HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-1988 City Council Staff Reports�6o go
jd 70
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. ,� AGENDA ITEM _7
MEETING DATE: 4/6/88
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
CITY MGR. APPROVAL v/
SUBJECT• . Consultant Services for Two Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Median Projects
Recommended Motion:
Authorize award of consultant contract for Design of Landscape Median on
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Village to Verde Vista and median plus frontage on
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Seagull to Prospect to the firm of Wilsey and Ham.
Report Summary:
Proposals were requested for median deisgn. Five were received for
southerly project and three of those five submitted proposals for the northerly
project. Staff, with the assistance of four Park and Recreation Commissioners
conducted interviews and recommend the firm of Wilsey and Ham to provide the'
consultation on both of these projects.
Fiscal Impacts
Total fee of approximately $110,800.
At+..'I' I-. -
Staff Report.
Motion and Vote:
6�# I s�_o .
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 3 -30 -88
COUNCIL MEETING: 4 -06 -88
SUBJECT: Consultant Services for the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road
Median Projects
This office solicited proposals for consultant services for design of
the median on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road between the Village and Verde Vista and
for design of the median and frontage improvements on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
between Seagull and Prospect. We received five proposals for the southerly
project and three of those five made proposals for the northerly project.
The City Manager, Maintenance Director, and I with the help of four of
the Park and Recreation Commissioners conducted interviews with all five con-
sultants on March 21. It was the unanimous decision to recommend to you the
firm of Wilsey and Ham to provide consultant services for both projects. With
your approval we will complete contract negotiations for this work.
The Wilsey & Ham firm has in -house expertise to perform all facets of
the work on these projects except the soils investigation which they will sub-
contract for. In addition they will have the existing soils analyzed to deter-
mine it's adequacy to support the planning.
Wilsey & Ham, whose project manager is a prior resident of the City and
a prior employee of the Saratoga Planning Department, is extremely interested
in these projects and anxious to start work. They estimate the southerly
project can be constructed within 6 months of award of consultant contract.
The northerly project will require a longer schedule. Design on assessment
proceeding is estimated to take 5 -6 months.
In reviewing proposals for this type of professional service it is appro-
priate to first set aside any estimate of costs and review the proposals on
their merit. Having done that we find that the Wilsey and Ham estimate of fees
is the lowest for either of the projects and the combination. Finalizing the
fee will result from further discussion and understanding of the scope of the
work.
Robe t S. Shook
City Engineer
Page 2
Note:
Following is a list of firms submitting proposals and their approximate
fee:
South Project North Project
Wilsey & Ham $ 35,300 $ 75,500
Brian Kangas Foulk 42,340 82,420
Robert La Rocca 40,000 & Cont. Adm.
Creegan & D'Angelo 61,500 117,250
Ruth & Going 62,400
530 3 r
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. I AGENDA ITEM 3 1 j
MEETING DATE: 3-29-88(4-6-88) CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT • FINAL MAP APPROVAL FOR TRACT 8053
Manor Drive, Debor Corporation
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution No. SD -87- 001 -02, attached, approving Final Map
for Tract 8053.
Report Summary:
I. Tract 8053 is ready for Final Approval.
2. All the requirements for City and other departments have been
completed.
3. All fees have been paid.
Fiscal Impacts
None.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. SD -87- 001 -02.
2. Resolution approving Tentative Map.
3. Location Map.
Motion and Vote:
'V .J
•
RESOLUTION NO. SD -87- 001 -02
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINA -L MAP OF
TRACT 8053
WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of TRACT 8053
having heretofore been filed with this City
,Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and
easements shown thereon have not been sati- sfactorily improved nor completes
and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the.require-
ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of
California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of
approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save
and except as follows:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
(1) The aforesaid final map is hereby conditionally approved. Said
approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final
upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth
immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance
with Section (3) hereof.
(2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said
final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by
the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected
pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the
State of California.
(3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept:-
ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted,
and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and
releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter
into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and
sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount or e!
-1-
estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public
ways and easements in accord with the standards of Chap. 14, Municipal Code
as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently
on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form
and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be
as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City
Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe-
cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city.
(4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require-
ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (.if any) and
with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized
and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map
and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced
and passed by the-City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day
of 19 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Mr.-
s
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
RESOLUTION NO. Sn -87 -001
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
DNS Development APN # 366 -22 -7?
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the
Subdivision Map Act of the State.of California and under the Subdivi5ion
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of a lot,
site or subdivisions of 5 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File
Nn . gn- R7 -iT201 of this City, and
1.4HEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds
together with the provisions for its design
with the Saratoga General Plan and with
thereto, and the proposed subdivision and
objectives policies and general land use
General Plan, reference to the Staff Repo;
hereby made for further particulars, and
that the proposed subdivision,
and improvement, is consistent
all specific plans relating
land use is compatible with the
and programs specified in such
-t dated April 22. 1987 being
WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the 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 gran:te.d in accord faith conditions a -s
hereinafter .set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter
described subdivision, which map is dated the Sth day of January, 1967 and
is marked Exhibit B in the hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same is
hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more
particularly set forth on Exhibit A 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-22 day of April, 19L7,
at which a quorum was present, by the following vote:
AYES: Harris, Callans, Guch, Siegfried, Tucker
NOES:
ADVISORY AGENCY
ABSENT: Burger
by
Chair, n, Planning Commission
See et ry, Planning Commission
2
r
SD -87 -001', NW Corner of Manor Dr, and Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd.
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval
I. The applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 333@
days of the passage of +.his resolution or said resolution shall be
void.
II. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter
14 of the City Code,,inc- lading without limitation the submission of a
Record of Survey or Tract 'Map, payment of storm 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.
III. Specific Conditions- Enc7'ineerinQ Division
1. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time-of obtaining Final
Map approval:
2. Submit tract map to City for checking and recordation and pay
required fees
3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 40 ft.
half - street on Manor Drive
4. Improve Manor Dr. with 1 1/2" asphalt overlay over petromat
fabric
S. Improve Saratoga- Sunnyvale. Rd. between Manor Dr, and railroad
including the following=
a. Designed g +.ructual section between edge of pavement and
flowline as approved by the City and Caltrans
b. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (V -24)
C. Pedestrian walkway (6 ft. A.G.)
d. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities
S. Construct storm drainage system as directed by the City Engineer,
a.s needed to convey .storm turnoff to street, s -torm 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.
C
7. Construct standard driveway approaches
B. Provide adequat.p sight distance and remove obstructions of view
as required at driveway and access road intersections..
9. No direct access allowed on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd, from lots.
10. Obtain encroachment permit from Calt.rans for work. to be done
within the state right -of -,lay,
11. Engineered Improvement Plans required for
a. Street improvements .
b, Storm drain construction
C. Access road construction,
i2. Pay plan check and inspection fees as de.t.ermined from improvement.
plans.
13. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year o•f receiving Final Map approval,
14. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
15. Join landscape and Lighting District for maintenance of Manor
Drive land.ocap•ing and strip of landscaping along Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Rd, soundwall,
15. Construct access road 1$ ft, wide between curbs using 2 1/2"
asphalt. concrete on G" aggregate base and-V-24 p.c, concrete curb
and gutter. Include a turnaround having a :32 ft, radius.
17, 'Existing median on Manor Drive to be extended towards Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Rd, as approved by City Engineer, Median to be planted
and irrigation extended per approved plans, consistent with
existing improvements,
18. Obtain an encroachment permit . from the City Engineer for work, to
be done in the City's right -of -way,
IV. Specific Conditions - Building InsQection Division
1, The applicant, shall submit detailed on -site improvement plans
showing:
a, Grading (limits of cuts , fills; slopes, cross sections
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork. quantities
b, Drainage Details
C. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for
walls three feet or higher
d. All existing s.truct.ure.s with notes as to remain or be removed
7
e. Erosion control measures
V. Specific Conditions,- Santa C.lara Valley Water District,
1, Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing we11s to
the SCUWD for reviejj certification and regi.- stration.
2. Detailed plans for any work: in or immediately adjacent to the 30
ft. SCUWD right -of -way shall be reviewed by SCUWD staff prior to
start of con's +.;ruction.
3. All grading, drainage & building,plans are to be approved by the
Santa Clara Valley Water, District prior to issuance of permits in
order to ensure that there is no increase in flood levels- on
other properties and that construction is at least two feet
above the 1% water surface.
VI. Specific Conditions - Cupertino Sanitary District.
1 . Prior t..o Final Map approval , the .applican't .sha:ll s)ibmi+ .Sanitary
sewer design plans to the District for review and approval.
VII. Specific Condo ions - Santa Clara. Co, Health Department
1. A sanitary sewer connection is required.
2. Domestic water shall be supp'l.ied by San Jose Water Company.
VIII. Specific Conditions - Planning Department
1. Design Review approval of all future residences is required.
2. Tree removal prohibited unless in accordance with Article 15' -SLR.
3. Possible Locat..ions of driveways for to +..s 1 and 4 on the new cu1-
de -5ac, Manor Court, to be decided at Design Reivew.
4. The applicant shall construct a masonry sound wall along
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd: The location and design, of the,wall shall
be approved by the Planning Director prior to Final Map approval.
A soundwali at the rear'of lot. 5 shall be decided during the
Design Review Process,
9
SUMMARY-OF FEES & BONDS
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TRACT NO 8053
Storm Drain Fees
Park & Recreation Fees
Plan Check & Inspection Fees
Final Map Check Fees
SD NO
$ 3,250.00
$,6,500.00
$10,800.00
$ 450.00
Rb-URT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
-TfA C-T
SD-87-001 DNS Development
NW•corner of Manor Dr. 5-lot Subdivision
and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. &5'
36
24:4 7'
12SI)
12&01(1)
U"
r .04 $7 X4
I
f
12361 <7p
dm
2
j
ZV-133
A
3K-to -12
z1- 0 t- zi
LI-5
IWI
-1A I2 +674.1%
( 0"-Za-
124 71 Cl)
C24)
Ko so
'r utin
2A11%. j IN
MANOR
DR.
4 'A
02
200710 ioad�a
c %j
ogle O*z Zomil
ell
('610
80. Ift-b-
* P
Z7
I. - ,
3".9 4.
a's
Z(P
12530(14)
<7)
is
lZroat I292* -20-21
zosgo
ORDON
tu
s3o 3 �
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. %- AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: 3 -28 -88 (4 -6 -88) CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPT.
SUB.IEI • FINAL MAP APPROVAL FOR SD -87 -005
• Oak Place, Mr. Protiva (1 Lot)
Approve Resolution No. SD -87- 005 -02 attached, approving Final Map.
Report Summary:
1. SD -87 -005 is ready for Final Map Approval
2. All requirements for City and other departments have been completed.
3. All fees have been paid.
Fiscal Impacts
None.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. SD -87 -005.
2. Resolution approving Tentative Map.
3. Location Map.
RESOLUTION NO. SD -87- 005 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF PROT.IVA
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1:
The 6750.0 Square Feet Parcel as shown Lot 11 on
the Final Parcel Map, prepared by Edward J. Hahamian, Civil
Engineer, submitted to the City of Saratoga, by approved
as one (1) individual building site.
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 NO SD -87 -.005 ;
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE HAP-OF-
Donald Brown APN # 397 -22 -09 (Lot #11 of Saratoga Park Lots Subdivision)
WHEREAS, application. has been made to the Advisory Agency- under the
Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of a site,.
all as more particularly set forth in File No. SO -87 -005 of this-City, and,
WHEREAS; this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision,.
together with the provisions for its design and improvement, 1'5 consis't'ent
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 8. 1987 being
hereby made for furt.her.particulars, and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofor 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
Government Code,Sect.ion 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 herei-na:fter
described subdivision, which map is dated the 24th day of arch,•1987 and
is marked Exhibit C in the hereinabovereferred to.file, b,e and the same is
hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more
particularly set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference
The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by, the
Planning COMmiBSaon at a meeting thereof held on the 8 day of Julv,'1.987,
at which a quorum was present, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Harris, Guch, Burger, Clay, Siegfried & Tucker
NOES: None
AOV ORY AGENCY
ABSENT: None '
` by:.
Ch ,i °man,.Planning CQMMi551on
1
Sec a ary., Planning Commission
SD -87 -005
14470 Oak Place
" EXHIBIT "A"
}'.
Conditions of Anproval
I. The applicant shall sign the agreement to the conditions within 30
_'.days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be
f.
void.
II. Specific Conditions Engineering Division
1. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
approval.
2. Submit "Parcel Map"-to City for checking and recordation and pay
required fees (If parcel is shown on existing map of record,
submit ('3) to-scale prints.
3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a.25 ft.
half - street on Oak Place.
4. Enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement" to'improve Oak Place
to City standards, including the following:
a. Designed structural section between centerline and flowline..
b. P.C. concrete crub and gutter (V -24).
C. Pedestrian walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.).
5. Convey 'storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse as
approve.d'by the City Engineer.
6. Construct standard driveway approach.
7. Provide adequate sigh distance and remove obstructions of tview
as required at driveway and access road•i- nte.rse.ctions.
8. Water courses must be kept free of. obstacles which will change, `
retard or prevent flaw.
III. Specific Conditions - Santa Clara Co. Health Department
1. A sanitary sewer connection is required.
2. Any existing septic tank(s).mus't be pumped and backfilIed in
accordance with Environmental Health standards.
3. Domestic water'shaal be supplied b.y San Jose Water Co.
IV. Specific Conditions County Sanitation Di5trict• #4
1 The applicant obtain a sewer connection'per,mit• 0r1or t0, the
issuance of a building permit.
U. Specific Conditions - Santa Clara Valley Water District
1. The applicant shall submit plans showing the location and
intended ' use of any existing Wells for review, certification and
registration prior to.the issuance of a building permit.
V1. Specific Conditions Planning Department
1. Tree removal is prohibited unless in accordance with City Code
Section 15- 50.050.
2. Record non - access easement along the parcel frontage.
t
OK ?i
1 A 0 2�
A
Alp ti
'3 ti 41 2.1 5 ZG h`
2 . 44 4 .
7,.2 ap
OAK PL. � . • , � . ` �� -za a
144 152
14498 19'1 14478 1+474 347;24' ,f '
397-221449414490 O7 08 01•
�O2 O') 0.4 O�i
317 21- 09 .` 39
347 -ZZ -01
317-21- t
"397.21 -19
203-60.
317-21-13
31T- Z1-
1 17
203; S
.i7- zl ` 317.2
-- - Aft- 2.•
- -- -, .- .
s17 -10 -15
• ' ► Z C4�
} _
L 0,�
REPORT
TO PLANNING COMM I S.S ION
,
T�
SD- 87- 005,'DR -87 -043
BROWN
`14470. Oak `Place
Tentative .Bldg, Site'
•�,lti:
and Design Review
. �4!
OK ?i
1 A 0 2�
A
Alp ti
'3 ti 41 2.1 5 ZG h`
2 . 44 4 .
7,.2 ap
OAK PL. � . • , � . ` �� -za a
144 152
14498 19'1 14478 1+474 347;24' ,f '
397-221449414490 O7 08 01•
�O2 O') 0.4 O�i
317 21- 09 .` 39
347 -ZZ -01
317-21- t
"397.21 -19
203-60.
317-21-13
31T- Z1-
1 17
203; S
.i7- zl ` 317.2
-- - Aft- 2.•
- -- -, .- .
s17 -10 -15
• ' ► Z C4�
} _
L 0,�
SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TRACT NO SD NO 87 -005
Storm Drain Fees $600.00
Park & Recreation Fees $1,300.00
Plan Check & Inspection Fees .$200.00
Final Map Check Fees $250.00
s�o 3;
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �` %._,. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: -3-24-87--(4-6-88) CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL FOR SD 86 -011
Carniel Avenue, Edward Ng
Recommended Motion:
Approve Resolution SD- 86- 011 -02 attached, approving Final Building Site.
Repoft Summary:
1. SD -86 -011 is ready for Final Building Site Approval.
2. This is an over 50% expansion to an existing single family house.
3. All conditions for city and other departments have been met.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. SD- 86- 011 -02.
2. Resolution approving Tentative Map.
3. Location Map.
Motion and Vote:
RESOLUTION NO. SD-86-011-02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL_ OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Edward Ng
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1:
Lot 28 as shown on Tract 774 recorded in Book 30 of Maps
Page 19 in -the County of Santa Clara, and.submitted to the
City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1)
individual building site.
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 NO.-SO-86-011
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
Edward and-Pearl No APN# 366 -13 -028
20602 Carniel Ave
WHEREAS, application has been
Subdivision Map Act of the State of
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga,
site or.subdivisions of 1 lots, all
No. SO -86 -011 of this City, and
Made to the Advisory Agency under the
California and under the Subdivision
for tentative map approval of a lot,
as more particularly set forth in File
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 compat -ible
with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified
in such General Plan,. reference to the Staff Report dated March 2S. 1987
being hereby made for further particulars, 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 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 map is dated the 9th day of March,
1987 and is mareked Exhibit D in the herein above referred file, be and
the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval
are as more particularly set forth.on Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
reference.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the
Planning Commission at a meeting therefof held on the 2S day of March, 1987
at which a quorum was present, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Callans, Guch, Pines, Siegfried & Tucker
NOES: None
ABSENT: Janet Harris
ATTES
5 cr tary, Planning Commi55ion
2
By:
Chairman, Planning Co i sion
SD- 86 - 011; 20:602 Carniel Ave.
Exhibit A
Building Site Conditions
A. So:ecific Conditions - Enoineering Deoartment
1. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 30 ft.
half - street on Carniel Ave.
2. Imorrove Carniel Ave. to "City Standards, including the following:
a. Desioned structual section 20 ft. between centerline and
flawline.
b. P.C. concrete curb anq cutter (R -36)
3. Convev storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse as
approved by the .City Engineer.
4. Construct standard driveway approach.
S. Submit enoineered Improvement Plans for required street
improvements.
6. Pav elan check and inspection fees as determined from Improvement
Plans.
7.. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
comoleted within the (1) year of receivino Final Approval.
G. Post bond to ouarantee completion of the required improvements.
The foreooino conditions re hereby accepted.
`c 2-
Signature of Applicant da te
3
.` rORT TO-PLANNING COMMISSW '
SD -36 -011, DR -86 -070 Pearl and Edward Ng
20602 •Carniel Ave. Building Site and
'Design Review ' I,
W sb• -=s'° 1Z4A >tc1 W MANOR D R.
h7l 1os7b 20lcS2 o4is 042+ 20512 t 90
CSL x'30 (2) 1) " -zo- . ;o 12418(1 Z+ Zs zb 27 26 ` f2'�IKr• 3" -20-/7 K4 -tl,o2 ..� i ft �2soo (7).
-Zo- 22 2c+ -35
O O/
/ZS Izrz9 t252o -20 -21 20.540 GORDON l 1s4t1
k- 3w -1st► oaf.- tiro°?i.q M� -zo 3G6 202515 CT.
o `
IZS6; (A (4 ( (2 ) (17 1�4t1
Cr) 20631 Ur toilq ZolTo Zo t9 20917 (ZI
f5� 06 <1'(/0) 31.V -1 4.13 -j1 "'3
66.13- oa of o• as 04 0)
ovs /M) 09
s
Lists
• z 5 0570:09*+ os7 20970 ELI
`- 2063
'(3 � L3 / �>?) �w C12' ( ) i 3 ) 1 366 3"-13 6-1 ifr� 13- a t s
031) 26 9 30
Zo`
as
• � -13-/2 � yk ,�'► Its34(4) 5 ..
Zo�7cV '� ;r•-IT•i3 ��� ' '� 6.13.57A) �1 IZS
(6
3L�•8�(p) 3ii.-13-Z4 361ta -1 ;(2)
a. 20690 (Z60o fora
169 Cl6) 3(06 -l3 -44 w1 Lb �`6 1Z1
t 0
lye/ 6�3 z 1z�f�5CU poi 3 3:
(i Zob'lo(r 2(011 166 -1N.6 25%8(1) (/� -• (3f�
CT. bs 1%771
'` f 2o7Opa 2L63
l 31'
' � � 'k� -Hr2 6i. -/3 -4G •.. 121:(..4(4 2(.IZ�) • .. .. Qv
�. . � V 37nL•l3-.4� IZ5'lo.(Ti.' .. ,.�
.:_ .,... b'fY13 -•. .1296..•,.
V 59 fo4- i3' -(e0 3�-38 ~ 11711
zo7rloc 11 I %.+do �
w 1U.99 a
(NI
4'13
•(a ItT3;
** DENOTES TWO -STORY HOME
SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TRACT NO
Storm Drain Fees N/A
Park & Recreation Fees N/A
Plan Check & Inspection Fees $750.00
Final Map Check Fees N/A
SD NO 86 -011
Sao 3J
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. AGENDA ITEM C7-
MEETING DATE: 3 -22 -1988 (4 -6 -1988) CITY MGR. APPROVALh�e
1�
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPT.
SUBJECT • FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL FOR
SD 87 -014, Springer Avenue, Doug Heeter (1 Lot)
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution SD -87 -014 attached, approving Final Building Site Approval.
Report Summary:
1. SD -87 -014 is ready for Final Building Site Approval.
2. All requirements for the City and other departments have been completed.
3. All fees have been paid.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
. Attachments:
1. Resolution SD -87 -014.
2. Resolution approving Tentative Map.
3. Location Map.
Motion and Vote:
RESOLUTION NO. SD -87 -014
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Dou � Heeter
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1:
Lot 20 designated on Mary Springer Tract Map #1 and submitted
to the City.Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved.as one (1) individual
building site.
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
r,
MAYOR
SUMMARY -0F FEES & BONDS
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TRACT NO
Storm Drain Fees $600.00
Park & Recreation Fees $1,300.00
Plan Check & Inspection Fees $750.00
Final Map Check Fees --
SD NO -83-014
RESOLUTION NO.SD -87 -014
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
APN # 503 -27 -079 14298 5pringer Ave
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the
Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of a lot,
all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -87 -014 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 t:o the Staff Report'dated August 12. 1987
being hereby made for further particulars, and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the
Categorical Exemption prepared for this project in accord with the
currently applicable provisions o'f CEQA, and.
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth i.n 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, DE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 1122 day of August
1987 and is marked Exhibit' C1. in'the hereinabove referred to file, be and
the, same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval
are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit 8 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 t'he,12th day of August
1987-, at which a quorum Was present, by the following vote:
AYES: Chair Harris, Commissioners Clay, Burger, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners .Guch, Siegfried ADV SORY AGENCY -
BY:
irman„ Planning Commission
ATTEST:
4&1�ary, Planning Commission
v
14298 Springer Ave.
EXHIBIT A
SD -87 =014
Conditions of Approval
I. General Conditions
1. The applicant shall sign the agreement t,o thes'e conditions within
30 days of the passage of this resalut-ion or said resolution
shall be void.
II. Specific Conditions - En4ineerina Division
i. Obtain final building site approval- prior to issuance of a
building permit..
2. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final'
Approval.
3. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation and pay
required fees.
4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a,25 ft,
half- street on Springer Ave.
S. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements as
required. •
G. Improve Springer Ave. to City Standards, including the following:
a. Designed structural section 16 1/2 ft. between centerline and
flowlne.
b. Asphalt concrete berm.
7. Construct storm drainage system as directed by the City.Engineer,
as needed to convey storm.runoff to street, storm sewer, or
watercourse.
8. Construct a standard driveway approach.
9. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of, view
as. required at driveway and access road .intersections'.
10. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will- change,
retard or prevent flow.
1 .1 Protective planting required on roadside cuts, and fills;:;. •:, "
.- 1 ;
12. Engineered improvement plans required for
a. Street improvements
b. Storm drain construction
13.. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement
plans.
14. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
15. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
III. Specific Conditions - Building Inspection
1. Submit detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
a. grading .(.limits of cuts, fills; s.lop.es, cross- sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities.)
b.. drainage details
c. retaining structures including design by AIA or R.C.E. for
walls 3 feet or higher
d.. erosion control measures
IV. Specific Conditions - Santa Clara County Health Dept
I. Domestic-water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Works
2. A sanitary sewer connection is required
V. SSoecific.Conditions Santa Clara Valley Water District
1. Any existing wells shall be sealed in accordance with' District
Standards.
IV. Specific Conditions - Plannino Department
1. Tree removal is permitted only in accordance with City Code
Section 15- 50.050
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.,
Signature of App i.cant- Date
Owl,
*ISO
14 W400
IBM A,
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. /�!4
MEETING DATE: 3 -22 -1988 (4 -6 -1988)
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR RE -2
Montalvo Road, Mueller
Recommended Motion:
Grant Acceptance of RE -2 and Release of Cash Bond.
Repoft Summary:
AGENDA ITEM ° _j
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
The Public Improvements along Montalvo Road have been satisfactorily
completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance
period.
• Fiscal Impacts:
None.
. Attachments:
1. Memo describing bond.
Motion and Vote:
Jf s -o
14 o -S"a
IMEMORANDt1M
0919W 0:T - 900&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438 .
TO: City Manager DATE: 3 -22 -88
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for RE -2 Keith Mueller
Name & Location: Montalvo Road
Public Improvements required for RE -2, Montalvo Road
have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore., recommend the
City Council accept the improvements for construction only..
This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance
period. During that year, the improvement contract; insurance and
improvement security will remain in full force.
The following information is included for your use:
1. Developer: Keith Mueller
Address 14840 Montalvo Road
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
2. Improvement Security:
Type: CASH BOND
Amount: $3.000.00
Issuing Company: .
Address:
Receipt, XS No.: 08047
3. Special Remarks:
Finance Dept.
Please release Cash Bond of $3,000.00.
LP�� -
Robert S. Shook
RSS /dsm .: .. _ .
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: 3 -22 -88 (4 -6 -88)
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR 1290
Mt. Eden Road, Hulse
Recommended Motion:
Grant Construction Acceptance for SDR 1290.
Repoft Summary:
16C 1 a
T;
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
The public improvements along Mt. Eden Road have been satisfactorily
completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance
period.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
Motion and Vote:
I 1ba 30
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL y/o 3t5
J �
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Iqa I AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: April 6, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL '
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS - QUITO ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS PROJECT
Recommended Motion:
Authorize proceeding with the solicitation and advertising for Request for .
proposals for "Consulting Design Engineering Services for Replacement of two Quito
Road bridges ".
Reooft Summar
In December, 1986 we had requested two bridges on Quito Road be considered for
replacement under the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program.
The bridges are at Bicknell Road and at Austin Way respectively. A field review was
held on Jan. 15,,1987, with FHWA, CALTRANS, S.C.V.W.D., City of Monte Sereno, and City
of Saratoga staff attending. FHWA will provide 80% of the funding and the remaining
20% will be divided three ways; City of Saratoga, City of Monte Sereno, and S.C.V.W.D.
with the City of Saratoga administering the project. The FHWA granted authorization
to proceed with the project on 3/19/87. We have gone through the Cultural Resources
Review, Department of Fish & Game Review, completed most of the preliminary field .
topography and have recently received Caltrans approval to proceed with the Request
for Proposals for Engineering Design.
Fiscal Impacts:
The replacement of these two bridges has been estimated to cost approximately;
$294,000 each ($588,000 total cost) with the preliminary engineering and construction
engineering estimated to be $50,000 each ($100,000 total cost). The City of Saratoga's
bare pf the total cost is estimated to be approximately $39,196.00..
Attachments:
1. Location Map.
2. Cost Estimate.
Motion and Vote:
J)
Y
Los...
aA7'fCS
ELEL_ RO
Br /'p/9 e
r37.0 - 2.
MONTE
SEREl170
o�
8rio�ge SCALE: �T
-;P37C -111 / "- 6W
al�t�
d
Q
c
p�
.a
0
f
STATE ,OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS, TRANSPORt,. ON AND HOUSING AGENCY �� GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT, OF TRANSPORTATION t'tcac.: ccD
BOX 7310
,mn<
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120 bi a
(415) 923.4444 FEB 6198i
L=NGINEEAING 0FP
January 30, 1987
04- SCI -O -Sar
BRM -CO14
Quito Road Bridge
No. 37CO111
Mr. Robert S. Shook
City Engineer
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Shook:
The California Transportation Commission under Miscellaneous
Resolution G -86 -10 approved the operating procedures proposed by
the City- County -State Steering Committee for Local Agency projects
in the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
Program for F.Y. 86 -87. A copy is attached.
h
The candidate to have a portion of Calif:ornia's HBRR allocation
reserved for it in this fiscal year is listed below. The amount
of federal participation on eligible items of work for the project
is shown for you information.
Bridge Name Bridge Number Federal Participation
San Tomas Creek 37C0111 $2.35,200
Federal participation is based on 80% of the value of the
following preliminary list of items of work for which the City has
requested participation. Final federal participation will be
based on items developed from final approval plans.
Preliminary Engineering ................ $ 24,000
R/W Acquisition 24,•000
Construction:
Bridge Cost 18:5,500
Roadway Cost 34,500
Construction Engineering 26,000
Total .............................
Total Estimated Cost $
246,000
294,000
Mr. Shook -
Page . 2
January 30, 1987 .
To qualify for these funds the PS &E of the bridge portion must be
approved for advertising by the Division of Structures. PS &E must
be completed within one year from the date of this notification
letter when design is done in- house; or, for those projects
requiring Federal TIP of' TIP amendment approval, one year from the
date of such approval. (Up to four additional months will be
allowed when a consultant agreement is involved.)
If a consultant agreement is involved, the agreement shall be
completed within four months from the date of notification.
.If the new Highway Bill gets timely approval, please attempt to
have construction funds obligated for this project by June 1,
1987.
Headquarters Local Assistance has indicated that a process to
approve $0 FNM -76 submittals has been approved.
Please confirm in writing whether you will comply with the
requirements for qualification, and whether a. consultant agreement
is involved. The District will process the City's Request for
Authorization to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering (FNM -76)
with HBRR funds when this confirmation is received, but not
before.
For information on right of way acquisition policies and
procedures please contact Ray Cook at (415) 9:23 - 4423.
Sincerely yours,
BURCH C. BACHTOLD
District Director
PETER C. NANOV
Local Streets and Roads
Attachment
_,TIE �OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS, TRANSPOR.. ..ON AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOX 7310; » i"
SAN FRANCISCO, CA • 94120
(415) 923-4444
January 30, 1987
04- SC1 -0 -Sar
BRM -0014-
Quito Road Bridge
No. 37CO112
Mr. Robert 'S. Shook
City Engineer
City of Saratoga
1377.7 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Shook:
The California Transportation Commission under Miscellaneous
Resolution G -86 -10 approved the operating procedures proposed by
the City - County -State Steering Committee for Local Agency projects
in the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
Program for F.Y. 86 -87. A copy is attached..
The candidate to have a portion of California's HBRR allocation
reserved for it in this fiscal year is listed below. The amount
of federal participation on eligible items of work for the project
is .shown for you information..
Bridge Name Bridge Number Federal Participation
San Tomas Creek 3700112 $235,200
Federal participation is based on 80% of the value of the
following preliminary list of items of work for which the City has
requested participation. Final federal participation will be
based on items developed from final approval plans-
Preliminary Engineering $ 24,000
R/W Acquisition .......................... 24,000
Construction:
Bridge Cost 185,500
Roadway Cost 34,500
Construction Engineering •26,000
Total .......•.. ..................... 246,000
Total Estimated Cost .................. $ 294,000
Mr. - .Shook .
Page .2' ,
January_. 30, ' 1987
To qualify for these funds the PS &E of the bridge portion must be
.approved for-advertising by the Division of Structures. PS &E must
be completed within one-year from the date of this notification
letter when design is done in- house; or, for those projects
requiring Federal TIP or TIP amendment approval, one year from the
date of such approval. (up to for additional months will be
allowed when a consultant agreemenut is involved.)
If a consultant agreement is involved, the agreement shall be
completed within four.months'from the date of notification.
If the new Highway Bill gets timely approval, please attempt to
have construction funds 'ob'ligated for this project by June 1,
1987.
Headquarters Local Assistance has indicated that a process to
approve $0 FNM -76 submittals has been approved.
Please confirm in writing whether you will comply with the
requirements for qualification, and whether, a consultant agreement
is involved. The District will process the City's Request for
Authorization to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering (FNM -76)
with HBRR• funds when this confirmation is received, but not
before.
For information on right of way acquisition policies and
procedures please contact Ray Cook at (415) 923- 4423.
Sincerely yours,
BURCH C. BACHTOLD
District Director
By e-.7-
PETER C. NANOV
Local Streets and Roads
Attachment
r '
r)T
`
1I
Mr. - .Shook .
Page .2' ,
January_. 30, ' 1987
To qualify for these funds the PS &E of the bridge portion must be
.approved for-advertising by the Division of Structures. PS &E must
be completed within one-year from the date of this notification
letter when design is done in- house; or, for those projects
requiring Federal TIP or TIP amendment approval, one year from the
date of such approval. (up to for additional months will be
allowed when a consultant agreemenut is involved.)
If a consultant agreement is involved, the agreement shall be
completed within four.months'from the date of notification.
If the new Highway Bill gets timely approval, please attempt to
have construction funds 'ob'ligated for this project by June 1,
1987.
Headquarters Local Assistance has indicated that a process to
approve $0 FNM -76 submittals has been approved.
Please confirm in writing whether you will comply with the
requirements for qualification, and whether, a consultant agreement
is involved. The District will process the City's Request for
Authorization to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering (FNM -76)
with HBRR• funds when this confirmation is received, but not
before.
For information on right of way acquisition policies and
procedures please contact Ray Cook at (415) 923- 4423.
Sincerely yours,
BURCH C. BACHTOLD
District Director
By e-.7-
PETER C. NANOV
Local Streets and Roads
Attachment
•4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. / 1J 0
MEETING DATE: 4/6/88
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning
3a 3a
AGENDA ITEM: �✓
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
Proposed tentative cancellation of Williamson Act Contract for 21.5 acres
SUBJECT: generally located at 22631 Mt. Eden Road, APN #'s 503 -12 -024 (partial) and
503 -12 -025.
Recommended Motion: If the City Council can make the required findings that the can-
cellation of the Williamson Act Contract is in the public interest and wishes to approve the
removal of the land from the Williamson Act, it should approve the Negative Declaration and
direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary resolution approving the tentative
cancellation.
Report Summary:
The applicant wishes to develop a 4 -lot residential subdivision on 21.5 acres of property
currently under a Williamson Act contract. In order to proceed, the Council must tenta-
tively agree to the cancellation of the contract after which the City can process a sub-
division request from the applicant.
Public Tdoticing: The application was deemed complete on March 23, 1988. The cancellation
request has been noticed by advertising in the Saratoga News on 3/23/88.
In addition, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners
within 500 ft. of the property, all Williamson Act contract holders, and
persons on the community group notification list.
Fiscal Impacts: No significant impact.
Attachments: 1. Staff report to City Council
2. Negative Declaration and Initial Study
3. Applicant's Petition
4. Stipulation for Settlement between the City and applicant
Motion and Vote:
67f 6-
.0
oguw Qq §&MZUQ)0Z
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: planning director
DATE: march 31, 1938
SUBJECT: proposed tentative cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
for 21.5 acres generally located at 22631 Pot. eden Rd.-
APP1 #'s 503- 12- 024(partial) and 503 -12 -025
Background /Proposal
In 1973, a Williamson Act Contract ( #73.905) to preserve a total of
52.5 acres of agricultural land was entered into between the City
of Saratoga and Mr. Anthony Cocciardi. Mr. Cocciardi is requesting
the removal of approximately 21.5 acres of land under this contract.
The area proposed for tentative cancellation is contained within two
separate parcels, i.e. APN #'s 503 -12 -024, 503 -12 -025.
The applicant wishes to develop the entire 10.8 acres of parcel 503-
12 -025, (a.k.a. Borrow site) and to partially develop parcel 503 -12-
024, i.e. 10.7 acres. Consequently, if the applicant's cancellation
request is granted, approximately 31 acres of land would remain
under the Williamson Act. The subject property's general plan land
use designation is RHC (Hillside Conservation) and is currently
zoned NHR (Northwestern Hillside Residential) with an AP (Agricultu-
ral Preserve) overlay zone.
In 1986, the City signed a "Stipulation for Settlement" with the
applicant agreeing to "take such actions as may be required and
permitted under State law for cancellation of the Williamson Act
Contract which is now applicable to the Borrow site." In addition,
the City acknowledged the applicant's desire to ultimately subdivide
the parcel in accordance with "the current NHR Zoning Regulations,
including the slope /density formula." Lastly, the City agreed that
the "boundary lines of the proposed subdivision may be determined by
Owners (the applicant) and such lines need not correspond with the
property lines as they now exist... provided that no portion of the
(proposed) subdivision shall include the Cocciardi quarry."
Analysis
The State law allows the City Council to tentatively cancel a
Williamson Act Contract if it determines that it is within the
public interest to do so. The State law defines the cancellation
is within the public interest if, 1) other public concerns outweigh
the objectives of preserving the agricultural use and 2) if there is
1
M
no other "proximate" land available and suitable for the proposed
development.
1. Public Concerns: The City's Conservation Element of the General
Plan and the Guidelines of Area A Development discourage
cancellations of Williamson Act contracts unless it is otherwise
permitted by State law. In this case, the subject property has
never, in recent history, met the agricultural objectives set.
forth in Sections 51220 (a)(b) and (c) of the Williamson Act.
For example, the property in question is not considered "prime
agricultural" land in that "no fruit or nut - bearing trees,
vines, bushes, or crops have been cultivated from the land and
the property is not used to support livestock used for the
production of food and fiber." In addition, given that it is
reasonable to expect the most productive top soil of the land
was removed as part of the Quarry Creek Repair Project and the
area is characterized by moderate to severly steep slopes, there
is no reasonable agricultural use to which the land may be put.
In addition, the applicant's cancellation request is consistent
with State law in that the land has never provided housing for
agricultural laborers and it's future development will not
encourage "discontinuous urban development patterns which
unnecessarily increase the costs of community services to
residents." This latter point is satisfied by the fact that the
subject area is contiguous to two recently approved
subdivisions, i.e. Tr. 7761 (Mt. Eden Estates) and Chadwick
Place. Finally, staff has determined that, the land in question
is not within a designated scenic highway corridor or wildlife
habitat having value to the State because of scenic beauty and
location, or having great importance as a habitate for wildlife.
2. Proximate (non - contracted) Land Available and Suitable for
Development - The State law requires that in order to cancel a
Williamson Act contract, the Council must find that no
"proximate" land is available and suitable for the proposed
development. The law does not define the proximate distance
that land must be in order to be considered a reasonable
alternative; however, there aren't any.non- contracted parcels
within 800 ft. of the subject property that haven't received
tentative or final map approval which are large enough to
subdivide into 4, or more lots (see attached map).
For example, the 51.5 acre Garrod parcel (APN #503 -12 -001) is
located to the northwest of the subject site but is currently
under a Williamson Act contract. The property to the northeast
of the site (Chadwick Place Subdivision) has received tentative
map approval for an 11 -lot subdivision, and the property to the
southwest (Mt. Eden Estates) has received final map approval for
a 23 -lot subdivision.
Conclusion /Recommendation
The applicant's proposal to.remove a total of 21.5 acres of land
2
0
from the Williamson Act in order to subdivide the property into
4 -lots is consistent with the "Stipulation for Settlement"
between the City and the applicant in that the ultimate
development will comply with the City's slope /density formula
and no portion of the future subdivision will include the
Cocciardi Quarry. The proposed cancellation is also consistent
with the public interest in that:
1) the proposed cancellation is for land on which a notice of non -
renewal has been served, pursuant to Government Code Section
51245.
2) the proposed cancellation is for an alternative use (residential)
which is consistent with the City's General Plan.
3) the proposed cancellation will not result in discontinuous
patterns of urban development.
4) the proposed cancellation of the contracted land would provide
more continuous pattern of urban development than development of
proximate noncontracted land.
5) the proposed cancellation is not likely to result in the removal
of adjacent lands from agricultural use.
If the Council concurs, it should direct the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary resolution.
.�I 1
tYcEek Hsia
ning Director
YH /bc /dsc
3
- 0
_ area: �poedr�x , �1
s • ^�'� -' ,c,,��= e343t. � :eta "_��: /' -�� - x - - s - y' � < 's a� ??:.� � r
•c°s'r _ s; . _ _ _ -cane A., "-` r �,- - , z. / -`.7r •c•- �Zari` �.- � .4 '1 's „� �,,.;..�_ •.
� �a't •'� �_ �i- 'r- -'a �'� ���� i� - •a4. -.r s.y3`?�• '�c'7rt,� � � -•n.`� ,�� a „i. ``� *�R':. .�, a- y' �"• �. �4J,� -
.s: x. �� _ � , ir-i� i� �� ��...a.S = � � *' �S�ti'3�� c" �. rr :I a •�\,r � i � s.'�'�x1..�M -'i. � ��f�. .�'•���;ta�. � y 1.
•� _d'., -x °''. .i:'�J`Y '{. ..j .". Y- `;�,t -c^�i �� :- :'�vi: �� > "�> '�= '�'k�x-,..',.�.�,, ,, -frr'- - .�.r;�-r. x;,'" - ,.,' -r$�._ ,j. - �'n�' - S 'Mi£r� � i. ,.
�:.� ;� t •� -- .+.-,i v ,�s`��i�.� 3��'4 .�- ^�.k�tyy �•+s�4`-.mr� f.Y..,��p,�y -r"� �F '�. � ' - r•a-.. - _�..y. - - Na'c°`'�c < .+r ✓�- ''��,'.
f '`' :_'�_S`� Via"'° -=.,- ' -t_t{• t7+.i
gam'- °a-- 'i ,:z=s t:.y r_° £•�., _ - - _ _ r . ,i+-:• _ `'''tom _ -6- :.4i,?� '.'Y i
- - � - - =*� ,.. . '� •'_ f fir y ;,}r.•�t: �' • `F ''.� -�: t - Fx �. •. _..J � - �� �"• �c,,, t� _ Y _ r . � — _ � _ .,� �h:, �r - W _
DR
HR
GWOD PROPERTY.
_ 3 -12_ -024 -
f 1.7 ac_
- •CHADWICK PLACE 1
APN #_ -
_ r SUBDIVISION
503 -12 -025_ TA
10.8 ac.
\'
R-
'. � ai• Ls.r '•� 1'r'X'' i S''k- '6.`J.1''�%.�l .'.�' _� �w �- 8....r= !.�Y�r ,i. -+.` Y � _ 1 - _ t e� Ott. .- { '-_,jW
6 � .3 ''` ;_ 'u a�s- �- - ^r� F� '��r .-�n `. -% .F -•Gis. �F. �F `77 '. -}� ?" a. � It �~� r �. -- ♦ ._c..-
( _ s- �$�� fY •,� �R'-Yyy f c`�' � � ter'`. -S. �'�„ G �" ,r ,�� - •� }.'
•?� T 1.. _ '� ..` '..•sal ,} ; `" �. •J. T,•b-� r __ _ ,. _ .. - ".� \Y Y
�'+ � .�- .. yry .., _J' 1 Ali �..� _�^ ._.YY _ __ ._ y.-_ -•.n.� Ti � -t _.�� ._ �'I •.s. �.' - .�. ..- � � —!,
0
RES -ND File No. Proposed
Saratoga Williamson Act
Cancellation
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(.Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY
OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has
determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, . Section 15063 through
15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and
Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described
project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on
the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tentative cancellation of Williamson Act contract on 21.5 acres of land in
order to consider subdividing the property into 4 residential lots. The
property is identified as APN #503 -12 -024 (partial), 025.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Anthony Cocciardi,
22631 Mt. Eden Rd.
Saratoga, Ca. 9.5070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The tentative cancellation will affect only the tax exempt status of the
land and will not have any environmental impact. The proposed future
subdivision of the property will require further environmental review.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 6th day of April 1988.
YUCHUEK HSIA
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
FORM EIA -lb
CITY OF SARATOGA
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(TO BE COMPLETED BY PUBLIC AGENCY)
PROJECT: W' � l •�
FILE NO:
LOCATION:
A9 �V8 D3� k�- d24,6ZS
I. BACKGROUND
1.. Name 'of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone Number of oponent:
n , pct `�50:jro ;
3. Date of Checklist Submitted: /SI87
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: C\�C�"A ,
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable 1
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe "answers are required on attached
sheets.)
1. Earth.. Will the proposdi result in: YES MAYBE NO
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over -
'crowding of the soil?
C. Change in topography or .ground surface relief
features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
u
YES MAYBE NO
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
f.. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the �(
bed of a lake? /\ '
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards
such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground
failure; or similar hazards? i
2. Air. Will the proposal result in.:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality ?'
i b. The creation of objectionable odors?
d. Alteration of 'air movement, moisture or temperature,
or any change in climate, either locally or region=
ally?
3. Water. Will the. proposal result in.:.
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements in fresh water?
b. Changes in absorption.rates,.drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
-2-
YES MAYBE NO
d. Change in the amount of 'surface water or any
Water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
cif surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X '
f. Alteration of the direction,or rate of flow of
ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals,.or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
j. Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or
chemical content of surface thermal springs?
4. Plant Life..,* Will the proposal result in- ,
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass {
crops, and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or \/
endangered species of plants? �x
-3-
YES
MAYBE NO
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
d.
Reduction in acreage of an ?
g y. agricultural crop.
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of
any species of animals (birds, land animals includ-
ing reptiles, fish,, or insects)?
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
.
endangered species of animals?
—
— \
C.
Introduction of new species of animals into an area,
or result in a barrier'to the migration or movement
of animals?
d:
Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat?
4 6. Noise. Will.the proposal result in:
a.
Increases in existing noise levels?
X
b.
X
-Exposure of people to severe noise levels? .•
7. Light
and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light
or
glare?
j
-4-
r =,
YES
MAYBE NO
8.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area?
-.
9.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in-the rate of use of any natural'
resources?
/
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource?
fx�
10.
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (inlcuding, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or.radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
11.
Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area?
12.
Housing. Will the proposal.affect existing housing,
or create a'demand for additional housing ?.
13.
Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result
in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular ,
movement?
-5-
YES MAYBE NO
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand
for new parking ?
C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and /or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
C. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? x
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? i(
f. Other governmental services? X
15. Energy. will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
-6-
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development of
new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a'need for new
systems, or'substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
C. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e.. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
r�
YES MAYBE NO
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health \ /
hazard.(excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
18. Aesthetics..' Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion oof any scenic vista or view open to the public,
or will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically.offensive site open to public view?
19. Recreation: Will the proposal result in an impact upon
the quality or quantity of existing recreational.
.opportunities?
-7-
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to dea_rade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals? (A short -term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long -term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
-8-
r
YES MAYBE NO
a
x:
r
YES MAYBE NO
C. Does the project have impacts which are indivi-
dually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
-9-
IV. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial.evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
OI find that although the proposed project could have a significant
.effect on the environment, there will not be.a significant effect
in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE.DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED.
OI find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
-10- (rev. 5/16/80)
fYIA11% a ; WI)
PLANNING DEPT.
TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
SUBJECT: PETITION FOR PARTIAL CANCELLATION OF WILLIAMSON ACT
CONTRACT INCLUDING PROPOSAL FOR SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVE
USE
PETITIONERS: ANTHONY and GIOVANNA COCCIARDI
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) the undersigned
Anthony and Giovanna Cocciardi respectfully represent the
following:
1. Land. The petitioners are all the present
owners of the land, the legal description of which is set
forth in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, for which the petitioners request
partial cancellation of the contract.
2. MAP. The map of the land is Exhibit "B" hereto,
and is incorporated herein by reference. The map is the
tentative map of the subdivision application SD -87 -008,
which is being processed by the planning department. The
land is that which encompasses the four lots shown on the
exhibit.
3. CONTRACT. A land conservation contract was
entered into by the petitioners and the City of Saratoga
on January 17, 1973, which was recorded in the Office of
the Santa Clara County Recorder on February 26, 1973, in
Book 0250 of the official records at page 717.
4. PARTIAL CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT. Petitioners
request that the City Council approve the partial cancella-
tion of the contract as to the land described in Exhibit
"A" hereto and as depicted upon the map which is Exhibit "B"
hereto (approximately 21.5 acres), and which would leave
approximately 31 acres under the contract. The undersigned
represent that such cancellation is in the public interest
pursuant to Section 51282(b) of the Government Code, and is
accompanied by a proposal for specified alternative use under
Section 51283.4 of said code, by reasons of the facts, circum-
stances and conditions set forth in Exhibit "C" attached
hereto and incorporated by reference.
Petitioners request that this petition be set for
hearing and'heard and that the council take action thereon
as provided in the Williamson Act for the partial cancella-
tion of subject land conservation contract.
The petitioners do hereby certify the foregoing to
true and correct.
GEORGE' PORTER TOBIN
Attorney for Petitioners
246 West Main Street
Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -7100 -
IM
AN H NY CO CIARDI
GIOVANNA COCCIARDI
EXHIBIT "'C"
FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS WHICH JUSTIFY
THE PARTIAL CANCELLATION OF WILLIAMS.ON ACT CONTRACT
AND PROPOSAL FOR SPECIFIED ALTERNATIVE USE
(Note: All Section references are to the Government Code)
Section '51282 sets forth a requirement to support council
action for cancellation of any contract as to all or any part of
subject land. This request is made pursuant to Section 51282(a)(2):
"that cancellation is in the public interest ".
The cancellation is for land .in-which a note of nonrenewal
and partial cancellation has been served pursuant to Section.
51245, on September 23, 1987.
Other public interests outweigh the objectives of'the
Williamson Act as applied to this land. The- -land never did meet
the agricultural objectives of the Act as set forth in Sections
51220(a), (b) and (c). It was never prime agricultural land and
no food,'. fiber, fruit or nuts were ever grown thereon. The land
never provided housing for agricultural laborers.. It did not
discourage discontiguous urban development which would increase
the cost of public services to city residents. The land is hilly,
and is heavily wooded brushland.
The land also fails to meet the presumptions in Section
51222 of parcels presumed to be large enough to sustain agricul-
tural use: 10 acres of prime agricultural land,which.this land
is not; and 40 acres not prime agricultural land which. this land
is; and additionally, the parcel is "less than 40 acres..
This land fails to meet either test.
The land is rot within a scenic highway corridor or wildlife
habitat having value to the state because of scenic beauty and
location, or having great importance as a' habitat for wildlife,
or to the preservation or enhancement thereof.
Pg. 1 of 4-
I
Exhibit "C"
Pg. 2 of _4
CONTIGUOUS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
The land is contiguous to Tract 7T1, Mt. Eden Estates,
consisting of 27 residential lots along the northeasterly
boundary of said tract. It is also contiguous to Tract 7777,
Chadwick Place, consisting of 11 residential lots along the
easterly boundary of the land and the westerly boundary of
said tract. Final map of Tract 7761 has been recorded and
seven (7)of the lots have been sold. The final map of Tract
7777 has been approved and should be recorded shortly. The
northeasterly boundary of the.land abutts a portion of the
Garrod property and the remaining Act property under the
contract for which no application for cancellation has as
yet been filed. The entire Parker Ranch was approved for
development a number-of years ago. The Garrod property has
approximately 50 acres within the limits of Saratoga which
are under the Act and it has an even larger parcel which is
contiguous in the County which is also under the Williamson
Act. On the west side of Mt. Eden Road, .the Teerlink property
has been subdivided into 23 lots, and the adjacent property,
developed by Bas Homes, was a project of 17 lots and has been
substantially built out. There are very few sites of any size
which are available for residential development in NHR zone.
In the 15 years since this Williamson Act contract was
executed, the character of-Saratoga has been radically changed-:•
The largest agricultural was the Paul Masson Winery which is
no longer operating. Saratoga has become a more prestigious
residential area and the demand for residential sites is
exceedingly strong.
THE QUARRY CREEK /ROAD REPAIR PROJECT
The Cocciardis and Cocciardi and Chadwick filed two
lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the City of Saratoga and others
which was settled pursuant to a stipulation for settlement which
.1
Exhibit "C"
pg. 3 of 4—
took care of both of the lawsuits
The City required upon :the part of the Cocciardi's, the
Chadwicks, and Harbor Builders Company, Inc. that they participate
in the cost of the Quarry Creek /Road Repair Project. Cocciardi
offered to provide the fill material from the land for which
cancellation of the Act.is requested at no charge.. The original
estimate was that it would require approximately 63,000 cubic
yards of earth. It finally required 1.54,000 cubic yards of earth.
Paragraph 7 of that stipulation for settlement provides
as follows: City acknowledges that Cocciardi intends to subdivide
the parcel of land from which the fill material will be taken
for use in the Repair- Project (the "Borrow Site "). With respect
to any application for tentative map approval covering the-Borrow
.Site, City agrees as follows:
(a) The average slope of,the Borrow Site will be
calculated on the basis of contour lines as
established after all grading and earth removal
for the Repair Project has been completed.- Except
as herein provided,'the'tentative. map application
will be processed in" accordance with -the: current
NHR Zoning Regulations, including the slope /density
formula contained therein.
(b)
The City will take such actions as may be required
and permitted under State law for cancellation of
-the Williamson Act Contract which is now applicable
to'the Borrow Site..
(c)
The boundary lines of the proposed subdivision may
be determined by Owners and such lines need not.
correspond with property lines as they now exist,
subject, however, to the following conditions:
(1) All existing parcels or lots of record
constituting any portion of the subdivision
shall be shown on the map and those areas
which are not included within the subdivision
shall be so designated.
(2) No portion of the subdivision shall include
the Cocciardi Quarry.
The
tentative subdivision map is Exhibit "'B" to this
petition.
While it only embraces -4 lots, it still requires
r
Exhibit C"
Pg. 4 of
21 1/2 acres to fulfill the slope /denisty requirements of
Measure A, and of the northwestern hillside specific plan.
It is the position of the petitioners that by the
provisions of stipulation for settlement the City had then
made a.determination that the 4 lot subdivision was the
specified alternative use for the'13orrow Site."
The City of Saratoga is the only known governmental
agency having permit authority relating to the above proposed
alternative use.
R s ectfully submitted,
,GEORGV PORTER TOBIN
Attorney for Petitioners
N
a
0
v
z a
Q3� _
a� no�
AL t -n
<ka
n
.momoo
W.'- _
Q C W O W
to03a�v
Yam ?
a m
z
n
0
f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
HAROLD S. TOPPEL, Esq.
Saratoga City Attorney
660 West Dana Street
P. O. Box 279
Mountain Vier, CA 94042
Telephone: (415) 967 -6941
Attorneys for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALLEN CHADWICK, et al., )
Plaintiffs, )
)
Vs.
CITY OF SARATOGA, et al., )
Defendants. )
)
NO. C -83 -20317 W AI
STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT
See Stipulation for Settlement attached hereto.
STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT
This Stipulation for Settlement ( "Agreement "), by and between ANTHONY
COCCIARDI - and MARY COCCIARDI ( "Cocciardi "), ALLEN CHADWICK and
CAROLYN COCCIARDI ( "Chadwick /Cocciardi"), HARBOR BUILDERS CO., INC., a
California corporation ( "Harbor Builders ") (hereinafter collectively referred to as
"Owners!'), and the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation ( "City ") is made
with reference to the following facts:
A. Cocciardi was ' the owner of approximately 43 acres of real property
(the "Cocciardi Property ") located within the Northwestern Hillside area of the City of
Saratoga ( "Northwestern Hillside ").
B. Cocciardi filed an application with City for approval of a tentative
map for the Cocciardi Property, identified as Application No. SD 1356, and on or about
February 13, 1980, City approved a tentative map for the Cocciardi Property providing
for 23 lots and, as part of such approval, imposing certain conditions to be 'satisfied'
prior to recordation of a final map.
C. , Chadwick /Cocciardi is the owner of approximately 51 acres of real
property (the "Chadwick /Cocciardi Property ") located within the Nor_ thwestern
Hillside.
D. Chadwick /Cocciardi filed an application with City for approval of a
tentative map for the Chadwick /Cocciardi Property, identified as Application No. SD
1368, and on or about February 13, 1980, City approved a tentative map for the
Chadwick /Cocciardi Property providing for 11 lots and, as part of such approval,
imposing certain conditions to be satisfied prior to recordation_ of a final map.
E. On April 8, 1980, the citizens of Saratoga passed an initiative
ordinance, commonly known as Measure A, which became effective on April 25, 1980,
and which pertains to the Northwestern Hillside, including the respective properties of
Owners.
-1-
F. Section- 7 of Measure A states in pertinent part:
"Pending final completion. of the requirements of Section 3, no zoning
changes, land divisions, subdivisions, building or grading permits for
construction of a new residence, or other land development approvals
of any kind shall be issued in the subject area, nor-any applications _
accepted therefor; .provided, that upon a showing of extreme hardship .
and in agreement with the provisions of this initiative, exceptions
may be granted after two noticed public hearings by a 4 /5ths vote of .
the City Council."
Section 3 of Measure A also states in pertinent part:
"The. City of Saratoga shall within one year from the effective date
of this ordinance, or as soon thereafter as feasible, complete a
comprehensive review of all development issues in the subject area
and adopt a Specific Plan for the area pursuant to California
Government Code Sections 65450- 65553, incorporating the standards
set forth in Section 4 below, and all policies and regulations required
to implement said Plan."
G. On June 7, 1981, pursuant to and consistent with Measure A and
Sections 65450 -65553 of the Government Code, City adopted the Northwestern
Hillside Specific Plan ( "Specific Plan "), and on April 27, 1982, pursuant to and
consistent with the Specific Plan, City enacted Ordinance NS -3.47 establishing zoning
regulations for the Northwestern Hillside ("NHR Zoning Regulations "), being the area
covered by Measure A and the Specific Plan. Measure A, the Specific Plan and
Ordinance NS -3.47 reduced the density of development below the number of lots shown"
on the. tentative maps for SD 1356 and SD 1368.
H. City has contended and still contends that SD 1356 and SD 1368 are
subject to all provisions of Measure A, the Specific Plan and Ordinance NS -3.47,
including the density provisions thereof, whereas Owners have contended and still
contend they are entitled to divide their property in accordance with the approved
tentative maps for SD 1356 and SD 1368, upon compliance�nrith all conditions for final
map approval and that they are further entitled to building permits authorizing the
construction of a single family residence upon each of the lots shown on said maps.
I. On October 20, 1983, Cocciardi commenced an action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Cocciardi: et
al., vs. City of Saratoga, et al., Case No. C- 83- 20316 WAI (the "Cocciardi Lawsuit ").
J. On October 20, 1983, Chadwick /Cocciardi commenced an action in
-2-
the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Chadwick, et al., vs. City of Saratoga, et aL, Case No. C -83 -20317 WAI (the
"Chadwick /Cocciardi Lawsuit ").
K. By stipulation between the parties, no responsive pleading has been
filed by City in either the Cocciardi Lawsuit or the Chadwick /Cocciardi Lawsuit. The
City has denied and continues to deny each and every allegation of the plaintiffs in
said lawsuits, as to all issues and in all respects.
L.. The Cocciardi Property has recently been purchased by Harbor
Builders, which is now the owner thereof and the successor in interest to Cocciardi
with respect to said property.
M. Without admitting the validity of any of the, contentions which have,
or might have been made by any of them, the parties to this Agreement desire and
intend fully and finally to compromise and to settle all such ' contentions and other
matters in controversy among them.
N. Civil Code Section 1.542 provides:
"A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does
not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the
release, which if .known by him must have materially affected his
settlement with the debtor."
O. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding
concerning the subject matter between the parties to this Agreement and supersedes
and replaces all prior negotiations and proposed agreements, written and oral Each of
the parties'hereto acknowledges that no other party, nor the agents nor attorneys of
any other party, has made any promise, representation; or warranty whatsoever,
express or implied, not contained herein to induce the execution of this Agreement,
and acknowledges that this Agreement has not been executed in reliance upon any
promise, representation, or warranty not contained herein.
P. In addition to the settlement of all matters in controversy with
respect to the Cocciardi Lawsuit and the Chadwick /Cocciardi Lawsuit set forth above, .
the parties hereto desire to settle all other claims, demands and causes of action
which may exist between them whether known, unknown, or suspected, except as they
may arise from this Agreement.
MCII
C C
Q. All of the parties to this Agreement hereby acknowledge that they.
have either been represented by - independent counsel. of their own choice throughout
all negotiations which preceded the execution of this Agreement or have voluntarily
elected not to retain counsel, and that they have either executed this Agreement with _
the consent of, and upon the advice of, their own counsel, or had sufficient opportunity
to seek such advice.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows:.
1. Recitals A through Q are incorporated herein by reference.
2. In consideration of the additional public improvements to be
constructed by Owners, as described in Paragraph 5 below, and dismissal by Owners of
their. respective lawsuits, with prejudice, as to all claims and all defendants, and
subject to compliance by Owners with the terms of this Agreement and the tentative
map conditions set forth in SD 1356 and SD 1368, City agrees to grant final map
approval for the subdivision of the Cocciardi. Property into 23 lots, in accordance with
the tentative map as originally approved by City for SD 1356, and to grant final map
approval for. the subdivision of the Chadwick /Cocciardi Property into 11 lots, in
accordance with the tentative map as originally approved by City for SD 1368. City
further agrees to process applications and issue building and grading permits and other
approvals as may be necessary for the construction of a single family dwelling and
accessory uses, appurtenant thereto upon each of such lots, conditioned upon prior
design review approval thereof and compliance by Owners with all applicable
provisions of City's zoning and other ordinances, except for the density and setback
provisions of the NHR Zoning Regulations and the Specific Plan.
3. From and after the effective date of this Agreement, neither City
nor Owners shall prosecute the Cocciardi Lawsuit or the Chadwick /Cocciardi Lawsuit,
nor shall Owners commence any new action concerning the subject matter of said
lawsuits and this Agreement. Owners may, within two (2) years from the date hereof,
reactivate either or both of said lawsuits in the event City fails to perform any
material provision of this Agreement and such lawsuits have not previously been
dismissed with prejudice, in accordance with Paragraph 4 hereof.
4. Concurrent with the execution of this Agreement, Cocciardi and
Chadwick /Cocciardi shall each execute an unconditional dismissal of their respective
-4-
lawsuits, with prejudice, as to all claims and all defendants. The dismissals shall be
held in trust by counsel for City and shall not be filed except as follows:
(a) Upon the expiration of one (1) year after the granting by City
of final map approval for SD 1356, or upon. issuance by City of a
building permit for construction of a single family dwelling
upon any lot within the Cocciardi Property, whichever shall
first .occur, counsel for City shall be authorized to file the
dismissal of the Cocciardi Lawsuit.
(b) " Upon the expiration of one (1) year after the granting by City
of final map approval for' SD 1368, or upon the issuance by City
of a building permit for construction of a single family dwelling
upon any lot within the Chad wick /Cocciardi Property,
whichever shall first occur, counsel for City shall be authorized
to file the dismissal of the Chadwick /Cocciardi Lawsuit.
5. In addition to any and all other requirements to be satisfied by
Owners for final map approval, as contained in SD 1356 and SD 1368, -and subject to
the conditions as set forth in Paragraph 6 of this Agreement, Owners agree to
construct and install the improvements and repairs to Quarry Creek and Quarry Road
(the "Repair Project "), in accordance with plans and specifications to be prepared by
Terratech, Inc., Mason -Sulic and George Sicular, consisting generally of the
construction of a buttress to fill Quarry Creek to a height of approximately twenty
feet, the installation within such buttress of drainage facilities; the reconstruction of
Quarry Road, and such landslide repair and other work in connection therewith as
recommended by the geologists, geotechnic engineers, civil engineers and hydrologist
currently working on the Repair Project. All construction and repairs shall be
performed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by City and its
geologist. In the event Owners have satisfied all other conditions for final map
approval for SD 1356, and provided that all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph 6
of this Agreement have been satisfied, Owners agree to commence work on the Repair
Project no 'later than as soon as weather conditions permit in 1987, if such project
cannot be commenced and completed in 1986. As a condition for granting final map
approval for SD 1356 prior to completion of the Repair Project, Owners shall enter
into a Deferred Improvement Agreement with City providing for the completion of the
Repair Project within such period of . time as agreed upon by City. Owners'
performance under such Deferred Improvement Agreement shall be secured by a cash
deposit, letter of credit or other security satisfactory to City, in an amount equal to
at least one and one -half times the estimated amount of Owners' remaining
contribution to the Repair Project as of the time such Agreement is executed. Upon
the execution of such Deferred Improvement Agreement and the deposit with City of
M
the security required thereunder, City shall grant the final map approval for SD 1356.
All construction work on the. Repair Project shall be guaranteed by Owners against
defects in material or workmanship for eriod of one (1) year after the date of
completion. Final map approval for SD 1306 will be processed by City after final map _
approval for SD 1356 is granted.
6. The mutual obligations of the parties to this Agreement are subject
to each of the following conditions:
(a) The approval by Owners and by City of the final plans and
specifications for the Repair Project, and Owners approval of
the estimated cost thereof.
(b) The contribution by persons other than Owners of amounts
aggregating at least $351,750.00 to be applied toward payment
of the costs of the Repair Project, including engineering fees
and geotechnic studies. If a lesser amount is offered for
contribution, Owners may voluntarily elect to waive this
condition and proceed with the Repair Project.
(c) Owners and City each having been released from any and -all
actual or potential liability claims asserted against them by
,third party claimants pertaining to Quarry Creek- and Quarry
Road Such claims include the subrogated rights of insurance
carriers.
(d) City having obtained from the property owners who reside on
Old Oak Way, at no cost to City, all consents as may be
required for performance of the Repair Project, as finally
designed.
(e) A determination having been made by Judge Williams that
notwithstanding the elimination of an access road to iINIL Eden,
as shown on the original tentative map for SD 1356, and the
consequent realignment of lot lines, a final map with such
modifications would still be in `substantial compliance with the
tentative map.
"Y7 City acknowledges that Cocciardi intends to subdivide the parcel of
land from which the fill material will be taken for use in the Repair Project (the
"Borrow Site"). With respect to any application for tentative map approval covering
the Borrow Site, City agrees as follows:
(a) The average slope of the Borrow Site will be calculated on the
basis of contour lines as established after all grading and earth
removal for the Repair Project has been completed. Except as
herein provided, the tentative map application will be processed
in accordance With the current NHR Zoning Regulations,
including the slope /density formula contained therein.
-6-
(b) The City will take such actions as may be required and
permitted under State law for cancellation of the Williamson
Act Contract which is now applicable to the Borrow Site.
(c) The 'boundary lines of the proposed subdivision may be
_ determined by Owners and such lines need not correspond with
property lines as they now exist, subject, however, to the
following conditions:
(1) All existing parcels or lots of record constituting any
portion of the subdivision shall be shown' on the map and
those :areas which are not included within the subdivision
shall be so designated.
(2) ' No portion of the subdivision shall include the Cocciardi
quarry.
8. City agrees that Cocciardi shall not be obligated to reimburse City
for engineering fees advanced under the Interim .Agreement between City and
Cocciardi and said Interim Agreement is hereby cancelled. City expressly reserves the
right to .seek contribution from parties other than Cocciardi for any portion. or all of
the engineering fees and repair costs advanced by City or its insurance carriers
relating to the Repair Project and the Vaquero Court Study.
9. As a further consideration for City's approval of the final map for SD
�. 1356 and SD 1368, Owners hereby agree that each of the lots therein shall be subject
to a Development Impact Fee_ to be payable at the time a' building permit is issued for
r the construction of a single family dwelling upon each lot, as required under the
ordinance adopted by City providing for the payment of such fee..
10. Owners hereby stipulate that Measure A is a valid and, enforceable
initiative approved. by the citizens of the City of Saratoga and that the Specific Plan
and the NHR Zoning Regulations are valid and enforceable. This stipulation shall be of
no force or effect in the event of City's breach of this Agreement.
11. Owners . and City shall bear his, her or its own attorney's fees and
costs incurred in connection with the prosecution or defense of the Cocciardi Lawsuit
and the Chadwick / Cocciardi Lawsuit and the negotiation and preparation of this
Stipulation for Settlement.
12. Conditioned upon full performance of this Agreement by all parties:
-7
(a) Owners, on behalf of themselves and their respective agents,
representatives, attorneys, employees, insurance carriers,
successors and assigns, do hereby release City, the former and
present members of the City Council, their officials, officers,
agents, representatives, employees, attorneys and their
insurance carriers, from any and all .claims, demands and /or
causes of action which may exist between them, whether
known, unknown, or suspected, and Owners hereby waive the
provisions of Civil Code Section 1542 set forth in Recital N
above. The release of unknown claims contained in this
Paragraph 12(a) is a separate consideration for the release
contained -in Paragraph 12(b) hereof and Owners would not have
executed this Agreement or agreed to this Paragraph 12(a) but
for the release contained in Paragraph 12(b).
(b) City, on behalf of itself and its officials, officers, agents,,
representatives, employees, attorneys and insurance carriers,
does, hereby release Owners from all claims, demands and /or
causes of action which may exist between them, whether known,
or unknown or suspected and City hereby waives the provisions
Of Civil Code Section 1542 set forth in Recital N above. The
release of unknown claims contained in this Paragraph 12(b) is a
separate consideration for the release contained in Paragraph
12(a) hereof and City would not have executed this Agreement
or agreed to this Paragraph 12(b) but for the release contained
in Paragraph 12(a).
13. This Agreement may be amended by an instrument in writing
referring hereto, signed by the parties. Such amendment must specifically state that
it is an amendment to this Agreement. This Agreement may not be amended orally or
otherwise than as set forth in this Paragraph 13.
14. Owners shall have the right to assign all or any part of their rights or
obligations under this Agreement, subject. to prior written approval of City, which .
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
15. This Agreement is entered into for the benefit of the parties hereto
and shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors and assigns. Other
than the parties hereto and their heirs, successors and assigns, and the attorneys of
record in the Cocciardi. Lawsuit and Chadwick /Cocciardi Lawsuit, no third person shall
be entitled, directly or indirectly, to base any claim or have any right arising from or
related to this Agreement.
16. If it becomes necessary to enforce any of the terms of this
Agreement or to declare rights hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
we
C
reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs of litigation in addition to any other relief
to which he, she or it may be entitled.
17. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date upon which it
is last signed by all parties. It may be signed in one or more counterparts and, when
all parties have signed the original or counterpart, such counterparts together shall
constitute one original document. When so signed, this Agreement may be filed with
the Court as a Stipulation for Settlement, but the effectiveness of this Agreement
does not depend upon Court approval or any Court order or orders.
y3/ OWNERS:
Dated:
ANTHONY �COCC�IARDI
Dated:
MARY CO IARDI
Dated: 2�J�_ Gam-
ALLEN
Dated: 9/3/86 /G
VED AS TO FORM
SUBSTANCT
n
. GEORGE P. TOBIN
Attorney for Owners
HARBOR BUILDERS CO., Inc.,
a Califo poration
THOMAS BURKE
Dated:
VI
n0 ED ASTOF M
A S ST
HAROLD S. TOPPE
City Attorney
Attest:
-10-
THE CITY OF SARATOGA,
a municipal corporation
10 at
is
J.
am
(Chorus
eDame
tChrist-
lurday,
ipel. At
dmont.-
I. ( 415 )
(page 22
T `}rr_ r ,fit •` -
k Is
,� LRd.
,... 1907
7777
I.%, Stga.
1
9:00 am
1C30am
�tP� zrr- �, z 1 •.. �
e Vlg.
it A.M.
_45 A.M.
,MSON
IVIL Eden Estates _
LOT 22
�JO~T K 11 ttM m n
APO
LOT 23
Lar .p O I1 L
LOT 12, 3
LOT u LOT 17
LOT to LOT 13
. S LOT Is
�r
LOT &
11t1 K N 7 b
t K
LOT 7 LOT T LOT 4 UIT LJU K ,CC K n K 5 � 'LOT T LOT 1
1J0 K I• K .
Eden
$310,000
23 LOTS TO CHOOSE FROM
• 1 to 4 acre parcels • Equestrian open space
• Valley views • Oak trees
• City services & utilities • Saratoga schools
•
Gently-rolling terrain • Fully improved lots
GrubbGE11is
6SJb Residential Real Estate
SARATOGA/LOS GATOS OFFICE
Now located at 14107 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos
Spring, 1988: Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at Cox
Cd 374 -0777
Now You Have .A Choicel
Saratoga News /December 9, 19131 /page 21
�11.>, •T: I �l -'��1
-iM-a _
- i� !� . 1 R � i4.5.J .✓ ^ -
f . 1 -, ' ..t.� `��r � 1-- t�4wn Tim:+; x �' T�1Y -4• ' 1 - 5
I:+�+i= .+G.W.��i`..+t�ML. �Y+.y�lf�►" : ��1 '►v 1- f•6'r.- t= .asr�'.�t.e•:WQ�t6r`rN���
`t
�1 r
.t
1
Lj
at
_,r•t .1
r.�.:
�1
�
V
.ate- R !' .
T
? - ��'�• ;Y. -
` ;
�, • , -''�
7
`t
�1 r
.t
`,T
F. L. ''Stutz" Stutzman
15195 Park Drive
Saratoga, C.. °5070
(408) 354 -3420
April 6, .1988
Mombers of the City Council:
T. feel much like a pastor who is standing at a grave site
raying, "We are gathered here to say farewell to another pert of
our dearly beloved open space." We have as yet 21.2 acres in
Saratoga still under the Williamson. Act. Tonight it appears Lha.t
we are here e.; post facto to stye another - acres r €ruo�, ed
before its time. In spite of specific dictates of our General
plan - page 2 - 16, quote, "The city shall. ancourage rene%-,al of
Williamson Act Contracts, and, quote, "Williamson Act contract
caneollations shall be discouraged to the maximum extent
feasible" c:nd of quote, as we have seep, with the Nelson Gar6en
tract situation, we are faced once more with a tract cancellation
which runs contrary to the dictates of our General Plan. There
appears to be one element of distinction in the Cocuiurd;
property case. On September 3, 1986 a legal settlement tams
reached in ��hich the developers were assured of Act
c:ancel_lat.iun and the grunting of approval for four building sites
on the pruperLy of Ar. Cocc:iardi by the Saratoga City Cou,ic:il. I
would a.ppreriate an explanation of how such an agreement could
circumvent the General Plan's stipulation for public hcarings
before such an act could be concluded. To me, this does not
appoar to represunt open democratic government.
A friend of mine was about to purchase one of these lots
last fall and then decicled otherwi�;e when lie realized the
r
. J
problehis involved. Thus, lot sales were being negotiated before
approval for subdivision had been granted.
I am also amazed at the destruction that has buen carried
out in the Quarry Creek Area. More than a hundred trees have
bF:en torsi out, The area will be subject to massive erosion. once
0
we enter a winter- marled by hea-vy rains, and the Ca.labaza.s CrPf lc
will be fi,Iled with silt and subject to flooding. The Gorps of
Engineers and the Fish and•Gawe Department who were unaware of
this activity have become very concerned and involved.
In summary, I would like to know how the Council can gi-,e
away public rights without opera hearings, and if this can be
done, why is this hearing being held tonight?
- - - April, 1988
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL: - - -
We oppose cancellation of the Williamson Act contract requested by
Anthony Cocciardi for the following reasons:.--..-.
A.) Saratoga's own General Plan calls for not releasing
Williamson Act land before. end of the contract.
B.) It is our understanding that the state - required envir-
onmental impact report for changes in use of that land
have not been done.
C.) We call your attention to the current,,- "mess" which now
exists along the creekbed adjacent to Quarry Road as a
result of not following proper procedures according to the
State of California. ( - - -as well as not notifying nearby
residents of possible slide conditions due to removal of
vegetation)
We are sure that in the best interests of all the residents of
Saratoga you will take this matter under serious consideration.,.
Clark and Karen Davis
21820 Via Regina
Saratoga, CA
?LA�
tic) 5,Z)
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: 7
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Vacation of a Portion of a Trail Easement on the Teerlink Ranch
(Tract No. 6781)
Recommended Motion: Adopt attached resolution vacating a portion of a trail
easement on the Teerlink Ranch Subdivision.
Report Summary: On July 17, 1986, the Teerlink Ranch was subdivided, and the
subdivision offered for dedication a trail easement. The City has not yet accepted
that dedication. The subdivider has requested that the trail easement be realigned on
Lots 20 and 22. The subdivider has dedicated new property for the relocated trail
easement, and requests that the original portion of trail easement which has been
superseded be vacated. The contents of the resolution vacating the easement, and the
description of the easement, have been verified by the City Engineering Department.
The City Engineering Department has no objection to vacating this portion of the trail
easement which was dedicated to the City.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Attachments: Resolution of The City of Saratoga Vacating a Trail Easement
Offered for Dedication. Copy of map showing realigned trail easement.
Motion and Vote:
r
I�
LOT 19 �`— 8' TRAIL EASEMEt
yI
N 2 053'23"'1A
129.23'
LQT 2L
N27 °58'21 W
165.69'
POINT OF- BEGINNING
OF DESCRIPTION
—
LOT 23
LOT 21
'190,
24'59 53°
:82.90'
Q
R =40'r/
L=44041'50"
L =31.21
5
'
.
SCALE: I" =601
G
i
LOT 22
y o ORIGINAL ALIGNMEN
�\ (SHOWN-IU DOTS)
1 %V N 72040'11 "W
55.91'
R =115' N 41° W
40'�I I" �`' 124.81 .
L= 64.1.2 \
R= 56' - EXHIBITA
LEA ENGINEERING TRACT - 6781
n LAND %" VOn
�^� E E T E E R L1 NK RANCH
I REALIGNED TRA[L EASEMENT
3583 1irvestment Blvd.. Ste. 7 • Hayward. CA 94545 • 14151 007.4086 1 SA RAT OG A CALIFORNIA
it
DATE - 2 -25'88 DRAWN BY:NV D jCfiECK'EDBY:JCL' i SCALE: ( 60'r JOBNO. 84030
a�
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: 4/6/88
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning
AGENDA ITEM: 6/4
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
UP -87 -020 - Bowman, 19337 Lisa Marie Ct., Appeal of Planning Commission decision
SUBJECT: denying a use permit to legalize an existing 12.5 ft. high gazebo setback 13.5 ft.
from the right side property line where a 15 ft. setback is required,
Recommended Motion:
Study the findings of the Planning Commission and determine if the Council should affirm,
modify or reverse the decision of the Commission.
Report Summary: On February 24, 1988, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny
the appellant's use permit request to legalize an existing 12.5 ft. high gazebo which was
constructed 13.5 ft. from the right side property line where a 15 ft. setback is required.
The Planning Commission based their decision on the fact that the gazebo could have been
constructed in compliance with the zoning code and that no valid reason had been given as
to why the structure was located inside the required setback area.
Public Noticing: UP -87 -020 has been noticed by advertising in the Saratoga News on
2/10/88 and direct mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the project.
Fiscal Impacts: N/A
Attachments: 1. Staff report to the City Council
2. Planning Comuission minutes dated 2/24/88
3. Report to Planning Commission dated 2/24/88
4. Letter of appeal
Motion and Vote:
OTTE o2 0&MZUQ)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE: 4/6/88
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT: UP -87 -020 - Bowman, 19337 Lisa Marie Ct., Appeal of Planning
Commission decision denying a use permit to legalize an existing
gazebo, setback 13.5 ft. from the right side property line
Project Description /Background
On February 24, 1988, the Planning Commission considered the
appellant's use permit application to legalize an existing 144 sq.
ft., 12.5 ft. high gazebo located within the required side yard
setback. The gazebo is setback 13.5 ft. from the right side property
line where a 15 ft. setback is required by the zoning ordinance.
Note: The Bowman's have stated that the gazebo has been dismantled;
however, the structure's foundation remains.
The Planning Commission denied the request finding that the gazebo
could have been located in the compliance with the zoning code, and
that no valid reason was given by the applicants as to why the
structure was not located outside of the required setback area.
Findings Required by City Code
Pursuant to City Code section 15- 55.070, the Planning Commission is
obliged to make three findings in order to approve a use permit
application:
1) That the structure is in accord with the objectives of the zoning
ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the property
is located.
2) That the proposed location of the structure and the conditions
under which it would be operated or maintained will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
3) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of the zoning code.
1
The minutes of the 2/24/88 Planning Commission meeting reflect that
the Commission's primary concern was that they were being asked to
legalize a structure that was constructed without the proper permits.
The Commission found that there were alternate building sites where
the gazebo could have been constructed in compliance with the zoning
code, and that the applicant did not state any reason why the gazebo
encroached into the sideyard setback.
Decision by the City Council
The City Council must study the record of the Planning Commission and
may affirm, reverse or modify their decision.
k chuek Hsia
anning Director
YH /bc /dsc
2
PLANNING•COMMISSTON MINUTES 2/24/88
UP -87 -020 Bowman, 19337 Lisa Marie Court, request for use permit approval of
plans to legalize an existing 12.5 fL high gazebo with is setback 13.5 fL
from the right side property line where a 15 ft. setback is required in the
R -1- 20,000 zoning district.
its
Commissioner T.ucker felt that the structure in question should be built to Code -��
. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission,-February 24, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:50 P.M.
Mr. Dave Bowman, Applicant, stated that the gazebo was lower in height than his home;
.',....landscaping had been placed around the gazebo;and did not obstruct other's view.
�. BURGERXLAY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:53 P.M. Passed 6.0.
Commissioner-Tucker stated for the record that she objected structures that were built illegally;
Chairwoman Harris added that if this Item were a Variance, the Findings could not be made.
Commissioner Clay noted that no reason had been given as to why the structure was not
located within the proper setback; Commissioner Burger concurred.
TUCKER/CLAY MOVED TO DENY UP -87 -020, ON THE GROUNDS THAT NO
REASON WAS ASCERTAINED AS'TO WHY THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN BUILT TO CODE REQUIREMENTS. Passed 6-0.
.. ... {�� ' .1 ,..
UP -87 -02
' o
l `
i; ,� 371•�9-�
Cl
Icgl C)
47 03
• �''' •r9481 21 rr
391; 47'0 (ie)
• � ." 13480 n ,
3'11.47.01
h�
1.0
Ag
10'r 2
LL 19389
cc
a LOT 3
I•: ,: ,� ! 19363
r
�p,T s .
19313
'0 -PLANNING .COMMISSION
1.
�9
P
9359 311 I1.- 19;310 `
I-I I -•Lel ' 173 : 311. -rf. ;C17)
(z3)
19336 •4��'� °';i.' �.. 311•rr-
391-11.18 ':,,., ::� {a�, 175
�,, '371ta1-17
19 318'
• 3RI•N -17 134Gq.''' • ��' �
134
391-11-17b 134 LB
of , C44)
-13 r4482:-
43) `31r- ru -s>r �
13.
311
13500
:,,.. I35I9• 1
C4 r)
13 51 b �(':1)r.
w-/0-49
C52i • Sol -lo .40
19547
X53) 0'.4
1
19557 , '� 13541
97rro
CS4)
19544 •�
71-00 -49
e5J C(.5) 311'�o•9I
59�s 13(67& CI7
-/0.44 37/•/0.30;'::. 19160
I—%-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:' Robert T. Calkins
DATE: February 24, 1,988
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: UP -87 -020; 19337 Lisa Marie Ct..
APPLICANT: Bowman
APN: 389 -34 -002
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Sections 15-
80.030-(.6-) and (k), and 15- 55.070, the applicant is requesting
use permit approval of plans to legalize an existing 144 sq. ft.,
12.5 ft. high gazebo located 1.3.5 ft.. from the right side property
line. According to the City Code, a 15 ft. side yard setback is
required and the maximum height allowed is 10 ft.
ISSUES: No issues have been identified.. The use of the gazebo will
not have an adverse impact on privacy since existing landscaping,
once mature, will adequately screen the structure and restrict the
view onto the adjacent property to the south (19313 Lisa Marie Ct.).
The height of the gazebo is not excessive, and is compatible in
scale-and design with the main house.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the project by adopting Resolution
UP -87 -020 and findings.
PUBLIC NOTICING: The application was deemed complete on 1/5/88.
UP -87 -020 has been noticed by advertising in the Saratoga News on
2/10/88 and direct mailing to property owners within 500' of the
project..
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution UP -87 -020
2. Technical ,Information /Staff Analysis
3. Plans
RC /dsc
TECHNICAL INFORMATION /STAFF ANALYSIS
COMMISSION MEETING: February 24, 1988
APN• 389 -34 -002
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: UP -87 -020 19337 Lisa Marie Ct.
ACTION REQUESTED: Use permit approval of plans to legalize an
existing 144 sq. ft. gazebo.
APPLICANT: Bowman PROPERTY-OWNER: Same
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Building permits
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt under- CEQA (15303)
ZONING: R- 1- 20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential-
(low density)
EXISTING LAND USE: Single family home
SURROUNDING LAND USES: North & east - SFD; south - SFD (under
construction); west - orchard
PARCEL SIZE: 23,895 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION:
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: level
PROPOSED SETBACKS:
(Gazebo) Front:
-Left Side:
level lot with landscaped rear yard
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: level
120 ft. Rear: 4.6 ft.
104 ft. Right Side: 13.5 ft.
HEIGHT: 12.5 ft.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 6,389 sq. ft. (275)
SIZE OF,STRUCTURE:
First Floor.(incl. garage): 4,559 sq. ft..
Gazebo: 144 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 4,703 sq. ft.
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the
requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that the
proposed gazebo is setback 13.5 ft. from the right side property
line where 15 ft: is required.
MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Redwood
0
UP -87 -020; 19337 Lisa Marie Ct.
STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Proposal
The applicant is requesting use permit approval of plans to
legalize an existing 144 sq. ft., 12.5 ft. high gazebo located
within the required side -yard setback of a 23,895 sq. ft. lot in
the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district.. The structure is setback 13.5
ft. from the right side property line. The Building Inspection
Division has "red tagged" the structure, and prohibited any
further construction until proper planning and building
approvals were received..
B. Analysis
Pursuant to City Code Sections 15- 80.030 and 15- 55.070, the
applicant is requesting the Planning Commission allow the gazebo
to be located in the required side yard setback (i.e. 1.3.5 ft.
setback where a 15 ft. setback is required). In addition, the
applicant requests the Planning Commission modify the height
limit for garden structures and allow the gazebo to be a maximum
12.5 ft. in height where 1.0 ft. is allowed.
The Planning Commission has the authority under City Code
Section 15- 55.070 to approve the application and grant• the
requested modifications if the following use permit findings can
be made:
1. that the structure is in accord with the objectives of
the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district in
which the property is located, and
2. , that the location of the structure and the conditions under
which it is operated or maintained will not be detrimental
to the public health safety or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or .improvements in the vicinity.
In this case; no adverse visual or 'privacy impacts are
anticipated since the height of the gazebo is not excessive, and
existing landscaping recently planted adjacent to the gazebo
will help screen the structure from view and restrict the view
onto the adjacent property to the south. The 15- gallon
evergreen mayten trees (currently between ,6_8. ft. in height)
planted adjacent to the gazebo will eventually grow to
approximately 15 -30 ft. in height /and =.3. provide an excellent
buffer between the gazebo and the right side property line.
Staff recommends approval of the application by adopting
Resolution-UP-87-0,20.
Name.-Of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address:
Project Description:'
3A
Date
Recc.i!vcd _
Nearing Date:
Fee l/
CITY*USE ON
APPEAL APPLICATION
_Z933,41- Z-1 o— m
qtl
C71c�.��e c�
l �D.GU�rvt.Cc�l!l
Decision Being Appealed.:
.reY4/
az,��d
Grounds 4oy the Appeal (Letter may be attached): '
YY �P X04 ZC.��• w�1.L'rW l••4- (1� 9/ � Y N�4'Yr �G�C2' ¢v 9
�e�pe.nfr f� frf ��-• f��"''ri U,� �rq %izr ���� 4 . � �� ter.
!J�T`�l,hYd' 4 ,QC �"�l( �� /'T-�� '�•Y•..C�.h �� L•f-or �s '•�� �� {�1 -�k� ' �:
4 r I r% rrl d v�b��
A P%Al al eeor 1 * /k Ce
7L.r cu•t.T/,cTo� �1 L��l� /�f 74 ®mot Qri y t--rr1
'O U / i' �'C: f'�G l•- L
44-1 Y % r G.- Y
�u V t' • f 'O �4 �Y r • �i" 'Li � f iy I J.7�t j'.
Appellant.'s Signature
*Please do not -sign this application until it is presented at
City offices. If you wish specific the
• appeal please list them on a eparatecsheet. be sheet. ed of this
.
� {Zt
.N 5 �-V1' k c.�%-.w e.
s� /Zr 9h r�rJ A
/TDprw
T1IIS APPLIC,ITIO,M MUST DE SMINIITTPD WiT(fIN D' TCN (10) CALENDAR ,
HL• OA k 0k- I fr 0, LAYS Oi'
``',• . `.',•tic
LLOYD AND HARRIET SUNDBLAD
~i -6_ye
(35'73 l2vwn� Ll:c�
7-o 7-//,-- Sie,4--rO6;14 Cj r cou.VC/
9
f/is /s To ,�FD L'�rs� 7-
Y
7-0 7-He `iZ/C L
O k/
7`O Tom/ C ��d �O SCE
D i= 19 G/I z C-,, o
CDIVST -,<dC,, i a J
D/t,/ TNT
13s 73���G✓,y
g�
TUC
0
U1t Qe�e` -�
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.143 3
MEETING DATE: 4/6/88
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Attorney
AGENDA ITEM -
CITY MGR.
SUBJECT: Ordinance concerning Removal of Illegal Signs on Public
Property
Recommended Motion:
Introduce ordinance at this meeting; next meeting, adopt ordinance.
Approve Negative Declaration.
Report Summary:
The proposed ordinance will strengthen the ability of the City to
summarily remove illegal signs on public property, as explained in the
memorandum from the City Attorney to the Planning Commission dated
February 29, 1988. The ordinance was reviewed and unanimously approved by
the Commission at its regular meeting on March 23, 1988.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
Memo from City Attorney to Planning Commmission
Negative Declaration
Proposed Ordinance
Motion and Vote:
r
e
ATKINSON • FAI3ASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PAUL B. SMITH
660 WEST DANA STREET
ERIC L. FARASYN
P.O. BOX 279
LEONARD J. SIEGAL
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR.
(415) 967 -6941
STEVEN G. BAIR.D
'
NICHOLAS C. FE DELI, JR.
HENRY D. CRUZ
MEMORANDUM
.- -
TO: Saratoga Planning Commission
FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney
RE: Removal of Illegal Signs on Public Property
DATE: February 29, 1988
J. M. ATK.INSON (1892-1.982)
L. M. FARASYN 11915-19791
The City now is, or soon will be, considering various topics relating to
signs. These topics include neon signs, window signs and new sign regulations for the
Village. In addition, there is a new state law concerning the identification and
abatement of illegal signs which must be taken into account before the adoption of any
new regulations pertaining to existing signs. The proposed ordinance is an - interim
measure to control illegal signs on public property. The ordinance is being presented
at this time to enable adoption before the June election, which brings the usual -
proliferation of temporary political signs. Further revision of the ordinance may be
appropriate later this year, when we begin to address the various topics referred to
above.
The proposed ordinance deletes paragraphs (c) and (d) in Section 15- 30.160.
(a copy of which is attached hereto), and replaces the same with a new Section 15-
30.200 concerning the removal of illegal signs on public property. The differences
between the paragraphs deleted and the new section adopted are as follows:
1. The new section applies to any illegal sign on public property,
whereas the deleted language applied exclusively to temporary
political signs.
2. The new section will allow summary removal, without prior notice, of
any sign determined to be an immediate and substantial hazard to the
public health or safety, whereas the deleted language required some
effort to locate the owner prior to removal of the sign. The old .
language was based upon some rather broad rulings by the California
Supreme Court which suggested that prior notice to the owner was
required even though the sign might constitute a safety hazard.
However., subsequent decisions have been rendered by both the United
States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court which
suggest a more reasonable balance between the procedural due
process requirement of notice and considerations of public health and
safety. Quite frankly, I would rather defend a constitutional
challenge on the reasonableness- of the ordinance as opposed to a
=1-
liability suit based upon the City allowing a' dangerous condition to
exist upon its public property. The ordinance is intended to satisfy
procedural due process by requiring notice to the sign owner promptly
after removal` and the opportunity to retrieve the sign and to contest
the imposition of removal costs.
3. The existing ordinance does not contain any provisions for retrieval
of signs removed by the Maintenance Director, and simply provides
that the owner shall be obligated to pay the removal costs. Such cost
would be negligible in the case of a temporary political sign which
usually requires little effort to remove. The, proposed ordinance
would require the Maintenance Director to ;retain all signs he has
removed for a period of 10 days, during which the owner may retrieve
the sign. The ordinance further provides that the owner shall pay
either an administrative fine in the amount of $10 or the. actual
removal cost, whichever is greater. If the owner believes the sign
was not illegally placed upon public property, he may contest the
payment at a hearing conducted by the City Manager. The decision
by the City Manager would be final.
The proposed ordinance would not change any other rights and remedies
available to the City by reason of a Code violation, as provided in Chapter 3 of the
City Code. Such rights would include the issuance of citations and commencement of
civil proceedings for abatement of the violation. Section 15- 95.030(b)(4) designates
any violation of the sign regulations as constitut.i an infraction offense.
Saratoga City Attorney
-2-
S15- 30.160 Temporary political signs
(a) Sign restrictions. A temporary political sign may be erected only in
accordance with the following restrictions:
(1) No temporary political sign may be illuminated in any manner
other than by previously existing lighting sources normally used for
illumination of the area where the sign is erected.
(2) No temporary political sign may be affixed to any pole or wire
appurtenance thereof on which is-attached any traffic sign, traffic
signal, street sign, parking sign or other traffic control device
installed by any public agency for public information purposes, nor
may any temporary political sign be erected in a manner or place
that will obstruct normal visibility of such traffic signs, traffic
signals, street signs, parking signs or other traffic control devices.
(3) No temporary political sign may be erected upon or affixed to any
sidewalk, crosswalk, police or fire alarm system, hydrant, or any
public building or other public structure:
(4) No temporary political sign may be erected within or upon -any
public highway, public street or public right of way in a manner or
place that will obstruct a motorist's line of sight or otherwise
constitute a safety hazard for vehicular or pedestrian traffic upon
such highway, street or right of way. -
(5) No temporary political sign may exceed an area of five square
feet.
(6) No temporary political sign may' be erected having bracing or
backing material thicker than one -half inch, except for support
posts firmly planted in the ground.
(b) Duration and removal. A temporary political sign may be erected not,
more than forty -five days prior to the day of the election to which it relates and,
shall be completely removed not later than five days after the date of such election.
(c) Violation and removal by City.
(1) In the event a temporary political sign is erected in violation of the
restrictions set forth in Paragraph (a) of this Section and such sign
constitutes an existing peril to the safety of persons or property,
the -Maintenance- Director shall endeavor to locate the owner of
such sign and request its immediate removal or relocation. If,
after reasonable effort to do so, the owner cannot be found within
one hour after the Maintenance Director first becomes aware of
the existence of the peril, or if such owner is found and fails or
refuses to remove or relocate the sign within one hour after being
requested to. do so, the Maintenance Director or his representative
may proceed to remove such sign. -
(2) In the event a temporary political sign is erected in violation of the
restrictions set forth in Paragraphs (a) or (b) of this Section or is
not removed within the time prescribed in Paragraph (b) of this
Section, but such sign does not constitute an existing peril to the
safety of persons or property, the Maintenance Director shall
endeavor to locate the owner of such sign and notify such owner of
the violation. If, after reasonable effort to do so, the owner
cannot be be found, the Maintenance Director shall post a notice of
violation upon the sign. If the violation is not corrected within
three days after notice thereof is given to the owner or posted
upon the sign, as the case may be, the Maintenance Director or his
representative may proceed to remove the sign.
(3) Any temporary political sign removed by the Maintenance Director
pursuant to Paragraphs .(I) or (2) above shall conclusively be
deemed to have been abandoned by the owner thereof and may be
destroyed. The City shall have the right to recover from the owner
of such sign all removal and destruction - costs.
(d) Violations. Each sign found to be in violation of this Section shall
constitute a separate violation of this Code.
RES -ND
Saratoga
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
File No.
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY
OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has
determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through
15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and
Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described
project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on
the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to violations fo sign
regulations and removal of illegal signs on public property. (Sec. 15-
30.160 and 15- 30.200).
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA. 95070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The proposed amendment is more restrictive than current regulations and is
administrative in nature. No environmental effects will result.
Executed at Saratoga, California this day of
YUCHUEK HSIA
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
, 198 .
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER