional exhibits or information as may
be required by the Planning Director. All exhibits shall
be drawn to scale, dated and signed by the person preparing
the exhibit. Copies of all plans to be submitted shall consist
of two sets drawn on sheets eighteen inches by twenty-eight
inches in size and eleven reduced sets on sheets eleven
inches by seventeen inches in size.
(11) A geotechnical clearance as defined in Section
15- 06.325 of this Code, if required by the City Engineer.
(b) 'Ilse application shall be accompanied by the payment
of a processing fee, in such amount as established from
time to time by resolution of the City Council. (Amended
by Ord. 71 -106 $ 9, 1992)
15-45.080 - Design review tludigp
The Planning Qosttrty:siota shall not grant design review
approval unless it is able to make the following findings:
(a) Avoid ItSwea mnable i itaiermw with views and
pricey. The height, elevations and placement on the site
15- 45.090
of the proptuetl main or acoessory structure, whey con-
Wend with reference to: (i) the nature and location of
rmdential stntcttses an adjacent lots and within the nmgh-
borhoods; and (ii) cotrtmamtty viewdieds will avoid unrea-
sonable mtextemwe with views and privacy.
(b) Pte rwe natural handset The traanal landscape
will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing
structures to follow the natural contours of the site and
minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be
tr isimcmd and Will be in keeping with the general appear -
am oaf ng0tioring developed areas and undeveloped weal,
(c) Minimize perception of m=ssive. bulk- The
pnposed main oar acoasay struacnas in relation m stnrcnrrs
oa adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will mini-
mite the pet on of excessive bulk and will be integrated
into the natural environment.
(d) Compatible bulls and height. The proposed main
or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk
and height with 0) existing residential structures on adjacent
lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and
within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environ-
ment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and
air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the
ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy.
(e) Current grading and erosion control methods.
The proposed site development or grading plan Wcorporates
currett grading and erosion control standards used by the
City.
(f) Desks palm and techniques. The proposed main
or acc=ts structure will conform to each of the applicable
design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential
Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055.
(Amended by Ord. 71.99 $ 27, 1991)
1545.090 Expiration of review approval;
extension; tolling of time period.
(a) Design review approvals granted pursuant to this
Article shall expire twenty-four months front the date on
which the approval became effective, unless prior to such
expiration date a building permit is issued for the improve-
ments constituting the subject of the design review approval
and construction thereof is commenced and prosecuted
diligently toward completion. or a certificate of occupancy
is issued for such improvements.
(b) Design review approvals may be extended for a
period or periods of time not exceeding twelve months.
The application for extension shall be filed prior to the
expiration date, and shall be accompanied by the payment
of a fee in such amount as established from time to time
by resolution of the City Council. A public hearing shall
be conducted on the application for extension and notice
thereof shall be given in the same manner as prescribed
349 (snuoga 5 -95)
lot was created prior to April 25.1978. Any lot so exempt-
ed will not lose its exempt status if either of the following
events takes place subsequent to April 25, 1978:
(1) A portion of the lot is exchanged for a portion
of any adjoining lot, the result of which does not decrease
the original square footage of the lot; or
(2) The lot is enlarged by the addition of land from
any adjoining parcel. (Ord. 71.113 J 2 (pat), 1992)
15- 13.070 Site frontage, width and depth.
(a) The minimum site frontage, width and depth of
any lot in HR district shall be as follows:
Frontage Wtdtb Depth
80 feet 100 feet 150 feet
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)
of this Section:
(1) The minimum site frontage on a cul- de-sac turn-
around shall be sixty feet where seventy-five percent or
more of the frontage abuts the urrnaround.
(2) The frontage and width of an access corridor to
a flag lot shall be not less than twenty feet (Ord. 71.113
§ 2 (part), 1992)
15- 13.080 Site coverage.
The maximum site coverage on any lot in the HR
district shall be as followr.
(a) The maximnm coverage shall be twenty -five per-
cent, or fifteen thousand square feet. whichever is less.
(b) In determining the amount of impervious surface,
the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access
from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces
on the site, and any related turnaround area determined
to be necessary for safety purposes, shall be excluded.
(Ord. 71.113 § 2 (part), 1992)
15- 13.090 Front yard, side yards and rear
yard.
(a) 7be minimum yard requirement; for all lots within
the HR zoning district, with the exception of vacant lots
and lots created after May 15, 1992, are as follows:
(1) Front yard. The minimum front yard shall be
thirty feet
(2) Side yard. The minimum side yard shall be twenty
feet
(3) Rear yard. The minimum rear yard shall be fifty
feet in the case of a single -story structure and sixty feet
in the case of a multi-story structure.
(b) For vacant lots and logs eaeamd after May 15,1992.
the minimum yard requirements are as foUews:
301
15. 13.110
(1) Front yard. The minimum front yard shall be
thirty feet or twenty percent of the lot depth, whichever
is greater.
(2) Side yards The minimum side yard shall be twenty
feet in the case of an interior side yard and twenty -five
feet in the case of an exterior side yard, or ten percent
of the lot width, whichever is greater.
(3) Ras yard. The minimum near yard shall be fifty
feet in the case of a single -story structure and sixty feet
in the case of a multi -story structure, or twenty-five
percent of the lot depth, whichever is greater.
(c) For the puupose,of this Article, - vamnt lot" mesas
a parcel with no, existing single - family dwelling.
(d) Determination of yards for flag lots. On a flag
lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth,
the longer dimension may be considered the depth for
the purpose of measuring the front, side and near yards,
unless to do so would adversely affect the lot's normal
yard orientation in relation to adjacent lots. (Ord. 71.113
12 (part). 1992)
15- 13.100 Height of sea aemrets.
No structures shall exceed two stories nor shall any
soractu m exceed the fdlowmg heights:
(a) No structure shall extend to an elevation within
eight feet from the top of the nearest adjacent major ridge
that does not have dense ate cover.
(b) No sttucmte sbaU extend to an elevation more
than twelve fee above the oemw adjacent minor ridge
that does not have dense tree cover.
(c) A single-family dwelling not limited by subsection
(a) or (b) of this Section shall not exceed twenty-six feet
in height Any other type of main structure not limited
by subsection (a) or (b) of this Section shall not exceed
thirty feet in height
(d) An accessory structure not limited by subsection
(a) or (b) of this Section shall not exceed twelve feet in
height; provided, however the Planning Commission may -
approve an accessory structure extending up to fifteen
feet in height if the Commission finds that:
(1) The additional height is necessary in order to
eswilish architectural compatibility with the main structure
on the site; and
(2) The accessory structure will be compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood. (Ord. 71.113 § 2 (part),
1992)
15- 13.110 Accessory uses and sbuctnr e&
Accessory uses and structures shall comply with the
special rules as set forth in Section 15- 80.030 of this
Chapter. (Ord. 71.113 12 (part), 1992)
csw. ov W
IV. rn
'k a
ITIf; fwrrf•
w •n•1•rs e.,t rwlu.t •t n•u,l p
Tlr ttY Ifll• tiff
�
~
'
1 4. M••
Tlfi IIfY w On ZOO-
O
�
Qt
•to fi-ff� o
me
fw f0 pff•f l.,
•f. •ew ft— "na,as
NO w ff •nt
am ""Ems uftg
'w •nf•w .luny
• wdt•r• tf••p•eO e.
11161,,M rMn•.
t•
d1a"M1•Iq •at tr•• 1•a••I•w•
CIMT
M Aa•1 tl• of Tr••• 1
tTl. �•w rt rtT
�� ~6��
10
YrHe�•
•t•P•.d for:
Mrilo Clt
!swat
• flf/•11 rt••rlr 1
Jai fa•f�- 1f4.fN
1
���1AAs�w•• o►f•:� /f�N
.
sECT10N- Z -z
Ix tt
c�P•
04
hlb
/i.
- " i
s1
l :l
6-
:
1 •
I
240
i
is
i
• 1..11.... 11:•f (�.. .,
3
L • 6 0 E e...l.. �,,.
-- � • -eoll . I q•q
:f:"►••M•ir LANE
I�
I
C
' • wo
4
t
i
0
0
1 '
• Is• CIO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 24, 1996
PAGE - 16 -
8. DR -96 -021 - BASU; 21777 VINTAGE LANE; Request for Design Review approval
to construct a new 5,528 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant, hillside lot pursuant
to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 1.57 acres and is located
within the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report.
Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 10:36.p.m.
Walter Chapman, project designer, thanked staff for its assistance in the redesign following
being informed that trace faults exist on the property. He felt that efforts have been made
to minimize the impact to the oak grove of trees and to grading of the site, taking into
consideration the neighbors' concerns. He noted that shifting the home downhill would
require the removal of six additional trees. He addressed the pavilion architectural feature.
Bill Heiss, civil engineer, addressed the building envelop and indicated that he had no prior
knowledge of the faults. He also addressed the boundary lines of buildable area and the 30
foot public service easement. He further stated that the geologist did not believe that the
pool would create a safety concern.
Chairwoman Kaplan requested clarification regarding the proposed gate. Mr. Chapman
indicated that a gate is proposed to be installed at the driveway as the entire area has been
fenced in to contain a dog.
Evert VanDeven, 21615 Vintage Lane, President of the Saratoga Heights Homeowners
Association, stated that he was pleased that the proposed home would be consistent with
the .existing buildings. He was also pleased with the fact that the six trees are to be retained
for screening purposes. He stated that he did not have a problem with the proposed plans
for a single story home. He requested that the city engineer review the drainage plans as
there have been many landslides in the area.
Patrick Saffarian, 21519 Saratoga Heights Drive, indicated that he did not receive plans for
this proposal until Sunday because they were sent to the vacant lot D. He objected to the
location and the height of the structure. He felt there were some inconsistencies with the
geotechnical findings from previous reports. He requested that a second opinion be
obtained to verify the findings. He expressed concern that the hillside home would be
visible to every home in the neighborhood. He felt that the home would infringe on his
family's privacy, noting that his views would be obstructed. He requested that the height of
the home be reduced as a 26 foot height limitation seems to be excessive. He also
requested that the home be redesigned to reduce the height of the structure or that this item
be continued so that he could have adequate time to review the plans.
- Commissioner Asfour inquired about the discrepancies between the prior geotechical report
and this geotechnical report. Planner Walgren stated that the discrepancy could be as a
result of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. He also noted that at the time Mr. Heiss
submitted an application, it was not a city requirement that these properties receive
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 24, 1996
PAGE - 17 -
geotechnical clearances in advance of the public hearing. If permits were pursued, the
geotechnical information would have come up later in the process (building permit stage).
Commissioner Asfour noted that the applicant has an approved geotechnical report and that
the Commission would be willing to accept the report. He asked Mr. Saffarian if he would
be willing to fund the completion of a second geotechnical report? Mr. Saffarian responded
that his family would be willing to fund another geotechnical report.
James Saffarian, 21519 Saratoga Heights Drive, noted that lot 33 shows fault traces. He did '
not believe that the geologist reviewed every part of the lot to determine whether there
were other faults. He requested that this item be continued or that the Commission require
that the home be sited higher on the site to preserve the existing trees.
Marie Rose Gaspar, area resident for 46 years, stated that she did not have an opportunity
to review the plans. She requested that the Commission continue this item to allow her the
opportunity to complete her studies (i.e.,have her architect study the plans and to hire an
engineer to determine if a home other than what is being proposed can be built).
Commissioner Asfour asked staff if project plans are normally mailed with the public
notices? Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that plans are
not mailed to the adjacent property owners. However, the notices indicate that plans are
available in the Community Development Department for review.
John Aldrich, project landscape architect, informed the Commission that the project would
add 18 more trees and that the recommendation of the arborist would be followed.
Radha Basu, applicant, informed the Commission that she purchased the lot from Mrs.
Gaspar. She stated that it was a surprise to her to find that trace faults exist on the
property. She stated that this was the only location that the home could be sited. She
indicated her willingness to install additional landscaping to address Mrs. Gaspar's concerns.
Commissioner Asfour noted that Ms. Basu has stated that she would like to site the home
where it was original proposed. He asked if Ms. Basu would be willing to continue this item
to allow the completion of additional studies. Mr. Basu. responded that she would not
support a continuance as it would cause a delay in construction.
Mr. Chapman stated that further studies would not result in additional findings and that a
continuance would result in delay of construction due to weather conditions. He indicated
that screening is proposed above the vineyard area to provide the neighbors with privacy
and screening from the proposed home.
- COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING AT 11:11 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK
AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT).
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 24, 1996
PAGE - 18 -
Commissioner Murakami felt that the applicant was severely constrained as far as siting the
home. He stated that he did not object to the two story home. He felt that the trees that
had to be removed were addressed with the replacement policy. He indicated that he would
support the application.
Commissioner Asfour stated that he would have preferred a single story structure. He
indicated that he would accept the geotechnical report and support the application.
Commissioner Pierce stated that he visited the site and indicated that he would support the
application.
Commissioner Abshire indicate that he would support the request with mixed emotions. He
stated that he would have preferred to see a lower and smaller structure, but he noted that
City ordinance allows this design construction.
Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that the Commission visited the site and could not find any
reason not to approve the application.
COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
NO. DR -96 -035. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK
AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT.
9. DR -96 -032, SD- 1567.2 - YEN; 20988 BURNETT DRIVE; Request for Design Review
approval to construct a new 5,462 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant lot pursuant
to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application includes a request to modify a
condition of the subdivision approval which limited the allowable floor area to 4,800
sq. ft. The subject property is 1.27 acres and is governed by the standards of the R -1-
20,000 zoning district.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He recommended that this item be continued
to the August 14, 1996 to allow the applicant the opportunity to revise the plan to reduce
the mass of the home and the innateness of the structure. Should the Commission wish to
approve the request, staff would prepare resolutions of approval for its next meeting.
Should the applicant not be willing to modify the design, the Commission could deny the
request and staff would return with a resolution of denial.
Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 11:19 p.m.
David Pruitt, project designer, indicated that a design change has been completed to
mitigate staff's concerns. He furnished the Commission with reduced, revised elevation
plans for its review and identified the changes made to the plans. He noted that the
landscape plans have been revised to mitigate the neighbors' concerns. He stated that it
would be difficult to design a home that would not impact the neighbors. He indicated that
he would be willing to work with the neighbors to screen the property with the installation
of additional shrubs and trees. He felt that visibility from the front street can be mitigated.
He requested a decision this evening due to the applicant's time constraints.
RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -021
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Basu; 21777 Vintage Lane
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 5',528
sq. ft. two -story residence with a maximum height of 26 feet on a
vacant hillside parcel; and
WHEREAS, the Planning- Commission held a duly noticed Public
Hearing at which time all interested parties were. given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the necessary
findings could be made to support the height of the accessory
structure pursuant to Article 15- 13.100 of the City Code.; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support said application, and the following findings have been
determined:
-The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed
residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and
location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the
neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid
unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the
proposed residence will not create adverse privacy impacts for the
surrounding properties and will not unreasonably interfere with
existing views.
-The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by
designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and
minimizing-tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized
and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring
developed areas and undeveloped areas, in that the proposed
structure will follow the existing topographic contours and the
natural vegetation will be preserved as much as possible. Native
replacement trees will be planted in order to reestablish
vegetation which will be removed to accommodate construction.
-The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots,
and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of
excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment,
in that the proposed design is similar in scale, style, and size to
other homes in the area.
-The proposed residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and
height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots
and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same
File No. DR -96 -021; 21777 Vintage Lane
zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not
(i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties
nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to
.utilize solar energy, in that the maximum building height will not
exceed 26 feet, the residence is setback in compliance with the
minimum required setbacks, and the design is compatible with other
homes in the area.
-The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current
grading and erosion control standards used by the City:
-The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable
design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design
Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055.
-The additional height of the accessory structure will increase its
compatibility with the main residence and the accessory building
will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, DR -96 -021, application for Design
Review approval, be and the same is hereby granted subject to the
following conditions:
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on
Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference.
2.. Prior to submittal for Building and /or Grading Permits, the
following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in
order to issue a Zoning Clearance:
a. Four (4) sets of. complete construction plans
incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page.
b. Four (4) sets of engineered grading and drainage plans,
also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan
page.
C. All applicable requirements /conditions of the Resolution
(e.g. modifications to plans) shall be noted on the
plans.
3. All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated June 4,
1996 shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to:
a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site plan,
grading plan, and /or landscape plan shall be revised to
indicate the following:
File No. DR -96 -021; 21777 Vintage Lane
• Tree protective fencing as recommended by the
Arborist shall be shown on the site plan with a
note "to remain in place throughout construction."
• A note shall be included on the site plan stating
that no construction equipment or private vehicles
shall be parked or stored within the dripline of
any ordinance protected tree on the site.
• Trenching for utilities shall be shown on the
grading plan and shall be located outside of. the
driplines, as much as possible, of all trees which
will be preserved during construction.
• The landscape plan shall be revised to indicate
that the decomposed granite pathway will be located
a minimum of 10 feet outside of the dripline of
trees #5 and #6. A note shall be added to the plan
which indicates that any portion of the pathways
which are within the canopy of any ordinance
protected tree shall be installed on top of
existing grade without any excavation. Any
material used to retain the pathway must also be
installed on top of existing grade. Up to 6 inches
of fill soil may installed to hold the edges of
the decomposed granite or to restore grade but no
fill soil shall reach the root collar of.any tree.
• Native replacement trees equal in value to.$12,849
shall be incorporated into the landscape plan.
Trees which are successfully transplanted shall
count against this replacement value.
• A note shall be added to the landscape plan to
indicate that tree #11 shall be transplanted. Any
non- ordinance trees which are suitable for
transplanting should also be indicated.
• The applicant shall submit to the City, in a form
acceptable to the Planning Director, security in an
amount of $6,042 pursuant to the report and
recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee
the installation, replacement, maintenance, and /or
preservation of trees on the subject site. The
security will be released to the applicant once
construction is completed and a final inspection by
the City Arborist has been conducted and it is
determined that the protective procedures outlined
in the Arborist report and the above conditions
have been followed.
C. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits:
File No. DR -96 -021; 21777 Vintage Lane
• Tree protective fencing shall be installed and
inspected by City staff. Fences shall be of 5 ft.
tall chain link material installed on 2 in.
galvanized iron posts driven 2 ft. into the ground.
• Bark chips shall be placed inside the protective
fencing under the canopy of each tree. A 12 inch
area around the root collar of each tree shall be
left bare and dry.
• Tree #11, as identified by the City Arborist, shall
be transplanted under the supervision of an ISA
certified arborist.
d. Prior to Final Occupancy approval:'
• All replacement trees shall be planted and
irrigation installed.
• All required pruning, soil removal, mistletoe
removal, etc. shall be complete.
• All outstanding Arborist fees shall be paid.
4. Any future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath the
canopy of an ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with
the "Planting under Old Oaks" guidelines prepared by the City
Arborist. No irrigation or associated trenching shall
encroach into the driplines of any existing oak trees unless
approved by the City Arborist.
5. No ordinance size tree, other than trees #9 - #20, #22, and #26,
as indicated in the City Arborist's report, shall be removed
without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit.
6. The maximum height of the structure shall not exceed 26 feet
above the natural grade. The maximum height of the detached
garage shall not exceed 15 feet above the natural grade.
7. The maximum height of an exposed underfloor area shall not
exceed 5 feet above the existing grade level.
8. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds
five feet. In addition, no fence or wall shall exceed six
feet in height and no fence or retaining wall located within
any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height.
9. Fences and walls shall comply with the hillside district
fencing requirements contained in Section 15- 29.020 of the
City Code.
10. All exposed slopes shall be contour graded.
File No. DR -96 -021; 21777 Vintage Lane
11. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code
Class A prepared or built -up roofing.
12. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Saratoga
Code - Article 16 -60.
13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation
relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted
to the Fire District for approval.
14. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the garage.
15. All driveways shall have a 14 ft. minimum width plus 1 ft.
shoulders. Slopes from 15% to 17o shall be surfaced using a
4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from the
public street to the proposed dwelling. Driveway curves shall
have a minimum inside radius of 21 ft.
16. The width of the entrance gate shall not be less than 14 ft.
The gate shall be controlled by a remote digital transmitter.
.Details shall be shown on building plans.
17. Both the Project Engineering Geologist and Project
Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all
geotechnical siting and design aspects of the detailed site
development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site
drainage improvements, locations of structures, and design
parameters for foundations and driveway) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated. The
consultants shall verify the location of the fault setback and
confirm that the residential structure is located outside of
the setback zone.
The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the
consultants in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for
review and approval prior to issuance of building or grading
permits.
18. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical
Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed) , and approve all
geotechnical aspects of project construction. The inspections .
shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site
preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage
improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining
walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The
Project Engineering Geologist shall inspect excavations for
the driveway, garage, residence and retaining walls to confirm
that the residential structure is a minimum of 10 feet from
the nearest fault trace.
File No. DR -96 -021; 21777 Vintage Lane
The results of these inspections, geologic logs of subsurface
exposures and the as -built conditions of the project shall be
described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project
Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City
Engineer for review prior to finalization of the grading
permit.
19. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the applicant
shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City
Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project.
20. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the applicant shall
record a deed restriction in order to ensure that no habitable
structures are built to the west of the slope stability
setback line as recommended by the applicant's geologic and
.geotechnical consultants.
21. All building and construction related activities shall adhere
to New Development and Construction - Best Management
Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing
storm water pollution.
22. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or
held to be the liability of City in connection with City's
defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State
or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect
to the applicant's project.
23. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is
impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages..of $250.00 shall be payable to
this City per each..day of the violation.
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
File No. DR -96 -021; 21777 Vintage Lane
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, this 24th day of July, 1996 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami & Pierce
NOES: None
ABSENT: Patrick & Siegfried �A
- A
Chairperson, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planni g Commission
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: DR -96 -021; 21777 vintage Lane
Applicant /Owner: BASU
Staff Planner: Anne Dailey
Date: July 24, 1996
APN: 503 -72 -032
Director Approval: A �,) ,
21777 Vintage Lane
File No. DR -96 -021; 21777 Vintage Lane
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY•
Application filed:
03/15/96
Application complete:
07/02/96
Notice published:
07/10/96
Mailing completed:
07/11/96
Posting completed:
07/03/96
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,528 sq. ft.
two -story residence with a detached garage on a vacant, hillside
parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject
property is 1.57 acres and is located within the Hillside
Residential (HR) zoning district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Design Review request by adopting the attached
Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution DR -96 -021
3. Arborist Report dated June 4, 1996
4'. Plans, Exhibit "A"
File No. DR -96 -021; 21777 Vintage Lane
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: HR (Hillside Residential)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - Hillside Conservation
PARCEL SIZE: 1.57 Ac. (68,563 sq. ft.)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2706 SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 280
GRADING REQUIRED:
Cut: 1,840 cu. yds. Max. Depth: 10.5 ft.
Fill: 60 cu. yds. Max. Depth: 3 ft.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Taupe colored stucco smooth finish
exterior with complementary window and gutter trim and charcoal
grey concrete roofing tiles per the submitted material board.
LOT COVERAGE:
HEIGHT OF
MAIN STRUCTURE:
HEIGHT OF
DETACHED GARAGE:
SIZE OF
PROPOSAL
130 (9,201 sq. ft.)
26 ft.
15 ft.
STRUCTURE: First floor:
2,683 sq.
ft.
Second floor:
1,918 sq.
ft.
Pavilion:
92 sq.
ft.
Garage:
835 sq.
ft.
TOTAL:
5,528 sq.
ft.
SETBACKS: Front:
99 ft.
Rear:
102 ft.
Right Side:
65 ft.
Left Side:
28 ft.
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
CODE REQUIREMENT
ALLOWANCE
15,000 sq. ft.
26 ft.
15 ft.
5,532 sq.ft.
Front: 75 ft.
Rear: 94 ft.
Right Side: 22 ft.
Left Side: 22 ft.
Site Characteristics: The subject site is a vacant hillside parcel
located on the north side of Vintage Lane. The site is
characterized by moderately steep, south -east facing hillside
topography. Vegetation on the site consists of approximately 26
ordinance protected trees of the Coast Live Oak and Valley Oak
species. The site is covered with native grasses and contains
File No. DR -96 -021; 21777 Vintage Lane
several oak trees which are less than ordinance size. A vineyard
extends over a portion of the property from the adjacent parcel to
the north. The applicants are proposing to preserve this vineyard
area.
Geotechnical Review: During the geotechnical review of this
project, several fault traces were discovered across the center of
the property through the originally proposed building site. In
order to ensure that all habitable structures would be located an
appropriate distance from the discovered fault traces, a setback
line was recommended by the applicant's geologic and geotechnical
consultants. Based on the geotechnical constraints of the
property, the applicants were required to redesign the home in a
new location. The residence was relocated further to the northeast
and is now proposed at a lower pad elevation than the originally
submitted plan. Additionally, the garage was detached from the
main residence in order to comply with the established soil
stability setbacks for habitable structures. The current design
has received geotechnical clearance from the City's Geotechnical
Consultant.
Design Review Analysis: The applicants are proposing to construct
a 4,601 sq. ft. two -story residence with a maximum height of 26 ft.
An 835 sq. ft. detached three -car garage with a second story
pavilion consisting of 92 sq. ft. of enclosed area is also
proposed. The detached garage will be cut into the existing
hillside so that the maximum height of the structure, as measured
from the existing natural grade, does not exceed 15 ft. in height.
Planning Commission approval is required for an accessory structure
to exceed 12 ft. in height. The Planning Commission may allow an
accessory structure to reach a maximum height of 15 ft. if the
increased height is necessary to establish architectural
compatability with the main residence and the accessory structure
is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff feels that
the proposed garage design is compatible.with the design for the
main residence, as well as the existing homes in the neighborhood.
The main residence was designed to follow the existing contour
lines in order to minimize the amount of earthwork required for
construction. Additionally, the pad is proposed to be cut into the
hillside, which will help to reduce the structure's bulk and
minimize its maximum height. The proposed two -story residence is
compatible with other homes in the surrounding area. The design
features well articulated rooflines which visually reduce the
perception of bulk and mass. In addition, architectural details
and projections are utilized on all elevations to provide relief
and avoid blank wall expanses. The design of the home is
unobtrusive and is consistent with the style of other homes in the
neighborhood.
Grading: Approximately 60 cubic yards of fill and 1,840 cubic
yards of cut are proposed for the construction. Section 15- 13.050
File No. DR -96 -021; 21777 Vintage Lane
of the City Code limits combined cut and fill of any grading to
1,000 cubic yards unless the Planning Commission can find that
additional grading is necessary to:
1. Allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a
reasonable means of access to the building site; and
2. Preserve the natural land forms and vegetation; and
3. Promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural
terrain; and
4. Integrate an architectural design into the natural topography;
and
5. Reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from
surrounding areas.
6. No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat
visible pad surrounding the main residential structure.
Staff feels all of these findings can be supported due to the
constraints of the property. The majority of the cut is required
for the proposed driveway and yard areas. The only fill which is
proposed, 60 cubic yards, will be used to facilitate driveway
construction. The home is set into the hillside which will
increase the compatibility of the architectural design with the
existing topography. Additionally, the proposed yard area is
located behind the residence and does not appear to be excessive.
Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission support the
applicant's request to exceed the Code limitation for grading by
approximately 900 cubic yards.
Tree Preservation: The City Arborist has reviewed the site to
determine the effects of the proposed construction on the existing
trees. Thirteen trees of ordinance size will have to be removed in
order to accommodate the proposed construction. Additionally, the
Arborist has identified tree #26 as a safety hazard due to its poor
condition and has recommended its removal. Based on the geologic
constraints of the property, the applicants do not have much
flexibility with regards to the location of the building footprint
and can not revise their proposal in order to increase tree
preservation. The Arborist has recommended that tree #11, which is
located within the building footprint, be transplanted to another
location on the site. He has further indicated that several of the
non - ordinance size trees which are located within the building
footprint would be suitable for transplanting.
The proposed landscape plans show a meandering pathway throughout
the property. The applicants have agreed to revise the location of
the pathway in order to preserve trees #5 and #6 without creating
safety risks.
File No. DR -96 -021; 21777 Vintage Lane
The applicant will be required to plant replacement trees equal to
$12,849. Staff has included a condition of approval in the
attached Resolution which requires the applicants to show native
trees totaling this amount in their landscape plan. All other tree
preservation recommendations have been included in the attached
Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION•
Approve the application, with conditions, .by adopting Resolution
DR -96 -021.
BARRIE D. DATE
and ASSOCIATES RECEIVED
Horticultural Consultants JUN UN 2 8 1996
23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030
PLANNING DEPT.
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE PROPERTY OF MR. AND MRS. BASU
21777 VINTAGE LANE
SARATOGA
Prepared at the Request of:
Anne Dailey
City of Saratoga-
Planning Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Site Visit By:
Michael L. Bench
June 4, 1996
Job #04- 96- 144 -96A
BARRIE D. DATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
408 - 353 -1052
23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE PROPERTY OF MR. AND MRS. BASU
21777 VINTAGE LANE
SARATOGA
Assignment
At the request of Anne Dailey, Assistant Planner, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to
construct a two -story residence on a vacant hillside lot as that construction would affect adjacent trees.
This report provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site that would apparently be
affected by construction and recommends actions by which damage could be minimized.
Abstract
There are 26 trees on this site which are protected by regulation. All of these trees are species indigenous
to the area.
Removal of one tree is recommended due to poor condition. Its value is $1,348, which is equal to one 36-
inch box native tree. Removal of two additional trees are recommended removal depending upon design
changes. Their combined value is $2,997, which is equivalent to two 36 -inch box and one 24 -inch box
native trees.
Thirteen trees are in conflict with construction. Their total value is $11,501, which is equivalent to two 48-
inch box, one 36 -inch box, one 15- gallon and two 5- gallon native trees.
There are 10 trees (possibly 12—#5 and 6 depending upon design changes) to be retained. The total value
of the ten trees retained is $21,170. If #5 and 6 are retained, the total value would be $24,167. Twenty -
five percent bonds for these amounts are $5,293 and $6,042, respectively.
Findings
There are 26 trees on site that are large enough to be protected by city regulation. In addition to these, there
are 10 indigenous oak trees (mostly coast live oaks) scattered throughout the property that are too small to
qualify for protective regulation. Four of these undersize trees are in the footprint of the building and are
expected to be removed. It is feasible to successfully move these trees to other locations on site to become
part of the finished landscape.
Generally on the south- facing slope there are also a few native shrubs mostly consisting of holly leaf
cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba), and
toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia).
TREE SURVEY AND PI\ �RVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 2
AT THE PROPERTY OF MR. AND MRS. BASU
21777 VINTAGE LANE
SARATOGA
The trees protected by regulation consist of the following two indigenous species:
22 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)
4 valley oak (Quercus lobata)
Overall, these trees are in good condition. Most of the trees are in excellent health but their structure is only
fair to good. The poorest quality trees on site are trees #5, 6 and 26. The finest specimens on site are trees
#1 and 11. Due to the fact that tree #11 is in conflict with construction, this tree is worthy of transplanting
to another location or site.
Many of the trees on site have their root collars covered —a result of discing to control weeds.
Specific Trees
Trees #5 and 6, coast live oaks, have canopies consisting of watersprout growth from a stump now
matured to large trunks. The original main leader was probably destroyed by fire or by firewood
harvesting around the turn of this century. Watersprout leaders are highly prone to failure once they
become large due to the fact that the attachments are weak in relation to the weight of foliage and wood and
the angle of the load. The larger these leaders become, the greater the. potential for failure.
If no targets (property or persons) are present, the trees are not considered hazardous. However, the
proposed pedestrian pathway passes beneath the canopies of both trees (see recommendations).
Tree #26, a large valley oak, is in poor to fair condition. The canopy is sparse, which is a reliable indicator
of potential failure. The root collar is covered by about 18 inches of soil and it has suffered two large
branch failures. An inspection of the root collar by hand excavation may reveal the cause of the tree's poor
condition. Root collar disease is suspected. The proposed pathway and the picnic table area provide
targets, which make this tree potentially very hazardous -(see recommendations).
Trees in conflict with construction are #9 -20 and 22. Because all of these trees are relatively young, they
are potential candidates for transplanting. The ones with desirable structure would make fine specimen
trees in areas where landscape trees are needed.
All of the remaining trees ( #1 -8, 21 and 23 -26), if retained, are in danger of damage by construction
either by soil compaction, by root severing by excavation, or by branch breakage by machinery.
Recommendation I
1. Trees #5 and 6 may be retained if the proposed pathway is changed to avoid passing under the
canopy of these trees. However, due to their condition, the risk of failure will always be very high. If
retained, the path must be about 10 feet outside of the dripline, which will provide room for growth. Of
course, if the trees do survive long enough for the driplines to reach the path, decision must be made at
-that time to move the path again or to remove the trees. However, if the area may be used by children who
often climb trees and pay little attention to pathways, then we recommend that removal occur during this
present construction.
TREE SURVEY AND PR RVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 3
AT THE PkUPERTY OF MR. AND MRS. BASU
21777 VINTAGE LANE
SARATOGA
Vo
2. Given the height of tree #W and the clearance needed to assure reasonable safety, it appears that
the only option for this tree is removal.
3. Tree #23, a valley oak, has an infestation of mistletoe (Phoradendron macrophyllum) which must
be removed by a qualified arborist. We recommend an arborist that is certified by the International Society
of Arboriculture (ISA). Because mistletoe is spread by birds, it is very likely that reinfestations will occur,
which must be pruned out as soon as they appear.
4. We recommend that only drip irrigation (not sprinklers) be installed under the canopies of the
retained oak trees. Frequent moisture on the root collars during the warm months of the year invite oak
root fungus (Armillaria mellea) or water mold diseases (Phytophthora or Pythium species). Also, due to
the slope on this site, moisture movement downslope to a tree's root collar can be equally damaging as a
direct spray depending on spray cycle frequency, etc.
5. We recommend that the soil covering the root collars of retained trees be removed carefully by
hand. Taper the grade away from the tree. Install dry laid cobble stones to retain soil on the upper slope to
prevent further soil encroachment if necessary. Do not allow cobblestones to have direct contact with the
root collars of these trees.
6. The decomposed granite pathways must be installed on top of existing grade without excavation
under the canopies of these trees. If bender board or some other material is desired to hold the decomposed
granite in place, these materials used for retention must also be installed on top of existing grade without
excavation under the canopies of the trees. Up to 6 inches of fill soil may be installed to hold the edges of
the decomposed granite or to restore grade but no fill soil must reach the root collar of any tree.
Outside the canopies of the protected trees, excavation may occur as desired. The decomposed granite may
be compacted to no more than 80 %.
Installation under the canopies of trees must be done by wheelbarrows and hand tools.
7. To prevent long term damage from soil compaction a temporary protective chainlink fence must be
constructed at the dripline of each tree or group of trees before any construction or grading equipment
arrives on site and must remain in place until all construction is completed, including cleanup operations
(see notations on the plan). The protective fence must be left in place at all times during construction unless
supervised by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture). The chainlink fence
must be 5 feet minimum height, mounted on 2 -inch galvanized pipe, driven 2 feet into the ground, and be
able to keep out even foot traffic.
8. To compensate for the loss of absorbing root tips outside of the protective fence, install a soaker
-irrigation line on top of the undisturbed soil surface approximately 2 feet inside the protective fencing.
Irrigate each tree with approximately 20 gallons of water for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks
until at least 8 inches of rain has fallen. In the case of S/s -inch Aquapore Porous Pipe, a 10 -inch diameter
tree would require 7 hours of soaking with 100 linear feet of soaker line at a reduced pressure of 10 psi.
TREE SURVEY AND PI` :RVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 4
AT THE PROPERTY OF MR. AND MRS. BASU
21777 VINTAGE LANE
SARATOGA
9. To retain moisture and prevent compaction, install a 3 inch layer of bark chips inside the protective
fences over the entire area beneath the canopy of each tree with the exception of the 12 inches around the
root collar, which must be left bare and dry. The spreading must be done by hand and before the irrigation
( #3) begins. This insulating layer will reduce soil compaction and further encourage root tip growth.
10. To prevent absorbing root tip as well as structural root loss, any trenches for utilities or roof drains
must be outside of the driplines of trees.
11. To minimize the exposure to disease or structural damage, tree branches which are in conflict with
construction or with construction equipment must be managed as follows:
Branches up to 3 inches in diameter may be cut by carpenters so as to leave a stub of at least
one foot in length from the branch's point of attachment to the larger branch. Branches larger
than 3 inches must be removed by an ISA- certified arborist. Any "stubs" from branches 3
inches in diameter or smaller must also be removed by an ISA- certified arborist prior to project
completion.
Respectfully submitted,
MM"
mmmwiml�m�-
Michael L. Bench, Associate
Barrie D. Coate and Associates
MLB:kc
Enclosures: Tree Evaluation Charts
Site Map
BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES
Coast Live Oak
10
7
7
5
15
1 20
1 27
1
1
3
_T
Quercus agrilolia
2
s . in 129 X $27 /sq. in = $3,483 X sp. class (100 %) = $3,483 X cond. (100 %) _ $3,483 X loc. (50 %) _ $1,742
Final Value
Coast Live Oak 8 4 5 11 15 21 2 2 3
s . in 60 X $27 /sq. in = $1,620 X sp. class (100 %) = $1,620 X cond. (75 %) _ $1,215 X loc. (30 %) _ $365
Final Value
3
Coast Live Oak
11
4
6
=
14
25
27
1
3
3
5 -gal = $36.00
` Horticultural Consultants
s . in 109 X $27 /sq. in = $2,943 X sp. class (100 %) = $2,943 X cond. (75 %) _ $2,207 X loc. (50 %) _ $1,104
Final Value
4
V
9
4
6
5
3
18
25
25
#
Q
3
y
15-gal = $120
(408) 353 -1052
n
a�
i
W
h
v
n
a�
Qpw
a
(�'
cc
i
j'
�.
W
Cc
t�
Z
Z
=
�
0
Z
W
�'
0
r;,
r!
�"
r
V
�;,
i
�'
7-
i'
'-
p
0�
_
0 "'
1
w
p
w�
N
.j
Q
w
F-
Q
p
Z
¢
¢
a¢
�
O
24 "box = $420
36'box = $1,320
48'box = $5,000
4
~
t
W WQ
F,
H
w
O w
O w
w
.^.
O N
Q
w _
Z
�
w
4
W J
�Q
J
Q
d
(�
52 box = $7,000
27
=
M
J
�
_
=
O°
=
_
co
w p
°°
d�Q
t—
w
Q
cc
f=-
aQW10
V
to
>
V ¢
}0U
V vi
-1=>
Y
f-
V �
Ww�
5
t9
>mW°OV0MD
w
to
N
� >
>
Z
72-box = 15,000
$
Key
Plant
Name
p
p
p
oN
=
a
cn
wF-ww000DccU)cc'wQQQwwwwwcc
COMMENTS
=inzcccr-0cratt?f-
pppaVZZ¢¢oca
1
Coast Live Oak
10
7
7
5
15
1 20
1 27
1
1
3
_T
Quercus agrilolia
2
s . in 129 X $27 /sq. in = $3,483 X sp. class (100 %) = $3,483 X cond. (100 %) _ $3,483 X loc. (50 %) _ $1,742
Final Value
Coast Live Oak 8 4 5 11 15 21 2 2 3
s . in 60 X $27 /sq. in = $1,620 X sp. class (100 %) = $1,620 X cond. (75 %) _ $1,215 X loc. (30 %) _ $365
Final Value
3
Coast Live Oak
11
4
6
14
25
27
1
3
3
s . in 109 X $27 /sq. in = $2,943 X sp. class (100 %) = $2,943 X cond. (75 %) _ $2,207 X loc. (50 %) _ $1,104
Final Value
4
Coast Live Oak
9
4
6
5
3
18
25
25
1
3
3
s . in 122 X $27 /sq. in = $3,294 X sp. class (100 %) = $3,294 X cond. (75 %) = $2,470 X loc. (50%) = $1,235
Final Value
l Value
5
Coast Live Oak
10
4
10
9/8
7/6
5/3
48
25
36
1
4
4
all
s . in 224 X $27 /sq. in = $6,048 X sp. class (100 %) = $6,048 X cond. (60 %) = $3,629 X loc. (50 %) = $1,814
Final Value
6
Coast Live Oak
9
4
8
8/6
5
4/2
33
30
27
1
4
3
1
Fl.
I
I
all watersprouts
-s
q. in 146 X $27/sq. in = $3,942 X sp. class (100 %) = $3,942 X cond. (60 %) = $2,365 X loc. (50 %) _ $1,183
JOB TITLE: Basu
JOB 1104 -96- 144 -96A
DATE: 6/4196
Page 1 of 5
1 = best, 5 = worst
rmmu v
BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES
Coast Live Oak
13
3
2
14
25
24
1
2
2
s . in 139 X $27 /sq. in = $3,753 X sp. class (100 %) _ $3,753 X cond. (90 %) _ $3,377 X loc. (50 %) _ $1,689
Final Value
8
Coast Live Oak
9
4
8
=
14
20
27
1
2
2
5-gal = $36.00
Horticultural Consultants
9
U
s . in 143 X $27 /sq. in = $3,861 X sp. class (100 %) = $3,861 X cond. (900/) = $3,475 X loc. (40 %)
_ $1,390
Final Value
10
Coast Live Oak
9
#
Q
14
25
}
15-gal = $120
(408) 353 -1052
r-.
W
a�i
a�i
pWp
Q
�7 M
CCU
in
I
`�'
"
W
CC
U
Z
Z
=
uj
a
Z
W
W i'
J
J"
�;,
J 1
}
Q
W
in
I
`.
`�'
`�'
D
0
L
1
w
p
UJ
w
N
.j
H
CC
CC
W
Q
D
W
Fr
CC
0
d
24 "box = $420
36'box = $1,320
48'box = $5,000
3
2
13
25
w>
1—
1
1
_
D
►—
w
O w
O w
p
cn
p cn
¢ w
w .�
Z
(n
w
J
Q
Q
U
52'box = $7,000
-s g. in 139 X $27 /sq. in = $3,753 X sp. class (100 %) = $3,753 X cond. (100 %) _ $3,753 X loc. (45 %) _ $1,689
Final Value
=
J__
_
U 40
gg°°
QQ
►—
1:
U
w
w
a
-'
w¢
18
in
o
w
>
O
w
V
I—w
00
U (n
f-Q
ON LU
Z
cc
V
rn
wQ
wD
ppz
a
>-
m
O
w
o
w
00
U2
O
Z
72'box = $15,000
Key #
Plant Name
COMMENTS
o
o
0
o N
=
=
cn
¢
cc
a
z
z
¢ ¢
¢
aa:
z
cc
cr 0
cc o
z
tt
7
Coast Live Oak
13
3
2
14
25
24
1
2
2
s . in 139 X $27 /sq. in = $3,753 X sp. class (100 %) _ $3,753 X cond. (90 %) _ $3,377 X loc. (50 %) _ $1,689
Final Value
8
Coast Live Oak
9
4
8
6
14
20
27
1
2
2
9
s . in 103 X $27 /sq. in = $2,781 X sp. class (100 %) _ $2,781 X cond. (90%) _ $2,503 X loc. (50 %) _ $1,251
Final Value
Valley Oak 10 4 9. 9 20 35 40 1 2 1 remove mistletoe
Quercus lobafa -
s . in 143 X $27 /sq. in = $3,861 X sp. class (100 %) = $3,861 X cond. (900/) = $3,475 X loc. (40 %)
_ $1,390
Final Value
10
Coast Live Oak
9
4
9
14
25
24
1
2
1
'.
-s q. in 96 X $27 /sq. in = $2,592 X sp. class (100 %) = $2,592 X cond. (90 %) = $2,333 X loc. (40 %) _ $933
Fhal
11
Coast Live Oak
13
3
2
13
25
24
1
1
2
Value
-s g. in 139 X $27 /sq. in = $3,753 X sp. class (100 %) = $3,753 X cond. (100 %) _ $3,753 X loc. (45 %) _ $1,689
Final Value
12
I
Coast Live Oak
7
6
2
11
18
18
1
3
3
In 55
JOB TITLE: Basu
JOB #04- 96- 144 -96A
DATE: 6/4/96
' /sq. in = $1,485 X sp. class (100 %) = $1,485 X cond. (75 %) = $1,114 X loc. (45 %) = $501
Page •2 of 5
1 = best, 5 = worst
Value
Coast Live Oak
13
s . in 78
14
Coast Live Oak
s . in 88
15
Coast Live Oak
1 24
s . in 70
1 2
16 '
Coast Live Oak
X $27 /s q. in = $2,106 X sp. class (100 %) = $2,106
s . in 64
9
17
Coast Live Oak
5
s . in 100
15
18
Coast Live 6ak
2
s . in 94
t
BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES
8
J
7
14
25
20
1
2
X $27 /sq. in. _ $1,890 X sp. class (100 %) = $1,890
9
10
20
18
1
2
X $27 /sq. in = $1,728 X sp. class (100 %) = $1,728
10
6
4
:t]
20
2 7
1
2
X $27 /sq. in = $2,700 X sp. class (100 %) = $2,700
9
4
7
5
15
25
27
1
2
5-gal = $36.00
Horticultural Consultants
[C
}
15-gal = $120 '
(408) 353 -1052
a>
W
a>
v
ppw
Q
¢
I
`�'
0
Z
Z
L
0
Z
W
`�'
Q
J 7
J
¢¢ �„
Q^
J
-�
Q
V
I
^,
`1'
`.
r!
p
O
v>
O I
w
p
w
W
nwi
_�
CC
a:
w
F-
a
Z
[[
O
Q
a
�
a:
CL
24-box = $420
36 "box = $1,320
48 "box = $5,000
_
_
w
y
I-
p
--
=
p=
E-
(n
y
p
0 w
O (n
w
p
cri
O
¢ w
Q
�-
w .�
Z
N
w
Q
w J
Q
J
Q
n-
C7
52 "box = $7,000
72 -box $15,000
=
°D
J
=
. m
_
=
ao
W Q
0°
Q
U
w
Q
Q
a
F-
Qop[w�OyOW
w
V
F-
w
w
CC
00
0�
se
F-
wwwa
U'
V
D
p5
w
CJ
}mwwVOA
w
cn
cn
� }
}
Z
�
=
Key #
Plant Name
p
M
D
L]
Div
=
to
Z
to
Z
CC
C[ V
CC a
ct
F-
?
cc
Pa
a
Q
p a-
Q
V
w
Z
w
Z
w w
¢ CC
W
CC
Q
a
COMMENTS
Coast Live Oak
13
s . in 78
14
Coast Live Oak
s . in 88
15
Coast Live Oak
1 24
s . in 70
1 2
16 '
Coast Live Oak
X $27 /s q. in = $2,106 X sp. class (100 %) = $2,106
s . in 64
9
17
Coast Live Oak
5
s . in 100
15
18
Coast Live 6ak
2
s . in 94
JOB TITLE: Basu
JOB #04 -96- 144 -96A
DATE: 614/96
3
X cond. (90 %) = $1,895
3
X cond. (90%) = $2,138
3
X cond. (90 %) = $1,701
3
X cond. (90 %) = $1,555
2
X cond. (90 %) _ $2,430
3
X cond. (90 %) _ $2,284
Page 3 of 5
1 = best, 5 = worst
X loc. (40 %) = $758
Final Value
X loc. (409'0) = $855
Final
X loc. (40 %) = $680
_- Final Value
X loc. (40 %) = $622
X loc. (40 %) = $972
Final
X loc. (40 %) = $914
9
6
11
1 25
1 24
1 1
1 2
X $27 /s q. in = $2,106 X sp. class (100 %) = $2,106
9
J
6
5
12
15
20
1
2
X $27 /sq. in = $2,376 X sp. class (100 %) = $2,376
8
J
7
14
25
20
1
2
X $27 /sq. in. _ $1,890 X sp. class (100 %) = $1,890
9
10
20
18
1
2
X $27 /sq. in = $1,728 X sp. class (100 %) = $1,728
10
6
4
:t]
20
2 7
1
2
X $27 /sq. in = $2,700 X sp. class (100 %) = $2,700
9
4
7
5
15
25
27
1
2
X $27 /sq. in = $2,538 X sp. class (100 %) = $2,538
3
X cond. (90 %) = $1,895
3
X cond. (90%) = $2,138
3
X cond. (90 %) = $1,701
3
X cond. (90 %) = $1,555
2
X cond. (90 %) _ $2,430
3
X cond. (90 %) _ $2,284
Page 3 of 5
1 = best, 5 = worst
X loc. (40 %) = $758
Final Value
X loc. (409'0) = $855
Final
X loc. (40 %) = $680
_- Final Value
X loc. (40 %) = $622
X loc. (40 %) = $972
Final
X loc. (40 %) = $914
BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES
Coast Live Oak
8
4
6
12
18
18
1
2
s . in 64 X $27 /sq. in = $1,728 X sp. class (100 %) = $1,728 X cond. (90 %) _ $1,555 X loc. (40 1/6) = $622
Final Value
20
Coast Live Oak
10
4
3
3
12
=
24
1
2
5-gal = $36.00 .
Horticultural Consultants
s . in 86 X $27 /s q. in = $2,322 X sp. class (100 %) = $2,322 X cond. (90%) _ $1,555, X loc. (409/6) _ $836
Final Value
21
Valley Oak
10
U
9
5
3
20
30
1 30
2
2
¢
2
>_
15-gal = $120
(408) 353 -1052
n
d
w
a
.�
n
d
ppW
a
�' ¢
¢ U
i'
--
j'
W
¢
U
?
Z
m
�
Z_
w
_
"'
o
� .!
tQj
1�
_
"'
-,
i'
p
O
_
O `�'
!
W
p
w
N
Q
w
F-
Q
p
Z
Q
¢
a
H
¢O
aC
24-box = $420
36 "box = $1,320
48"box = $5,000
"box
v
j
v
v
W>-
p
=
H
W
O u-�
.�
O W
W
p
N¢
O U)
W
Q
F—
W •__.
Z
W
U
uU _1
� Q
_j
Q
a
(7
52 = $7,000
2
c
_
°D
--'
c
_
0D
c
_Q
m
w O
w
Q
¢
i_
Q
V
¢
U)
W
>
I
U ¢
O>
U v�
OLu
Y
j
�
N
U to
W�
pS
Q
C7
�}
w
__j
m
in
W
in
W
� >
00 V2
>
:
Z
72-box = $15,000
[Key #
Plant
1
3
Name
in
2
p
p
ON
=
a
W
W
z
t_
rn
W
W
O O
D_¢
¢_
W
Q
Q
W
W
W W
W¢
COMMENTS
Z¢
¢V
¢p
H?
Hp
p
pa
V
Z
Z
¢¢
¢
a
19
Coast Live Oak
8
4
6
12
18
18
1
2
s . in 64 X $27 /sq. in = $1,728 X sp. class (100 %) = $1,728 X cond. (90 %) _ $1,555 X loc. (40 1/6) = $622
Final Value
20
Coast Live Oak
10
4
3
3
12
18
24
1
2
s . in 86 X $27 /s q. in = $2,322 X sp. class (100 %) = $2,322 X cond. (90%) _ $1,555, X loc. (409/6) _ $836
Final Value
21
Valley Oak
10
4
9
5
3
20
30
1 30
2
2
2
s . in 125 X $27/sq. in = $3,375 X sp. class (100 %) = $3,375 X cond. (75 %) _ $2,090 X loc. (60 %) _ $1,519
Final Value
22
Coast Live Oak
8
4
5
11
20
18
1
2
3
-s q. in 60 X $27 /sq. in = $1,620 X sp. class (100 %) _ $1,620 X cond. (90 %) _ $2;531 X loc. (50 %) _ $729
Final Value
23
Valley Oak
11
3
13
35
30
1
2
remove mistletoe
-s q. in 99 X $27 /sq. in = $2,673 X sp. class (100 %) _ $2,673 X cond. (90 %) _ $2,406 X loc. (60 %) _ $1,443
Final Value
Coast Live Oak
24 '
34
45
45
48
1
3
2
sq. in 908 X $27 /s q. in = $24,516
JOB TITLE: Basu
JOB #0496- 144 -96A
DATE: 614/96
X sp. class (100 %) = $24,516 X cond. (75 %) = $18,387
Page 4 of 5
1 = best, 5 = worst
X loc. (50 %) = $9,194
Final Value
BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES
Coast Live Oak
16
17
35
33
1
3
1
2
s . in X $27 /sq. in = $5,427 X sp. class (100 %) _ $5,427 X cond. (75 %) = $4,070 X loc. (40 %) _ $1,628
Final Value
26
Valley Oak
18
4
15
1.11
g
42
45
36
3
411
2
5-gal $36.00
Horticultural Consultants
-s q. in X $27 /sq. in = $11,232 X sp. class (100 %) _ $11,232 X cond. (30 %) = $3,370 X loc. (40 %) _ $1,348
_-F-M Final Value
U
#
}
}
l
15-gal = $120
(408) 353 -1052
e
a>
M
W
a
e�
a
a�
W
pp
Q
�'
Q V
j�
1
�.
LLJ
Q=
U
Z
Z
3
Z
W-A
�'
_j '-
in
Ln
J 1
_j
U
�;,
1
j'
"
1
p
0
Vf
w
p
W
W
W
N
-+
H
it
cc
Q
Z
Q
n-
►-
CC
Q
d
24 "box = $420
36 "box = $1,320
48 "box = $5,000
1-
s
W W
f-
p
p
P
W
0 W
—
0 W
LU
v
0 U)
Q
Z
W
W J
a
s
C?
52'box = $7,000
"box
_
�
_
_
W 0
Ada
1-
c
F-
a
V
cpWMo
In
}
U
>0U�L,WV.,w��
U V)
Y
! -
U
C� C7
>mwwUUMMD
uJ
(A
N
}
}
Z
72 = $15,000
E
COMMENTS
Key #
Plant Name
o
o
0
o N
=
=
c
z¢
Q o¢
°C
Z
°�
o
a
s . in X $27 /s q. in = $ X sp. class ( %) _ $ X cond. ( %) = $ X loc. ( %) _ $ -
_ Final Value
z
z¢
a
¢
a
o
o
cQ.�
25
Coast Live Oak
16
17
35
33
1
3
1
2
s . in X $27 /sq. in = $5,427 X sp. class (100 %) _ $5,427 X cond. (75 %) = $4,070 X loc. (40 %) _ $1,628
Final Value
26
Valley Oak
18
4
15
1.11
g
42
45
36
3
411
2
-s q. in X $27 /sq. in = $11,232 X sp. class (100 %) _ $11,232 X cond. (30 %) = $3,370 X loc. (40 %) _ $1,348
_-F-M Final Value
-s q. in X $27 /sq. in = $ X sp. class ( %) _ $ X cond. ( %) _ $ X loc. ( %) _ $
Final Value
F
-
I
_.. ,
s . in X $27 /sq. in = $ X sp. class ( %) _ $ X cond. ( %) _ $ X loc. ( %) _ $
Final Value
s . in X $27 /sq. in = $ X sp. class ( %) _ $ X cond. ( %) = $ X loc. ( %) _ $
Final Value
E
F1
I.-
s . in X $27 /s q. in = $ X sp. class ( %) _ $ X cond. ( %) = $ X loc. ( %) _ $ -
_ Final Value
JUD 1 1 1 Lt: vasu
JOB #04- 96- 144 -96A
DATE: 6/4/96
Page 5 of 5
1 = best, 5 = worst
NAl. DEPTH
60 c. Y.
31 MAI. DEPTH
L E G E N D
PROPOSED CONTOURS
- EEIST ING CONTOURS
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL (DESIGNED aT UTNERS)
Ell STING TREE I SIT" SIZE 1 ALL 0..R
LlISTING TREE TO RE RLWVED
PROPOSED FINISHED FLOOR
PROPOSED PAD ELEVATION
PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION
PROPOSED TOP OF WALL
PROPOSED DRAINAGE SWALE
PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION
Trr- •�"rs correspond to
eT ion charts.
A. --nsions and tree locations
BARRIE D. COATE
AND ASSOCIATES
2353S Summit Rd
Los GRIDS. Ca 95030
(408)353 -1052
Horticultural Conwhants
Comulting Arborism
An Analysis of Trees
The sasu Property
Saratoga
Prepared for:
717ty of Saratoga Planning Department
Job 104 -96- 140 -96A
Dete:6 /4/96
\'RL TAIMIMO I 1 I d' I I
WALL V i
Y
SECTION - Z-2 I 11 1 1 1 ID I
�• I
.
\lb I �•',� I o .' ' _,111_,° I I II I I
.o ��`� � /� � I I I 1.1.1 I 1"•
1
19 ' _ I I I I I 12 Z I
cY2 / %'Yi .• ns4' 5 Oaka .2 • 20, Oak
/ / / 10 .• "j� 15 16 �f ; *`' 18 / r / / I l t" / l a
6•'7
3 . 21 � s• oak
5 If
/ 1 / • Coast ve Oak / �' — c °�� / 7 /
16 Coast Live Oak / �� j `a °' / / Tt /
7Z-- — / j. / •,. i "�j �' r // 'Oak
'
cc
2
� fa'PI —' - o � �� Ts'acv•o.uA 197.90 `...T t/ \ �� ^��r
94° 30 E >� •.. E.IST CUPa
a.' �-
.� a cuT TER et.\
\�� L • 67.56 245. I71 `bP \
—j�r.. s• c • ou
•
R[Y0'/L vL 1 FENCL
. _ \1f I`•1 L
l� r AT ouvE'RAr.
csio�wo c. K
sro. o/r Arao N. . LANE
io
Matteoni
Saxe
Nail
L A W T E R S
Kodak Center
1740 Technology Drive
Spite 250
San Jose, CA 95'110
August 28, 1996 408441 -7,900
FA;' 403 441 -7302
Norman E. Matteoni
Allan Robert Saxe
Margaret Ecker Nanda
Peggry M. O'Laughlin
Mayor and Members of the City Council Judy C. Tsai
City of Saratoga Bradley M. Matteoni
13777 Fruitvale Avenue Barton G. Hechrman
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Appeal of Design Review before City Council;
Basu: DR- 96 -01; 21777 Vintage Lane
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council:
I represent Marie Gaspar who is the adjoining uphill
neighbor to the property under review. The appeal was filed by
the adjoining downhill neighbor. When my client sought to file
an appeal, she was advised that there was already an appeal on
file.
Both my client and the downhill neighbor to the Basu
parcel seek to have the residence under design review relocated
further away from their respective property lines. Unfortun-
ately, both of them are pushing in opposite directions.
The Basu property is apparently interpreted as a
triangular lot of three sides. Under the City's ordinance
(Zoning Code §15- 06.430) , "A lot bounded by only three lot lines
cannot have a rear lot line ". Nonetheless, the design of the
proposed house has its rear yard adjacent to the common boundary
between the Gaspar and Basu property. The rear of the house
also faces that common boundary. For a two -story house in this
zoning district, a rear lot line would require a 60 foot set-
back. The setback to the retaining wall and /or walkway enclos-
ing the rear yard is 22 feet. The nearest.portion of the pro-
posed house is approximately 30 feet from the common boundary.
An A.suxiatinn Including a Profmi —i Corp.
Mayor and Members of the City Council August 28, 1996
Page two
But, the Basu lot is not simply three lot lines in a
uniform triangle. The boundary along Vintage Lane is a series
of curves and lines. The boundary to the east is made up of two
lines.
Therefore, it _appears that both the design of the
house and a liberal interpretation of the ordinance would
dictate that the area adjacent to the common boundary between
the Basu and Gaspar properties be treated as a rear lot line.
Based on studies by Architect Warren Heid for Marie
Gaspar, the existing design for the Basu house can be moved
further eastward down the hill. There is a fault line running
through the center of the Basu lot; the proposed house is on one
side of the fault line and the garage /pavilion is on the other
side. By moving the proposed residence 20 feet further down the
hill, the relationship to the fault line can be maintained and
sufficient. area behind the residence separating it from the
Gaspar residence can be assured. Such a re- siting further down
the hill also lowers the proposed house's elevation by 4 feet.
See enclosed map.
There are also trees in the rear area of the proposed
residence that would have to be removed to accommodate it.
The Saffarians who are on the east side of the Basu
lot asks, among other things, that the house be moved further
westward toward the Gaspar residence.
Obviously, any move westward will only intrude more on
the Gaspar residence and extend into a side yard setback (which
I asked to be treated as a rear yard setback as a reasonable
application of the ordinance and /or design review to this
proposal) . Note, the rear setback defined on the Basu plans is
Mayor and Members of the City Council August 28, 1996
Page three
an abstraction. It is the intersection of two lot lines in the
north corner of the property.
I will be submitting additional drawings to illustrate
the impact on the Gaspar residence.
NEM:sd
Encl.
cc: Marie Gaspar (via fax)
Michael Riback (via fax)
ours, f
TTEONI
E
G - v
\vim P.E N F0 FACLT LINE /
NO. 0-2126
REN.
_ J` _ I ♦ / / �p �/
\0' It U j
4
L —
RESIDENCE ,� ' '' /
i� ,
- Proposed
8►�_
F. F. 828.x-
NOTES:
o New location 201-0'
_ lowers floor 4' -0"
-"� Information from
prints of applicat-
drawings of Basu
—�--�- STiDY F)R RELOCATION OF PROPOSED RESIDED
FOR NR. AND WS. D. BASU
PART PLt7I' PLAN 21777 VINI'ACE LANE, "CA 95070
Nafida
A W T E R S
August 29, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Appeal of Design Review before City Council;
Basu: DR- 96 -01; 21777 Vintage Lane
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council:
Kodak Center
1740 Technology Drive
Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95110
408 441 -7800
FAX 408 441 -7302
Norman E. Matteoni
Allan Robert Saxe
Margaret Ecker Nanda
Peggy M. O'Laughlin
Judy C. Tsai
Bradley M. Matteoni
Barton G. Hechtman
As a follow -up to my letter of August 28, 1996, I
wanted to provide some additional information to the Council.
First, you will find enclosed a map that shows the
relationship of the Gaspar improved residential lot to the Basu
lot, as well as the Saffarian lot. As you can see, there is an
existing residence of the historic Paul Masson Chateau on the
Gaspar property. The Saffarian lot has no residential improve-
ment on it. The design review for a residence that had been
granted on the parcel expired in 1992. Thus, Saffarian in his
objection to the placement of the Basu house is not speaking
from the standpoint of protecting a current residence.
Second, the proposed design of the Basu house would
not permit it to be moved more than 5 feet uphill toward the
Gaspar house without changing its design, according to Warren
Heid, Architect. The fault line and so- called side yard setback
would restrict this physical movement (the corner of the pro-
posed Basu house is approximately 26 feet from the common
boundary with the Gaspar lot.) However, Mr. Heid, in analyzing
the Basu proposal, concludes the house can be moved easterly
down the hill 20 feet without changing its design and respecting
An Association Including a Professional Corp.
Mayor and Members of the City Council August 29, 1996
Page two
the fault setback running through the middle of the property.
Warren Heid also advises that the steepness of the terrain of
the narrow portion of the Saffarian lot make the most suitable
location for a residence on that lot opposite the cul -d -sac near
the word "Legend" on the enclosed map.
Third, the proposed placement of the house does
destroy a grove of trees that provides a natural screening from
the Gaspar residence. If the house is moved down the hill, this
grove will not be affected. If the house is left where it is,
there should be some replacement requirement of mature trees in
this area.
Finally, as I urged in my prior letter, the rear yard
and the rear of the residence as proposed face the common line
between Gaspar and Basu. Functionally, this is the rear yard
although Staff has interpreted the ordinance to the effect that
this is a side yard. The design review should look at the
placement of the house from the standpoint of considering the
rear area as the equivalent of a rear yard.
Very.t-nqly
NEM:sd
Encl.
cc: Marie Gaspar
Warren Heid
your
r
MATTEO
PROPERTY LINE
- � 0
(.FALLT LINE
-A
NO. C -�12U
REN.
OF C
lb
+/
I
lo'
1 ! - '
CA. " E /PAVILL
RESIDENCE /
Proposed
F.F. 828. ---
.
NOTES:
/ New location 20' -0 ".
-• _ lowers floor 4 ' -0" +/
—. - Information from
prints of application
drawings of Basu
L ----� ST(D_Y_ FDR RELOCATION OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE
FOR W. AND NR S. D. BASU
PP.R/r PLOT PLAN 21777 VINTAGE LANE, SARATCX� -CA 95070
•_Y
"E
[a
� XONE'
o.[ "y/ •tl
c
r
o I 1
_o
I
I
• ,4 1
o r I
W \
a
:
W � I 1
W
o � a
�1H ioi
i
H
Ab •�OJ16, CO _
H0"o-o:(". t `N �t` y E
scr s
\� VIN
TAG
«I..'�o.�.`
ND EDNl, AJE,
M TXIs
,11-1,
[iG ITEA
O
0
LOT I
TR. 6665
ij `pL�L 11
PCL,D�
B M\38
COXYOSITE -A.— PNEPAXED 11 NANPEM -1. n[ID AIA, APCXIS[R
AIA AND A -1ATEi INON THE fOLLOHINC D ANI NG,:
I— YI AX AND TOPOO NA-I ION IAP — A AMD 1 - 'ER—El. -
X CNM_ AMD NI,—, INC.
YIJYf PLA. AND ,OYDGNAPMr ION PARCEL D - JENRI.." XcO[Fr✓lrT,
INCO.
CSC L-ATIO"S [ r A PARCEL 1 . CnA VMlA DESIGN ASSOCI wrC]
TP[[ VJCATIOxS - []lcN A OCIATES AND NCPOPT •T
pAPNI D. COwT[ ANDNAf SOLI ATESS
O.n.: Auy c 1..[ .
SCALE 1'.50'
GATE- MAR.'85
JOB Ro: Z 516
SHEET .1
OF I SHEETS
1�a
W
_ � u
(r Z z
y� u
Z w�:
W z o
Z W
� W w
U
1. UEGEND�
z o
OtILHT' 01i FENCE,- Q
1 RE10 (RING ARIANCE
j ir
VARI CE R IIiRED) (V �
LL
2o1.oll / W
F Er . t
CL U
NOTE
A VARIANCE FROM ZONING ORD.:
SECTION 30.5101 IS REQUIRED
TO PERMIT 9' FOOT HIGH GATE
AND 6 FOOT FENCE IN
Q
FRONT YARD SET -BACK AREA.
CL
ALONG PIERCE RD.ANOVINTAGE LANE.
(n
Q
Z
(D
J
W
a�
U)
0
O
0Y
W LL
u
W
Z
LA J
lL
Q
L
IIt
KBA
Kurt B. Anderson, Architect, AIA
September 4, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga
13177 Saratoga Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Appeal of Design Review; Basu; DR -96 -01
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
75
architects
I represent Jalil Saffarian, who has retained me to assist him with the development of his
already approved residence on Parcel D, the parcel adjoining the Basu property (Parcel
C), which was previously owned by Marie Gaspar and recently sold to the applicants.
The Basu property originally had an approved location further west than the current
proposal. After the quake of `89, when Marie Gaspar's cottage was destroyed, it was
determined the original location was in an active fault area. The original approved location
had minimal impact on Mr. Saffarian's proposed residence.
I have reviewed the plans, the original approved documents, visited the site and also the
appeal documents in front of the Council this evening.
Mr. Saffarian has several concerns, which are the following:
1) The location of the house.
Our request is to rotate the house as in the attached Exhibit D.
This would save Trees # 7, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 21. The new location
would still conform io the city's Ordinance and would also
eliminate the need for a retaining wall.
2) The height of the house.
The site is fairly steep and the design of the residence, with
minimal articidalion in mass will appear overly large. A redhiction
in height would also benefit Marie Gaspar.
976 I 1St (,It>IpbelI Avenue, St IIte 200 - Campbell, CaIl omu 95008 - (408) 374 -7137 - Fax: (408) 374 -6797
U
I FA V
Architects
Ki )i ( H. ,N id(,i,,()� �, /Vd i e 1, /\IA
3) Infringement of privacy on Parcel D.
A1lhough the residence has not yet been built, (it has been
previously approved), careful consideration should be given to
location (?f activity areas and placement (?f windows in regards to
the preapproved plans. The rotation of the house would reduce this
impact without reducing the views from the proposed residence.
The proposed relocation of the residence by Marie Gasper to a
lower location would farther exacerbate art already intolerable
situation. The proposed plan looks directly into the Saffarian 's
master bedroom.
4) The removal of tree # 26.
Althcntgh the City Council 's packet states Tree /126 should not be
removed, the Planning Commission approved drawings indicate its
removal.. We would request that Tree # 26 be saver
With. all due respect to the architect of the residence, the staff, the Planning Commission
and the applicants, the rotation of the house and the reduction of the height would benefit
the community and the surrounding neighbors without reducing either the value or the
aesthetic presence of the proposed residence.
Our last and final request would be allowed to be involved in the placement of the
proposed replacement trees.
R ectfully submitted,
Wu
Kurt B. Anderson, Architect
I.'i� ��I`,i ( I������'��� .'� . `,I ,. ��l) • �.f'1 l�i. ail, �I���l ) ��ii ����ii � � I�lii� i. 'I � �, � i ,.. � �(�i�� i,
ce _ �•�1t1� i
...LYt P•Rv �..rlwi - � ` I� I I
tci — SECTION- 2 -2 1 ' 1 1 ' �I I •'
/wsr w•wwt � I � 1 � � . 111 , i I a
uulu• •rrw ` 1 1
O •
/rwr wows ••a► (•••1•••• to w.uu Fro �� G -1� ��`�• � -
ulltlr TO" I.Ir. wt 1 r. •..I /
ullTlw s•• it as •q••r �� • 1 • 1
/••/•tu ruler Itw� 3�6 j C
I•MMU /•• ttit•t t•• r` 6 �/ �I/ •' �' I
rw0•u LAt•,Gi R••• iul•114 • • I 1 I
La••r t« « wta ' p P' . •' �. r
rrn•r wow two
0110MA• "Alm" •IuRlr �j
•° •� % >D00Tc•• n to
•Twtt•• as. /••
I
All dlo•••1••• .w arw 10C•tl•1611
•n • wtrt•.
9ARRUD.MATE
AND ASOCIATit
Run a1nct•Y
l•C•tmos "m
IAma
4$
Ommhb% AAwim
M Aw•1 •1• •/ Tr•••
tfi. •.w pa•p•rt
••c•t•••
►c•p•c•O t•c :
city of c•t ••1
•�
, tN- M- 144-11"
71 Sw7s
o
4..» /
ir
*r Off
J-� _ / • Il - '~ ,r ici •..�i 197. AO � : t �
S3� ta.. a•n ...
e40 so �. s�: �;. ...,1I• . �� � •
--�� -���•, r •
of
.��.. LANE
S' ,
a
+
6
.J
2