HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-1984 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSAGENDA BILL: -72,1
DATE: November 7, 1984
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance
Initial: T
Dept. Hea d
City Atty.:
City Mgr.
SUBJECT: Acceptance and Acknowledgement of Donation for Hakone
Issue Summary
Andrew D. Cashetta of Los Gatos has made a $10.00 contribution to the City
for use at Hakone Gardens.
Recommendation
Accept and acknowledge this donation by way of a letter from the Mayor.
Fiscal Impact
Donation of $10.00
Exhibits /Attachments
None.
Council Action
11/7: Accepted 3 -0.
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. 7-Z Dept. Hd.
DATE: Oct. 30, 1984 (Nov. 7, 1984) C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT. FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL, SDR -1568
FERHATBEGOVICH, PIERCE ROAD
Issue Summary
1. This is an expansion to an existing single family house.
2. All requirements of City Departments and other agencies have been met.
3. All fees have been paid.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 1568 -02, attached, approving the building site
for SDR -1568.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No. 1568 -02
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Location Map
4. Status Report for Building Site Approval
Council Action
11/7: Approved 3 -0.
REPORT TO. PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 5/14/84
Commission Meeting: 5/23/84
SUBJECT: SDR -1568 & A -968, Mr. & Mrs. Ferhatbegovich, 12871 Pierce Road
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of: 1) Tentative Building Site for an
over 50% expansion to a single-
family dwelling.
2) Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single-
story dwelling, and a total addition
over the 4,000 sq. ft. allowable
floor area for the R -1- 12,500 district.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Building Permits.
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION
ZONING: R- 1- 12,500
GENERAL.PLAN: Residential - Medium Density Single Family (M- 12,5).
The project complies with all applicable General Plan goals and
policies.
CTMV nTTT
PARCEL SIZE: 18,750 sq. ft. (16,500 sq. ft. after Pierce Road
dedication).
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3.86% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 3.86%
GRADING REQUIRED: Grading will be minimal. Some excavation will
be required for proposed wine cellar.'
Report to the Planning Commission 5/14/84
SDR -1568, ..A -968 Page 2
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of
the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have
been balanced against the public service needs of its residents
and available fiscal and environmental resources.
This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of
CEQA per Section 15301(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Said
determinination date: May 9, 1984
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for
SDR -1568 (Exhibits "B" filed March 29, 1984) subject to
the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall, comply with all applicable provisions of
Ordiance No. 60, including without limitation, the
submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of
storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as
established by Ordinance in effect the time of final
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 Fire Department.
Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further
particulars. Site Approval in no way excuses compliance
with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with
any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto,
applicant shall comply with the following Specific
Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord
with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining
Final Approval.
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation
(Pay required checking & recordation fees). (If parcel
is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to-
scale prints).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a
30 ft. Half- Street on "Pierce Road"
D. Improve "Pierce Road" to City Standards, including the
following:
1. Designed Structural Section': 20 ft. between
centerline and flowline.
2. Asphalt Concrete Berm.
3. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities.
SDR -1568, A -968
Ferhatbegovich, Pig
E. Construct
equal --us-
better on
dwelling.
5/14/84
Road Page 3
turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved
_ng double seal coat oil and .screenings or
6" aggregate base within 100 ft. , of proposed
F. 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" aggregate
base.
G. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe
culvert under driveway as approved by the Director of
Community Development.
H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions
of view as required at driveway and access road inter-
sections.
I. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will
change, retard or prevent flow.
J. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements.
K. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from
Improvement Plans.
L. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improve-
ments to be completed within one (1) year of receiving
Final Approval.
M. __Post bond to guarantee completion of the required im-
provements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A.. Geotechnical investigation and
1. Foundation
B. Bonds required.for Septic tank
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO S.
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided
with requirements of Cupertino
outlined in letter dated April
report by licensed professional
backfill - $400
UNITARY DISTRICT
and fees paid in accordance
Sanitary District as
16-, 1984.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT
A. Provide an approved on -site fire truck turnaround that
is within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls
of the first floor of the building(s).
• SDR -1568, A -968
Ferhatbegovich, Pi,11. Road.
5/14/84
Page 4
B. Remit to the Central Fire Protection District a $25.00
plan check fee.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
VII.
A. A sanitary sewer connection is required.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled to County
Standards.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. 'Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells
to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and
certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance
of permits.
B. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures
shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the
potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall pro -
vide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building
site.
C. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable
City Ordinances.
D. Any modification to the site development plan shall be re-
viewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of building
permits.
E. The carport shall be relocated to conform with minimum
ordinance requirements. A revised plan showing this shall
be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance
of building permits.
F. The accessory structure encroaching in.the rear yard shall
be removed or relocated in conformance with zoning ordinance
requirements 30 days after receipt of final building site
approval.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1568, Ferhatbegovich
(have) (#awe --ot) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on May 23, 1984
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for, -all required
items:
Offer of Dedication yes
Record of Survey or Parcel Map es
Storm Drainage Fee' N/A Date Subm
All Required Improvement Bonds 1,000
All Required Inspection Fees 1095
Building Site Approval Agreement yes
Park and Recreation Fee N/A
fitted
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date Submitted
Date Submitted
Receipt
Submitted 10 -30 -84
Submitted 10 -30 -84
Signed 10 -30 -84
Submitted - --
10 -22 -84
10 -22 -84
Receipt# 6578
Receipt# 6578
Receipt#
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(Cre�rt�rtnrai) (Final) Building Site Approval for Mr. Ferhatbegovich
SDR- 1568 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Condition(s) Reason for Non - Compliance
xon bnoox
Dir ctor•of Community Development
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL N0. 72 3
DATE: 10/30/84 (11/7/84)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance and Bond Reduction -
-------Tract
Y_ _ Tract 6665 and SDR -1426 (Parnas), Pierce Rd.
Initial
Dept'. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Issue Summary
Improvements have been constructed according to the approved plans
and acceptance for construction only is appropriate.
Maintenance period will be for 3 years instead of the normal 1 year.
Bonds are being reduced to 250 of original face amount during
maintenance period.
Recommendation
Accept Tract 6665 and SDR -1426 for construction only and approve
reduction in bond amount for maintenance period.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachnents
Memorandum dated October 30, 1984
Council Action
11/7: Approved 3 -0.
ti�1EMOO RANDUM
TO:
FROM
SUBJECT:
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
City Council
Director of :Community Development
DATE: October 30, 1984
Construction Acceptance for Tract 6665 and SDR -1426
Name & Location: Pierce Road at Congress SDrings
Public Improvements required for Tract 6665 and SDR -1426
have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the
City Council accept the improvements for construction only.
This "construction acceptance" will begin the three C3) year maintenance
period. During that year, the improvement contract, and.insurance
improvement securityy will remain in full force. Improvement Security
will be reduced to 25% of original amount.,
The following-information is included for your use:
1. Developer: Casa Grande Acquisition Corporation
Address: 5 Palo Alto Square
Palo Alto, CA
2. Improvement Security:
Type: Surety Bond
Amount: $569,020, $670,980, $135,000 and $100,000
Issuing Company: Developers Insurance Co.
Address:
Lafayette, CA 94549
Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 103341, 103333, 103335, 103336
3. Special Remarks:
Surety Bonds to remain in force at 25% of original amount for 3 -year
maintenance period.
RSS /dsm
Ro ert S. Shook
AGENDA BILL NO: 7Z 0
DATE: October 12, 1984
DEPARTMENT: FINANCE
Dept Head -44/
City Atty:
City Mgr :
SUBJECT: Transmittal and formal acceptance of financial reports
Issue Summary
Although we have reviewed and discussed the attached documents
previously (except for the management letter) we are bringing
them before you now for formal acceptance, and to go over any
remaining questions you may have.
Recommendation.
Discuss any remaining question areas and then formally accept the
reports.
Fiscal Impact
None.
Exhibits /Attachments
1984/85 Final Budget
1982/83 Financial Statements
Management Report on the 1982/83 audit
(The above reports were transmitted previously)
Council Action
10/17: Accepted Reports 5 -0.
1
t
AGENDA BILL NO Z Z�'
DATE: October 29, 1984
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initi
Dept.
C. At
C. Mg
SUB JECT• Handicapped - accessible Restroom Facilities in Civic Theater
Issue Summa
Eligibility Requirements for recipients of Revenue Sharing funds require full
handicapped accessibility to public buildings. The City has, nearly completed
its program for full - accessibility and HCD (block grant) funds were provided
in the 1984 -85 budget for completion of a handicapped ramp and restroom facility
in the Civic Theater.
The - preliminary design of the restroom improvement is flawed, however, and a
better approach will require an additional appropriation. The improved alter-
native may prove to be more cost - effective and is certainly a better design for,
the long run.:
Recommendation
Appropriate an additional $5,000 from the HCD fund to the Handicapped
Accessibility project in the 1984 -85 Capital projects budget.
Fiscal Impacts
The additional $5,000 in capital costs will result in better, more effi.cient
use of theater facilities in the long run. The $5,000 can be made available
from project savings realized in the previous fiscal year fund appropriations.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution of Appropriation (not included)
2. Report from City Manager, dated 10/29/84
3. Report from HCD Coordinator, dated 10/26/34
Council Action
11/7: Approved project; appropriation to be approved 12/5..
i
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 10/29/84
COUNCIL MEETING: 11/07/84
SUBJECT: Handicapped- accessible Restroom
Facilities in Civic Theater
Summary
Current budget appropriation for completion of the Handicapped -
accessible restroom facility in the Civic Theater is insufficient
for the desired alternative. An additional appropriation of
$5,000 from the HCD fund is needed.
Recommendation
Appropriate an additional $5,000 from Housing and Community
Development block grant funds for a handicapped - accessible
restroom in the Civic Theater.
Background and Analysis
Last year, Congress approved changes in eligibility
qualifications for Revenue Sharing recipients to require a
complete handicapped- accessible plan for all public buildings.
In response, the City's approved budget for 1984 -85 provides an
appropriation of $17,800 for completion of the remaining
improvements needed for full accessibility. These are an access
ramp and restroom at the Community Theater.
The preliminary concept for providing a handicapped - accessible
restroom in the Theater called for conversion of the existing
men's room to a "uni -sex" handicapped - accessible facility.
Budgeting for the project was based on this premise.
Report to Mayor and City Council Page 2
This concept is now considered undesirable because it would
require either (1) that men share the use of the restroom
facility with handicapped people of either sex, or (2) that the
restrooms in the adjacent City Offices be made available for non -
handicapped users during theater events. Neither of these
choices is desirable; the first for obvious reasons, the second
because of security and custodial concerns regarding access to
City offices during theater events (usually Friday and Saturday
evenings).
While there are ways to mitigate the problems of the second
alternative above, a third, and more straightforward alternative
exists which avoids all of these difficulties. That is, to add a
handicapped- accessible restroom in the Theater lobby area. This
facility could readily be constructed and plumbed in conjunction
with the construction of the handicapped access ramp to the main
Theater entrance. This option, however, would require an
additional appropriation of $5,000 for the estimated cost of
design and construction.
Even though the third option is more expensive in construction
cost and would use a portion of the lobby area, in the long run,
it is likely to be more cost effective and also provide more
efficient operating features.
J. W e D rnetz
ay
A
�9
_ W CITY of = ' ATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
October 26, 1984
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Linda Callon
Memo to: City Manager Martha Clevenger
Virginia Laden Fanelli
Joyce Hlava
From HCD Coordinator David Moyles
Subject: Restroom Accessibility at the Civic Theatre
The City Council has allocated HCDA funds for the completion of
accessibility improvements to the City Offices and the Civic
Theatre. A current unobligated balance of $18,513 exists for
these improvements.
Subsequent to the completion of preliminary design work by the
project architect, two options are suggested for consideration in
making the Civic Theatre restrooms accessible. Your direction is
requested in making a determination as to which of the following
options is most acceptable relative to Civic Theatre restroom
accessibility.
Option A
Modification of the existing men's room to a unisex - accessible
restroom. This option would require unlocking the side door of
the adjacent City Office building so as to provide public access
to the existing men's and women's facilities during times that
the Civic Theatre was in use. In order to maintain security to
the City Offices a glass security door would have to be installed
in the hallway between the reception counter and the south side
door of the City Office building. The architect estimates
unisex- accessible modification of the men's room at $3,500 and
installation of the security doors at $3,000.
Option B
Construction of a new, unisex - accessible restroom in the south
alcove of the Civic Theatre lobby. This new facility would
include a sink and two accessible water closets. Existing sewer
and water piping access are available with minor concrete cutting
and related work when considering that the construction of the
external access ramp and related concrete work will be taking
place at the adjacent exterior wall of the proposed new restroom.
Obtion B would provide a third restroom within the Civic Theatre
with two water closets. It would not be necessary to open
facilities in the City Office Building, thereby eliminating the
proposed security door and modification of the existing Civic
Theater men's room. The additional maintenance cost of operating
these facilities would also be eliminated.
Memo to City Manager
Cost Analysis (Options A & B)
Page 2
The estimated cost of implementing Option A is $6,500 (not
including additional maintenance time), $3,000 for security doors
and $3,500 for modification of the existing men's facility:
The estimated cost of implementing Option B is $11,500, $101000
for construction, and $1,500 for architectural work (plus
additional maintenance costs).
This results in a hard cost estimate of $5,000 additional for
Option B, ($3,500 for construction and $1,500 for additional
architectural services).
Implementation of Obtion B would require City Council
authorization to reprogram currently available HCDA funds: I
would recommend the reprogramming of an additional $101000 to
the accessibility activity. If Option B is selected, this would
allow for some contingency money which, if not required, could be
returned to another City project. The sum of $30,000 is
currently available for reprogramming. These funds were saved by
completion of the Quito Storm Drain Project significantly under
originax")estimated cost.
1Z:S7
taUAXarnekie
17
fit, VC
''` .... mo
4
17
fit, VC
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: Nov. 7, 1984 (10/25/84)
DEpARTm=: Community Development
--------------------------- - - - - --
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT• Appeal of Denial of Tree Removal Permit at 18596 Martha Ave.,
Kenneth Alviso
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Sutnnazy
The applicant requested a Tree Removal Permit to remove two Chinese Elms at the above
address. An on -site inspection revealed that these trees would be considered street trees.
An unwritten policy exists to protect street trees where feasible. The reasoning for this
is the precedent set in allowing tree removal and the potential negative impact on the
neighborhood.
Recommendation
Determine the merits of the appeal and approve (making the necessary findings) or deny the
Tree Removal Permit.
If the Council grants the appeal, two 36" box specimen trees should be planted in place of
the Chinese Elms.
Fiscal Impacts N/A
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Tree Removal Permit Application and Denial
2. Site Plan
3. Letter of Appeal
Council Action
11/7: Appeal approved 2 -0 -1 (Callon abstaining).
0
CITY OF SARATOGA
TREE RE;I011AL APPLla%TION AND PER11IT
(Article III., Chapter 8, Saratoga -- -City Code)
Name of Applicant P_* /r' " m.d LI ri l✓, A -2-:-L6 -�lK
�� r�1 y��� Application Date
Address —Ly �� b met ir I ye a r(( Zt
Phone _ ��� — ,33 9h Date to Remove Trees: D14 ()P aboa -f /D --34-4
Name of Property Owner if Different from Above
List Number of Trees
List Type of Trees dl l�1PSGr Rt _
List Size of Trees .J '7-
(Measured 24" from the Base of the Tree; Diameter or Circumference)
(TO BE CMT.LETED BY APPLICLINT)
LOCATION OF TREES: Plot all trees to be removed from property on the back of this form
• or on a separate sheet (show dimensions from property lines and e %ist-
ing structures to tree).
SPFCT_FIC RF-.1SO \'S FOR R— E,'OVAL OF TREE(S) :
u s a each & i1-17'0- c-
�c>e
W l2eu /fis i,✓�l
/awlt w( // not (grow leca use a'f /arge i-o t_fs 3 0 -rje-
*P-
t.9,
ke- eufrIr Q
�•net�t��1� rn aeS M efi ca /e. -z/A'j r. iii ezzaie r ix cStec r
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
�-1:OTE: Trees may be rcm.oved only if found to be within the criteria as established
by Section 8 -75 of the Saratoga City Code.
(TO BE CO:LrLET1:D BY STAFF !=MER)
DATE OF ON SITE I!;SP CTION : jU - j
I "SPECTED BY:
This tree rcnoval
PC it is approved in accord with Saratoga City Code ,
Scc~ cn
3.75, the and
crsigned hereby.mahing the following fi di lb or
^os.
F—I 1. The condition of the tree with respect to disease,
u uanjer of falling, pro::imity to c::istino or proposed
structures, and /or interference with utility services,
is such that it is in furtherance of the public health
or safety to permit its.removal, and /or
2 n e tree with respect to
� � The location of the P proposed im-
provements unreasonably restricts the economic enjoy-
ment of the property in question.
Conditions of permit:
This tree removal permit is denied for the following reasons:
),f,� % +� /�
DATE
- 2 -
PLAE —NIN'G Di CTOR or Designated
STAFF F� PP.ESE2;TATIVE
MEE PW :OVAL PERMIT
t%
-. W ;r;
•
M'V.mm .■ cv:1
� nilnir ii�l
nr, -- -
bnn �n
�L - —
=J.[I rWorv.a P
'nnnnnnnl
1_ -• 1'f�J�T i'�1
nnninn/ No
to Pl o nnnm
IM
Bill
n�nl
In��nnnnl�nlnnl
��nn♦n♦n1n1��1n�
1:::"1IIIjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj, I,
AA
a §n-m—EMI !: I
FS
m re 74 Fo
04 -0 .. .
IP� m 1
i�"�� �= uuu�
OCT 16 1984
PERMIT REVIn. ►'
APPEAL APPLICATION
Date Received:
Hearing Date:
1
Fee. Q �=
CITY USE ONLY
Name of Appellant: J e Vln-e? M.
Address: — /E'5940 %�o rlhe ✓c� �.0 �0� Zc
Telephone: C'`7��L p — `, ? iL
Name of Applicant: KeyCjle -% M, `l1VISd
Project File No.:
Project Address: <5; a
Project Description: -�-&,Jo e—(Kn 4- Ce ;:g-,-s
Decision Being Appealed: Sfik
4-(�— re--Ko c,
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
-2- O f t rt r o t. �'%LQ s-1 �' -1 r��s i C
not o��y h�z�rd -/-0 f/
sa {qty o �- my
QrOPer�y , � ' ,berg
-M-e -y are a-/sea nmisecf1ce-,
Dct.rr - f-l2.e i��'ev� many /aU.e ,bra- ndLes c <It - �ro/,v - 1es._e
- �s /o ovor- s ('me_fi. -J-
j ro oi a scc�is��c fa y
?0- eKAVI.ce the
appea.rAKce_ Of V&y j��je4'�y
be ca v-se o.� `HIP -se -1-t�e s , R� w l//i � fQ p /� .�-�
a� m, y ex pe oz e- . 7-A-es e ile.�
'(r s t j -V b� m c. to a ! y
�6- Cf ?y C� a,,j�
y y �y Se- W. ,n er'-W to PO-(
-f s M a7 trr
���2l�T �Z�e Ic yon
Appellant's signature
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED tiVITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
*" CITY OF SARAPOGA
' / Initial
AGENDA BILL NO. 7Z Dept. I
DATE: 10/20/84 C. Att)
DEPARITwr:Community Development C. Mgr,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJ}: : Abandonment of Offer of Dedication for Public Right -of -Way
of Quito Road (SDR -1327)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Sumnaiy
In 1980, an offer of dedication was made providing for a twenty (20') ft. wide right -of -way
for a future public street. A ten (10') ft. ingress and egress easement also exists on the
site. Since the minimum access road will serve four (4) lots and no future subdivisions are
possible, the public right -of -way is no longer necessary. The applicant is requesting that
the twenty (20') ft. right -of -way be abandoned, while the 10''easement is maintained.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommends that you adopt Resolution No. which.vacates
the 20' right -of -way.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No.
2. Parcel Map for SDR -1.327
3. Minutes from Planning Commission Hearing of 9/26/84
4. Correspondence
Council Action
11/7: Adopted Resolution 2195 3 -0.
OWNER'S CERTIFICATE
ASPESI DR� ''''
We hereby certify that w an lr owners of or Mre •or right, to'
or InNrest H and to the real preosrty.W. the Idbdlvlalon ahowd
upoll the he Ila rp; that w are the only persona .hose consent 1d
aeceas td pose clue title to said real property; that we hero-
►rr con and to the pnpartallo. and recordation of this sap withl.
UOTIEFI tA0 distinctive border line. we hereby offer to dedicate to publlr I
+ eENN10N was end ehe ett o/ Saratoga that certala area d.di natad •final .
A E C__U_ it OF FIA 5S AN Up o.dlutfm•7 a "was pon the haretA rp, g
svhr ai...• 0-P , S U R Y E Y 1 7 1 M 4 4 C-+ Ornaf
097J ago"
t
A
/Hfk / y /e•JJ' /." /• -•1p N. r /twFt A4/ f.MSw / .. _. __ — —.— 4•..
a' .� .w sal✓ � ..I•"
JEAN _ _ i —u r a!/a•r' A,'iI •' ' fi aa4��.. — _. (refit._._ _ O
'i w•.•4....r.' `, STREET.. /wa•wlAry „1
�. fl/ W; DEDICATION" 0:089 AC.' "!
ff.17.S. _LA \ /a.r. aarax // _.__ - - - - t -
N. /r. -I•nr
we III —_6
357 M 43 �� aA i u - nn•a // :!'y,
- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
f1AH Of CALIMINIA I
0.564 AC. NET CI TTA c cDDln9 or SAnu CLAAAI ss
H'� '•� 0.653 AC >! rll "'IV!
it GROSS a ula oy nr �. 1sQQ. b.ron r (br��na,l,�d{, l�j; is tary u c w end or a couhty and state, "no.& y &posts Paul Pay and Georgia A. qty, "noise to r to W hp.� .hose nerd arm subscribed to the wilhim Instru.ml and they etl -.Ay. �^� that lMy uecuted LM s&r. .Y(
;a Z In tithe whereof 1 have hereunto set my hand and official sire In •,.,�./`,.
µ,Vi �. ^ the County of fmta Clara this day and year to tAfi urtlflu4 first
.wyr cr+• \ v. aDOr
r. •1 ,.�,. •., :pat.
.I LDCATy `• ft u
/f• ' B2 Ig mottify public
(/0#0 I R. U. S. 2 M sty coalealon aegis /D
\ \ ALLENDALE
(1 JEN SEN
_7 Vj ri
SECRETARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATE CITY ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE ([`
I hereby nrllfy that the Gel thin parcel Nab ..t approved D, the planning )his up Conroras with lM ,e4ulrernls of the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinance• and further certifies
Co•nl talon of lM Cllr of Sarelaga, St of 411 fare /a, by Patolullon punuant to Sachsen 66411,1 of lM Garama.nl Code, that tee following n4ulnrnta hen not yowl bean !- i
ao.17]ZZrr ppzz at a duly wtlwrNed .feting MIO on tn. ZZS— der of TUNi. twitted And rat be satlsfactorly compi.t.4 prior to one fair tom date herof In accordance with
19Bg inat by uld molullo A. all slre e a and other ulernts the Dutldlnq Site Approval Apnernt ...
mho.. on sold asp and offered for edlcalion were rejected on behalf of the
public sae ud m.u't I.bit, SavlCe Casernl and to the limited ulanl
that ant afoot for pulstc moveet purpose either e.Pnuly or Lyllclfly,
Include often for adsernls IoM will sty Durput.e a1ot, or ben at Gala
tlnel rlgnu of w., then a l0 1.111 upsets or Implied usernts for public
sillily purls the sir are Acup ad 1l"WW�IFa ISa IAA1Wlf'
FOR
A. S. Ao0lnton Jr. Secretary of the ►l annl aq [oNtlm P06Cgl S. Sit)UA, City lnglner, City of Saratoga _J i-•-�' _— TI
P.c.c. ma, 14.493 DANNY RAY L r
era . -. I •-- � _ : i
Dal.•_j
City of Saratoga. Get.d -2' ee BEING A PORTION OF THE QUITO RANCHO
LYING ENTIRELY WITHIN THE "`�` "''�
SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE BASIS OF BEARINGS LEGEND Br NOTES
r.w.. sl. ca, .1 de,e,ee. M.n.r.nl CITY OF SARATOGA �.
I'll MD TV"" are d by Am Of under ey filed this III' day of .fM Cam' 7...1 «.n, Maa•0a S! M M In• r.u1. I,na M ,a .
dlncllan 11 Ama.d .Pare .field aar,.y pa,,.lr Ire m a „..awn �n ow• a „.,. at s.,.., a y.., 3,4• M.. I,t. ., as -.d I SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
In conlornince with the n7uirements of I980 et.j,"fo f. • In booa �— „«d.d ,n b.aa 171„ Most „raga 44 was
tee SubdlvlNoq Nap Act and local or- , „., er ear,• u a. «..g. w sere ,war n a„ 3r4, Ma. II..„ as ....a SCALE : I' • 30' OCTOBER, 1979
dire.... at Ne re4u.st of Danny Pay to of Kept At Page ��_ at the "goat
Sd Plr•ber, 1979, I hereby state that —••— Olannb.e • «d., bw
thlt parcel a•p con lorr to lM appro,.d of L 61,490— ,
ar conattionally approved tanutla "P, ALLItO <NOINttRINO CO.
If .ref wore. A Nannt_Counly A.cord.r , ...w . .rY... �. -
An rOenur •sea a1n.m:anr r . M.1 aM „t.1r1 IbrW a 'i
ot4a:� t��d�rJ gy � Deputy A..91.11 and.I'.M n1 .m M r. v,MO L.ra.l C. Ml.tn a t «bun N IMr Ir,. IM GIVII gNdI11[tPg, gW1Vg7011g A LAND ►LAIw[Ilg
—7 • „ecl M <.I.. 011..1 „row «..1 1.nn.1 .e e... —.4.1 ,dt«e at 4eee I
Leslie, la.g•ri a C C. M•..10, 620 Mre sam lMMa r.a /Ya Amt. C. • „If
N 71{9 ., { {.
Date: dl/ ' i� /990 film Po. ;r 77z Sf1L
'�— :1e 1 1 01 1 Shoals JOB NO, T257
� vD .
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
VACATING A DEDICATED EASEMENT AND RIGHT
CITY STREET
CITY OF SARATOGA
OF WAY FOR A PUBLIC
WHEREAS, DANNY RAY (hereinafter referred to as "RAY ")
executed an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City of
Saratoga,a right -of -way for a public city street upon a strip of
land 20 feet wide, said right -of -way, and that certain real
property on which it is located (the "Subject Property ") having
been described in the Offer of Dedication as recorded on July 8,
1980 in Book 466 at Page 26, in the Office of the Recorder for
Santa Clara County, California; and
WHEREAS, California Streets and Highways Code Section 1806
provides that no street or road shall become a city street or
road unless and until the City Council, by resolution, has caused
said street or road to be accepted into the city street system;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga has never
accepted the aforementioned offer by RAY to dedicate an easement
and right of way for a public city street into the Saratoga city
street system; and
WHEREAS, RALPH AND BEVERLEY ANDERSON (hereinafter referred
to as "ANDERSON "), executed an irrevocable offer to dedicate a 10
ft. ingress and egress easement on the subject property, as
described in Book D 546, Page 15, in the Office of the Recorder
for Santa Clara County, California; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Saratoga to vacate
the offer made by RAY for dedication of a 20 ft. public street
right of way and to preserve the offer made by ANDERSON for a 10
ft. ingress and egress easement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga as follows:
1. That the irrevocable offer made by RAY to dedicate a
right of way for a public city street upon the subject
property, as recorded on July 8, 1980 in Book 446, at
Page 26, in the Office of the Recorder for Santa Clara
County, California, is hereby vacated pursuant to the
authority of Chapter 4 (commencing at Section 8330) of
Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Streets and
Highways Code, and that from and after the date on
which this resolution is recorded, and said offer of
dedication shall no longer constitute an irrevocable
offer to dedicate a right of way for a public city
street.
2. That the irrevocable offer made by ANDERSON to dedi-
cate an easement for ingress and egress, as described
1
in Book D 546, at Page 15, in the Office of the Re-
corder for Santa Clara County, California, shall re-
main in full force and effect; provided, however,
nothing herein shall be deemed to constitute an
acceptance of such offer by the City of Saratoga.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at
a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
held on the day of , 1984, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
r CITY
2
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 9/26/
MISCELLANEOUS
Page 10
15. LLA X14 - Joseph Kennedy, 15480 Peach Hill, Road, Reconsideration of
Condition of Staff Renort
This item was discussed simultaneously with Items 6 and 7.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written
U1. Letter from Curt Anderson dated September 21, 1984, regarding
SDR -1327 and A -981. Staff explained the request and gave the background,
stating that the applicant is now asking the Commission to forward a recom-
mendation to the City Council that they abandon the offer of dedication.
They noted that the Commission did, at a study session, conclude that they
wou.id do that but it was never formalized. Discussion followed on the request.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to forward a recommendation to the City Council
that they abandon the offer of dedication for the roadway access from Quito
Road to the property known as SDR -1327. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the
motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0.
2. Letters from Marion Nlderone dated September 12, 1984 and Roy
A. James dateT August 28, 1984, -gar ing A- 807 -A. The history of the appli-
cation anF the request for a seco extension was discussed . Staff spoke
against the request for delay of t e landscaping here and suggested that
there is time between now and Octob er 12, 1984 for the landscaping to be
installed. Mr. Roy James stated th t they are victims of a problem with the
developer and requested at least 90 ays to complete the landscaping. He
indicated that it was only within th last 30 days that PG1E gave final
approval. After further discussion Here was a consensus that two months
would be a maximum amount of time to omplete the landscaping. It was deter-
mined that a two -month extension would be allowed.
3. Letter from Gary E. Hansen, ated September 14, 1984, regarding
A -768. Staff explained the request for emoval of the requirement to plant
evergreens on his side. After discussio there was a consensus to approve
the removal of this condition.
4. Negative Declaration and Letter from San Jose residents regarding
than ing the Quito School site at McCoy an Quito to residential. Staff
explained that the San Jose residents itft is inappropriate to have a
Negative Declaration on this matter and are \equesting that Saratoga send
Staff to hearings to speak against it. Aftediscussion it was determined
that this matter will be forwarded to the Suand Park Homeowners Association.
S. Letter from Lou McIntyre regarding t}e removal of trees in the Cit,
6. Letter from t
Commission's support of
site of gasoline sales.
toga that sell alcoholic
permit.
e Santa Clara Medical Sdciety, asking for the
roni. i ion o- sale ot algoholic Beverages at the
It was noted that there a�e none currently in Sara -
beverages and gas station, are regulated by a use
Oral
1. Staff explained that they have a number of requests at this time
of year for repair work from slides, and they have taken a posture that says
that Staff does not have time to do a total and complete review of the geo-
techn:ical aspects of it and require them to submit their own expert advice
and hold harmless clause that says they take responsibility for their coh-
sultant's work. He indicated that he had brought this request from Mr. Jones
to the Commission for their information because it involves removal of over
2,000 yards of material from the site and elimination of a\ great number of
ordinance size trees. They noted that there has been movement in the area
and described the site. The City Attorney commented that this happened last
year, where all of a sudden there is repair work needed at a point in time
that if it went through the usual review by the City Geologist it would be
too late to do the work. The procedure that has been adopted `hen is for
the applicant to execute with the City an Indemnity Agreement, which express-
ly recites that the City has not had the plans reviewed by the .Geologist and
the applicant is expressly assuming the risk of any damage to hips own pro-
perty, as well as any other property or any person, and agrees toy indemnify
and defend the City and hold it harmless if there is any claim. Naese docu-
ments are recorded, so any successive owner of the property is also aware
of the situation.
Mr. Roy James, 21127 Bank Mill Road, stated that he has been working `on the
- 10 -
ANDERSON ENTERPRISES
CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS
(408) 374 -7137
Associate Member of the American Institute of Architects ..
MS LUCILE HISE ! ; Sept ember _20, 1984
l`.a. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070 i
Dear Ms. Hise, '
1 On behalf of our clients, Mr. Robert-Dewey'and William.Otterlei ,,'we are hereby
y requesting that the Planning Commission and city council consider . the roadway
`'.access 'from Quito Road to property.known�as SDR -1327 be allowed to remain: a. private
j b.
lane rather than developed into a public street.
., This item was previously addressed by..this-office.through written'communic'ation to
H the Planning Commission. on March 16, 1984,' and was reviewed by 'a' Committee `of the
t,
,•whole, however, we have not received a written .communication from your off ice
^�`.,.jt,• outlining proceedures and /or filing fees;-etc. necessary to obtain approval of our'
clients request.
i., We sincerely hope this may clear the issue and be considered a.:formal request to
maintain the present' use of a .private Jane._
Respectfully submitted,'.
Jer ., .Duncan
Construction Administrator
300 Orchard City Dr. #132 • : Campbell, CA 95008 ,,.;:
ao ANDERSON ENTERPRISES •
a0 CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS
(408) 374 -7137
Associate Member of the American Institute of Architects
PLANNING COMMISSION March 16, 1984
City of Saratoga
` 13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
RE: RESOLUTION 137 -02, APPROVED JUNE 25, 1980
Dear Commission,
' The Resolution 1327 -02 approved a final parcel map, see attached, for
Danny and Georgia Ray. The Rays have since sold the lot to my client,
.'Robert Dewey.
The parcel lies within the R1- 10,000 Zoning Area of the General Plan.
Mr. Dewey, if possible, would like to pursue a'flot subdivision in
accordance with the General Plan. The gross area•)of the lot is 28,444.68
sq. ft.. with the net area being 24, 567. 84;, sq: ft.,•, .wellr)overt:.the, -requir:ement
of 20,000 sq.ft. for two lots in this particular zoning area.
According to staff, who have been very helpful, a subdivision cannot occur
on a private lane when the result of the subdivision will allow more lots,.
': -;,• than the 4 lots allowed by ordinance. In this particular case, there would
be five lots. However, if a subdivision occurs on a public street, there is
no limit to the number of lots allowed, as long as they conform to the.size
i :requirement of the General Plan.
If Mr. Dewey conforms to the conditions of Resolution 1327- 02,- improving::.the.'
street and dedicating the required dedication to the city of,Saratoga, he is
conforming with the requirements for a public street. Which.:I.he is willing
to do..The question is,.if he is installing a public street, why-cannot he
pursue a lot subdivision which is in conformance with the General Plan?
Therefore, we would.appreciate clarification on these items:
or
CC:R.Dewey
1). If the dedication and improvements are required as originally
conditioned,in the Resolution, Mr. Dewey would like to
pursue a lot subdivision in accordance with the General
Plan.
2). If the Commission won't allow the pursuance of a lot
subdivision, delete the conditions of the dedication and
improvements for a public street and revise them to conform
with the private lane standards of the city of Saratoga.
Respectfully submitted,
Kurt B. Anderson
President
93 So. Central Ave., #84 • Campbell, CA 95008
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO.
M o Dept. Hd.
DATE: 10/30/84 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT :Community Development C. Mgr,
SUB7E : A -1010 - Clifford & Sheila Smedley, 12126 Via Roncole
Appeal of Design Review Approval for a Second Story Expansion
Issue Summary
The applicants received Design Review Approval from the Planning Commission on September
26, 1984 for an expansion of a second story which included a window on the southern side
of the house. The Planning Commission approved the expansion by adoption of the Public
Hearing Consent Calendar. The neighbors to the south have appealed the decision, feeling
that the window will provide "a good view into the inside of their house."
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project as proposed, as did the staff
report.
Fiscal Impacts
N/A
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Appeal Letter 5. Exhibits
2. Staff Report dated 9/21/84 6. Correspondence received
3. Resolution No. A- 1010 -1
4. Planning Commission Minutes
Council Action
11/7: Denied appeal 3 -0 with condition that Smedley plant evergreen shrub to screen window.
��tG�rV�T
OCT a 8 1984
PERMIT REVID11
APPEAL APPLICATION
Date Received: i -i
Hearing Date:
Fee : 0� '
CITY USE ONLY
Name of Appellant: C
Address: 12- 1/ d-n C.&
Telephone:
Name of Applicant: Cf - ar-� C'1Kk I4Y
Project File No.: Or -(o ( 0
Project Address: 1 Z z
Pro/j ct Description:
I /I U/ / /, n �i ..� i .i ., O - %� -. _ _ �./.i - • A
Decision Being Appealed:
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached)-.*
(A . c _ t A a-1 ci- _ y. I A-M
* G
Appellant's Signatu
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
A -
�, y,
12- I y- V i c,- C-
mr S, Skook
SJ�
`�.�
-- I o l 0 r i o r S Y, 12
j f �ti
w12 �av� �Caw�iHszc� b f�t�- U�'
C_e-ex �ir��Jl ct�-.- � � -2 � � � E' - h r ►�'-7� l.-1 �.� S S lti.c c� k i "
vn
y i
o�-,ect preSe.�GZ v.
� �� W Ctrl I O -L. � ",-� -- /�� G fi � � I 0 d � ► 11 � `'�� h �'� v .i -�
5 1
3 �Q
0. J
l� -2 �(
I I
1� -V.\
12— 6 CAD
° �S-z
C
"Ar
REPORT TO PLANNING CO1VIMISSION
City of Saratoga v
APPRO' ED EY '
DATE: 9/21/84
INI ► ;ra$:
Commission Meeting: 9/26/84
SUBJECT: A -1010, Clifford Smedley,.' 12126, Via Roncole
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION REQUIRED: Design Review approval for a second story expansion
to an existing two - story residence.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Building Permit
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION
ZONING: R -1- 10,000
GENERAL PLAN:
SITE DATA
Single Family Residential - Medium Density
PARCEL SIZE: 10,136 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Existing ornamental vegetation.
Lot to the rear is l' -2' lower than the applicants' lot.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2 -3% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 2 -3%
GRADING REQUIRED: No grading is required.
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
SETBACKS: Front - 26 Ft. Rear - 41 Ft.
Left Side - 8 Ft. Riqht Side - 14 Ft.
HEIGHT: 24' - 6"
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 45% (60% allowed)
Report to the Plannin ommission 9/21/84
12126 Via Roncole Page 2
A-1010, Clifford Smedl
SIZE OF STRUCTURE (Including Garage):
Existing Addition
lst Floor 1908 108
2nd Floor 910 177
2818 285 = 3,103 Sq. Ft.
(3,500 Sq. Ft. standard)
A 66 sq. ft. porch and 40 sq. ft. balcony are proposed. These
figures are not included in the allowable floor area calculations.
COMPLIANCE: The expansions conform with setback and height
restrictions of the zoning ordinance.
MATERIALS & COLORS: "Off White" stucco, medium brown half timber
and tan - flashed brick with natural cedar shakes.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing to remodel the exterior of�and expand)an
existing 2 story home in a one and two story neighborhood. To the
south the neighbors have an existing so.lit level home, with an approx -.
imately 4' high deck which can overlook the applicant's yard; to the
rear the neighboring house is fairly well- screened by the applicant's
landscaping -the portion that is visible would be the corners of several
lots; and to the.north is an existing one story home. The applicant's
present house has two existing windows which are proposed to be ex-
panded, one with a small 4' deck. New windows are proposed on the sides
of the house -one will overlook the.house of the residence to the south
and the other the house and some yard area of the residence to the north
(23' from the side property line).
FTMnTNr,q
1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy: The proposal will
not cause additional privacy impacts, as the bay windows replace
existing rear windows and the side windows will mainly overlook
the adjacent roofs. Existing landscaping to the rear screens the
residence and much of the swimming pool area.
2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape: No grading is required and
no trees will be removed.
3. Perception of Excessive Bulk: The exterior will change substantially,
but the neighborhood is a mixture of both 1 and 2 story residences.
The existing home is a 2 story and this addition will not add
substantially to its bulk.
4. Compatible Bulk & Height: The Tudor style treatment of the facade,
including the addition of the brick tower -like portal for the front
entrance is unique to the character of the surrounding area, but
should blend with the 1 and 2 stories neighboring residences.
Report to the Planni Commission 9/21/84
A -1010, Clifford Smed 12126 Via Roncole Page 3
5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards: No grading is involved with
the residence.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated
9/21/84, Exhibit "B ", subject to the following condition:
1. Minor modifications may be made after review and approval of the
Permit Review Division.
APPROVED
KK /bjc
P.C. Agenda 9/26/84
Kathy KEWdus
Planner
..8
am
DESIGN REVIEW
I
, c
RESOLUTION NO. A- 1010 -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FILE NO: A -1010
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an
application for Design Review Approval fdf"a second story expansion to an
existing two -story residence at 12126 Via Roncole and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) (has -ne -t+ -met the burden of proof required
to support his said application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of
the site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits
submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Clifford
Smedley for Design Review Approval be and the
same is hereby (granted) (deT+-iec&) subject to the following conditions:
per the Staff Report dated 9/21/84 and Exhibit "B ".
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California,, this 26th day of September , 19 84 by
.the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners, Siegfried, Peterson, Burger, Crowther, Harris, Mc Goldrick
and Schaefer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Chairman, Plannin ission
ATTEST:
Secretary, P1 nni ommission
Plauning Commission
Meeting Minutes 9/26/84
A -1012 (cont.)
Page 2
Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -3, with Com-
missioners Harris, Crowther and Schaefer dissenting.
13LIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR
Items N5, N6, H7 and 119 were removed for discussion. The public hearing was
opened on Item 93, A -1010, Smedley, at 7:51 p.m. It was moved and seconded to
close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner
McGoldrick moved to approve 118, A- 1010, Clifford Smedley. Commissioner Peter-
son seconded the motion, which was Carrie unanimously 7 -0.
Discussion followed on H5r , A -1004, Robert Schiro. Coimnissioner McGoldrick gave
a Land Use Committee rep o stating that she would like to add a condition
stating that there be no ki Chen in the new development, so there is no con-
fusion about second units. lie stated that the applicant had indicated that
he would like to make some c anges to this plan since lie and the architect were
not communicating. She comme ted that she wanted to make it very clear that
changes over a certain amount of square footage would have to go through the
whole process. Staff commente that the applicant was talking about possibly
adding some additional second loor decking. It was clarified that if more
than 100 sq. ft. were added on lie second floor it would need to come back to
the Planning Commission.
The public hearing was opened at 7:52 p.m. It was moved and seconded to close
the public hearing. The motion as carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick
moved to approve A -1004, Robert chiro, per Exhibits B and C and the Staff Report
dated September 21, , amen e to include the above two conditions. Com-
missioner Schaefer seconded the m tion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0.
Discussion followed on Item N6, kA -1009 and V -665, Joseph Kennedy, and k7,
GPA -84 -1 and C -210, Joseph Kennedy. Commissioner Schae er's request, Staff
discussed the square ootage a L these lots, indicating that the floor
area standard for the zone is 62ft. They gave the ]iistory of the proper-
ty and explained the applicationy indicated that there is a requirement
for a Deferred Improvement Agree Peach Hill is to be improved in the
future; however, no widening of ontemplated at this time. Discussion
followed on notification if an ant district were formed. Commissioner
Crowther commented that Mr. Kenntaking some very positive steps with
this property in bringing it int
The public hearing was opened at 7:59 Am.
John Walsh, Peach Hill Road, asked for clarification of the Deferred Improve-
ment Agreement. Mr. Walsh indicated tha none of the neighbors want any part
of the widening of that road. He added t at they do not want curbs and want
to keep it rural. He described the slope of his site. Staff explained that the
City standard improvements are deferred; lowever, Condition F does suggest that
there be a widening of the pavement to pro ide 18 ft., in effect a minimum,access
road on the Peach Hill Road frontage, with a standard asphalt curb along the
frontage. They noted that under the condition of the Lot Line Adjustment the
road will be nearly 20 feet. Mr. Walsh exp`essed concern about the 20 feet and
what it will do to his hill and driveway. C mmissioner Schaefer commented that
if they go over into the Kennedy property it�would involve significant engineer-
ing; otherwise, it would go into Mr. Walsh's "pproperty. She added that she thinks
that is a major issue here. She also asked wAo is responsible for maintaining
the road in the case of movement and part of Mr. Walsh's property goes over onto
the road. Mr. Walsh added that he feels that iahen you go from a road that is.
14 ft. wide to one that is 20 ft. wide, you have a hodgepodge and it is terrible
looking. Commissioner McGoldrick commented th�ayt she thinks it is also a safety
problem, since joggers expect that width all thb way. She asked if it could just
be blacktopped and not have a curb.
Staff commented that this is a public road; it is 14 ft. wide, and it is certain-
ly not adequate for two lanes of traffic. Staff kstated that they are suggesting
that the Commission at least provide for the barest minimum 9 ft. wide lanes
there. k
Commissioner Harris commented that she feels, in vilew of the fact that the appli-
cant is changing the location of the driveway, that,the safety factor is being
addressed as far as the approach to the property. She added that she thinks it
is out of character to widen this street in that area.
Mr. Walsh commented, at Commissioner Schaefcr's inqui.Iry regarding bicycles,
a
2 _
Clifford F. Smedley.,
12126, Via Roncole,
Saratoga, Ca. 95070.
30th October, 1984,
Saratoga City Council,
(In care of Kathy Kerdus)
13777, Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, Ca. 95070.
Design Review Application #A -1010
In response to the appeal of Mr. Tam to my "opening up" a
bedroom window on the south side of my home, I have the following
comments to make:
1) The window in question in Mr. Tam's house, is a basement
window just above ground level. The second floor bedroom window
I propose will be approximately 32' away from his winow using
"line of sight" as there is approximately 301 between the two houses.
2) Standing on a ladder from approximately where my window
will.,be, in daylight the reflection off Mr. Tam's window is such
that you cannot see inside the house. I have not tried this at
night time with his room light on, but I assume if he wants privacy
at this time, he will pull his shades.
3) There is only a 6' to 7' gap between existing trees and
bushes through which we could see his window, and I have offered to
remove a rose tree which is there and replace it with another high
bush to block the window completely.
4) I need this window in my bedroom(which is being enlarged)
to put sufficient light in my room. The window is on the south
side of my house and offers the best advantage for this.
I really do feel this appeal by Mr. Tam is unreasonable. I must
have some rights to do what I wish with my own home. I. nor my
architect are aware of any city ordinance that I am violating, and
Page 2.
/and
inspite of this, I have offered Mr. Tam a possible solution that
has so far gone unheeded. The city, after two inspections of
the site, gave approval to the plans, and I trust it will uphold
its decision now.
Thank you for your kind indulgence in this matter.
Sincerely,
li•:
. / • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . .
Clifford F. Smedley,
JV , N.
CITY OF SARA'POGA
G� Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. 7�• L Dept. Hd. 4
DATE: 10/30/84 C. Atty.
DEPARTT=: City Clerk C. Mgr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJEC: Resolution Declaring. Weeds Growing on Certain Described Property to be.
Public Nuisance
Issue Summary
The attached resoltition,.represents the first step in Saratoga's annual weed abatement program
administered by the County Building Official. The County has determined that 350 parcels in
Saratoga this year have excessive weed growth which is a fire hazard or otherwise noxious
or dangerous. The Council should pass the resolution setting the date for a public hearing
on weed abatement -- December 5 this year. The County then sends the owners of the 350 parcels
notices informing them that the weeds must be abated,..either by the owners'or by the County;
when County abatement will commence; and how they may present any objections at the December
5 public hearing. The public hearing is noticed in the newspaper as well. After that public
hearing, the Council passes another resolution ordering abatement on properties whose owners
did not objector whose objections the Council felt were invalid. The final steps take
place next sumirer,.when the County presents the Council with a.list of properties whose
abatement bills have not been paid, and the Council, after hearing any objections, passes
--Z resolution declaring liens on those properties. These procedures are the same as those
followed last year.
Recommendation
Adopt attached resolution.
Fiscal Impacts
None to City. County recovers its costs from administrative portion of fee charged to
property owners.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resolution.
List of parcels requiring weed abatement (available at City Clerk's office)
Council Action
11/7: Adopted Resolution 2194 3 -0.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING WEEDS GROWING ON CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC •
NUISANCE
M REAS, weeds are growing in the City of Saratoga upon certain streets, sidewalks,
highways, roads and private property; and
SEAS, said weeds attain such growth as to become a fire menace or which are
otherwise noxious or dangerous; and
WHEREAS, said weeds constitute a public nuisance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, as
follows:
1. That weeds do now constitute a public nuisance;
2. That said nuisance exists upon all the streets, sidewalks, highways,
roads and private property, more particularly described by common name
or by reference to the tract, block, lot, code area and parcel number
on the report prepared by the County Building Official and attached hereto;
3. That it is ordered that Wednesday, the 5th day of December, 1984, at
a public hearing during a regular meeting which will begin at 7:00 p.m.,
in the Saratoga Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, is hereby fixed
as the time and place when objections to the proposed destruction or
removal of said weeds shall be heard and given due consideration;
4. That the County Building Official is hereby designated as the person
to cause notice of the adoption of this resolution to be given in the
manner and form provided in Article II, Chapter 6 of the Saratoga Muni-
cipal Code, and as the person to hereafter cause abatement of such seasonal
and recurring nuisance.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City
Council at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of November
vote: , 1984, by the following
AYES: - --
NOES:
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
Mayor
•
CITY OF SARATOGA.
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. 72.67 Dept. Hd.
DATE: 10/30/84,. C..,Atty: .
AR'I'MENTc City Clerk-, y.
-C.. Mgr..
SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring'Weeds.Growing - on Certain Described'Property'to be.
----------- Public_Nuisance
--------------=--=------------
Issue .S
The.. attache resolution xepresents the• first. step: in Saratoga' s . annual weed . abatement . program
administered. the County Building Official.. The. County .has, determined that 350 parcels in
Saratoga this r. have 'excessive, weed : growth which,is'ra:fire.Mzard or otherwise noxious,
or dangerous._ e Council.should,pass. the resolution 'setting the -date.'for a public hearing
on weed. abatement`- December 5 this year:- The Ca6hty then sends the owners of- the 35Tpareels
notices.informing em that the weeds must be abated,:: either by the.owners or by the County;
When County abat will commenoe; and how hey may present.any,.objections at.the December
5.public hearing:" Th public hearing.is'noticed,.in the newspaper as well.. 'After that public
hearing, the Council p sses another. resolution .ordering .abatement on properties whose owners
did not.object.or,whose objections the Cbuncil,felt were invalid., The final steps take
place next summer-,.when County pres(nts the Council with a.list of•properties whose
abatement bills,`.have not en .paid; az{d,the Council; after hearing any.objections; passes
are solution: declaring l on thos' .properties -' These .procedures . are the same as those
followed last year.,
>,
Reccmmendatioh ;..
Wpt attached. resolution.
Fiscal Impacts'.:..
None to City.. County re ers its'costs fr administrative portion.of.fe'e charged'.to
property owners.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resolution. �.
List of-parcels-requiring weed .abatement (available at City Clerk's..office). �rz
P.
Council Action l�'
r
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. 730
DATE: 10/31/84 (11/7/84)
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Asphalt Concrete Overlay Project
Issue Summary
The project was reduced prior to.going to bid based on engineer's
estimate.
The low bid came in very favorable.
Increasing project scope due to favorable bid.
RecomTendation
Authorize addition to the contract of $37,850 to include southbound
Saratoga Avenue lanes between Cox Avenue and Paul Masson visitors
entrance.
Fiscal Impacts
$37,850 in gas tax funds (total contract $320,128)
Exhibits /Attachrmnts
Staff Report dated October 31, 1984
Council Action
11/7: Approved 3 -0.
V.
►A
o �9
O
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 10 -31 -84
COUNCIL MEETING: 11-07-84
SUBJECT: Asphalt Concrete Overlay Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time you approved the award of contract for this project it
was apparent that the bid was far below the estimate. Because of
that I requested that you approve to discuss expanding the project,
using the contract unit prices.
We now would recommend increasing the project so as to include that
portion of the southbound Saratoga Avenue lanes between Cox Avenue
and the.Paul Masson visitors entrance. Based on the unit prices,
this would increase the - contract by $37,850 which, when added to
the contract amount of $282,278, would make the total contract be
$320,128.
Based on the contractor's proposed schedule, it is essential that
the Council approve this additional work at your November 7th meet-
ing if it is your intention to do so.
RSS:cd
C&
R b ert S. 00
Director of Community Development
I
,1
AGENDA BILL NO. 73
DATE: November 7, 1984
DEPARTMENT: Community Services
CITY OF SARATOGA
SUBJE'C`T': Neighborhood Watch Program
Issue SunTary
Initial:
Dept. 7!W—
M
M
C. Mgr.
There has been an interest expressed by some Saratoga neighborhoods to start
Neighborhood Watch Programs. The City can facilitate development of such
programs by providing the purchase, installation and maintenance of the signs
which identify Neighborhood Watch areas. In doing so, the City could also
ensure that the posting of the signs is done in such a manner,to maximize
their effectiveness and compatibility with the aesthetic character of Saratoga.
In addition, staff has developed a four -phase Neighborhood Watch designation
process which gives the Public Safety Commission and the City Council an
opportunity to positively participate in each Neighborhood Watch area approval'.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council adopt a resolution appropriating $3,603 to
finance purchase, installation and maintenance of 50 Neighborhood Watch
signs, and 5 signs to be located at the more substantially used entrances
to the City. It is further recommended that Council approve the four -phase
Neighborhood Watch designation procedure proposed by staff.
Fiscal Impacts
An appropriation of $3,603 from the City's general fund.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Report to Council from Community Services Director
2. Sign descriptions /order form
3. Appropriation Resolution
Council Action
11/7: Approved and adopted appropriations resolution 2151.12, 3 -0.
e±k,
f 1E,
O�
A •�
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
Purpose
Neighborhood Watch Program
Staff recommends
neighborhood watch
implementation.
Analysis
DATE: 11/1/84
COUNCIL MEETING: 11/7/84
----------------------------------------------------
that Council approve the establishment of a
program and appropriate $3,603 to finance its
Neighborhood watch programs have proven to be effective law
enforcement mechanisms when they conform to nationally- adopted
program standards. The neighborhood watch program standards
were developed by a wide variety of national, regional and local
law enforcement agencies to give the programs credibility and
improve their effectiveness. Locally, a County Sheriff's Office
detail has been specifically trained to develop neighborhood
watch programs and is prepared to meet with neighborhood groups
upon invitation to discuss the standards and starting programs.
In Saratoga, there has been an interest expressed by some
neighborhoods toward implementing neighborhood watch programs.
For example, the City has received 78 letters from residents from
the "Pride's Crossing" area which expressed an interest in
getting a neighborhood watch program started there.
There has been concern regarding the neighborhood watch signs not
being in compliance with the City's sign ordinance, and that the
haphazard placement of the signs in neighborhoods might not be
compatible with the aesthetic character of the City. It was also
felt that a neighborhood watch program would achieve a higher
level of neighborhood involvement if there were some kind of
incentive to facilitate participation. Therefore, staff is
recommending that the City take a lead role in administering
neighborhood watch programs in Saratoga by handling the purchase,
installation and maintenance of neighborhood watch signs. This
would provide both the incentive and the control needed to
properly implement neighborhood watch in Saratoga.
Report to Mayor and City Council Page 2
To get the program started, staff is recommending the purchase of
50 signs. The signs would then be on hand to install in
neighborhoods which qualified for a neighborhood watch
designation. Additionally, five specially designed neighborhood
watch signs would be posted at the main entrances into the City
noting that Saratoga is a Neighborhood Watch community. When all
the signs are ultimately used, the total cost of the program will
be as follows:
Item
Unit Cost
Quantity
Total Cost
Sign Purchase
$12.00
50
$ 600.00
Sign Clamps
2.00
50
100.00
Sign Poles
3.00
50
150.00
Labor for Installation
45.00
50
2,250.00
Setup for Custom Signs
75.00
1
75.00
Custom Signs at City Limits
20.00
5
100.00
Subtotal
3,275.00
10% Contingency
328.00
Total
$3,603.00
The City and the Sheriff's Office would work together in
determining which neighborhoods should receive a neighborhood
watch designation, with the City Council having the final
approval authority. A four -phase process is being reommended by
staff which would involve an assessment, analysis, determination
and implementation to the designation procedure. A description
of the approval process follows:
Phase I Neighborhood resident contacts either
"Assessment" City or Sheriff expressing interest in
neighborhood watch. If City contacted,
request is referred to Sheriff.
Sheriff explains neighborhood watch
standards, and meets with neighborhood
residents at their invitation to
explain program and conduct assessment.
Phase II Sheriff makes recommendation to City
"Analysis" regarding whether or not neighborhood
should be granted neighborhood watch
status. Staff then prepares report for
Public Safety Commission (PSC) which in
turn makes recommendations to the City
Council.
Report to Mayor and City Council
Page 3
Phase III Council reviews recommendations and, if
"Determination" appropriate, designates a defined area
as a "neighborhood watch" neighborhood,
directing staff to install signs as
necessaryy to reflect the designation.
Phase IV Signs are posted by City in
"Implementation" neighborhood reflecting neighborhood
watch designation.
Concern had been expressed that the signs may not be compatible
with the City's newly- adopted sign ordinance. Therefore, the
City's Planning Commission was approached and asked to approve
the use of the signs and exempt them from the restrictions of the
sign ordinance. The Commission unanimously approved the request
on October 10, 1984.
Conclusion
Neighborhood watch programs can be an effective means of
supplementing a local law enforcement effort. There appears to
be a desire to establish a Neighborhood Watch Program in
Saratoga. It is recommended by staff that the City facilitate
such a program by purchasing, installing and maintaining signs
identifying neighborhood watch areas. In this way, the City
could control the locations of the signs while also providing an
incentive to Saratoga neighborhoods to establish individual
neighborhood watch programs. The cost of implementing the
program as recommended by staff would total $3,603. This would
finance the purchase and installation of 50 neighborhood signs
and 5 city limit entrance signs. Staff is also recommending that
Council approve a four -phase neighborhood watch designation
procedure consisting of assessment, analysis, determination and
implementation components.
Todd �W.Argow
Community Services Director
jm
Page 2
Established 1967 — Specializing in Silk Screen Printing of Signs and Decalcomanias
METAL ALL WEATHER
STANDARD STOCK ITEMS
There are three sizes of metal signs, 12"x18", 18 "x24" and 24 "x36': All three were designed to be used on
public streets and roadways and are also popular for use on private property.
The steel signs are 18 "x24 "x24 gauge and 24 "x36 "x22 gauge. The aluminum signs are 12 "x18 ".050,
18 "x24 "x.063 and 24 "x36 "x.063. This .063 aluminum is approximately 2 times as thick and stronger than
the steel stock signs. The aluminum is more corrosion resistant and more e;:pensive. Check your sign
ordinance requirements with your municipality.
All metals signs have rounded corners, 12"x18", 3 /a" radius, 18"x24", 24 "x36 , have 11 /_.," radius. The signs
have a durable white enamel finish on two sides with black and orange non -fade enamel printed on one
side. All signs are available with your referenced law agency, POLICE or SHERIFF; please specify on your
order form.
NEIGHBORHOOD STREET SIGNS ... the headline on the 12"x18" and the 18 "x24" is
WARNING with the referenced agency as POLICE or SHERIFF The larger of the two, 18"x_24", is the most pop-
ular when used within a program to define an organized group of NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH citizens.
COMMUNITY STREET SIGN ... the headline on the 24 "x3G" sign may be either WELCOME or
WARNING and the referenced agency may be POLICE or SHERIFF. This sign is most effective at entrances to
a community, apartment complex, or mobile home park and usually defines boundaries.
All metal signs have an area at the bottom reserved for a local message if desired, (see PERSONALIZED).
This reserved area size per sign is 2 "x 12" for the 12 "x 18 "; 21 /z "x 18" for the 18 "x 24 "; 31/2"x 24" for the
24 "x 36 "; example, use Emergency Police or Sheriff phone number or 911 ...
INSTALLATION may be accomplished using brackets or clamps as noted on the back of the
ORDER FORM ...
VW1L0U1Nt1L1Gr11/
Personalized signs are the same as above except as noted ... for example, the wording
could be "LEMON GROVE IS A ..." in lieu of "THIS IS A ..."
PLEASE ALLOW FIVE WORKING DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF ORDER FOR FABRICATION
NORTH PARK IS A
1116R80RR000 WATCH
COMMUNITY
(k
YOUR OPTION
There is an additional charge
for personalizing the 24 "x 36"
sign, (see item #11 on order
form) ...
OR ... DO IT YOURSELF ...
Order the stock sign read-
ing "THIS IS A . . . " There is
available space (31/., "x 24 ") at
the bottom of the sign, where
your local sign painter can
hand letter your message and
eliminate the production charge.
LEMON GROVE IS A
100HR0RR000 WATCH
COMMUNITY
(4
CAUTION:.'.. . when considering these metal sikii to -be installed on'your city streets; BE SURE•THAT
YOUR PROPOSED INSTALLATIONS COMPLY WITH YOUR LOCAL SIGN ORDINANCE,. Checkth&
.proper boxes on the`order form for WELCOME or WARNING and POLICE br SHERIFF t
0 1982 THE SIGN CENTER INC.
NW -2 11/82
STANDARD STOCK
ITEMS
for immediate
delivery
12" x 18"
t ORHOOD WA1CN
11N 111111RCE
■61YYEDIAEELC REPOAt
At1 SUSPICIDUSUMMES
18" x 24"
(4)
MI6RBORR000 WA1CR
PROGRANIIN FORCE
24" x 36"
THIS 1S A
1116R80RR000 WATCH
COMMUNITY
4)
24" x 36"
THIS IS A
1116RBOR8000 WATCH
COMMUNITY
. 4)
RESOLUTION NO. 2151.12
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING
APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1984 85 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET
WHEREAS, it is recommended that the following adjustment be made
increasing the present budget appropriations:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of
Saratoga adopted by Resolution 2151. and 2151.1 be amended as
follows:
Transfer: $3,603.00 from general ledger account 21 2909 general
fund reserve for appropritions increases, to general ledger
account 21 2940, general fund appropriations.
Subsidiary:
Fund 21 General Fund
Program 540 Law Enforcement
Purpose:
To increase appropriations to purchase neighborhood watch signs.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the
day of by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor