The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-21-1988 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAI ' SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 7/1/87 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering r C V (D AGENDA ITEM ° CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Request for 4 -Way Stop Signs at Blauer Drive and Regan Lane Recommended Motion: Deny request for installation of 4 -way stop signs at Blauer Drive and Regan Lane. Report Summary: In April we received a request for all way stop signs at the Blauer /Regan inter- section from Karen Anderson. Staff review resulted in the finding that warrants were not met, and that there had only been one accident at this location in 15 years. It was not subject to correction by stop signs. Staff recommends against the installation. this recommendation. Fiscal Impacts: None. . Attachments: 1. Public Safety Commission minutes. 2. Staff Report. Motion and Vote: Public Safety Commission supports a V 1EG&A VE® 0 °4 JON 171981 Il ®�� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Q June 15, 1987 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson To: City Engineer From: Community Services Director Subject: Request for 4 -way Stop Signs at Blauer Drive and Regan Lane ---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- In response to your memorandum of May 18, 1987, concerning the above referenced subject, the Public Safety Commission reviewed your report at their June 8, 1987, meeting. The Public Safety Commission supported your recommendation based on the fact that the intersection did not meet accepted standards for the establishment of a 4 -way stop intersection. However, the Public Safety Commission recommended that you explore other alternative ways to improve safety at the intersection. A copy of the minutes from the meeting is attached. W_ jm Attachment PSC MINUTES - JUNE 8, 1987 Page 5 Since 1985, accidents have decreased from 388 to a projected 297 in calendar year 1987. Since 1983, fatalities have steadily decreased as well. In 1983 there were 5, in 1984 there were 4, in 1985 there were 3, in 1986 there were 2, and there were no fatalities so far in Saratoga in 1987. Injury accidents have decreased from 130 in 1986 to a projected 96 in 1987 (a decrease - of 26%). The Sheriff's Office was estimating that the City would net $84,640 as a result of the DUI program. This was based on 230 arrests occurring in Saratoga times the average fine of $460 times the 80% of the revenue the City retains. The Sheriff's Office indicated that May DUI arrest statistics were not available in time for the Commission's meeting. NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH Com. Borah reported that he.attended one neighborhood watch startup meeting for the Saratoga Woods area. He felt that the meeting was very poorly attended; only 8 people showed up and 2 of them were under 7 years old. Com. Borah indicated that he would have his preliminary report ready for the Commission at their July meeting to discuss further. The principal focus of this report would be how to keep neighborhood watch programs going. PUBLIC SCHOOLS REPORT Com. Newby indicated that she had attended the Anti Drug Community Awareness Symposium at the end of May as authorized by the City. She felt the seminar was very worthwhile, and would be reporting the results of the meeting to the appropriate agencies within the City during the month. FIRE SERVICES REPORT Both fire agencies (Central and Saratoga) sent 1 engine each to he1D fight the Pebble Beach blaze. It was the sincere hope that Pebble Beach would not be needed to reciprocate with Saratoga over the summer. 4 -WAY STOP AT BLAUER AND REGAN The Commission reviewed a report from the City Engineer and a request from Councilwoman Anderson concerning the establishment of a 4 -way stop at the intersection of Blauer and Regan Lane. After some discussion, the following motion was made: MOTION: It was moved by Coma O'Rorke, with a second from Com. Borah, that the PSC supports the recommendation of the City Engineer that a 4 -way stop not be established at the intersection of Blauer and Regan due to the fact that the evidence presented does not meet the standards justifying a 4 -way stop intersection. Motion passed by unanimous vote. PSC MINUTES - JUNE 8, 1987 Page 6 The Commission also made another motion: MOTION: It was moved by Com. Newby, with a second from Com. Swanson, that the PSC recommends the City Engineer explore alternatives to improve safety conditions at this intersection. _ Motion passed by unanimous vote. CSO MAY ACTIVITY REPORT Mr. Argow presented the Commission with the May CSO activity report. He pointed out that over 54% of all CSO time was spent on code enforcement related activities compared to only 30% being spent on law enforcement related activities. This figure represented one of the highest expenditures of CSO time on code enforcement related activities during a single month since the program had been established in 1984. Mr. Argow emphasized that the CSOs were spending an increasingly greater amount of time on code enforcement related activities in response to Council direction. PUBLIC SAFETY APPRECIATION PICNIC The Commission agreed that they should plan for about 150 attendees at the PSC appreciation picnic on June 13. The Commission spent a considerable amount of time discussing the details concerning the final arrangements for the picnic. Having no further business, the Commission adjourned its meeting at 10:20 p.m. PREPARED BY: Todd W. Ar Community Services Director jm f � •G� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Public Safety Commission DATE: May 18, 1987 FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: Request for 4 -Way Stop Signs at Blauer Drive and Regan Lane As a result of the request from Karen Anderson, to put a 4 -way stop at the above subject intersection, we have put together the following background and warrant discussion along with appropriate diagrams and 'data sheets. The intersection of Blauer Drive and Regan Lane is located in an older, established, residential neighborhood, immediately easterly of, and adjacent to the Argonaut Shopping Center and is bounded by Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to the west and Cox Avenue on the north. Presently this intersection is controlled by stop signs on both legs.of Regan Lane (which were installed in 1964- MV -4). Both Blauer Drive and Regan Lane are zoned for 25 MPH and do not require a speed zone survey to be enforced. (CVC- 40802(b) - local street). Discussion of the warrants for a 4 -way stop as they apply to the inter- section of Blauer Drive and Regan Lane are as follows: 1. Traffic signals are not warranted at this location, therefore, the installation of a 4 -way stop as an interim measure is not warranted. 2. There has been one accident at this intersection in the last 154 years. On August 25, 1578 @ 12:45 PM, a 7 year old boy was riding his bicycle northbound on Megan Lane, on the wrong side-of the road, approaching Blauer Drive was struck by a vehicle traveling eastbound on Blauer . Drive turning right onto southbound Regan Lane. With no accident history of the type susceptible of correction by a 4 -way stop installa- tion, the same is not warranted. 3. The total vehicular volume entering the intersection averages 340 vehicles per hour for the busiest 8 hours of an.average day. Since the minimum volume for this requirement is 500 vehicles per hour, this warrant is not met. 4. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street (Regan Lane) does not average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, and does not delay said minor street vehicular traffice of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour. Page 2 May 18, 1987 5. The speed of the vehicles approaching Blauer from both directions of Regan Lane is 0 MPH since these approaches are controlled by stop signs. The 85th percentile speed for vehicles traveling both east and west on Blauer Drive is 30.3 MPH, with the 50th percentile @ 27.0 MPH and the ten mile per hour pace is 22 MPH to 32 MPH with 92.5% traveling within the pace. In - conclusion, the installation of a four -way stop at the intersection of.Blauer Drive and Regan Lane is not warranted. The existing stop signs on Regan Lane should remain in place and at full effect, as they are serving the purpose of right -of -way assignment and are a useful safety measure at this intersection. R . Shook City.Engineer RSS /df Attachments • c c Page 2 May 18, 1987 5. The speed of the vehicles approaching Blauer from both directions of Regan Lane is 0 MPH since these approaches are controlled by stop signs. The 85th percentile speed for vehicles traveling both east and west on Blauer Drive is 30.3 MPH, with the 50th percentile @ 27.0 MPH and the ten mile per hour pace is 22 MPH to 32 MPH with 92.5% traveling within the pace. In - conclusion, the installation of a four -way stop at the intersection of.Blauer Drive and Regan Lane is not warranted. The existing stop signs on Regan Lane should remain in place and at full effect, as they are serving the purpose of right -of -way assignment and are a useful safety measure at this intersection. R . Shook City.Engineer RSS /df Attachments Lo APR 2,',.', 1981 F2NnINEERING bLLP'f: fir +1 �, r zw WWI too , 1. ►i M+/rrY'y,�9�Af�s'✓ m,£y f � ,{e '. s �..;� ,l . r"� > a i. ' �b q �. , e 3 a •' '^ ...'fJ.ft.. "9aty �,6 .3' 6 ..>,r., 'E: ,: .b. • y. a. Sim Nil > ; �,/i/� ✓'.," � ✓1.;�" � s� t »: �� ,s s y a%� �"n` _,� ss �[y pr dr � y ; <•q < `yv¢•'4+i rti cif y. UPI c' ± w iGi ->>w• f apt d •� s W tin / . rt g Vn� �.'� .yn,,.s • / t y� f b ijf'� a "� �"« a� r�, .. -- ^•I:� .y;yy, URR ;', tit" a,i4 e WAR t y Ix l ,� b +D � t >"' 73 � � .G Yb'.b �'. � �s 'kva� ; p,tt k �•i.t� r e � � S f•� 4: ,9i ;� ' �{�ifL•,i •t4 n b �• j .. Ail 4•` ii aN 3. " MEMO y t'ip'PSs 'C✓ Yi�Y!' �:'k 1�¢¢>c.St i �., -4.7 L Otis ` • Shit. jk ,�t •k.f 3f P> !F f typv4 . L. f L; t r CITY OF SARATOGA 4 -WAY STOP WARRANT SHEET INTERSE_ C_ TION: , Q f� DATE: �98 WITH Description of Warrant Warranted Unwarranted Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the four-way-stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrange- ments are being made for the signal'in- stallation. 'An accident problem, as indicated by five (5) or more reported accidents of a type susceptible of correction by a four -way stop installation in a 12- month period. MINIMUM VOLUMES 1. The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles -per hour for any 8 hours of an aver- age day. 2. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street must aver - age at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average de- lay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle _ during the maximum hour. 3 When the critical (857.) approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 M.P.H., the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70% of #2 requirements. X x --------- - - - - -- X GENERAL A. The !'FOUR -WAY STOP" installation,where legal,. has been found useful as a safety measure at some locations. It should not ordinarily be used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is very unequal. B. The above'summary of warrants for the installation of a four -way stop was ex- cepted from the Manual on "Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways ". DISCUSSION OF WARRANT: �'e"��'�inq S�o�Jcgrls pyt ��yj• Oradcl% 14 6e,-Xe c-e'�i�JO,14 cSC�7i/ _ V CITY OF SARATO( COLLISION DIAGRAM INTER SECT VON: L�Fj� �j =Q /�/� AND ��41V 44WC PERIOD: /syeartr - 5Man1AVFR0M: �%rI, /, /973 T0:_ Rfe e_,01 - PREPARED BY: Xf y DATE: S /4 NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS DPROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY INJURY R FATAL 4 TOTAL ACCIDENTS SYMBOLS =0- MOVING VEHICLE 016:10))ISACKING VEHICLE 4 - NON - INVOLVED VEHICLE - alb- —PEDESTRIAN r= PARKED VEHICLE �] FIXQO OBJECT FATAL ACCIDENT O INJURY ACCIDENT STOP TYPES OF COLLISIONS SHOW FOR EACH ACCT DEN -W-+*- REAR ENO --►ii- HEAD ON SIDESWIPE G11-0- OUT OF CONTROL LEFT TURN LRIGHT ANGLE 1. TIME OF DAY, DAY< OAT 2 WEATHER APO ROAD SUP -IF UNUSUAL CONDITIO EXISTtO 3 NITE- IF BETWEEN DU AND DAWN. 7"Y OF S�4f1 r-oa4 1/OZZIAtE COUNT INT46R55C 7- /01V FRoNJ To 8L All E�2 Drr, R64SAAf ZW. TD 7- ..4 L s /000-//00- 148 99 Z47 l /00 -IZOO 164 /00 264 - 1ZOO - 1300 1S6 104 Z 60 l 400 -• 1,5-oo 19,3 146 339 1 Soo - f bop Z44 / 96 440 1600 -1700 Z �3 Z03 4Z6 1700 --1800 Z Z Z Zo3 �CZS I800 -19co 141 169 3t0 7-0 T,4� s 149 1 I,ZZo 2J-7 1 I J ADT= Z,o7/ ADT= i, 378 D /SCUSSIOly; e -n SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: September 21, 1988 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL U'Y SUBJECT:" Stop Sign Requests - Regan Lane at Blauer Drive and at Argonaut Drive Recommended Motion: Deny requests for the installation of stop signs on Blauer Drive at Regan Lane and at Argonaut Drive and Regan Lane. Report Summary: Regan Lane at Blauer Drive - The installation of a four -way stop.at this inspection is not warranted. The existipg stop signs on Regan Lane are serving the purpose of right -of -way assignment and are on adequate traffic safety device. Regan Lane.at Argonaut Drive - Stop signs at Argonaut Drive and Regan Lane are also not warranted, and should not be installed. Public Safety Commission has reviewed these requests and support the recommendation regarding Argonaut Drive and Regan. By 3 -3 vote the commission could not approve the stop sign for Regan /Blauer. J Fiscal-Impacts: None. Attachments: l.' Reports, memos, warrant sheets,'and sketches': Motion and Vote: 13777 FRUITVALEAVENUE • S.-\ Il .- \- I'OKTY-,ZNgtrUEERSOF?FFCEc) 1408) 861 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman August 23, 1988 To: City Manager From: Community Services Director Subject: Proposal to Install Stop Signs at Two Locations on Regan Lane; at Blauer and at Argonaut ---------------------------------------------------------------- At the Public Safety Commission meeting on August 8, 1988, the Commission considered two proposals to install stop signs on Regan Lane. The first proposal was to establish a four -way stop at the intersection of Regan and Blauer; the second proposal was to establish a three -way stop at the intersection of Regan and Argonaut. On July 24, 84 notices concerning the Public Safety Commission's agendizing of this issue were mailed to all property owners within 500' (in all directions) of each intersection. Mrs. Linda Mullen who lives at 12960 Regan Lane was the only citizen who showed up to address the Commission on this issue. She favored both stop sign proposals. After, considerable discussion concerning each of the proposals, the Commission failed to pass a motion supporting the installation of a stop sign at the intersection of Regan and Blauer. Commissioners Swanson, O'Rorke, and Crane supported the motion of installing a four -way stop at this intersection, while Commissioners Mulford, Dawson, and Borah opposed it. Commissioner Long was absent. The Commission unanimously passed a motion opposing the installation of a three -way stop at the intersection of Regan and Argonaut. If you have any questions in this matter, please feel free to contact me. ./Y Todd W. Arg 3m cc: PSC Bob Shook Erman. Dorsey < i* INTERSECTION: /7 EC-� LAN CITY OF SARATOGA 4 -WAY STOP WARRANT SHEET L•41VE WITH DATE: Description of Warrant Warranted Unwarranted Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the four- way-stop is ,0 a r Ho f an interim measure that can be installed � Ae g,"a .s�ao s4e. quickly to control traffic while arrange- ments are being made for the signal'in- stallation. An accident problem, as indicated by five (5) or more reported accidents of a type susceptible of correction by a four -way stop installation in a 12- month period. MINIMUM VOLUMES 1. The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500, vehicles .per hour for any 8 hours of an aver- age day. --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ------------------ 2. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street must aver- age at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average de- > < lay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour. - — — — — — 3. W hen — — the — critical — — — — — (85- - 7.) — approach — — — — — spee— d — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — of the major street traffic exceeds 40 M.P.H., the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70% of #2 requirements. GENERAL A. The "FOUR -WAY STOP" installation,where legal, has been found useful as a safety measure at some locations. It should not ordinarily be used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is very unequal. B. The above summary of warrants for the installation of a four -way stop was ex- cepted from the Manual on "Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" DISCUSSION OF WARRANT: &a,2e a¢- Mr �arra�fs a�� /1�e There iS ,0 a r Ho f �orrc c��6 /c . � Ae g,"a .s�ao s4e. AFQ 4f 14 H r SRO B L EM Q/-Y rA Al C of RCOAM LM. 7Z CA Z CITY OF SARATOGA COLLISION DIAGRAM INTERSECTION-. REG, 1V LANE I AND 4 R60N,4 uT 49R� VE PERIOD :_ 4 yeors 4Afon>4s FROM:Jdituary /, 1994 T0; .�iesei�/ PREPARED BY DATE: boy 1Gi988 �u HUMBER OF ACCIDENTS I PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 0 INJURY OR FATAL .—Lr, TOTAL ACCIDENTS 4• IV lu SYMBOLS I� lu Iu Ir �r u �r \ �a /y C MOVING VEHICLE dldi"�o SACKING VEHICLE tv — NON - INVOLVED VEHICLE .091- — PEDESTRIAN n PARKED VEHICLE 13 FIXED OGJECT 0 FATAL ACCIDENT 0 INJURY ACCIDENT \�vT 1-0 x G TYPES OF COLLISIONS '400— REAR ENO _pjw&. HEAD ON 11DESWIPE OUT OF CONTROL LEFT TURN LRIGHT ANGLE SHOW FOR EACH ACCIDENT t. TIME OF DAY, DAY& DATE Z WEATHER AND ROAD SURFACI IF UNUSUAL CONDITION EXISTED 3 NITER- IF BETWEEN' DUSK AND PAWN RI.. A 1 111% 9 • ':: CITY - of �• �' �'OGA �, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867- :34 :38 COUNCIL MEMBERS: April 29, 1988 To: From: Subject: City Council Community Services Director Scheduled Public Safety Commission Action on Stop Sign Requests Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson At your joint meeting with the Public Safety Commission, you requested the Commission consider recommending the placement of stop signs at the intersection of Blauer and Regan and at the intersection of Regan and Chateau. Although the engineering staff has completed an anlaysis of the intersection of Blauer and Regan, they have not had an opportunity to analyze the intersection of Regan and Chateau. The City Engineer has informed me that a staff analysis will be completed by the end of May; therefore, I am scheduling both matters to be considered by the Public Safety Commission at their June 13, 1988, meeting. If you know of any individuals who would be interested in addressing the Commission on the need for the stop signs at either of these two intersections, please give me their names and addresses and I will make sure they are notified of this meeting. Todd W. Ar jm cc: PSC City Manager City Engineer / Sr. Traffic Technician l/ v SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. I UD MEETING DATE: 9 -21 -88 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPT. AGENDA ITEM J-- CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Final Map Approval for SD 87 -020 Peter Olsen, Quito Road (3 Lots) Recommended Motion: • Approve Resolution No. SD 87- 020.02 approving Final Map. Report Summary: 1. SD 87- 020.02 is ready for Final Map Approval. 2. All the requirements for City and other departments have been met. 3. All fees have been paid. Y Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 87- 020.20. 2. Resolution approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. Moti nn and Vni-rm - SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TRACT NO SD NO 87 -020 Storm Drain Fees $3,900.00 Park & Recreation Fees $3,300.00 Plan Check & Inspection Fees $ 200.00 Final Map Check Fees $ 350.00 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Tsvia Adar DATE: 3/23/88 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -87 -020.; 15231 Quito Road APPLICANT: Peter Olsen APN: 397 -07 -020 ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests tentative map approval, for a 3 -lot residential subdivision of a 2.97 acre (net) site located at 15231 Quito Road in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. An 11,200 sq. ft. structure listed in the Heritage Preservation Inventory of the City exists on the site. The project is continued from the 2/10/88 Planning Commission meeting. Revised plans were discussed at the C.O.W. meetings of 2/15/88 and 3/1/88 ISSUES: The project raises the following issues: 1) The proposed subdivision will create nonconforming right and rear setbacks for the house of 51 from the proposed property lines where 20' side and 50' rear yard setbacks are required; 2) The existing historic house is about 11,200 sq. ft. in floor area and will be located'on the proposed lot of 47,450 sq. ft. The home size will exceed the allowable floor area on the lot by 4,060 sq. ft.; 3) The widths of proposed lots B and C, are substandard (143' - lot.C, 95' - lot B in lieu of 1501 required); 4) The proposed open space easement on lots B and C, along the side and rear of lot A is required to preserve the historic structure; therefore, the open space easement should be part of lot A and be maintained by the owner of this lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application since the site is not physically suitable for a 3 -lot subdivision and several restrictions and limitations are required to mitigate the problems resulting from the proposed subdivision. However, if the Planning Commission decides to approve the application for the sake of preserving the historic structure, a resolution is attached. PUBLIC NOTICING: The application was deemed complete on 1/15/88. SD -87 -020 has been noticed by advertising in the Saratoga News on 1/27/88 and .,direct mailing to property owners within 500' of the project.' ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 7. TA /dsc Technical Information & Staff Analysis Memorandum from the Heritage Preservation Commission & minutes of '1/20/88 Letter from the Saratoga Historical Foundation Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist Resolution SD -87 -020 Tentative Map, Exhibit B 1 TECHNICAL INFORMATION /STAFF ANALYSIS COMMISSION MEETING: 3/23/88 APN: 397 -07 -020 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -87 -020; 15231 Quito Road ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative map approval of a 3 -lot subdivision APPLICANT: Peter Olsen PROPERTY OWNER: Trans Optics -I OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Final Map approval ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration pending ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Very Low Density EXISTING LAND USE: A historic single family dwelling SURROUNDING LAND USES: One -story single family homes at north, east and west. To the south, a large accessory structure used in the past as laboratory. PARCEL SIZE: 3.22 acres (gross), 2.97 acres (net). NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Dense vegetation and many trees throughout the site. The lot is characterized by a moderate slope toward Quito Road. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 6.3% AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 6.3% PROPOSED SETBACKS OF EXISTING RESIDENCE: Front: 94' Rear: 5' Left Side: Existing: 2' Right Side: 5' Proposed: 34' HEIGHT: N/A IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 39% (18,500 sq. ft.)(18,980 sq. ft. is'allowed) SIZE OF STRUCTURE: (approximately) ' Proposed* First Floor (incl. garage): 11,200 sq. ft. 10,300 sq. ft. Second Floor: -0- sq. ft. -0- TOTAL: 11,200 sq. ft. 10,300 sq. ft. *900 sq. ft. proposed to be removed .ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that the setbacks and the floor area on lot A will not comply with the standards required for the district and the widths of lot B and C are substandard. 2 SD -87 -020; 15231 Quito Road MATERIALS & COLORS OF EXISTING STRUCTURE: brown tones. Roof - Terra cotta tiles. STAFF ANALYSIS Project Description Exterior - Adobe brick The applicant proposes to subdivide a 3.22 acre lot (2.97 acre net area after right -of -way dedication for Quito Road and access road). The parcel is located at 15231 Quito Road in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Three (3) lots of unequal size are proposed: 47,450 sq. ft. (lot A), 41,800 sq. ft. (lot B) and 40,000 sq. ft. (lot C). A historic single family home, about 11,200 sq. ft. in size exists on the site and will be preserved on Parcel A (47,450 sq, ft.). The existing structure, known as Casa Tierra, was built in 1941 and is characterized by its original style made of adobe bricks, terra cotta tile roof, and original interior details. The building is listed in the Santa Clara County Register of Historic Properties and the Heritage Resource Inventory currently under preparation by the Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission. The applicant has stated that he is willing and intends to designate the home as a historic heritage resource. An open space easement, 20 -30' wide, is proposed beyond the right and rear property lines of lot A, on which the historic home is located. The easement will be retained on lots B and C. A similar easement 20' -30' wide will be retained along the front and west side of lot B. An open space easement is proposed along the northern side of the access driveway on lot B. The access driveway is 10, wide and an additional 10' access easement is proposed on lot C in order to maintain the 20' minimum width required for access ways. The site is characterized by a moderate slope of 6.3% and dense vegetation covers the lot including oaks, pines, redwoods, acacias and eucalyptus. Conformance with the General Plan 1. The General. Plan guidelines for Planning area "G" which include the subject property, requires protection and preservation of the very low density character of the area which is 1.09 du /acre (or 1 du. /40,000 sq. ft.)(page 4 -21 in the General Plan). The proposed subdivision creates three lots between 40,000 sq. ft. and to 47,450 sq. ft. and meets the 40,000 minimum requirement of the General Plan. 2. The General Plan ;states: "It is the responsibility, and should be the desire, of the City to promote evidence of its culture heritage by designating and well publicizing its, historic features" and the "irreplaceable heritage resources" must be protected (Cultural Resources, page 3 -41 in the General Plan). The Meagher- Smiley adobe house is listed on the Heritage 3 SD -87 -020; 15231 Quito Road Resources Inventory of the City and is proposed by the applicant to be preserved and protected. The applicant expressed his intention to participate in the Heritage Resource Designation program and to rehabilitate the structure. . The proposed subdivision includes mitigation measures for preservation and protection of the historic house in order to minimize the impact on the character of the house and its setting. Issues and Impact of the Proposal 1. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance The size of the proposed three lots complies with the 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement for the district. However, the existing historic structure is about 11,200 sq. ft. in size; 900 sq. ft. of a later addition towards the south, is proposed to be removed but the home will still be about 4,060 sq. ft..in excess of the 6,240 sq. ft. floor area allowed on•47,450 sq. ft. lot. As a result of the subdivision, the right and rear setbacks of the existing structure will be only 5' from the proposed property lines where 20' side and 50' rear yard setbacks are required. Although the 20 - 301 open space easement shown on the map around the unique historic building is intended to protect the residence against impacts of the construction of new structures on the existing residence, staff feels that a more reasonable protection of the home would be to maintain a buffer around the home of land that belonged to the owner of the adobe home, not to neighbors. Staff recommends that the 30' easement width will be established on lot A and not on lots B and C. This change will create ,a more substandard size of lots B and C but will result in a more reasonable use of the newly created sites. The applicant is willing to limit the size of the new residences on parcels B and C below the allowable floor area standard to balance the oversized existing structure. The. subdivision conditions should restrict the floor area of the homes on lots B and C to maximum of 4,000 sq. ft. (instead of 6,000 sq. ft. and 6,060 sq. ft.) so that the total floor area on the three lots will be about 18,300 sq. ft., which is equal to the total allowable floor area on the three lots. The adobe house was built around interior and exterior courtyards oriented toward the southeast. In this position and orientation, the,privacy.and the view of the house will be well protected and will not be impacted by the new structures. The existence of new structures will be hardly noticeable, if at all, from the site of the adobe.house. The subdivision creates three standard size lots; however, the width of lots B and C are substandard (lot B-- 95' and lot C 1431). The location of the future building on lot B is proposed 4 SD -87 -020; 15231 Quito Road in the wider portion of the lot and the proposed building envelopes on both lot B and C maintain the required setbacks for the district. Lot B is located at the far portion of the property and the accessway to the lot from Quito Road will be 240' long. The neighbors on the adjacent properties expressed their concerns in regard to the impact of the subdivision on their privacy and the openness of their lots. In order to address these issues, the Planning Commission directed the.applicant to provide open space easements along the adjacent properties. The applicant added to the revised plans a 10' open space easement along the north side of the access driveway which leads to lot B, and additional 20' -30' open space easements along the front and right sides of lot B. 2. Preservation and Protection of the Historic Structure The Heritage Preservation Commission and the Saratoga Historical Foundation have both expressed their desire to see the adobe house preserved and their concerns and recommendations are described in the attached letters. Both have reviewed the tentative map showing the easement and emphasize the importance of compatibility of the new structures with the adobe house. A condition of approval is that prior to final map approval, the applicant shall fulfill his offer to designate the home as a heritage resource and rehabilitate the structure in accordance with the, State Historic Building Code and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties as directed by the Chief Building Inspector of Saratoga. The adobe house is characterized by a unique style and materials. The subdivision conditions require design review approval by the Planning Commission to ensure that. the new structures on lot B and C will be compatible with the existing home with regards to the style, materials and colors. Since the historic house and and the existing residences on the adjacent properties to the north and west are all one -story and low in height, it is recommended that the homes be limited to one - story, or restricted to maximum height of 221,. The 22' height limit will allow two -story homes without excessive height and will provide the flexibility to reduce the site coverage and to minimize tree removal. The existing vegetation and trees are an integral part of the setting of the adobe house. Preservation of,the vegetation and tree removal restrictions must be conditioned in the subdivision and limited only to areas approved by the Commission for building pads. No tree removal should be allowed on parcel A or in the open space easements. In order to minimize the ingress and egress to Quito Road and to minimize tree removal, the same 5 SD -87 -020; 15231 Quito Road driveway should be used for both parcels B and C. Parcel C would retain an access easement and right -of -way on the flag lot access which is proposed at the northern property line on parcel B. The access easement would be recorded on the final map. Conclusion The proposed subdivision creates lot shapes, setbacks and a floor area which do not comply with the Zoning Ordinance. In order to mitigate the problems resulting from the subdivision, restrictions and limitations are required on lots B and C. A subdivision of the property into two lots instead of three could eliminate some of the problems of nonconformity with the Zoning Ordinance. Elimination of lot B would create larger backyards for lots A and C, conforming rear setback on lot A and reduce the excess in floor area of the adobe house. If the Planning Commission decides to approve the subdivision in order to preserve the historic structure, the subdivision map should be conditioned by the. restoration and preservation of the historic home. Subdivision of lot A must be prohibited in case of demolition of the historic home at any time in the future. 2 1-1—' SD -87 -020; 15231 Quito Rd. EXHIBIT A 1. The applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. 2. The applicant shall comply with all applicable providions of Chapter 14 of the City Code, including without limitation the submission of a Record of Survey or Tract Map, payment of strom drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of tentative approval, submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Central Fire District. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - ENGINEERING DIVISION 3. Pay storm drainage fee in .effect at the time of obtaining final approval. 4. Submit parcel map to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map.of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). 5. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" in conformance with official plan lines for Quito Road. 6. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required.. 7. Improve Quito Road to City Standards. "D.I.A." 8: Construct storm drainage system as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the following: a. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. b. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. C. Storm.drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. 9. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed, dwelling. 10. Construct standard driveway approaches. "D.I.A." 11. Construct driveway approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 11,aggregate base. 7 JV „1-11, SD -87 -020; 15231 Quito Road 12. Construct "valley gutter” across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by the City Engineer. 13. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 14. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 15. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. 16. Obtain encroachment permit from.the City Engineering Dept. for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City street. 17. Engineered improvement plans required for: a. Storm drain construction. 18. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. 19. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval. 20'. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required improvements marked "D.I.A." 21. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS _ BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION 22. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional. a. Soils 23. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: a. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections, existing and proposed elevations, earth- work quantities). b. Retaining structures including design.by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for 3 feet or higher. c. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or' be removed. d. Erosion control measures. 8 SD -87 -020; 15231 Quito Road 24. Other requirements: Sewer District permit required prior to issuance of plumbing permit. Fire retardant roof covering required. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS _ SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 25. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review certification and registration. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS _ SANTA CLARA.COUNTY SANITATION DIST. NO. 4 ,e 26. The developer will extend the existing sanitary sewer in Quito Road for sewer service. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit sanitary sewer plans to the District for review and approval. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS _ CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 27. Provide one new fire hydrant on Quito Road approximately 250 ft. north of the south property line of the subdivision. The required fire hydrant installation shall be tested and accepted by the Central Fire District prior to the issuance of any building permits. 28. Parcel A, provide fire department locking devices on existing gates if not already equipped. 29. Provide property wall protection where required by the Uniform Building Code. 30. Parcel B, because of over distance from Quito Road, the proposed residence shall be provided with an N.F.P.A. 13 -D residential sprinkler system without the listed exceptions. Provide an on -site fire truck trunaround area that is within 150 ft. of all portions of the exterior walls of the first floor of any building. Provide fire department "MEDECO" locking devices on any proposed gates. 31. Parcel C - If any portion of the exterior walls of the first floor of any building are more than 150 ft. from -the road, the applicant shall provide an on -site fire truck turnaround. Provide fire department "MEDECO" locking devices on any proposed gates. 32. Driveways and turnarounds with all weather surfaces shall be provided prior to issuance of building permits and shall sustain the weight of fire trucks, 35,000 lbs. 9 N SD -87 -020; 15231 Quito Road SPECIFIC CONDITIONS _ SANTA CLARA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 33. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. 34. Existing septic tank(s) must be pumped and backfilled in accordance with Environmental Health standards. Contact the district Sanitarian for final inspection upon completion. 35. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Works. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS _ SAN JOSE WATER WORKS COMPANY 36. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit plans for review and approval of the water company. All the requirements of San Jose Water Works Company shall be met. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CITY GEOLOGIST 37. Soil and Foundation Investigation - The applicant should retain the services of a geotechnical consultant to conduct a geotechnical investigation of the areas of proposed development. This investigation should address, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and design parameters for residential foundations, retaining walls and driveway. 38. The results of the geotechnical investigation shall be submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the . City Geologist and Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 39. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical. consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical .aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, driveway design, and retaining walls) to ensure that his recommendations have -been properly incorporated. 40. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 41. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical' consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be 10 9 SD -87 -020; 15231 Quito Road limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, excavations for foundations and'retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT 42. No structure or fences shall be allowed in the 30' open space easement. 43. No tree removal permitted unless in accordance with Article 15 -50 of the City Code. 44. Design review approval by the Planning Commission is required for the new homes on parcels B and C to ensure compatibility with style, materials and colors of the adobe house on lot A. 45. An access easement shall be retained by parcel C over, parcel B and shall.be recorded with the final map. No additional driveways are allowed on parcel C. 46. An access easement shall be retained by parcel B over parcel C and shall be recorded with the final map. 47. The maximum height of the homes on parcels B and C is 22'. 48. The maximum floor area allowed on parcels B and C is 4,000 sq. ft. 49. Prior.to final map approval, the applicant must obtain a certification from the Department of Health that the site has been totally freed of any hazardous materials and is safe for development and occupancy. 50. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall fulfill his offer to designate the home as heritage resource and rehabilitate the structure in accordance with the State Historic Building Code and Security of the Interior Standard of Rehabilitation of Historic Properties as direcrted by the Chief Inspector of Saratoga. 51. A landscaping plan for screening in the open space easement shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, reviewed 'by. the neighbors and approved by the Planning Commission prior to final map approval. 52. Landscaping for screening in the open space easement_ shall be installed prior to final map approval. 53. An agreement for owners to maintain all landscaping in the open space easement per approved landscape plan shall be -, 11 SD -87 -020, Olsen - 15231 Quito Road recorded with the County Recorder. 54. All applicable requirements of State, County, City and other governmental entities must be met. 55. Noncompliance with conditions #42 and #43 of this ,permit _ shall constitute a violation of the permit. 'Because it is impossible to estimate damage the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable . to this City per each day of the violation. 56. No further subdivision of lot A is permitted. This restriction shall be recorded against the property. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date 0 12 • RESOLUTION NO, SD -87 -020 RESOLUTION APPnOVING TENTATIVE MAP OF, 15231 Ouito Road APN 397 -07 -007 f WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency - under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California-and un- der the Subdivision Ordinance 'of the City of Saratogai'for tenta tive map approval Of 'a lot, site or subdivisions of • .3' .lot all as more particularly set forth in File No'e sb -91 -020 o this City, and , WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposes subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and im- provement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is 'Compatible with the objectives, policies and gen- eral land use and programs specified 'in such General Plan, refer- ence to the Staff Report dated March 23 ..1988 being hereby made for further particulars, and , WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the (gm3xeptps.�mx�(x (Negative Declaration) prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions Of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth'in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approved should be' granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the ..'hereinafter described ,7 subdivision, which map is dated the. 26tH day of _anuary , 19 88 and is marked Exhibit $ the hereinabovereferred to file,. be and the same s ere y cow,, ditionally approved. The:conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit A .in by reference. -- _ and incorporated here The above and foregoing resolution was duly , Y Passed and adoptec by the Planning Commission March . at a meeting thereof 'held on the 23rd day of was 19 8a , at which a quorum Present, by t e following vote: AYES: NOES: ; ADVISORY AGENCY ABSENT: By: Chairman, Planning ommission ATTEST: Secretary, i`lanniny. Curuul�:;lon �) U) re) +14961 11997 J496o 1M4o9 31/s 7 -04 -77 97.06•21 (s) ' a,ra•os 570 N97 -LL, 997.06 - 1117S el Gq 147{.5 15090 fq 19T M . 117- o7•p(, 197•o7•JI I'i 119 1.�� -;C 117.07 7,7 -07•,6 14020 19040 r1) �. -29 1!7.07 -01 177.07.0[ 1909: � a17•oq -61 IS041 1 040 1ecB1 1!7.0707 - 01, 1977 .07.10 3 19TO7 -oi C1) O 115 1-5041 111x1 777 •o7 671~ x,7.07 -67 1 . a W ( 717 7!lA I 141x1 !17.07.11 10616 1667/ 397•o7." N7.07.71 1 ' 141ta I 7/17 -07-06 It.—I i als -o7 -�� MAUDE . AVE. 14141 1914! ir' 717 07.11 i97•oTlt 16141 3 14140 16440 ' 1'114 z >•9,r07 -/6 877.07 -IL x17;07.17 (y 1470771 7,7..1 1 911r 1 O � YITO7 -K I s l''3° O� • 17160 +l 1 � 117.07.1• 19101 '� 19/99 14200 i!7.07•n 1418) /9u0 x97.07.1 x97 - 7-)5 1,7.07 -77 �4, �a 4 197 -07 •t4 15t5o / 397-07 to •• . 5,7.07 -,• soeEY �.`,�!� rll 1 s z zs w re)R� lei oii: 1 "70� ' ' 16217 397.07 -61 Isa77 !97•o7.7L 7!7.07.17 197.07. � (A1 . 1197!6277 7>77•.P7. 67 if7•oT6t \ ... Icalq Ist7e a \ )\ .. 697.07- 71 ' �„•y : te) 19L�! / f•k, '`I,I "`, "•� Iii 07 s6 '97'67.1•• �' 7f7•od.� rq ,C 10717 bY•< 197•07.Is </QQ I lrl �•I 15261 W)7-07- (61 I q CS) Iobras 14z66 /23 fl fOI•,` 15277 !97.07 -» 997 -07-14 8137 � IB6o1 /41 2a "It . ?. :1) � -.B -1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /S- MEETING DATE: 9- 21--88 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPT, SUBJECT: Final Building Site Approval for SD 87 --009 Richard Rivoir Hill (3 Lots) AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended Motion: AV Approve Resolution No. SD 87- 009,02, approving FiI1al, Building Sites, Report Summary: 1. SD 87-009 is ready for Final Building Site Approval, 2. All requirements for.City and other departments have been completed, 3. All fees have been paid. I Fiscal-Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. .Resolution No. SD 87- 009.02. 2. Resolution Approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. 0 Nf. RESOLUTION NO. 87- 009.02 • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RESCINDING BUILDING SITE FOR Richard Rivoir The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: . The 22,750 S.F., 31,800 S.F. and 34,500 S.F. Parcels shown as Lot 14, 15, and 16 on Bonnie Brae, Map #2 Recorded in Book 2 Page 46 in the Santa Clara County Recorders Office and submitted to City Engineer, City of Saratoga be approved as three (3) individual building sites. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR RESOLUTION N0. 50-87 -009.1 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF RIVOIR. APN'S 517 -19 -58 59 62 WHEREAS, the application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the _ Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for site approval of 3 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -87 -009.1 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the 'proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated July 22, 1987 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the Categorical Exemption prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of the Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect. to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which.maps are dated the 18th day of December, 1987 and March, 1987 and are marked Exhibit C in the herainabovereferrrd to file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more. particularly set forth on ExhibitJA and incorporated herein by reference. The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of July, 1987, at which a 'quorum was present, by the. following voter AYES: Commissioners Harris, Guch, Burger, Clay & Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Siegfried Chai an, Planning Commission ATTEST: aft Lab ij�� CLa_e cretary, Planning C mmission 3 50- 87- 009.11 20411 Hill Ave. EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. General Conditions 1. The owner shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30�days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. 2. Prior to obtaining Final Approval, the applicant shall comply with the conditions of SO -87 -009 and LL -87 -003. .B. Specific Conditions - Engineering Division 1. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. 2. Submit "final map" to City for checking and recordation and pay - required fees. 3. Submit. "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20 ft. half- street on Vine St. 4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 40 ft. street on Hill Ave. from Montalvo Rd. to approximately midway be Vine and Pleasant Streets and for a 30 ft. right -of -way from that mid -point to Pleasant Street. 5. Construct Pleasant Avenue as a minimum access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using 2 -1/2" asphalt concrete on 6" aggregate base for its entire length. 6. Constructfturnaround on Pleasant Avenue having a 32 ft. radius or approved .'equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of any proposed dwelling. Note: a) The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft. b) The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. c) Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading. d) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the.use of cul- verts and roadside ditches. 7. Enter into a "Deferred Improvement Agreement" to improve Vine St. to City Standards and as approved by the City Engineer, when Parcel E or F are developed as shown on lot line adjustment map dated 2/87 (LL -87 -003). B. Improve Hill Ave, to City standards, including the following: a) Designed structural section 26 ft. between flowline from Mon- talvo Rd. to where the right -of -way reduces to 30 ft., then 22 ft. from there to Pleasant Ave. 4 SD-87- 009.1; 20411 Hill Ave b) P.C. concrete curb and gutter (R -36). 9. Construct 'storm drainage system as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the following: a) Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. b) Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. - c) Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels; etc. 10. Construct standard driveway approaches. 11. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 12. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 13. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. 14. Engineered improvement plans required for: a) Street improvements b) Storm drain construction c) .Access road IS. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. 16. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of, receiving Final Approval. 17. Post bondlto guarantee completion of the required improvements. 18.. Increase inside curb radius to a minimum of 30 ft. at the intersection of Hill Ave. and Pleasant Ave. Right-of-way radius to be not less than 20 ft. 19. Enter into a deferred improvement agreement to abandon or realign the ,existing driveway located at the corner of.Hill Ave. and Vine St. -serving Parcel G as approved by the City Engineer, when parcel E or F are developed as shown on lot line adjustment (LL -87 -003). C. Specific Conditions - Pacific Gas & Electric 1. Provide for a ',0 ft, public utility easement as required by P.G.& E. 0. Specific Conditions - Santa Clara County Health Dept 1. A sanitary sewer connection is required.. '2. Any existing. septic tanks) must be pumped and backfilled in accordance with Environmental Health standards. .. 5 �r SD -87- 009.1; 20411 Hill Ave. 3. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Co. 4. Seal any well in accordance with County Standards. E. Specific Conditions - Saratoga Fire District 1. The applicant shall install two (2) fire hydrants that meet the - Fire -District's specifications. Said hydrants shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. F. Specific Conditions - Building Inspection Division I. Submit detailed on -site improvement plans showing: a. grading limits b. drainage details c. retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 ft. or higher d. erosion control measures G. Specific Conditions - Plannino Department 1. Approval of SD -87 -009 (Reversion to Acreage Application) and LL -87- 003 is required. 2. Prior to Final Building Site approval, the applicant shall submit a bond to guarantee to remove or relocate to meet current setback requirements, the accessory structure located at the corner of Hill_ and Pleasant Avenues within one (1) year of final site approval. 3. If the applicant chooses to relocate rather than remove the existing accessory structure on Parcel G (per LL -87 -003 dated 2/87), the applicant shall apply for a second unit use permit or remove tAe existing kitchen facilities. 4. The applicant shall obtain City approval prior to demolishing any structures on site. 5. Prior to final approval, the applicant shall remove the existing gate located at the entrance of Pleasant St. G. No ordinance size trees, other than those indicated on the tentative building site plans, shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 7. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., feasibility of proposed building sites, site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and raodways> to ensure. that his recommendations have been properly incorporated. 6 y SD -87- 009.1; 20411 Hill Ave. 8. Geotechnical design recommendations should be modified (if necessary) to ensure the long-term stability of the currently proposed building sites and residential improvements. 9. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of site development and building permits. 10. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultatn should . inspect, test (as needed), and approve all-geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of concrete and steel. In addition, a responsible party should inspect the removal of all existing structures and underground utilities to ensure the site is clear of obstructions. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the gotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final project approval. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. r7 Signature of Applicant Date 7 SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TRACT NO Storm Drain Fees Park & Recreation Fees Plan Check & Inspection Fees SD NO 87 -009 $3,300.00 $3,900.00 $ 9',820.00 Final Map Check Fees $ 350.00 .� ..a�. �.,� . ' .i.�'�: JrJJlill'� .. �.�a SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 9 -21 -88 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: AWARD CONTRACT 'OVERLAY CERTAIN CITY STREETS TO RAISCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Recommended Motion: 0- AGENDA ITEM 9 CITY MGR. APPROVAL4E Award contract for Overlay Certain City Streets to RAISCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. Report Summary: The City received four bids on September 21, 1988 for above project. The lowest bid for this project was Raisch Construction Company located in Mt. View with total bid of $217,576.09. This project is part of the Street Management Program. Fiscal-Impacts: $217,576.09 General Fund. This project was approved in the 1988 -1989 Capital Improvement Budget and is part of the Street Management Program. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. Motion and Vote: 0 • - • .• • . City of S a r atosta - -Sheet of _ . -co, m u, nity Development Debar end i - - PROJECT j)BTK= 9 -21 _�1A8 8 �� • ' ' -- OVERLAY ON VARIOUS BID SUMMARY* --= - CITY ' STREETS T 7ME_= 2 oo P. ... . ` Description 1 Install 2" A.C. Overlay tity t Ton 32 TNFRRq Amount 152,000 RAISCt+ 31 -d GpNST Amount 14--7-- Z .p Z1 --9 66• 04RADyPA��NG it 31.75 0.48 Amount 150 812- 19074-3-04- t H1 a cD / Amount DvRAN it ZVNN�$L! Amount 3Z a o•so 157 000- r9 s24-. o 44 9 o.4s Z13 Sbo- e 1757/• .4 0'5.6 Install A.R. 4000 Binder- 4 Wedge Cut valve 9767 18 991 Gal L.F. 1.0 1.0 9,767 18,991 0 -95 O.6 9Z 12 .06 0.71 701 .60 1.0 9 -767 -0 o•8g 8594.9E 13,4-9 . 61 0.66 1Z 534.0 0-76 13 Z - 7.0 and Monuiopnt Paint Double Yellow. Install .Blue Marker .' 8 Install Type "B" Marker Paint 4" Wide Ed a Line Yell njj ros walk Paint-White rro. Pain -Pavem6nt Mar 136 1568 22 1457 2 eac L.F. eac eac L.F. p 170. 1. 10. 5.0 0.3 23.120 _ 1,568 220 340 437:10 400AQ 1 •0 Z.S.O Zo -o 0•.M zlgio Z •a zoo 19 19o4D o-a / S"6S -.oa ll .p Z3 00. p So 25 l 6 0• o /BS•D Z5 6 O• a-a 07CI •/097.60- 1.O 1 S68•o 1.0 1 SK ov 550. ev ► 3 60 -,TV 10.1 o•a 22.0-00 680• oa -z SD Zo•a .150 -0 1 360 -0 2S:o Z0 -o Ste, 136o. a-D 70`8 -SZ� 55D •D 550-,O 400 -a I1!op.a 0• zoo. 6ao $ Z_$D rj0.0 - aV D•5 Z7 SRO 728 -S� 5.50- D o•SD Z7SD g - Sb 55O - a-a Z7s.D 5 50 - a Z7,1 550 , oz7 4 oc) -oV • 600 - oa 450. /7sb- 9 oo -a 175-0- 0- 22S. V 1j"q l9`1 S• o-D TOTAL 230 576 Z1 $, y QS -65 z26,,776. �85931.7�