Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-1987 City Council Staff ReportsI - �3az C3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. / �" AGENDA IT M: MEETING DATE: August 19, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Confirmation of Report and Assessment of Weed Abatement Charges Recommended Motion: AdoDt resolution. Report Sumary: Under State and local laws, local governments routinely abate the seasonal fire hazards of weed growth on undeveloped property. For the County and nine cities, including Saratoga, this weed abatement program is administered by the County Building Official. In many cases, property owners find it convenient to have government take care of weed removal and to pay through a property tax lien. This past year, the County Building Official performed weed abatement on 164 parcels in Saratoga at a total cost of $39,394.49. Tax liens and assessments on the owners of these parcels range from a high of $1297.01 to a low of $9.30. The average assessment is $240.21. In order to recover this cost, it is necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution confirming the assessments and directing the County Auditor to enter and collect the assessments on the property tax bill. Fiscal Impacts: None upon City if resolution is paste. City may be liable for work performed by contractor for any assessments not -levied: Attachments: Resolution with list of 1987 assessments. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendatiorn 5-0. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on August 19, 1987, the Building Official of Santa Clara County submitted a report to this City Council consisting of all unpaid bills for weed abatement expenses and a proposed assessment list, and the parcels against which said expenses, including applicable administrative and collection costs are to be assessed, all pursuant to Article II, Ch. 6 of the Saraoga City Code, and WHEREAS, the City Council, having heard said report and all objections thereto, and the Council, finding that no modifications need to be made to any of said assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 1987 Weed Abatement Assessments Report, City of Saratoga, prepared by the Building Official of Santa Clara County, which report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, be and hereby is confirmed. Each of said parcels as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" is declared to have a lien against it in the amount set opposite said parcel number in the last column thereof; and the Santa Clara County Auditor is hereby directed to enter the amounts of said assessments against the respective parcels of land on the County Tax Roll, and to collect the same at the time and in the manner as general municipal property taxes are collected. A certified copy of this resolution and assessments shall be filed with the Santa Clara County Auditor. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 19th day of August, 1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Deputy City C er Mayor 1987 . WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA APN OWNER .NAME OWNER ADDRESS CITY & STATE ZIP CODE TAX ROLL CHARGE 366 -20 -032 LYNGSO, JOHN H. & MARY E. 1772 TERRACE DR. BELMONT, CA 94002 541.23 366 -22 -022 CASHIN, E MEET J. & DOROTHY C. 951 S. EL CAMINO REAL SAN MATEO, CA 94402 317.34 366 -43 -008 ARIMA, RONALD H. & MASAYE L. 1018 LEITH AVE. SANTA CLARA, CA 95050 203.14 386 -14 -027 COX AVENUE PROFESSIONAL CENTER 17920 DAVES AVE. MONTE SERENO, CA 95030 286.42 386 -23 -039 SARATOGA AVENUE ASSOCIATES 300.0 SAND HILL RD. MENLO PARK, CA 94025 58.88 386 -47 -035 COX, HELENE T. 19161 COX AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 266.67 386 -53 -027 GALEB, SLOBODAN 12340 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 518.90 389 -06 -003 BITTER, MARCUS K. 19000 COX AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 149.82. 389 -06 -016 MEDICAL VILLAGE OF SARATOGA P. 0. BOX 2067 SARATOGA, CA 95070 17.12 389 -06 -017 MVS COMPANY P. 0. BOX 2067 SARATOGA, CA 95070 63.54 389 -10 -005 CAL -WEST COMMUNITIES, INC. 1700 S. EL CAMINO SAN MATED, CA 94402 47.93 389 -10 -006 CAL -WEST COMMUNITIES, INC. 1700 S. EL CAMINO SAN MATED, CA 94402 34.23 389 -19 -009 SCHLESINGER, OPAL A. 3333 S. BASCOM AVE. CAMPBELL, CA 95008 196.33 389 -19 -019 COSTA, MANUEL F. & KATHERINE G 18531 VESTING RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 154.81 389 -23 -006 SHRIVER, PATRICIA J. 18733 METLER CT. SARATOGA, CA 95070 139.39 389 -23 -007 CARDONA, CARL C. & JACQUELINE 18737 ASPESI DR. SARATOGA, CA 95070 183.38 393 -01 -030 WAYNE H. MILLER INVESTMENT CO. 300 3RD ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 521.33 393 -01 -031 WAYNE H. MILLER INVESTMENT CO. 300 THIRD ST., #2 LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 136.12 397 -01 -053 WORTHINGTON, J. R. & BARBARA A 14131 TEN ACRES CT. SARATOGA, CA 95070 89.76 397 -01 -054 KOURETAS, PETE & BESSE 14153 TEN ACRES CT. SARATOGA, CA 95070 125.11 397 -01 -055 HORNE, DONALD R. & MARY T. 14175 TEN ACRES CT. SARATOGA, CA 95070 194.88 397 -03 -012 HOFF, MARC & SUSAN L. 14451 SOBEY RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 256.92 397 -03 -02.9 SZLENDAK, CASIMIR & MARY W. 18843 TEN ACRES RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 162.14 397 -03 -062 BERRIS, GEORGE J. & GEORGIA 1901 S. BASCOM AVE., #1400 CAMPBELL, CA 95008 149.82 397 -03 -080 HOLMGREN, KENNETH A. & DIANE E 16644 KENNEDY RD. LOS GATOS, CA 95030 318.64 397 -03 -081 GALEB, SLOBODAN & MARGARET 12340 S. SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 279.03 397 -03 -082 GALEB, SLOBODAN & MARGARET 12340 S. SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 300.64 397 -03 -083 GALEB, SLOBODAN & MARGARET 12340 S. SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 866.15 397 -03 -084 JAYAKUMAR, N. & ASHA 2770 GLAUSER DR. SAN JOSE, CA 95133 320.82 397 -05 -006 WOODHULL, ROBERT B. 18530 SOBEY RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 38.34 397 -08 -081 KOPATSCHEK, HENRY E. J., INC. 52 EL BONITO WAY ivlLLBRAE, CA 94030 204.27 397 -13 -055 FRANKEL, LOUIS S. & SHEILA A. 1700 THE ALFA, #300 SAN JOSE, CA 95126 349.73 397 -13 -056 HEICHER, DONNA A. P. 0. BOX 5392 SAN JOSE, CA 95150 284.83 397 -15 -014 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, LDS 50 E. N. TEMPLE ST. SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84150 47.93 397 -15 -016 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, LDS 50 E. N. TEMPLE ST. SALT LAKE CITY, UT 94150 37.25 397 -24 -022 MOORE, ELLEN C. 1089 S. DANIEL WAY SAN JOSE, CA 95128 192.96 397 -29 -005 RODONI, LILLIAN P. 0. BOX 305 SARATOGA, CA 95070 521.99 503 -14 -032 CONN, MICHAEL L. 4248 LAKE SANTA CLARA DR. SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 170.19 503 -15 -027 CHADWICK, ALLEN L. &BARBARA 13539 MANDARIN WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 449.46 503 -15 -031 COCCIARDI CORPORATION 22631 MT. EDEN RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 84.74 503 -16 -031 ZAVOSITY, JOHN J. 14081 PIKE RD. SARATOGA, CA 216.61 -1- APN OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS CITY & STATE ZIP CODE TAX ROLL CHARGE 503 -17 -026 MARTINEZ, MICHAEL R. & MARILYN 5885 DASH CT. SAN JOSE, CA 95120 599.28 503 -18 -069 HAM, LEWIS H. & ANNE M. 12929 PIERCE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 136.12 503 =18 -105 MARKLEY, DEAN 12911 PIERCE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 148.13 503 -19 -067 TOUGAS, BERNARD E. & DORIS G. 20604 'nMRDELL RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 247.43 503 -25 -012 SARATOGA REAL II 14375 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 172.01 503 -27 -081 ISIDORO, FRANK W. & MERNA L. 15041 PARK DR. SARATOGA, CA 95070 200.85 503 -28 -112 SCHMIDT, STEPHEN C. & BARBARA P. 0. BOX 52 CAMPBELL, CA 95008 149.82 503 -28 -117 DICAR INVESTMENTS, INC. P. 0. BOX 908 HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 167.70 503 -28 -118 DICAR INVESTMENTS, INC. P. 0. BOX 908 HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 129.77 503 -28 -119 SAUDE, FRANK J. & MARIA L. 14599 DEER SPRINGS CT. SARATOGA, CA 95070 141.42 503 -28 -120 PLAZA BANK OF COMMERCE 55 ALMADEN BLVD. SAN JOSE, CA 95113 318.78 503 -28 -121 MEUSY, RUSSELL M. & LYNN C. 333 W. SANTA CLARA ST. SAN JOSE, CA 95113 188.76 503 -28 -122 MC BAIN & GIBBS P. 0. BOX 908 HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 182.78 503 -28 -123 MC BAIN & GIBBS P. 0. BOX 908 HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 181.13 503 -28 -124 MC BAIN & GIBBS P. 0. BOX 908 HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 254.19 503 -29 -012 RIDDER, JOSEPH B. 750 RIDDER PARK DR. SAN JOSE, CA 95131 397.12 503 -29 -078 RIDDER, JOSEPH B. 750 RIDDER PARK DR. SAN JOSE, CA 95131 216.61. 503 -30 -002 WAIKER, THOMAS E. & SUSAN 1134 LITTLEOAK CL. SAN JOSE, CA 95129 170.32 503 -30 =010 POLITI, JOSEPH E. & SANDRA 14447 DEER CANYON LANE SARATOGA, CA 95070 204.27 503 -31 -054 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 299.64, 503 -31 -055 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST.. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 262.18 503 -31 -056 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 224.73 503 -31 -057 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 224.73 503 -31 -058 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 224.73 503 -31 -059 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS.ALTOS, CA 94022 299.64 503 -31 -060 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 262.18 503 -31 -061 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 299.64 503 -31 -065 TEE BLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 187.27 503 -31 -068 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 337.09 503 -31 -069 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 224.73 503 -31 -070 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 74.91 503 -31 -071 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 149.82 503 -31 -074 'r'F'F'UJNK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 187.27 503 -31 -075 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 Ni FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 262.18 503 -31 -076 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 486.91 503 -31 -077 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 224.73 503 -31 -078 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 187.27 503 -31 -079 BAS HOMES, INC. 20823 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 262.18 503 -31 -080 BAS HOMES, INC. 20823 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 262.18 503 -31 -085 BAS HOMES, INC. 20823 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 262..18 503 -31 -086 BAS HOMES, INC. 20823 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 299.64 503 -31 -087 BAS HOMES, INC. 20823 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 262.18 503 - -31 -088 BAS HOMES, INC. 20823 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 149.82 -2- APN OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS CITY & STATE ZIP CODE TAX ROLL CHARGE 503 -31 -089 BAS HOMES, INC. 20823 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 262.18 503 -31 -090 BAS HOMES, INC. 20823 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 262.18 503 -31 -091 BAS HOMES, INC. 20823 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 262.18 503 -31 -100 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 337.09 503 -31 -101 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 224.73 503 -31 -102 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 224.73 503 -31 -104 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 262.18 503 -31 -105 TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. 141 N. FIRST ST. LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 262.18 503 -31 -106 BAS HOMES, INC. 20823 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 9.5014 112.36 503 -31 -107 BAS HOMES, INC. 20823 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 112.36 503 -31 -108 BAS HOMES, INC. 20823 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 299.64 503 -51 -003 PERASSO, CLATILDE M. 596 PACIFIC AVE. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133 374.55 503 -53 -061 DHAKA, VIR A. & MOHINI 31028 MARNE DR. RANCHO PATOS VERDES, CA 90274 77.05 503 -55 -045 CARTER, PAUL & VIRGINIA P. 0. BOX 232 SARATOGA, CA 95071 374.5.5 503 -55 -053 BLAIR, JEROME C. & ARLENE 3549 MAURICIA AVE. SANTA CLARA, CA 95051 214.86 503 -55 -054 WEISER, RICHARD A. & ABBY N. 21216 HAYMEADOW DR. SARATOGA, CA 95070 74.91 503 -55 -055 MACKIE, DAVID & MERIEL 21208 HAYMEADOW DR. SARATOGA, CA 95070 74.91 503 -62 -014 CLARK, RICHARD E. 2510 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. SAN JOSE, CA 95128 699.73 503 -62 -015 CLARK, RICHARD E. 2510 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. SAN JOSE, CA 95128 569.18 503 -62 -017 MC BAIN'& GIBBS P. 0. BOX 908 HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 29.99 503 -62 -018 MC BAIN & GIBBS P. 0. BOX 908 HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 195.92 503 -62 -023 DICAR INVESTMENTS, INC. 734 LE MANS WAY HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 62.45 503 -62 -024 DICAR INVESTMENTS, INC. 734 LE MANS WAY HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 274.57 503 -66 -010 CHANG, MU T. & LIN M. 21200 CHIQUITA WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 46.44 503 -72 -007 PARNAS CORPORATION 2055 WOODSIDE RD. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94061 148.13 503 -72 -008 PARNAS CORPORATION 2055 WOODSIDE RD. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94061 97.02 503 -72 -009 PARNAS CORPORATION 2055 WOODSIDE RD. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94061 132.79 503 -72 -010 PARNAS CORPORATION 2055 WOODSIDE RD. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94061 162.45 503 -72 -011 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CA 1758 JUNCTION AVE.. SAN JOSE, CA 95112 9.30 503 -72 -012 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CA 1758 JUNCTION AVE. SAN JOSE, CA 95112 10.95 503 -72 -014 PARKAS CORP. 2055 WOODSIDE ROAD REDWOOD CITY, CA 94061 314.22 503 -72 -015 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CA 1758 JUNCTION AVE. SAN JOSE, CA 95112 44.91 503 -72 -016 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CA 1758 JUNCTION AVE. SAN JOSE, CA 95112 30.82 503 -72 -017 MOZAFFARI, ALI & SETAREH 1265 SETAREH CT. SAN JOSE, CA 95125 140.46 503 -72 -018 KWONG, JONATHAN C. & KATHY W. 3249 STnBERrAN DR. SAN JOSE, CA 95148 259.16 503 -72 -019 YI, JIN H. & TONG M. 14580 SARATOGA HEIGHTS CT. SARATOGA, CA 95070 153.20 503 -72 -020 MATSURA, RONALD T. & SANDRA N. 3140 SUMMERCREEK DR. SAN JOSE, CA 95136 174.15 503 -72 -021 PAGE, JOHN 1927 LANDINGS DR. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94043 129.22 503 -72 -022 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CA 1758 JUNCTION AVE. SAN JOSE, CA 95112 54.10 503 -72 -025 TANIGUCHI, BEN T. & SACHIKO 21503 SARATOGA HEIGHTS DR. SARATOGA, CA 95070 138.27 503 -72 -027 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CA 1758 JUNCTION AVE. SAN JOSE, CA 95112 48.62 -3- APN OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS CITY & STATE OAKLAND, CA ZIP CODE TAX ROLL- CHARGE 503 -72 -028 PARNAS CORPORATION 2055 WOODSIDE RD. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94061 .148.13 503 -72 -029 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CA 1758 JUNCTION AVE. SAN JOSE, CA 77 BEALE ST., 95112 30.54 503 -72 -030 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CA 1758 JUNCTION AVE. SAN JOSE, CA SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS. CO. 95112 23.82 503 -72 -032 GASPAR, MARIE R. P. 0. BOX 898 - SARATOGA, CA 386 -44 -040 95071 55.19 503 -75 -003 PARKAS CORPORATION 2055 WOODSIDE RD. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94061 117.44 503 -75 -004 PARNAS CORPORATION 2055 WOODSIDE RD. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94061 153.20 503 -75 -005 PARNAS CORPORATION 2055 WOODSIDE RD. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94061 162.45 503 -75 -006 PARNAS CORP. 2055 WOODSIDE RD. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94.061 285.78 503 -75 -007 SHENG, STEVEN N. & ROUNDA 732 SWANSWOOD CT. SAN JOSE, CA 95120 179.22 503 -75 -008 DAVIS, ANTHONY M. 21770 CONGRESS HALL IN. SARATOGA, CA 1707 WOOD ST. 95070 192.30 503 -75 -009 MASTERS, CHARLES T. & SANDRA 0 1178 COPPER PEAK LN. SAN JOSE, CA PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 95120 238.52 503 -75 -010 PENDEN, LARRY & JUDITH 18130 CONSTITUTION AVE. MONTE SERENO, CA 95030 148.68 503 -75 -012 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CA 1758 JUNCTION AVE. SAN JOSE, CA 692.78 95112 21.91 503 -75 -015 PARNAS CORPORATION 4683 ALBANY CIRCLE SAN JOSE, CA 94607 95129 148.92 503 -75 -016 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CA 1758 JUNCTION AVE. SAN JOSE, CA CA 95112 26.02 503 -75 -017 PDCKLER, JAMES E. & JUDY L. 211 TOURNEY LOOP LOS GATOS, CA SAN FRANCISCO, 95030 16.02 510 -52 -005 ROSENDIN, RAYMOND J. P. O. BOX 5061 SAN JOSE, CA #875 95150 339.17 517 -18 -041 BUTLER, GERALD D. & JUDITH L. 15015 VICKERY AVE. SARATOGA, CA 77 BEAD ST., 95070 205.59 517 -18 -046 BUTLER, GERALD D. & JUDITH L. 15015 VICKERY AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 178.72 517 -18 -047 BUTLER, GERALD D. & JUDITH L. 15015 VICKERY AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 234.01 517 -22 -037 KOCHER, GEORGE S. 15139 PARK DR. SARATOGA, CA 95070 86.01 517 -22 -103 FULDE, WALTER J. & CATHERINE D 15164 MONTALVO RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 117.44 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (S.B.E.) PARCELS APN OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS CITY & STATE. ZIP CODE TAX ROLL CHARGE 366 -12 -0,69 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS. CO. 1707 WOOD ST. OAKLAND, CA 94607 422.31 366 -12 -071 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS. CO. 1707 WOOD ST. OAKLAND, CA 94607 1,268.30 366 -20 -033 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 77 BEALE ST., #875 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94106 461.91 386 -44 -038 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS. CO. 1707 WOOD ST. OAKLAND, CA 94607 268.81 386 -44 -040 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 77 BEALE ST., #875 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94106 231.08 386 -53 -017 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS. CO. 1707 WOOD ST. OAKLAND, CA 94607 699.15 386 -53 -018 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 77 BEALE ST., #875 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94106 1,253.52 386 -53 -019 PACIFIC GAS & ELBC1'RIC CO. 77 BEALE ST., #875 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94106 206.99 389 -01 -021 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS. CO. 1707 WOOD ST. OAKLAND, CA 94607 356.36 389 -01 -022 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS. CO. 1707 WOOD ST. OAKLAND, CA 94607 228.49 389 -01 -023 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 77 BEALE ST., #875 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94106 180.60 389 -11 -003 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS. CO. 1707 WOOD ST. OAKLAND, CA 94607 692.78 389 -19 -022 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS. CO. 1707 WOOD ST. OAKLAND, CA 94607 1,297.01 393 -17 -004 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 77 BEALE ST., #875 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94106 336.02 393 -17 -006 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 77 BEALE ST., #875 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94106 450.89 393 -21 -003 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 77 BEALE ST., #875 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94106 306.88 393 -21 -006 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 77 BEAD ST., #875 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94106 261.87 TOTAL ASSESSMENTS $39,394.49 TOTAL PARCELS 16.4 -4- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 131-1 MEETING DATE: 8/19/87 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PLANNING o AGENDA ITEM: CITY MGR. APPROVAL V -86 -005, Gregory, 14684 Oak Pl.-- Reconsideration of a City Council SUBJECT: denial to reconstruct a 17 ft. 3 in. high 'garage, 3 ft. from a left side property line where 6 ft. is required. Recommended Motion: Denv the variance and reaffirm the original decision of the Planning Commission. Report Summary.:- 1. On 9/16/86, the Planning.Commission denied a variance request to con- struct anew two -car garage to within 3.ft. of the left side property line where a 6 ft. setback is required. The Commission -could .not make all the required findings to. approve the variance.. 2. On 11/5/86, the City Council considered the applicant's appeal. The 2 -2 tie vote (Peterson Absent) resulted in the. appeal being denied. 3. On 7/1/87, .the City Council voted 3 -2 to reconsider the denial of variance V -86 -005. 4. Requiring the appellants to comply with the s.ideyard setback require ment would not result in practical difficulty, as access to the garage would not be adversely impacted nor would the use and enjoyment of the rear yard-area be severely affected. 5. Granting the variance would be detrimental,to the safety of the adjacent property in that an adequate level of protection against a fire would not be provided. In addition, if the variance is granted, the R -1 zoning district objective requiring adequate open space between single family homes would not be met. Fiscal.Impacts: N/A Attachments: 1. Staff report to the City Council 8/19/$7 2. Appeal lettter dated 7/27/87 3. Correspondence received -- 4. City,!Council minutes dated 11/5/86, 10/26/86 5. Staff report to the City Council 11/5/86 Motion and Vote: Granted: appeal 3 -2 (or 4 -1 ?) C B�4 Q1 0&Me&UQ)0& REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 8/13/87 COUNCIL MEETING: 8/19/87 SUBJECT: V -86 -005 - Gregory, 14684 Oak St. Appeal of Variance Denial A. Background The appellants, James and Shirley Gregory, wish to construct a new 211x 211, 17 ft. 3 in. high detached garage to within 3 ft. of the left side property line where a 6 ft. setback is required. On September 10, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the appellants' variance request and denied the application as they could not make all of the required findings per City Code section 15- 10.060. Specifically, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings regarding practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship, public health safety and welfare and, exceptional circumstances. B. Analysis of Appeal In their appeal letter, the appellants indicated that a practical difficulty would result if the garage was located 6 ft. from the left side property line in that vehicular access to the garage would be hindered, and the use of their rear yard would be negatively impacted. Once again, Staff has consulted the City Engineering Department on the access question, and their opinion is that requiring a 6 ft. side yard setback will not make it any more difficult for the appellants to access the garage. Consequently, the required finding that denial of the variance would result in a practical difficulty cannot be made. Additionally, the appellants argue that siting the garage 6 ft. from the left side property line will have a negative impact on the use of the rear yard area. 1 Report to Mayor & City Council Gregory Appeal 8/19/87 Because the appellants' lot is only 50 ft. wide, if the garage were to be located 6 ft. from the left side property line, the area between the garage and the right side property line would only be 23 ft. wide. However, a large 1,000 sq. ft. (50' x 201) area to the rear of the garage would remain and could be used for a number of things, including a swimming pool or garden /open space. Finally, requiring a 6 ft. side yard setback will ensure that an adequate level of protection is provided for adjacent properties in case of a fire. In addition, a 6 ft. setback will satisfy one of the purposes of the R -1 zoning district requiring that sufficient air, light and open space be provided for each single family home. C. Staff Recommendation In staff's opinion, granting.the variance would not create a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, since access to the garage is not adversely affected and the use of the rear yard would not be unreasonably interfered with. However, granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public safety, and not be in accord with the purpose and objectives of the zoning code. Finally, since no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist, granting of the variance would be a grant of special privilege. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and reaffirm the decision of the Planning Commission. lk"- J Y chuek Hsia X--"' � Planning Director YH /rc /dsc 2 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Reference: V -86 -005, Gregory Variance Appea1111518 6 Dear Council Members: JUL .Jb 1. Thank you for reconsidering ourappeal fora 3 footset -back on ourgarage at 14684 Oak Street. - - As we stated In our letter dated June 24,1987, on November 5, 1986, we appealed the Planning Commission's denial. This was the second time we had appeared before the council. On October 21, 1986 the vote by the City Council was 2 -2, (Moyles absent). The vote on November 5th was also 2 -2 (Peterson absent). There didnt appear to be any strong objection by the council to the 3 foot variance. The problem seemed to be finding a physical difficulty with locating the garage 3 feet firom the property line. Since November, two things have occurred. One, we have reviewed the wording or t:he requirement for finding physical difficulty. The wording states that the size and shape of the lot are to be considered, not just the topography. In our case, the lot is only 50 feet wide, and the garage will be over half way across the back yard If the 6 foot setback Is required This presents a difficulty both with vehicles getting, in and out.of the garage and with landscaping the backyard to allow adequate` space between the garage and the opposite property line (only 23 feet). The key word Is "difficulty" not "Impossibility". Two, the house is now complete, and you can see how the garage will actually look in relation to the house and it is obvious that the garage should not be moved any further Into the yard. We think that it is very Important to consider the overall project and not just the physical din9culty. In the final analysis, we all want to preserve the tradition and heritage -of Saratoga without endangering either persons or property. All of this Is accomplished with this project We spent a lot of time and money to make sure it happened and we are especially proud of the results. We think the project sets an excellent example for future projects of this type. Requiring a 6 foot set-back would not help accomplish the desired results, and would, in fact, have a negative Impact on the project We think if you look at the project and consider all the factors, you will come to the same conclusion. We look forward to meeting with you on August19,1987. C I T Y O F S A R A T 0 G A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 (4b8) 867 -3438 VAN ARSDALE RALPH H ET AL 517/08/043 14690 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Council NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Depputyy Cit Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set WEDNESDAYy the 19th day of August, 1987, in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on: APPEAL OF DENIAL FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL TO ALLOW A 3 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A DETACHED GARAGE WHERE 6 FT. IS REQUIRED AT 14684 OAK STREET IN THE R -1- 10,000 ZONING DISTRICT (V- 86- 005)(APPELLANT /APPLICANT, J. GREGORY) The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. Public hearings will begin when that item is reached on the agenda, but no later than 8:00 P.M. A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearings is on file at the office of the Saratoga City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge the subject projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council Committee at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the City Council's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before August 13, 1987. CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Grace E. Cor Deputy City Lerk .Y c ove a 3 fatT- art-d B. Appeal of denial of variance for a 3 ft. side setback for a detached garage where 6 fLj is required and appeal of Condition 7 of the design review approval requiring an asphalt shingle roof for second story addition to an existing single family residences at 14684 Oak St. in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district (DR 86 -015, V 86 -005) (Appellant/applicant, J. Gregory) Planning Director Hsia read the Report to Mayor and City Council dated October 6, 1986, and answered questions of the Council. Councilmember Clevenger noted that it was difficult to understand from the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 10, 1986, why the Planning Commission came to the decision reached. The Public tiearing was opened at 8:38 P.M. Mr. James Gregory, Appellant, requested that the question of roofing material and side yard ' setback be considered separately.- With regard to the roof, it is a cedar shingle roof that is being requested not a cedar shake roof; he explained the difference for the Council and pointed out three homes in the area that have a cedar shingle roofs. Of the homes on Alemeda, 13 of 15 have cedar shake or cedar shingle roofs which demonstrated compatibility with the neighborhood. Pictures were submitted by the Appellant. In response to questions asked by Councilmembers, both Mr. Gregory and the Planning Director confirmed that the distinction between cedar shake and cedar shingles was not made clear at the Planning Commission . Hearing; Mr. Gregory stated that he was not always precise in the terminology he used. The question of.side yard setback of the garage results from the fact that the square footage of the house is being increased by 50% ; the house meets City Ordinances with a 6 ft. side setback. While the garage does not meet the required side yard setback, it is compatible with the area. Other garages have 3 ft. or less side yard setback. In the opinion of the Appellant, the garage does not present afire hazard. However, he has spoken with his contractor and a double wall of two 5/8 in. sheet rock could be installed in the garage; this would make it a one hour burn wall. He stated that the fire department, while not giving an official opinion, told him that the proposed double wall would be acceptable. . Mr. Gregory stated that he is considering installing a pool in the back yard; with 6 ft. side yard setback requirements and a 21 ft. garage, only 17 ft. of yard remain. The 3 ft. in question makes the difference between putting in the pool comfortably and squeezing the pool in the loi. Councilmember Clevenger raised the issue of impervious coverage; the issue was discussed briefly with the Appellant. He stated that aesthetically, with or without the pool, the yard looks better with the garage placed with a 3 ft. side yard setback. The size of the garage at present is inadequate for use as a double garage, thus the increase in the size of the proposed garage. Mr. Gregory stated that he had gone to a lot of work to make the house compatible with the area. PETERSON /ANDERSON MOVED TO-CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 4 -0. Councilmember Clevenger confirmed that the house and garage of 3,000 sq. ft did not exceed allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Councilmember Peterson noted that the desire to install a pool is not a reason to grant a variance. With respect to the appeal regarding roofing materials, he questioned why the City would encourage individuals to use less expensive materials. It would seem that the City would encourage individuals to use cedar materials rather than asphalt. Secondly, he expressed concem that the City was even involved in such decisions; he will support the appeal on use of cedar roofing materials. With respect to the garage, he will uphold the Planning Commission; since the garage is being torn down, he preferred not to grant a variance. Councilmember Clevenger noted that the property between the adjacent garage and the Appellant's garage is unusable; she will vote to grant the variance allowing a 3 fL side yard setback. She stated tharshe understood the decision of the Planning Commission with regard to the asphalt roof, however, upon review of the pictures submitted, she will vote in favor of the appeal regarding roofing materials. Councilmember Anderson saw no problem with the use of cedar shake or cedar shingle roofing; the adjacent area has a number of houses with cedar roofing, upgrading the neighborhood. It appears that the neighborhood in general is undergoing upgranding and she wishes to encourage this. With respect to the appeal fora variance, the neighbor is agreeable to the Appellant's request. Councilmember Anderson noted that the Appellant's house and the neighbor's house were probably built as mirror images; a requirement of 6 ft. side yard setback for one of the houses would off -set the design. Mayor Hlava stated that she concurred with the concern expressed that the City was even involved in such decisions as materials used for roofing; she will uphold this appeal. She expressed her concem of the second appeal; there are options to accommodate the installation of a pool, without exceeding impervious coverage requirements and still comply with required 6 fL side yard setbacks. Since the garage is being completely rebuilt, the City should not allow a Variance. Councilmember Clevenger stated that the one time a variance may be justi fied is on older lots, which have a number of restrictions. The space in question will be wasted, whereas "an additional 3 ft, of livable space in-the rear yard will be beneficial. The Mayor cited examples of decisions recently made by the Council and noted that there are options for placement of the garage, types of surface to be used on the driveway and still allow the possibility of installing a pool in the yard. HLAVA/PETERSON MOVED TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DR -86 -015, CONDITION 7 UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. Passed 4 -0. The City Attorney confirmed that the Variance was denied because the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings and was concerned about setting a precedent. The City Attorney noted that under City Code, 50% or more expansion requires a design review of an existing dwelling and triggers a review of accessory structures as well affording an opportunity for the City to review the entire site. The Mayor stated that the Commission and Staff were able to make the Findings with the exception of. - Strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback_ requirement would result in technical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship - Granting of a Variance would not be detrimental to Public health, safety and welfare. HLAVA/PETERSON MOVED TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING THE VARIANCE APPLICATION ON SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. Failed 2 -2, Councilmembers Clevenger, Anderson opposed. The Mayor stated that the Public Hearing would be left open; this appeal will be heard on November 5, 1986, at the City Council Meeting. B. Appeal of denial of variance to reconstruct garage 3 ft. from,side ro - .:...., 1 p perty line rather - than 6 f as required.(Appellant/applicant, J. Gregory) (V -86 -005) (Continued from October.15,1986) Mayor Mava reviewed the appeal noting the split vote on the granting a variance allowing a 3 ft. side yard setback. The City Attorney stated that in.the event of a splirvote at this hearing, for any reason, the appeal would be denied and. the decision of the Planning Commission would remain intact. The Public, Hearing ,was opened at 8:37 P.M. Mr. Gregory reviewed the conditions of the lot and neighborhood; he stated that neighbors had no objection to the proposed building plans and noted the difficulty that would be imposed by - the requirement of a 6 ft. side yard setback for the garage. In response to questions by Councilmember Moyles, he,stated thatmoving.the garage toward the rear of the property would result in an extremely long driveway and an unattractive presentation of the lot. The use of turf block.on the driveway, reducing impervious coverage of•the lot, was considered and rejected due to high expense of the product_ In response to Councilmember Anderson's comments regarding safety on the property, the Appellant confirmed that he-would install a one hour fire wall on the side of the .garage which faced the neighbor's garage; he also was amenable to installing a sprinklcr'system in the garage if the cost was not prohibitive. r CLEVENGER/MOYLES'MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:43 P.M. Passed 4 -0. Councilmember Moyles, noted that he had made a site visit to the Gregory property-, however, he was unable to.make the variance findings. He stated that Variance hearing is the opportunity for a citizen to demonstrate why'their unique circumstances override the policies of the City. Unique circumstances.have not been demon strated-in.this instance and making the required Findings was not possible. He concurred with comments made.by Mayor Hlava and Councilmember Peterson at the previous Hearing._ CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO -L 3 P-THE APPEAL OF A VARIANCE ALLOWING A 3 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK. Failed 2 -2, Mayor Hlava, Councilmember Moyles opposed. c Mayor Maya addressed the Appellant and stated that she believed it should be the policy of the City to rectify conditions of substandard lots when there is an opportunity to do so. C CITY OF SARATOGA \. AGENDA BILL N0. AGENDA ITEM DATE: 10/21/86 (11/5/86) DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: V -86 -005, Gregory - Appeal of Planning Commission denial to reconstruct garage 3 ft. from side property line rather than 6 ft as required Summary: 1._ On September 10,: 1986, the Planning Commission denied a variance- request to construct_ a new garage 3 ft. rather than 6 ft. from the side property line. The Commission could not make all the required findings to approve the variance. " 2. On October 15, 1986, the Council could not reach a decision on the appeal. The vote was 2 -2 (Moyles absent). 3. The variance request was continued to 11/5/86 when the full Council would be present to consider the variance. 4. The Council has agreed to revise the condition relative to roofing material so that a wood shingle roof may be installed. See condition #7. Fiscal Impacts: N/A Exhibits /Attachments: 1: Staff report to the City Council 5. Plans 2. Staff report to Planning Commission 6. Required findings dated 9/10/86 3. Appeal letter 4. Planning Commission minutes dated 9/10/86 Recommended Action: The Planning Commission could not make the "required,findings. Deny the variance and affirm the decision of the Planning Commissio: Council Action P . VT _ ♦ liT\1T1/ TO: City Council FROM: Planning Director — DATE: November. 5F-''14'8'6-­-. SUBJECT: V -86 -005 - Gregory, Appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny the variance request to reduce the side yard setback for a detached garage from 6 ft. to 3 ft. --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- n ♦ n-nr n11— The appellant, James Gregory, wishes to construct a new detached garage at 14684 Oak St., located within 3 ft. of the left side property line where a 6 ft. setback is required (City Code Section 15- 65.160). On September 10, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the appellant's request. The Commission denied the variance request. because they could not make all the findings required by City Code Sec. 15-10-060: (1) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of setback requirement would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physi- cal hardship in that the garage can be located in conformity with the Code requirements (i.e., 6 ft, sideyard setback) and still be accessible. Since the existing garage will be demolished, enlarged, and relocated, this'is the opportunity to construct within the requirements of the City Code by relocating it 6 ft. from the side property line. (2) The granting of the variance would-be detrimental to,the public health, safety and welfare in that a 3 ft. setback would not adequately protect adjacent properties in case of a fire. Typically, garages store hazardous materials such as paint, gasoline and newspapers. The minimal 6 ft. set- back will provide additional open space buffer between the subject garage and the adjacent property.. If the 3 ft. setback is allowed and the property to the north constructs 3 ft. from the property line, the 6 ft. "alley" would invite storage of wood, miscellaneous construction materials and household debris. A 1 ft. overhang on the roofs would essentially diminish this 6 ft. alley to 4 ft. Staff points out additional findings that cannot be made: (1) There are no exceptional circumstances of the subject property which differ from other properties in the district. All the other lots between Lomita and Komina Avenues are small, narrow lots similar to this (see page 1 of the Planning Commission staff report). Memorandum to City Council V -86 -005 - Gregory Appeal Page 2 (2) Since there are no exceptional circumstances of the subject lot, granting the variance would be a grant of special privilege unless the Council would grant the same variance to all the lots between Lomita and Komina Avenues. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. Yu uek Hsia P1 ning Director YH /kc /dsc B:wsGregory 2 r FROM: Robert T. Calkins DATE: 9/10/86 APPLICATION NO, & LOCATION: DR -86 -015, V -86 -005, 14684 Oak St. APPLICANT:. James Gregory APN: 517 -08 -044 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting design review approval of plans to allow the c,o'nv.ersion of a single story dwelling to two -story and variance approval to allow the reconstruction and enlargement of a garage to within 3 ft. of the side lot li.ne where 6 ft. is required. ISSUES: 1, -The proposed second story addition will be.. 29 ft. 3 in. high and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in that five other two story homes are located within 200 ft. of the subject property.. One story homes immediately adjacent to the subject lot have steep high pitched roofs (approximately 23 72S eft., high) that make,them. appear t.wo -. I. .; story. - 2. The applicant proposes to exceed allowable floor area "adjus`ted" For the 7,500 sq,, ft. lot by 22.5 sq. ft. 3. Staff is unable to make the required variance - findings regarding practical difficulty or physical h`ar.dship, exceptional circumstances and public welfare. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant be required to maintain a 6 ft.. side yard setback for the detach garage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration, Resolution; DR -86 -015' and Findings and deny V -86 -005. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Negative Declaration 2. Resolution DR -86- 015 -1, Exhibit A, Findings 3. Technical .Information 4. Exhibit C. Variance Findings supplied by applicant S. 'Exhibit B, plans EIA -4 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No: DR -86 -015 V -86 -005 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, Sections 15063 through "15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and_Resblu- tio.n 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described'project, will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the -environmeni within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project involves adding 1,243.5 sq. ft. of floor area (53 %) to an existing single family dwelling including a second story addition at 10684 Oak Street and reconstruction and enlargement of a detached garage. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT James Gregory 276 Old Adobe Road Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION u An initial study was_ completed which indicates the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Executed at Saratoga, California this 10th day of September 19 86 Yuckuek Hsia Planning Director DIRECTOR''S AUTHORIZED :STAFF MEMBER Design Review File No.DR -$6 -015 RESOLUTION NO. DR- 86 -01S -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval of plans to construct a second story addition and detached garage located at 10684 Oak St. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support his said application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of JAMES GREGORY for design review approval be and the same i.s hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. See Exhibit A _- PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State. of California, this 10 day of September 19 86 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Chairman, Planning Commission CEXHIBIT "A" C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DR- 86 -01S 1. The applicant shall submit a written agreement to these conditions as finally approved within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or such resolution shall be void. 2. The height of main dwelling shall not exceed 29 ft. 3 in. as measured _ in accordance with Chapter 15, Section 6.34 of the City Code. - 3. The height of the detached garage shall not exceed 17 ft. 3 in. as measu in accordance with Chapter 15, Section 6.34 of the City Code. 4. The applicant shall maintain a 6 ft. side yard setback for the proposed - detached garage. S.' Total gross floor area for all structures on site shall not exceed 2647.5 ft. 6. Landscaping plan for screening along the south property line adjacent to t detached garage shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits and installed prior to final occupancy. 7. The proposal exterior colors and roofing material shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of buiding permits. 8. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft. half -' street on Oak Street. 9. The applicant shall enter into a "Deferred Improvement Agreement" with the City prior to the issuance of building permits to provide the following street improvements: a. Designed structural section 20 ft. between centerline and flowline. b. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (V -24'). C. Pedestrian walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.) d. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities 10. Submit.Improvement Plans for the required street improvements as listed in Condition 8, above. 11. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date D -86 -015 FINDINGS 1. Unreasonable interference with views or privacy -(and compatible infill pro -iect ' -The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site do not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that it is on a level lot, not on a visible hillside and and the applicant will be required to plant a 6 ft. landscape strip - along the south of the detached garage to help soften the exposed wall. -The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that the number and size of second story windows on the north and south elevations have been minimized. To.the west, existing vegetation and distance (100 ft.) between buildings- mitigates privacy concerns, 2. Preservation of the natural landscape -The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no grading is proposed and no ordinance size trees will need to be removed. 3. Perception of excessive bulk -The project will minimize the perception of excessive bull; in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that other two -story dwellings are located on similar sized lots and adequate front and rear yard setbacks are being maintained. 4. CoMaatible bulk and height m �. -The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within.500 ft. of the site and in the same zoning district in that five homes within 200 ft. of the subject lot are two story and adjacent one story homes have steep high pitched roofs which give the appearance of being two - story. -The project will not interfere with the light, air, -and solar access of adjacent properties in that. adequate setbacks will be maintained pursuant to the City Code. • S. Gradino and erosion control standards -The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that no grading is proposed. CH41 (c L INFORMATION ANSTAFF ArvA0j fS COMMISSION MEETING: 9/10/86 APN: 517 -08 -044. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION• OR- 86 -01S, V -86 -005 AM ON REQUESTED: Design review approval of plans to expand an existing dwelling by over SO% including a second story addition variance approval is requested to allow the constuction of a detached garage to within 3 ft, of the side property line where 6 ft. is required. .APPLICANT: James Gregory PROPERTY OWNER: Same OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building permits _ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration prepared August 29, 1986. ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential (medium density) EXISTING LAND USE: Single family residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential PARCEL SIZE: 7,500 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Typical front and rear yard landscaping including a large tree in the front yard. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: level PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 30 ft. Rear: 57.5 ft. Left Side: 12 ft. (dwelling) 3 ft. (garage) Right Side: 6 ft. HEIGHT: 29 ft. 3 in. (dwelling) 17 ft. 3 in. (garage) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: ± 40% (60% is the maximum) SHE OF STRUCTURE: Existing Proposed First Floor (including garage): 1404 sq. ft. 1693.5 sq. ft.- Second Floor: -0- sq. ft. 9S4 s�l)ft. TOTAL: 1404 sq. ft. 2647.5 (1). Staff's calculations ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE_ The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that the detached garage is only 3 OR -86 -015, V -86 -0C ft. from the side yard where 6 ft. is required. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED': Cream colored siding, c,ed'ar shingles and wood shutter window treatment and see Staff Analysis. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests design review approval of plans to allow the _ addition of 1162.5 sq. ft. (exc,iuding garage) of living area to the existing dwelling at 14684 Oak Street in the R -1- 10,00,0 zoning district. The proposal also includes removing the existing garage (18'x 21') and constructing a larger (21' x 21') garage. Specifically, the applicant proposes to expand the existing first floor living area by 208.5 sq. ft. and add a 954 sq. ft. second story '- addition. The existing garage will be removed and replaced with a 441 sq. f,t: detached garage. - STREET IMPROVEMENTS Since the applicant proposes to expand.the existing floor area by more than 50 %, the development plans were forwarded to the City Engineer for comments- Based on his remarks,' the applicant is required to enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" with the City to guarantee the installation of street improvement -s as listed in Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval, #8, #9, and #10. 2. FLOOR AREA Calculated - pursuant to"ICity Code Section 15- 06.020 r the i applicant proposes a 2,647.5 sq. ft, two -story dwelling on the subject lot. The proposed total floor is below the zoning districts standard of •3,500 sq. ft. However, the applicant's property is substandard in terms of "minimum net site area" in that the lot is only 7,500 sq. ft. in area or 75% of the 10,000 sq. ft. minimum. A more accurate comparison of the applicant's proposal to the "Allowable Floor Area" standard -is obtained by multiplying the zoning district's standard by .75 or; 3,500 sq. ft. x .75 = 2.625 sq. ft. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 22,5 sq. ft. increase in floor area standard as "adjust,ed "`for the subject lot. 3. HEIGHT The applicant is requesting a 2 -9 ft. 3 in. high second story additio.n. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by a mixture of one and two story single family homes. Within 200 ft. of the subject property, there are five two - story homes. One story homes are located on each side of the applicant's property; however, both have steep, high pitched roofs (23 -25 ft. high) that make them appear two- story. The proposed height of the two -story addition w_ill.not .i.nterfere with the solar accessibility of the adjacent dwellings.- 4.* SIDEYARD SETBACK (DETACHED GARAGE) The applicant proposers to remove the existing garage and replace it with a larger (21' x 21') garage. The new 17 ft. 3 i.n..high garage is proposed to be located to within 3 ft. of t'he left side property line. Pursuant to City Code Section 15 -65 -160 setback requirements for substandard lots will be adjusted according to the following formula: "Where the width of a site does not conform with t:he standard for the district, the minimum width of interior side yards shall not be less than ten percent (10 %) of the width of the site or six feet.; whichever is greater" In this case, a 6 ft. side yard must be maintained. - Since the -applicant proposes to reconstruct and enlarge the existing garage and sufficient yard area exists to locate the larger garage within the required setback area's, Staff feels that it is not a hardship to require that the new garage be located 6 ft. from the south property line as required by City Code. MATERIALS AND COLORS The applicant proposes cedar shingles for the roof. However, Staff recommends asphalt shingles as most of the existing dwel'ling's in the neighborhood have asphalt shingles (see Condition #7). C Cx T Reasons to Approve Side Variance ante 1. 3 feet or less is the normal side variance for the area Yyhen lot is 50 feet wide (see pictures). 2. A 6 foot side variance plus a 21 foot wide garage would be a total of 27 feet, which would be more than half the width of the-backyard (50 feet wide }_ This would not be visually pleasing and would detract from the improved look of the new house and yard. 3. A 6 foot side variance would also require that an additional 3 feet of asphalt would have to be added to the width of the driveway in the back of the new house. This addition would be very visible and would detract from the beauty of the yard. 4. The area between the garage and the side f rence would also be; visible from the street, and the view of 3 feet more of the garage, which is designed to add to the attractiveness of the house would be much more esthetically pleasing than 3 feet of fence. S. With 27 feet of 54 feet taken up with the garage and Variance, it would not be practical to add a swimming pool in the backyard. With a 6 foot variance on the other side of the yard it would only leave 17 feet which is not only insufficient room, but would make the yard verg unbalanced. 6. The distance from the deepest point of the new house to the back property line will be 56 feet 6 inches. With this much depth, the yard needs all the width possible. An additional 3 feet will make a. si gni f i cant difference in the looks of the backyard. IDate Reccived:%/-, Hearing Date: - Fee S CITY USE Oi APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: �q► n�S C��� �� �? l r Address: Z7?!6 (7 AA NU ,"4 - Telephone: J - Name of Applicant: �' �, _ Project File No.. �O�� _ Project Address: Project Description: _ � �� �� c\, i ny0 '1 V-- � ev \A NC f1 oc h `d o SSW ne S Or a l n a nd B Decision eing Appealed: ( a .,N " e r v 1 \ Y� Arl 1 0 Ck Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): *Please do not .sign this City offices. If you w appeal please list them TIIIS APPLICATION MUST Dii ICE DATE OF "fHE DEC SIO, A llant- s.S1gnat' e application until it is presented at the ish specific people to be notified of this on a separate. sheet. SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) 'C'ALENDAR DAYS OF C c Gmunds for &p DR-86-015Y V- 6 -005 Generl All of the indications I had prior to the Planning Comnuission meeting from people other thin staff, vas that my case for the cedar shake roof and the 3' variance was sralid and I had no need to be concerned. Therefore, when the application �m brought on the floor, I presented my case, but I did not attempt to convey a strong argument There vere no objections received by the Planning Commission from the public notice, and the staff nor any of the Comrris,sioners asked me any questions or made any objections to Ilia reasons I game for approval of the cedar shape roof and the 3' variance. This led me to believe that my cma vas indeed on solid ground. During the initial discussions, I received very complimentarj remarks about thie project from Commissioners Duch and Pines. I also thought that the rest of the Commissioners shared to thoughts comrrlunicated- by GucIcand Pines.-Hovarar, further in the discussion several minters re raised that I thinly should have been raised during the public hearing so I could address them- DR-864115 - Coidl. it S7 (1) A pic=e tin of m hove to shoe the calm vs pnsenled by staff indicaUng thal IAe roof in the picture w= asp t_ This picture happened to be taken in Georgia and the type of roof had no bearing on the colors and the fact that the roof eras aspahlt should not have been presented as a reason to require our house to have one. (2) The homse acr= the Mica is a Vaclr . and bas aa aspatd t roof_ A come vas made that o-r house might be considered a 'perm - d0 house and this migll be a reason for requiring an asipaMt roof _ Even though our house could be considered a period house, it doesn't follow that the roof should be asphhlt. Our house is definitely not a victonan and a home right around the corner on Lomita is the exact same style and it has a cedar shake roof. I ha d a p is ture _ shoving this Frith me at the meeting. (3) The basic aigmuni by the staff for requn-mg an - aspahlt roof was that most of the ezist mg dvieffings in tiw neighborhood have aspandt s files_ I presented at the meeting that there were other homes in the neighborhood that have cedar shake roofs. If you just count the houses on the same side of the street as our house between Lomita and Komira, four of the five are aspahlt and one is cedar shake.. Hovever, across the street on the block where the Victarian 'is, WD of the four houses have cedar shake and two have asphat " Atross'the street b�t%46h St.—ChArles;ahA Saratoga -Los Gatos Toad, theme are at ]east two sets of apartrn.ents and N70 condo projects, all with cedar shake roofs. There are some asphalt shingle roofs too but a majority have cedar shake. Amund on Lomita, out of 13 houses, only two have asphalt, the rest have cedar shake. - (4) Cedar shake is a standard, if not 11fliell standard, roofing material in Saratoga and there is nothing unusual about our roof; therefore, ve should be allowed to use cedar shake unless the staff has a substantial reason shy a cedar shake roof on our house vould violate any building requirements or integrity of the area. It is my belief that the whole style and sructum of the project Pill be an asset to both the. immediate area and Saratoga in general. V -86 -005 - T Side YwA Vana=e It is m} understanding that the basic mason for requiring 10 or mirdmum 6' setbacks is for safety and fire protection. Normally garages are not detached and the variances pretain to the main structure of the home itself. This is not true in this case. The variance application is for a detached garage that is being rebuilt and currently has a 3' variance. The property next to us on the side where the garage is located also has a detached game adjacent to ours and the drivevays are adjoining. I do not think the 6' variance requirement is applicable in our case. The 3' foot VKakice vould not be a fire hazaid nor would it present a safety hazard. I am also very concerned about the amount of usable yard ire mould have if a 6' variance is required. We are increasing the viii th of the garage by 3' , to 31' , in order to have a full two car garage. With the lot only being 50' vide, one will only have 17' of gable width (50- 21 -6 -6 =17) _ The ad d itional 3' that the 3' variance will give us, v ould g1 %T us 20' of usable width, which is still small, but a big impro-mment over 17' _ _ PUBLIC HEARING Continued Commissioner Harris proposed review of the application in study session if the applicant felt • that the size of the house could be reduced; Chairwoman Burger concurred. - Mr. Powell stated that of the 2894 sq. ft., 1766 sq. ft. is carport; within the building portion, including the garages, is 2718 sq. ft. In response to Commissioner Pines' question, Planner Caldwell stated that a carport is required parking and is therefore counted in the square footage. Chairwoman Burger summed up the consensus reached by the Commission, namely, that a study session was desirable to come to an agreement on a reduction of the square footage of the house and moving the house back 5 feet on the lot. This Item will be continued to the Study Session of October 14, 1986 and will be heard at the Public Hearing of October 22, 1986. — ° 7. DR -86 -015 James Gregory, request for design review approval of plans to allow the V -86 -005 construction of a second story addition to an existing single family residence at 14684 Oak Street in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. Also consider granting variance approval to allow a 3 ft. side yard setback for a detached garage where-6 ft. is required at the above address per Chapters 15 and 16 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia read "Report to Planning Commission" , dated September 10, 1986, and stated that Staff was unable to make the required Variance Findings. Commissioner Harris reported on the Site Visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:53 P.M. Mr. James Gregory, Applicant, stated that this application is a request for a major remodeling of the house to compliment the environment. The applicants have tried to achieve a single story - • appearance for the house; this explains the high pitch roof. He questioned the following Conditions of Approval: On Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval. DR -86 -015, 4. The existing garage, with a 3 ft. setback from the property line, is being torn down due to termite damage. The rebuilding of the garage will make it a two car garage and place the s[riicture further in and back on the loL The current 3 ft. setback was not intended to be changed. Pictures were presented to demonstrate a neighbor's garage that has the 3 ft. setback. The Applicant asked that the Variance be approved allowing the 3 ft. side yard setback. Mr. Gregory questioned comments made in the Staff Report and stated that from the point of view of attractiveness, the garage is better placed closer to the fence, rather then 6 feet removed. Neighbors on adjacent properties have no objection to the 3 ft. side setback. On 9, the Applicant questioned whether this condition is required on all new houses; he restated the fact that this application is for a remodeling of an existing house. While he has no objection to this Condition, he does not wish to be the exception to the rule. - On Technical Information and Staff Analysis Materials and Colors Proposed, the Applicant requested that cedar shake roofing be allowed on the house and the garage. Most of the homes which have not been remodeled, have asphalt shingles. Examples of homes with cedar roofing in adjacent areas were cited. Cedar roofing is more attractive and will enhance the house; according to a real estate agent an asphalt roof detracts from the aesthetic and financial value of the house. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to the above, The Chairwoman clarified for the Applicant that Condition 9 was due to the fact that the remodeling involved over 50% of the house. This was confirmed by the City Attorney. Commissioner Harris stated that on the land use visit, it was noted that the garage is being increased in size to the side and to the back. There is space available to allow for the additional 3 ft. bringing the side yard setback up to the 6 ft. requirement. Commissioner Guch noted that a 6 ft. side yard setback may make the turning radius in the driveway difficult to negotiate; the applicant concurred. The mature plantings on this property were noted. PINES /CALLANS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:00 P.M. Passed 6 -0 Planner Caldwell stated that in regard to the turn into the garage, the City Engineering Department was consulted; the additional 3 ft. will not made a significant difference. The garage can be located in conformity with Code Requirements and still be accessible. In regard to roofing materials, a photograph was presented to show asphalt shingles; the neighborhood, with the exception of recent condominiums, have asphalt shingles. In order to be compatible with the neighborhood, Staff feels that asphalt shingles be used as a design feature; the use of cedar shingles is out of character with the neighborhood. Commissioner Pines complimented the Applicant on' a beautifully designed remodeling of a house; he will accept the 3 ft. side yard setback of the garage and the use of cedar shingles on the roof. Commissioner Guch will also accept the 3 ft. side yard setback and questioned the purpose of the 6 ft. setback requirement. However, the Commissioner agrees with Staff recommendation on the materials to be used on the roof and stated that asphalt siding is in character with the neighborhood. Commissioner Harris noted that the Commission had the opportunity to require the setback standard in the zoning district; the buffer zone created by the setback is for fire protection and emergency access. Commissioner Callans concurred and urged the Commission to.require the 6 ft. setback. Chairwoman Burger stated that she will accept the proposed square footage; she favors the roofing material as recommended by Staff. The Chairwoman will accept the consensus of the Commission in regard to the side yard setback; she noted *that the use of the 6 ft. setback of the garage will off set the aesthetic view of the house. PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6-0. PINES /GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE DR -86 -015, EXHIBIT A, CONDITIONS 1 -3; CONDITION 3 TO READ, "THE APPLICANT SHALL MAINTAIN A 3 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE; CONDITIONS 4-11. Failed 3 -3, Comrissioners Harris, Callans, Tucker opposed. HARRIS /CALLANS MOVED TO APPROVE DR -86 -015, EXHIBIT A AS WRITTEN; Passed 4 -2, Commissioners Guch, Pines opposed. HARRIS/I'UCKER MOVED TO DENY V- 86-005 AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Passed 4 -2, Commissioners Guch, Pines opposed. 8. SDR -1629 Protiva, request for site and design review approvals and a lot line DR -86 -004 adjustment to allow the construction of a two story single family home at LL -86 -001 14458 Oak Pl., in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district as per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of September 24, 1986, at the request of the Applicant. , C C I T Y O F S A R A T 0 G A r. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 (468) 867 -3438 REDEIVED VAN ARSDALE.RALPH H ET AL 517/08/043 OCT O G 1986 14690 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 PLANNING DEPT. NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Council NOTICE'IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Depput City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set WEDNE�DAY, the 15th day of October, 1986, in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the' time and place for public hearing on: CAPPEAL-OF DENIAL OF VARIANCE FOR A 3 -FOOT SIDE SETBACK FOR A DETACHED GARAGE ERE 6 FT. IS REQUIRED AND APPEAL OF CONDITION 7 OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL UIRING AN "ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GLE FAMILY•'RESIDENCE AT 14684 OAK ST. IN THE R -1- 10,000 ZONING DISTRICT. R 86 -015, V 86 -005) (APPELLANT /APPLICANT, J. GREGORY) The meeting will begin at 7:.00 p.m. Public hearings will begin when that item is reached on the agenda, but no later than 8:00 P.M. A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearings is on file at the office of the Saratoga City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge the subject projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council Committee at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the City Council's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before October 9. CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk x N, moo- A'A. File No. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) } SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) ���• Gl/� being duly sworn, deposes and says: that he is a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of s; Lratoga City Council on the % tc,,"" day of �'u he deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, California, a 140TICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to -wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof. ) that said persons are the owners of property who are entitled to Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that the said persons and their said addresses are those shown on the Trost recent records of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day }here was regular eonmunication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. "�/O- - il'e,4 i o A TEXT CONSISTING OF: NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Council NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set WEDNESDAY, the 19th day of August, 1987, in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on: APPEAL OF DENIAL FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL TO ALLOW A 3 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A DETACHED GARAGE WHERE 6 FT. IS REQUIRED AT 14684 OAK STREET IN THE R- 1-10,000 ZONING DISTRICT (V-86- 005)(APPELLANT /APPLICANT, J. GREGORY) WAS MAILED TO THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS: FLANAGAN PAUL L AND FRANCES E TRU HERRING VIRGIL R AND EVELYN C TRU BLAIR HAROLD P AND HELEN GARRISON BARBARA TRUSTEE NARDIE ELIZABETH PALLA LOUISE PALLA LOUISE NARDIE ELIZABETH 1RWIN JOHN W AND MARY L TRUSTEE HILLBLOM WALTER AND CONNIE L BEHNKE FRANK ET AL STAUSS CHARLES J AND ELSBETH R BEHNKE CHARLES A AND DORIS K ET IRWIN JOHN W AND MARY L TRUSTEE LOMAS WOODROW E 2 AND TERR1 L HAINICH JEANNE A. SMITH ROY A AND MARGARET E SMITH MARY P ADAMS EARL AND MARCIA L COVELL GEORGE D JR AND ANN M CHRISTIAN LORRAINE WYRSCH GLORIA BURKET MARGUERITE M BARATTA-LORTON ROBERT ET AL BONN MATTHEW A ET AL SCHULTZ CLARENCE E AND CAROLYN BARRY GEORGE H AND LINDA L ANDERSON ARTHUR AND HAZEL M CAMERON ROY S AND HELEN M COOK JOHN J AND ALEDA L ALEXANDER JEANNETTE C SIMONS GEORGE T AND MILDRED B WALLOF MARION B ARIMA LONNIE D KENTERA BRUCE AND CHERYL ROSENUS ALAN H AND LINDA W PANETTA FRANK JR AND ANNE M THIBEAULT GEORGE F AND FLORENCE BLISS ADOLPH L JR AND ELIZABETH PRUZANSKY JAY D VAN ARSDALE RALPH H ET AL RENN DONALD 0 AND P R MC KENZIE GEORGE H 3 TAYLOR JENNIFER CUMMINS MICHAEL J AND DEBRA A WEST VALLEY MORTGAGE 888 BRANNAN ST APT 471 7977 WONDERLAND BL 20761 PAMELA WY 14721 06TH ST P O BOX 103 8350 RAINTREE AV 8350 RAINTREE AV P 0 BOX 103 13813 SARATOGA VISTA AV 15131 ALONDRA LN 5120 CAMPBELL AV PO BOX 1848 14655 OAK ST 13813 SARATOGA VISTA AV 14683 OAK ST 14701 OAK ST 14739 OAK ST 615 SAND DOLLAR LANE 14730 06TH ST 14710 06TH ST 437 LONDON ST 388 AVALON DR 14200 WOODVIEW LN 20626 KOMINA AV 20620 KOMINA AV SHELLY WILLIAMS ASSOCIATES INC 1073 SARATOGA AVE SUITE A 21225 SARATOGA HILLS RD 20574 KOMINA AV 20560 KOMINA AV 20550 KOMINA AV 20540 KOMINA AV 14755 ALOHA AV 14771 ALOHA AV 20601 LOMITA AV 20611 LOMITA AV 20621 LOMITA AV 20633 LOMITA AV 20645 LOMITA AV 20655 LOMITA AV 20665 LOMITA AV 14690 OAK ST 10119 WOODLEAF CL PO BOX 184 SHELLEY WILLIAMS ASSOC INC /PROPER1073 SARATOGA AVE SUITE A 14666 OAK ST SAN FRANCISCO CA REDDING CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA RIVERSIDE CA RIVERSIDE CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SAN JOSE CA LOS GATOS CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA WATSONVILLE CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SAN FRANCISCO CA S SAN FRANCISCO CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SAN JOSE CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA GRASS VALLEY CA SARATOGA CA SAN JOSE CA SARATOGA CA 503/25/008 503/25/025 517/07/010 517/07/019 517/08/001 517/08/002 517/08%003 517/08/004 517/08/008 517/08/009 517/08/010 517/08/011 517/08/012 517/08/016 517/08/017 517/08/018 517/08/019 517/08/020 517/08/021 517/08/022 517/08/023 517/08/024 517/08/025 517/08/026 517/08/027 517/08/028 517/08/029 517/08/030 517/08/031 517/08/032 517/08/033 517/08/034 517/08/035 517/08/036 517/08/037 517/08/038 517/08/039 517/08/040 517/08/041 517/08/042 517/08/043 517/08/044 517/08/045 517/08/046 517/08/047 HERNANDEZ GLADYS P ET AL 19641 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 517/08/048 BEHNKE CHARLES A SR AND DORIS K T 14655 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 517/08/049 ST CHARLES STREET INVESTORS 150 E CAMPBELL AVENUE STE 201 CAMPBELL CA 517/08/050 BEHNKE CHARLES A SR AND DORIS K T 14655 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 517/08/052 MORRISON DAVID J AND TERRI E 19590 JUNA LN SARATOGA CA 517/09/037 MORRISON DAVID J AND TERRI E 19590 JUNA LN SARATOGA CA 517/09/045 DEETZ ROBERT U ET AL 14613 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 517/09/051 PATRIDGE JOSEPH M AND VIRGINIA C 8327 EL PASEO GRANDE LA JOLLA CA 517/09/052 GLASS ORVILLE F AND JACQUELYN M _ 14110 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 517/09/053 LAVINE MAGDALENE 14607 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 517/09/054 FITZPATRICK JOSEPH A 14605 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 517/09/055 JENKINS PATRICIA M 14603 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 517/09/056 TYLER SAMUEL L AND RUTH M 13611 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 517/09/058 PURCELL MICHAEL E AND BARBARA L 20101 MENDELSOHN SARATOGA CA 517/09/059 MC KENZIE DONALD E AND BARBARA G 18680 VESSING RD SARATOGA CA 517/09/060 PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REALTY COMPANY CORP TAX H2O -12 PO BOX 2097 TERMINAL ANNEX BR 807LOS ANGELES CA 517/09/061 GEOFFROY EVELYN 0 20545 KOMINA AV SARATOGA CA 517/10/025 MUTH F A 20589 KOMINA AV SARATOGA CA 517/10/027 SARATOGA TENNIS CLUB PO BOX 202 SARATOGA CA 517/10/036 SCHAUB JACK G 3 AND KATHLEEN B E 14732 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 517/12/004 GURLEY GERALD L JR AND LYNNE L 14724 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 517/12/005 QUICKERT GENIEVA M 14700 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 517/12/006 DUNNETT ROBERT AND PAMELA 18510 BICKNELL RD MONTE SERENO CA 517/12/007 SIEVERS GERTRUDE 20660 LOMITA AV SARATOGA CA 517/12/008 HOPKINS JAMES H AND JANE F 20650 LOMITA AV SARATOGA CA 517/12/009 BOGOSIAN JEAN B TRUSTEE 20630 LOMITA AV SARATOGA CA 517/12/010 MCCHESNEY MICHAEL J AND SUSAN M 20620 LOMITA AV SARATOGA CA 517/12/011 SUDHOLT RICHARD H AND THERESA P 20610 LOMITA AV SARATOGA CA 517/12/012 HUNTER DENNIS A AND JILL S 20606 LOMITA AV SARATOGA CA 517/12/031 PRONGER NORMAN 20600 LOMITA AV SARATOGA CA 517/12/032 TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS NOTICED: 75 BILLING FOR THIS MAILING: $69.00 If !3 l � o 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gregory: We have received your application for an aDDeal of the denial of a variance for the garage setback from the side DrODerty line for 14684 Oak Street in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district: We have also received your check in the amount of- $100.00 for the aDDeal and noticing requirements. This matter has been set for the City Council meeting of August 19, 1987. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes for your presentation on this aDDeal. The hearing is "de novo," which means that any relevant issue for or against your aDDeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission and regardless of whether the Planning Commission approved the application. If you have substantive questions on your aDDeal, please contact the Planning Department; for Drocedural questions, you may contact me. Sincerely, i I - Grace E. Cory DeDuty City Clerk CC: Planning Department Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger August 3, 1987 Joyce Hlava David Moyles James and Shirley Gregory Donald Peterson 14684 Oak Street Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gregory: We have received your application for an aDDeal of the denial of a variance for the garage setback from the side DrODerty line for 14684 Oak Street in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district: We have also received your check in the amount of- $100.00 for the aDDeal and noticing requirements. This matter has been set for the City Council meeting of August 19, 1987. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes for your presentation on this aDDeal. The hearing is "de novo," which means that any relevant issue for or against your aDDeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission and regardless of whether the Planning Commission approved the application. If you have substantive questions on your aDDeal, please contact the Planning Department; for Drocedural questions, you may contact me. Sincerely, i I - Grace E. Cory DeDuty City Clerk CC: Planning Department File No. APN AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING �s tit as appellant on the above file and property knowwas IY6 ,(> % C hereby authorize Engineering Data Services to do the legal noticing on the above file. Date: Signature: v fi�'//V 51-7- — 0r*_ G cf V 1 ___2 Ll- Date Received: Hearing Date: Fee : 5�/ X50 CITY USE ONLI APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: a �' ��_� -� Address: Telephone: , -a _ 71'- 2- Name of Applicant: ' es Project File No.: V_ Project Address: _ v Project Description: Decision /Being Appealed: Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): * Appellant's Signature *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF HE DATE OF THE DEC SION. Y icy♦ City Council JUL 2 7 %j' City of Saratoga 13777 Fruityale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Reference: Y -86 -005, Gregory Variance Appeal 1115186 Dear Council Members: Thank you for reconsidering our appeal for a 3 foot set -back on our garage at 14684 Oak Street. As we stated in our letter dated June 24,1987, on November 5, 1986, we appealed the Planning Commission's denial. This was the second time we had appeared before the council. On October 21, 1986 the vote by the City Council was 2 -2, (Moyles absent). The vote on November 5th was also 2 -2 (Peterson absent). There didn't appear to be any strong objection by the council to the 3 foot variance. The problem seemed to be finding a physical difficulty with locating the garage 3 feet from the property line. Since November, two things have occurred. One, we have reviewed the wording of the requirement for finding physical difficulty. The warding states that the size and shape of the lot are to be considered, not just the topography. In our case, the lot is only 50 feet wide, and the garage will be over half way across the back yard if the 6 foot setback is required This presents a diffiiculty both with vehicles getting in and out of the garage and with landscaping the backyard to allow adequate space between the garage and the opposite property line (only 23 feet). The key word is "difficulty" not "impossibility ". Two, the house is now complete, and you can see how the garage will actually look in relation to the house and it is obvious that the garage should not be moved any further into the yard. We th i nk that it is very importa nt to co ns ider the overa I I project a nd not j ust the p hys ica I difficulty. In the final analysis, we all want to preserve the tradition and heritage of Saratoga without endangering either persons or property. All of this is accomplished with this project. We spent a lot of time and money to make sure it happened and we are especially proud of the results. We think the project sets an excellent example for future projects of this type. Requiring a 6 foot set -back would not help accomplish the desired results, and would, in fact, have a negative impact on the project. We thirds it you look at the project and consider all the factors, you will come to the same conclusion. We look forward to meeting with you on August 19,1987. r � NOTE TO NEWSPAPER- Please typeset text and photograph seal, which Jean Buscher has, centered above it. This is a complete, individual notice to be published August 5, 1987. NOTICE OF HEARING Before the City Council' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIUEN that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga. City Council, State of California, has set Wednesday, the 19th day of August, 1987, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on: 1. Appeal of denial for variance approval to allow a 3 ft. side yard setback for a detached garage where 6 ft. is required at 14684 Oak Street in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district (U -86 -005) (Appellant /applicant. J. Gregory) A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearings is on file at the office of the Saratoga City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. In order to be included in the City Council's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before August 13, 1987. . ' oa4 * 'I Grace E. Cory Deputy City Cler G L: L"/ "y 14 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 2 � _ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: _ Aucmust 19, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: BGNINEERING AGENDA ITEM L' CITY MGR. APPROVAL_ SUBJECT • Traffic Control at the Intersection of Toll Gate Road and Saratoga Heights Drive Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution No. MV establishing "Yield" and "Stop" intersection at Toll Gate Road and Saratoga Heights Drive. Repoft Summary: As a result of a request from concerned residents of the northerly. and Toll Gate Road, a review was conducted, taking into consideration the horizontal and vertical alignment and sight distance. In order to more clearly show the align- ment and properly assign right-of-way it is recommended that a double yellow centerline be placed on Toll Gate Road and its continuation onto Saratoga Heights Drive and placing a stop sign for southbound Toll Gate Road traffic along with yield signs on both approaches at the westerly channelization between the two roads. The Public Safety Commission supports this propo•Sa.l.. This intersection has not yet been accepted as a public street and the northerly extension -of foll Gate Road is a private road. Fiscal Impacts: $500± for installation of signs, markings and striping. This cost is to be passed on to the-developers of Tract No. 6628 and Tract No. 6665. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. MV 2. Sketch showing proposed intersection improvements. 3. Staff Report. Correspondence from residents. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. RESOLUTION NO. MV- RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING: "YIELD" INTERSECTIONS AT SOUTHWESTERLY BOUND TOLL GATE AND SARATOGA HEIGHTS DRIVE: NORTHEASTERLY BOUND SARATOGA HEIGHTS DRIVE AND TOLLGATE ROAD: "STOP" INTERSECTION AT SOUTHERLY BOUND TOLL GATE ROAD AND SARATOGA HEIGHTS DRIVE. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION I: The following intersections in the City of Saratoga are hereby designated as yield intersections: Name of Street' Description Toll Gate Road All vehicles traveling southwesterly bound on Toll Gate Road shall yield to traffic on Saratoga Heights before entering the intersection thereof. Saratoga Heights Drive All vehicles traveling northeasterly bound on Saratoga Heights Drive shall yield to traffic on Toll Gate Road before entering the intersection thereof. This section shall beccnie effective at such time as the proper signs.•and /or markings are installed. SECTION II: The following intersection in the City of Saratoga is hereby designated as a stop intersection: Name of Street Description Toll Gate Road All vehicles traveling south bound on Toll Gate Road shall stop before entering the intersection of Saratoga Heights Drive /southerly Toll Gate Road. This section shall become effective at such time as the proper signs and /or markings are installed. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular neeting held on the day of 1987 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: MAYOR Q-- .; s�,,� -. , a.v .sfi Via,. 1 .~ 3, '& r•' -s•� n _; _ -' �,..- -j, � - s. . f 1 4`- s,• ate. =rte' - i - - Y' •'' � .. j S ✓7 5 - C- � R39 / r Inrfo // Rg9 S 2 ARA TOGA HE16H TS pa,-701 27SL.F. -dub eY.0 ow wi 7-yoe.O MQ/ ,URI !/E 0 PO:I7 f I$ Le9er�d s b ��oii Rf - hitG Ins�a // we &014PN) , REMOVE R 39. and W /4- 4�t.�„ <ea/s•9hf a�J�P) 9- and - _ — ter---- -a A WA LE 'd l✓14 -4 J 4 IJJS�J �S �!S �O111R� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger August 13, 1987 Joyce H lava David Moyles To: Bob Shook, City Engineer Donald Peterson From: Community Services Director Subject: Request for Traffic Control at Tollgate and Saratoga Heights This is to inform you that the Public Safety Commission considered your request on the above referenced subject at their regular meetings on July 13 and again on August 10. After visiting the area in question, the Public Safety Commission decided unanimously to sunuort your staff recommendation in this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions. v , To W AArgow jm CC: Erman Dorsey - _- _- , -�9.179 o o ° 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SAR,ATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070,: �- e!%,- �' � kr�'• "' ,,�; „t .. c (408) 887 -3438 1117��q {� ,'C �;a:��^� : .. ti ,• , a .'c \ * T ,.: ..:: '.'.i +'i1 r.. ,, 7 ?t .t� ft • :'�.W?!�d �.��.' Vii: 'y - �. . , r At+ - • .. , MEMORANDUM i i t.. rata y_ wit; _ •r �, {ra', _ a' �.i1” r �;+•_ TO'-'.- Bob Shook -' City Engineer "Aug -`ust= 3•� �i987 DATE .. ' . FROM:: Todd W. Argowt - Community Services Director SUBJECT:�� parking in "*front of Village Post Office; '3` -Way 'Stop`'at Oak and ; -', Third•Streets; Stop at Toll Gate and Saratoga Heights -- -- t-- r+gk,J�P�t �_------ -- -- --------------------------------------- ---------- Fol owing is a summary of the Public Safety Commissi'on's actions on each' oft: the .,a'bove' referenced items as a result of their JLily' 'i3,• 1987.' meetings '4 ;4q.), Parking front of the Village Post Office Tlie:Commission voted to recommend the installation of 30° diagonal . parking in;front of the Post Office, and the installation of a curbside mail.col -lest "ion box located 30 feet westerly of the crosswalk line on Saratoga�'Avenue across the .street from the post office. The Commission also asked•' for staff's recommendation regarding the establishment of two 15 minute', parking spaces on the easterly side of Saratoga Avenue by the' post office. Since',the.•last meeting of the Commission, the Chairman has asked that'th.e".Gommi'9'sion reconsider its- position concerning the diagonal parkin'c}''Yn_ `front of the . post office at their August 10th meeting. Establishment of 3 -Way Stop at Oak and Third Streets The�3Comiriission continued this item to their August 10th meeting pending-•,':.re'ceipt. of responses from staff to the following questions: 1.' ThesCommission noted. that the "warrant process" used for determining whetliek,:or'not a stop sign is justified at an intersection was for a 4`'= wad *Ystop. The Commission wondered whether there was a different warrant,­.process in existence which would be used.involving 3 -way stops 2. The'Comifiission noted.that the traffic count used in the City Engineer's repo'rt�x was over'6 years old. During the- intervening•time a lot of new development_.had occurred in the area. The Commission wondered if there was. -`,any data on the subject'which was more current; or whether a new traffic,'•count.could be accomplished in the near future. Za1*f "a'.'S+''.r'�.I+�� �f u,:�e>a..• 1 '-i. r.L Ir'78^ .. 5: •tom. .e 1 . ,r,e. n. "., 'k7. 'n.:'a t, y., .. t 3. The, Conniission'wondered what the effect was. of the grades of the stre'et!§ approaching the subject intersection, and what effect that would haVd%on'.the criteria used by the Engineering staff to determine whe'the'­r,*8`r'not a traffic control device was needed: 41.` The':'�Coiinffil!ision w6hdered if there is a warrant t process which-could be use'd,-t ' 6 determine whethe'r'or not a "no left tuirn'l -traffic,coptrol modification., 'should be employed at an intersection; with the thought that'left:,tur.n turns from Third onto Oak might be prohibited.' 5. 'The`­ ommis ion requested that 'parking enforcement' activities 'along Third Str'eet.approaching the intersection be intensified. Stop-Si:gn at T611 Gate 'and Saratoga Heights The­dommls'si'on is considering the recommendation that a stop sign be installed on Saratoga Heights Drive for north -bound traffic only, located,where'�staff proposed installing a 20 MPH warning sign...The Commissiori..,pl.ans-on visiting the site and making a . final recommendation at their-August 10, 1987 meeting. Contact.the".,undersi'gned'if there are any que'stions. Todd W.-.-,,Ar. w.-.,,., TWA.:Ps cc: Publid.,,Safety Commission Ermah Dorsey, Traffic Techniciah� kl_ J-11 Mcr�iv ED JUL 2 4198 (;:'�INEERING nFr_ July 2,, _l987 Mr. Erman'R. Dorsey City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 Dear 'Mt "Dorsey; It was'a.-pleasure talking with you once again on Tuesday afternoon, July 21st. 'Itappears that the Saratoga Public Safety Commission agrees with your proposal, ` As the.:only�'three homeowners up the hill from the intersection on the *Toll 'Gate ,'private road, the undersigned agree with your proposed plan. We would.like•to see the plan installed exactly as it is drawn on the attached copy'that you originally designed. The only additional request we have is that some indication is given as you come up Toll Gate from Big Basin and as you come up Saratoga Heights from Pierce °that people should "slow to 20 MPH ". It is our feeling that coming up:•Tol-1 Gate to the intersection and coming up Saratoga Heights to the intersection that cars travel at a dangerous speed. We would like something'installed that would 'slow them'down.` We would- appreciate it if the city would take the necessary steps to install--.the intersection per your design immediately. Please advise. Sincerely;. Richard: eno 214.49-To11'tGate Road Saratoga; CA.'•.95070 r.. , • R6ber I Araldi " 21437 o1- .'',Gate Road Saratoga!; ;CA;:.. 95070 s Robert-t4 21432 Toll ",Gate• Road Saratoga;. CA.. 95070 I the 0 � Financial Group San Jose Agency Richard E. Geno, CLU, ChFC Agency Manager Colleen P. Baker, ADA Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company RECEIVED JUN 1-1 1957 r= kirlNEERINC3 DEPT. June 26; 1987 Mr: Erman Dorsey City'of Saratoga 13177,Fruitvale Drive Saratoga', CA. .95070 Dear Erman, It was a pleasure talking with you on.Monday, June 15th. Regarding the intersection, I think it'is important to safety that it be installed as soon-ae possible. .Please be advised that it is felt by'Bob Gibbs that a prorational share of 15/49 be charged to McBain and Gibbs while 34/49 be charged to Parna's.,,`- I would hope that'the city would have the authority to bill ,.these .two developers proportionally. Since the cost is $1,000 or less, I would hate to see a serious accident occur because this-intersection was delayed:,- Thank you very much for your help on this matter. incere ' , Richer" E. Geno, CLU,•ChFC, CFP :REGt.sw;:,s: f Ste., 200, 1042 W. ,Hedding, P.O. Box 6688 San Jose; CA 95150 (408) 244.3241 Home. Office Des Moines, Iowa 50309/Formerly The Bankers life° Qq 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 '�. (408) 887 -3438 ,"•• ME11 , RANDUM' TOt '•'pub'l`ic;: Safety Commiss DATE: June 9, 1987 FROM",., ".,City Engineer SUBJECT: -Traffic Control at the Intersection "'Toll Gate Road and Saratoga Heights Drive gyp. •3• .�` i *• - - -- - ------------ --------------------------------- -- ---- ---- _------------- - - - - -- ti ;'..Ihi January 1986, we were requested by Bob Gibbs, Developer of.Tract 6628 to review the above subject intersection for its safety. In February, 1986, -after analyzing this intersection, a sketch.showing '�:our,proposed recommendations along with a cover letter was sent to.' - t`. -Mt ;,Gibbs which constituted our approval for him to make the - improvement. ..(These•.streets at this intersection have not yet been accepted, and Tolil.Gate Road immediately.north of the intersection is a private road). The recommendation was to place a stop sign on the private Toll Gate Rd. f or traffic turning-left or southerly-onto the future- public,Toll Gate Rd.; =.''fnstallin ield.si signs for both accesses from and to the . g y g private Toll Gate J" •Rd onto and from Saratoga Heights Drive; placing double yellow traffic striping, and type D reflectorized markers to more clearly mark the align-' ,...ment,,on all approaches. �, At`:the.' 'present time none of these recommendations have been carried through,- "''and streets still -not accepted. of April of this year we received a letter from Richard Geno,' j a, =.,resident of the private portion of Toll Gate Rd. requesting a three -way stop at this intersection. Prior to this letter, Mr. Geno was informed `'ybyyE'rman Dorsey of our 'staff of the background and the recommendations. X�Otir re commendation:.is still the same as discussed above and shown on the ed sketch, .plus installing AW6 (20 MPH) warning signs at the approaches !'y .to ,.'�'he• crest, 'along with W 14 -4 sign ( "Limited Sight Distance" from Manual on Uniform Control Devices). We also still feel that these safety improve- ''f`' ment's;.tie made by the developers of Tract No. 6628 and Tract No. 6665. .�RSS /df... • a '� the FF7imanda/ G/O n San Jose Agency Principal Mutual Richard E. Geno, CLU„ ChFC Life Insurance Company. Agency Manager - Colleen P. Baker �ECcIVD Agency Office Administrator APO 3 Q 1987 April 28'; 1'987 ENGINEERING Mr. Erman R:-Dorsey Senior,Engineering Technician City of Saratoga 13777 Frui'vale Avenue Saratoga,..CA'95070 Dear Mr...Dorsey: It was :good'talking with you on Friday afternoon, April 24th. 'Thank you very much for providing a,copy of the intersection plan the city has put together at the 3-way intersection of Toll Gate Road and Saratoga Heights. Bob Gibbs• and Bob Araldi (current residents of Quail Ridge) and I are hereby requesting that the 3 -way stop sign be placed there. Saratoga Heights is a public street, and that portion of Toll Gate is also a public street. The private Road starts up the hill some distance If someone�is, killed or injured, we want it to be known that the City of Saratoga takes.full responsibility for not allowing" 3 stop signs to be placed at the meeting of these 3 roads. We would like to proceed with your plan immediately plus the' "slow to 20"-sign's at the proper location;•arid having both Toll Gate Road and Saratoga Heights marked with 25 miles per hour speed limits. However, we would like a letter officially'iridicating that the City of Saratoga takes responsibility for'any accidents -'.a - •inntersection that •could, have been-.avoided- by' having .a. 3 -way stop.. I will' be-' -i 6_iii g forward to hearing, from you. incer - I Richar E:;Geno,. CLU, ChFC, CFP REG- :.cbe' t. F , Suite 200, -1042 West Hedding, P.O. Box 6688, San Jose, CA 95150, (408) 244.3241 Home Office Des Moines, Iowa 50309/Formerly The Bankers Life° ti�hu U(n) (ak F i r_ 1'3777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA, 95070 Y (408) 887 -3438 Februa�yj`-�l l Mr B& "dibbs;• President. McBan' & Gibbs P.- Saratoga; .rCA.:'95010 Deai Bob We have4;revi6wed. your letter of Janua "ry ,7, 19x6 relative to traf'fi'c r ontrol. at the intersection .o.f• Tollgate' Road and jSaratoga Heights Drive n on . � the, encl'ose8. sketch: This le�ttir cbnstitute5 our .ap?rgval for -your :,in s of these�.sign.s and pavement mar},inq•5.. Than{ks`;yfor your interest in.this matter. 7 { VerytrulyL yours; a Dilrec,toroiGommunity Development `''r Yes, • it �� � �� #� ; r.;• ��•. ^' '�, 4 ' 4d� --�')ry FN��'��'4f�"4�� fir. " ,�'• r � , .. Enclosing • Y }�k y3Qwrj �yq.�ncK y ]/tom 4T �� � .F 1n • .aY7 "u0.3C.Ytr'e �r1..�3`��x _'•'L.N ^.'fft. ^ K. ". �:- .•,: 3.1..'_.', 'd� .. . .._ t!$.•°;}.. fu•�_:•m�1D�F.taa'L'k.5in_, °'.• 1 • .r q 4 _ 9 f • Q -" -'� - -. .tea'. S .. ..... - 1_.. 1.+.-a L�� - �H = ?_ ... -�l'Cy r^� .�> .y.. _. �r�- .- -A'C�1'- h _ � • �y • rY, ���..G •:� ,(•� „a'k c4• Fk�. �. •� ��� +� � '�. •--`? S '-r. r 1' 'S .. .s, .'�;:f- :r=- +�' --^0 1� �9 �a- �'.c'�- } �,,: >.Sf�u�4�•.0� _ ;Q_ s,F .tit - rr.�L a _-•-f 8 s,. �� .ti”: t, {•. - 3 1. ; tF.:'� i' - ?•,- .-Gtr. - s- - �'.`-�` _a - ".� �' �.t -. ii: °r.=• 'c:' w•h. f,''• - v ,F''`.`.- ...t,'- r,._ .r,Y :,•.: a -''•mac r i'` tr r r •-'' ? �; -+- s -.r ^� - - ,. ;„�42 - ,3;•iff '� .•-1t4 •!• -i :r'• -.. t.. :�� - _ f •. .r >' _ •'�= .s 't. -:t 'S. � •Lt v.4,;. `+ t ' -ru. �� ._ f . •.� i �, �i t _ i , J ..i�.��. �� t b `� c . N. �i-- 30 ARAT06A: T53 � T 4 � '� Pginf 2 -75 Z. 7 - Gbub a ye/ oiv wi Tyoc -QMQ/' �J `b DRI VE REMOVE �, _ - _. � - '._ ` - ., _, .. - T .� oft. -• i Q: H, ::s'�� {. �?�%`r: __ ./V � �r �i�`%M1./ ✓PL/1 /'��� CS ,. ,tz��}.r+jyT�f11 1 .•�� .J : - \ `�r \.VIII 41 q = 1 � 0C. 5-c� 4;;z� cts 1 t �� c�a�Y•k>>3�• API 1 . • , it 4. l wiG � 1 t 50 zf . ti _ _ � e �'E Y� .off rs ��, t - — j � • �' S ��• �� � �;� � .�� off- .� ° cstit�. - , `• . ; ,:.. ':r Gsi 1('�M \' 1t�7• .�ij �.(etf33 tA +; S ��yy •1h.+ �� _ For r \ n a J •�• ' � • {/'V — —' + v — \ � ' ' S ?!!mow a •+ � ; ! ` . z, ms`s r e.- • w ' -Y �.,�r��..Ul`pa�*. V'r vow • Yt 4� Y�+O1J 4�. teo 'Y7 �•�.� c!' fS� (/C/{..�1�C� v�"Y ?' V 1ivV��. -`'1� • 1 • t ���� }�� s� r :Y, `. _ _ (/'` 1. ,� , r • �kr••f �J��'— �C W — Val l ��,F , 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. � L7 MEETING DATE: 8 -18 -87 (8- 19 -87) ORIGINATING DEPT: -ENGINEERING, SUBJECT: AWARD CONTRACT FOR TYPE II SLURRY SEAL 1987 for CERTAIN CITY STREETS Recommended Motion: /60 3 �/ 0 3 a AGENDA ITEM L' F CITY MGR. APPROVAL Award contract for Type II Slurry Seal 1987 for Certain City Streets. Repoft Summary: The City received three bids on August 18, 1987 for above project. This project was approved in 1987 -1988 Capital Improvement Budget_ The lowest bid was GRAHAM CONTRACTORS, INC. of San Jose, with a total bid of $281,930.88. The Engineer's Estimate for this work was $294,454.81. • Fiscal Impacts: $281,930.88 General Fund. This project was approved in the 1987 -88 Capital Improvement Budget and is part of the Street Management Program: Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. Motion and Vote: Staff reccnriendatioh 5 -0-. (low bidder) Ch • - - 1�7i.�iii��.ia.7s [.iR.Pi • . ' - •- ..: Description w. �•- 11 I ®'1 1 I .. WIffs .' 1111 Asphaltic Bi nder' ��� ::• 1 1 .• 1 . • 1 •1 1 • . •1 1 : ' � 1 • . _ � - • 1 ; ®� I .. � ; I I/1i1.'7°7 : _ I 1 .l1!*.7� : . • . 1 1 / 1 1 . • I broken 1• I. 1 I lll�.l■ 1 1 1 MIMIN - 1 Paint : Solid Left •.- 1�1•� ®� e: 1/111617 • 1 1 s •11 11 1 1 11 - . �• - -. ��.11� [!�►.1.7 . 1 l�•1q e e : 1 11 1 I 1 lug• - u . . - �T:� i�i!� L�►1"� : / 1 . S.'�'TIl 111."�:T/1 . • . I i.7lll c I 1 1 • . __ . : ®® 1 1 1 1 1 1 :.:�1/I 1 1 I�� a 1 1 1 1 1 i � • 1 1 // a .k ..... ._•_ -o ® 0 . I.- C - •. • - • • 1 / 1 . / 1 .��RI] 1 1 Iwo I I _�- SIM IM m • • • I I I i _ .l : • I :: I I IM : • / m �-- IM m 7/D 3 a SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. /30 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: _ August 19, 1987 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: ,Emergency Alarm System - Saratoga Community Center Award contract to Crime Alert Alarm Company in the amount of $16,600.' Adopt Appropriation Resolution No. Repoft Summary: Bids opened August 18;: 1987. Two bids received. $16,600 Crime Alert Alarm Company. $18,500 Kelex Security. _ Fiscal Impacts: $16,600. Attachments: Staff Report; Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5-0. o , QT 0&MZUQ)0& REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 8 -18 -87 COUNCIL MEETING: 8-19 -87 SUBJECT: Bid Sunnary Conuunity Center Alarm System ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Bids were received and opened at 2:00 p.m. August 18, 1987. They were as follows: $16,600 Crime Alert Alarm Company $18,500 Kelex Security $20,000 Staff Estimate We have no experience with either contractor because we have never done any of this type of work before. However, his name was given to us by a consultant used by Saratoga Fire District and we, therefore, consider him credible. Therefore, I reccnmend Award of Contract to Grim Alert Coq:)any in the amount of $16,600. Shook y Engineer RSS /df PX �\ ll REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 8 -13 -87 COUNCIL MEETING: 8 -19 -87 SUBJECT: Senior Center Addition Attached is a copy of my July 17th memo to the City Manager concerning the construction of fire walls and installation of alarm system in the Ccnvunity Center. I believe you have already received a copy of it. I have approved a change order for the fire wall construction so that it could be included in and be completed under the current Senior Center Contract. That work is not to exceed change order of $23,000. The walls have essentially been completed but the special fire doors will be a few weeks arriving. The Contractor will have to return to install them. The alarm system is out to bid with opening scheduled for August 18th. We are anticipating a cost of $20,000 to $25,000. Attached is Resolution 2429 to appropriate the necessary funds. It should be noted that the construction of the new Senior Addition has triggered these items but the majority of the work concerns the already exist- ing structure. Sooner or later these facilities would have been required in this public assembly building even if no additional space were added. 0 Robert S- Shook City Engineer RSS /df Attachment Qe � O 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO FROM: SUBJECT: Harry Peacock, City Manager Robert Shook, City Enginee� DATE: July 17, 1987 The Senior Center Addition ----------------------------------------------- - - - - -- During their review of the addition to the Senior Center the Saratoga.,. Fire District determined that additional consideration would have to be given to fire suppression in this public assembly building. :At first,. they felt it would be necessary to sprinkle the entire building. Subse- quent discussions involving the architect,.Fire Chief, Senior Building Inspector and myself have resulted in a revised recommendation that appears to be-technically satisfactory and substantially less costly than sprinkling. The proposal is to provide the emergency alarm system throughout the'. building including heating detectors, smoke detectors and alarm apparatus with a tie -in to the early warning system of the Saratoga Fire District. In addition, the building will be ,.compartmentalized into.four areas utilizing existing and upgraded two -hour f irewalls. These would essentially be: 1) large auditorium and kitchen._ 2) the facilities on the original Community Center'. 3) the original Senior Center-Addition. 4) new day-care and kitchen facilities. We are asking the contractor building the addition to quote us .a price as a change -order to his contract for the two -hour wall.construction described above. I will need approval to advise for payments for the alarm system. The architect has provided me with plans, the Fire Chief has provided*me with.specifications for this system and-we can advertise as soon as we have approval. RSS /df RESOLUTION NO.'2429 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA - INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1988 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET WHEREAS, it has been recommended by the City Manager that the following transfer of appropriations and increase in the present budget appropriations be made: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of Saratoga adopted by Resolution 2429 be amended as follows: Transfer: $ from General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance to Senior Center Project to fund the Alarm System required to operate the facility. ORGN ACCT PROJ APPROPRIATION 9230 - 6740 - 0907 FUNDING 9010 - 5620 - Purpose: Provide funding for an Alarm System to be installed in the Community Center. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the day -of 1987 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk Mayor 4 O REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 8 -18 -87 COUNCIL MEETING: 8-19-87 SUBJECT: Bid Summary Community Center Alarm System Bids were received and opened at 2:00 p.m. August 18, 1987. They were as follows: $16,600 Crime Alert Alarm Company $18,500 Kelex Security $20,000 Staff Estimate We have no experience with either contractor because we have never done any of this type of work before. However, his name was given to us by a consultant used by Saratoga Fire District and we, therefore, consider him credible. Therefore, I reccamiend Award of Contract to Crime Alert Conpany in the amount of $16,600. Shook y Engineer RSS /df SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 13/U MEETING DATE: 8 -19 -87 , ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPT. SUBJECT: - Final Notice of Completion Overlay Certain City Streets 1987 Recommended Motion: AGENDA ITEM LI C-:7— CITY MGR. APPROVAL The work on above project has been satisfactorily completed and it is our .recomrendation that this work be accepted -and "Notice of Completion" filed. Report Summary: The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting on April 15, 1987, awarded . the contract'for the above project to PIAZZA Construction Company. The work on the project has been'satisfactorily completed and it is recommended'that this work be accepted. Fiscal Impacts': 1. Notice of Completion. 2. Progress Payment - total construction cost of $361,083.88.. Attachments: Motion and Vote: Staff recmuendation 5 -0. / . ` ' RECORDING REQUESTED BY | ' | AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO F __1 ~~ = =~ C SPACE ABOVE THIS uws FOR nscopoEns u,s------ � ~— TM AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO F __1 ~~ = =~ C SPACE ABOVE THIS uws FOR nscopoEns u,s------ upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said ................... That the narne..-.... and address ...... ofall the owner ...... of'said property are as follows: I am .......... [the agent of]* the owner ..... of the property described in the foregoing notice. I have read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge. Subse and sworn to before me this lete words in brackets if owner signs. LL CUSTOMER'S COPY 1•II0GI4L SS BILLING LICI-:NSE NO. 374786 l >IA 7.2A LUIJ:;ll?UCTIUN Cli. CUSIOMIR NUMB] It 4695 INVOlcl NUMBIR :1957 ., P.O. BOX 23550 INVOICI OAtl 7/31 /8-f SAN JOSE, CA 85153 OUR JOB NUMBIR 137010 _ PHONE (408)225.2033 YOUR ORUI R NUMBI R ` RISAII III NMIi NO - PROGRI SS BO UNC. NO 3 - SUBCONIRACIOR NO C I I Y 111 :.AWAI (.)(,A l SARA106A UVL.RLAY 13%77 I - ItUIIVAl_I_ AVI_ ,n 4AI0GA. (_!,. 9:,073 t .111.1 1.51 - 13 11) I•,1 11 RL V 1 C)U:, 1111!: ;S11 l 1110. 'I II -r)f 11. )al'•. -1) 1 ', C 1, 1 P 1. I I IN LINII UIJ 11121 Cl A1-OU141 1.11,411 t, !. ••iCU>tl ll:)I I A.V•:JONI U:.I TS A. Ml JUi:l 1 1 1 / %• iIV. IiLAY A /C: t,: b1.000 IN 30.900 194CIt::.9O 627!1It)2G 19.191. .h4 t,'- %'),It 1 iJ9 ?7.:,S i I AIit, I C. a4A'I ( "i ,U •. 00(1 SY .:100 34791 .00 6:,7bO.000 3: L:7!,. GO 7, ti,7:,0. CO t. 3 117!'.. 00 _ •Vf t!)1!'.. 1 11)13',.0::0 C.L 1.20U 229t,i.00 1b44cl.00'v Ii!i.J7.f1J 1n1!14 11.0(:C 16537. Ito •• .t1111t11t I AILll,•:1 ,I: ,1 ;:f 1 1 ..G619-0jj ':•1 1.800 46474.::0 :10411.000 v113�,.tic, ,,71411.LU: '-,I13V.b0 .. ••I 0I.A L_IJI 31 O,3i.000 I I .• +:i0 1709',.10 --3 D 111:1. 00 1tn)90. 1 -1.• 3C w, ;,,. I. 1 • • A /(: 1'JI_i.'LAY t4A(_IIIN: ?lII,.Li +1J 11'1 30.9no 9141,.4. U - 7'J::.UCtJ '.11 'If .4), ?1) f 1..0 "1 91110.40 111 30.')00 1!)7134. I co 1 0.7:.0 3:i,'. l t: - 11:.7:,1, J: . 1 7 1:1 Al :•I M /I) V-11-VI 11•177N011! N II,,; U.: t, I A 1110.000 :1h!sI,0.0 "1 1- ,9.000 iitb2G.C•: 1!,9.0"1: 0. CU 1 4• 11111 . YI I. L11'. 11N, : ?A09. OU0 1 ._IIIU %10. 7U :!.361.000 710.7:, :•3:,!7.001 /10.70 i•J t,•• 111 f%I I ANI 1 INN ?f.1rSh. t;'.�t I1 . }4 t ('13 G. 000 644.64 f:,I)I, C:) L. (..44.01, 11 4 r11a.K -; 1. lull!! L 1 14 1_1 .1::0 211 ?.7 - UL167.000 624.C1, 1,t)67.00 `J 1:74.04 1, It .,.,. 11) .;1f1'I• C,'-J7• or, O 1, 31'U 1'O'J.10 (IV 7.Dec .:Jb 1,97.UQt' - 209.10 .IAVI I"i N Vt.:: r: 1 1 t,:• 1 .LIO0 1 -�l t.i4 is 000 H4 t:. 00 1.000 131. is. CC, I.00L N4ty•UJ J+ 1'!•.11,11' I11 :3 C1tU :,:.ylnl -P V.O.)t` I UO.OUi. 3:10. 00 4.000, 320. (to 4.owl ?0. GU K .0J , I' n 1)0.00.: 400.OG 5.000 40(•.0.? OOU 43L.Ow Yl I_LIlV •I)• .l!Ai.NI It'. I or).; I A 4.000 '216!4.00_,71 .600 ? "r84.u0 !,71.0(10 i :!i's •i.00 . ?6.6JI,: I A b.000 Ibu.OU 26.00( 1b6.L0 7h. GOO 11,6.UG +.'III_ II P.A1:Kl w'. 1 17.000 I !, 4.000 460.30 117.00( 46y.00 11 7.000 468.UO 1Y111. '<.• I-1AIit, I N!, ii: . OZ., I A 4000 11B.'0C, 32.00U 12J!.CrC 3: .000 1;�U.00 :.L, 4 • yriUUt ULIt 1. 1 NI 1 1 80 17. U0 1 C,G..OUO 27.00 1'10.000 27.00 t 0,12: 11111 1 01 AL 37U .513.3. r16 356:583.90 3513.503. Ut3 1 .v {• 21UNIJL1 MLNIAI WORK - - CCU 1 1.000 L5 2500.000 2500.00 1.000 2500.00 1.000 1.500.00- CGRUU17 101 AL 2.500.00 2.500.00 2.500.00 Clll,l'l.141 Ill! AL :. 37J.C1tt3.tl'r ...LUO. h✓ 361 .C6.1.fiLi • • - _ L 1 b_. HI 'Ii tJ1 11170 , -I, t), CI) J PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE -NO SIATEAIENT WILL RE RENDERED. • A aerv.ce Chat r of 1•,4 I,e, month (annual .ale of 16%) or the rate aI.I.d Ih apphc.hie c -1,&Ct Nu! atlOrna, F ' fees and cmf , CMloct.nn will t+r Cha,ped ya+ and liayahte tot failure to U.v on the due date SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 13 0 MEETING DATE: September .2, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING , SUBJECT • Final Acceptance SDR -1602 Pike Road, Copenhagen Recommended Motion: AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL Grant "Final Acceptance" to the subject Building Site. Report Summary: The private emprovement for SDR -1602 has been satisfactorily completed. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: None. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. O � '�1EMOO f�ANDtIM 0EUT @2 §&M�&UQM& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works DATE. 8- 24 -8.7 SUBJECT: Tract SDR 1602 (Final Acceptance) Location: PIKE ROAD ------------------------------------------------- All improvements required of q SDR-1602 and agreed to in the Building Site Agreement dated August 6, 1986 have been satisfactorily completed. Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: THOMAS COPENHAGEN Address:— 14430 Pike Road, Saratoga 2. Improvement Security: Type: CASH AND SECURITY Amount:, $500.00, $4,500.00 ; Issuing Co.: Insurance Company of West Address: Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 3. Special Remarks: Cash Receipt #10518.0 Bond #135848 Please release Cash Bond of .$500.00. Rob �rtS. Shook RSS /dsm 10 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. � 2- MEETING DATE: August 19, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING C> S a AGENDA ITEM __4,T CITY MGR.'APPROVAL SUBJECT: Irrprovements of Tract 7499 and Release of Bonds Saratoga Creek, Saratoga /Sunn. /Herriman Ave.,.Osterlund Enterprises, Inc. Recommended Motion: Grant "Final Acceptance" to subject tract and release of bonds. Report Summary: The public improvements for subject tract have been satisfactorily cprrpleted and maintained for a one -year period. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: p Motion and Vote: Staff recorm-tendatioh 5 =0. �1E�!VI(i)KANf�)l �I TO: FROM: SUBJECT OTTE 90 §&UM%0n)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARA'I'OGA. CALIFORNIA 05070 (10£3) 867 -3438 Finance Department City Engineer DATE: August 27, 1987 Bond Release for: Tract 7499 -.Osterlund Enterprises The work guaranteed by the bond listed below has been satisfactorily completed. I am, therefore, requesting that bond be released as follows: 1. Bond Type: CASH BON 2. Amount: $10,000.00 3. ecei Bond or certificate no.: 08324 4. Date Posted: 9 -23 -85 5. Bond posted by: Osterlund Enterprises 6. Work guaranteed: street Illmrovement 7. Account Number: 21 -2110 Issue Bond release to: Name: Osterlund Ent rises Address: 985 University Ave. #30 Los Gatos, CA. 95030 Robert S. Shook City Engineer OFFICIAL RECEIPT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 PHONE: (408) 807 -3438 TJi li c -r `7-�- _ J DATE "1'­ 19 S— RECEIVED FROM r ADDRESS % _SS_c. ••2 FOR: AMOUNT: FOR: AMOUNT: PLAN CHECK FEES 21 -3510 $ APPEALS 21 -3565 $ CONSTRUCTION OTHER DEVEL- TAX 21 -3030 $ OPMENT FEES 21 -3549 BUSINESS DESIGN REVIEW $ LICENSE TAX 21 -3090 $ APPLICATION FEES 21 -3540 $ BUILDING PERMITS 21 -3500 $ EIR REVIEW FEES 21 -3547 $ PLUMBING CENTRAL PLAN/ PERMITS 21 -3501 $ REZONING FEE 21 -3548 $ ELECTRIC PERMITS 21 -3502 $ FINAL MAP REVIEW 21 -3513 $ MECHANICAL SUBDIVISION PARK PERMITS 21 -3503 $ DEDICATION FEES 55 -3550 $ 5 ' crC' • C/ GRADING STORM DRAIN PERMITS 21 -3504 $ FEE 87 -3551 $ Z, [�.r +(,• �7 PunLIC HEARiNGiEIRS/ DEPOSIT SULTiNu DEPOSITS 21 -2100 $ IMPROVEMENT FEE 21 -3560 $ REFUNDABLE CALABAZAS FIRE DEPOSITS 21 -2110 $ 16),,r2> PROTECTION FEE 21 -3561 $ SUBDIVISION SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW FEES 21 -3511 $ FEE 21 -3562 $ BUILDING SITE SALE OF MAPS/ REVIEW FEES 21 -3512 $ PUBLICATIONS 21 -3700 $ VARIANCE APPLICA- TION FEES 21 -3520 $ XEROXING 214800 - 250 -20 $ COND. USE PERMITS APPLICATION FEES 21 -3521 $ ENGINEERING & $ INSPECTION FEES 21 -3530 $ APPLICATION NO. OR ADDRESS OF PROJECT: / �l/ f Li �_,;.� /�• �/ i_G_ •� S� ' TOTAL: $ G N o. 0 "8 3 2 4 / UARCO Businuss Forms RECEIVED BY ��� i� r// �' �� DEPT' _,rl_,,.L__ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: August 19, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGTNppgTNC; SUBJECT: Final. Building Site Approval SDR 1630 Pierce Road, Linda K. Dolan 5-3o 3J' AGENDA ITEM J,r-- CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution No. 1630 -02 attached, approving Final Building Site and authorize execution of building site agreement. Repoft Summary: 1. SDR 1630.is ready for Final Approval. 2. All requirements for city and other departments have been- c upleted.. --- 3. All bonds and.agreements -have been submitted to the city. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 1630 -02, 2.. Resolution approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. Motion and Vote: Staff recmu endation 5-0. RESOLUTION NO. 1630 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION l: The 1.182 acres parcel shown on record of survey prepared by John Kevin Fisher and submitted to the 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, SDR- 1630 -1 .RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF ANDREW CARTER AND LINDA DOLAN, APN 503 -16 -31 13184 PIERCE ROAD WHEREAS,'application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and un- der the Subdivision Ordinance'of the* City of Saratogal'for tenta- tive map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of ' 1 .lots, all as more particularly set forth in File. No'. S,r)R =1ti10 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and im -- provement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed'subdivision and land -use is compatible with the objectives, policies and.gen- eral land use and programs specified in such General•Phan, refer- ence to the Staff Report dated September 10, 1986 being hereby made for further particulars, and : WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the (Categorical Exemption) .(EIR) (Negative Declaration) prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of.CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approved should be' granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map*is dated the 17 day of ,Ay -, 19 86 and is marked Exhibit B '``In the hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same is ere by con- ditionally approved. The conditions of said approval areas more particularly set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated here- in by reference. .,-'The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted. by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 10th day of September , 19 86 , at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ADVISORY AGENCY ABSENTc By: Chairman, =anning COmmiSsion ATTEST Secretary, Planning Conunissiori 0074 L F EXHIBIT A 1630 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. DPEt"IFICCONDITIONS_- ENGINEERING DIVISIO 1. The applicant shall submit a written agreement to the conditions and the project as approved within 30 days of.the adoption of the resolution or this resolution is void. 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 easements, as'' required. S. Convey- storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse; as approved by the City Engineer. 6. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 -inch aggregate . base from Pierce Road to south edge of panhandle portion'of the lot. 7. Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and. roadside ditches. 8. -Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius.or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 -inch aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. 9. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by the City Engineer. 10. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions -of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. -11. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard, or prevent'flow. 12. Obtain encroachment permit from the Engineering Division for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City street. 13. Engineered Improvement Plans required for access road construction. 14. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. 1S. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. II. Specific Conditions - Santa Clara County Health Department 1 1. A sanitary connection wi1.1 be required. Z. Domestic water supply shall be supplied by San Jose Water Company.\ III. Specific Conditions - Central Fire District 1. Provide for an approved fire-truck turnaround that.is within 150 ft. of all portions of the exterior. walls of the first story of any building, or provide for an approved residential type sprinkler system' through -out, including any attached garage or carport. IV. Specific Conditions - P G &E 1. Provide a 10, easement to accomodate existing pole line. V. Specific Conditions - Santa Clara Valley Water District 1. Applicant shall, prior to final map approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review, certification and registration. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date 0075 SDR -1630, DR -86 -021 CARTER /DOLAN Building Site and Design Review Approvals, 8/27/86, 9/10/86 Location: 13184 Pierce Rd. L o c A-r /60 �© SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: )3/4 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 19, 1987 CITY MGR APPROVAL _4AeA= ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maintenance y �Mweo Reccnmiended Motions Approve purchase of two medium sized Chevrolet S -10 pickup trucks as budgeted. Report S The 1987/88 Fiscal Year Budget includes funds for several vehicles scheduled for replacement and an additional vehicle for the new Public Works Inspector. Since he would need transportation immediately, it was essential we purchase a vehicle as soon as possible. The City Engineer believed that a medium -size pickup would best fill the inspector's needs. Upon receiving his request, the Street Supervisor contacted other public agencies and found none with wham we could "piggy back" on any of their bids. We then contacted car dealers to obtain informal bids for a vehicle which would meet our minimum specifications. We soon found that all American autamobile manufacturers were in the process of re- tooling for next year's models, and that very few medium -sized pickups were available at this time. Most available models were loaded with all conceivable extras. We contacted approximately 20 dealers and received only quotations on 4 vehicles which were not loaded with options. After canparing quotes, we determined that Billings Chevrolet of San Jose was offering the best vehicle for the best price (two nearly identical white Chevrolet S -10 pickups at $10,060.14 each, including sales tax). We felt it would be prudent to purchase both of them at this time. The second one would replace the 2 -door Toyota sedan which is used by one of the Builiding Inspectors. We are requesting Council approve the purchase after the fact, since we were unable to hold the vehicles and needed one of them by July 28, 1987. The warrant authorization is included in tonight's check register. Fiscal In►pact $10,000 is in the budget for the Public Works Inspector's vehicle, $9,000 is in the budget for the Building Inspector's replacement vehicle. Although we did not trade in the 2 -door Toyota at this time, it will be declared surplus and sold at public auction in the near future. The money it brings in will more than make up the $1,000+ budget shortage we have with this double purchase. Attachments Motion & vote Staff rendation 5 -0. Div 3 -D SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL -- / EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: � 3 AGENDA ITEM � � MEETING, DATE: August 19, 1987 CITY MGR APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maintenance SUBJECT: RESTORATION OF ALLEY BETWEEN POST OFFICE & FIRE STATION RecaTmended Motions Authorize staff to restore the traveled portion of the alley to a safe and serviceable condition.' R_ eport Summary In response to attached letter of July 16, 1987 fran Charles Mirrione, Postmaster of the Saratoga Post. Office, staff has reviewed the status of the alley between the Village Station Post Office and the Saratoga Fire Station on Saratoga Avenue and has determined the following: 1. The alley is long established as it is shown on the original Tract map of the area. 2. Upon incorporation of the City, the information transmitted by the County indicated that the alley was never accepted by the County and was thus considered a private street. 3. Since the City's incorporation, the City has taken the position that the alley is private and has not performed maintenance on it. 4. When the Post Office was constructed in the early 1960's the developer was required to make certain improvements to the alley. 5. It appears that no maintenance activity has been done to the alley since that time. Some tripping hazard exists. 6. The alley is heavily traveled by the public who use the Post Office. Because the alley is in such poor condition and since the general conception of the public is that it is a _public street, it is staff's recommendation that the City restore the traveled portion of the alley to a safe and serviceable condition. By our act of maintenance, the alley will become an. ongoing City responsibility. We do not propose to repair the parking areas which are contiguous to the alley. Staff will contact the Post Office and Fire Department to inform them of their responsibility to maintain the parking areas. Fiscal. Impact We estimate canplete restoration of the traveled portion of the alley could be accanplished by City crews for approximately $7,000, including direct and indirect labor cost, equipment, and materials. We would schedule our crews to do the work this fall. Attachments i July 16, 987 letter from Charles Mirrione, Postmaster, Saratoga Post Office. Motion &. Vote Directed .City Attorney to determine owner of property and report back. ANTES POSTq. + N Y Z XS .L m JU United States CITY MANAGER Postal Service i July 16, 1987 P3 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue SARATOGA. CA 95070 Dear Council Members: I would like to request that the city resurface the dedicated I Alley 'Way between the Village Station Post .Office and the Central Fire District Station on Saratoga Avenue. This Alley is in desperate need of 'resurfacing. According to the maps in the Planning Commission Office this alley is the responsi- bility of the city.. Please keep me informed of the status of this request. Sincerely, �4 Charles Mirrione Postmaster SARATOGA CA 95070 -9998 867 -3086 " ' SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO._' 1 6)(0 MEETING DATE: August 1.9, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning SUBJECT: Report on senior housing AGENDA ITEM: Lf CITY MGR., APPROVAL­tl� Recommended Motion: That the City Council accept.the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission and decide whether or not to hold a public hearing on this item. Report Summary: One of the "to do" items resulting from the City Council's FY86 -87 policy development retreat was an analysis of potentiaT'.s.enio.r housing sites in Saratoga. Planning staff pr -pared a comprehen_si've report on senior housing for the Planning Commission to review. The Commission reviewed the report at four meetings, recommended revisions to incorporate both public and Commission input, and adopted the report with recommendations to the Council. In brief, the Commission believes that the issue- of identifying potential, senior housing sites must be considered within the context of the City's adopted General Plan, and that Land Use and Housing Goals and Policies regarding the protection of the low- densi.ty',singl;e= family residential quality of Saratoga should be reaffirmed,. The Commission has identified two sites that are currently zoned and designated.by the General Plan to allow for higher density senior housing development:-the Paul Masson site on Saratoga Avenue and a 9.7 acre P -A zoned .parcel directly across Saratoga Avenue from the Masson site. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments,: 1) Memo from Planning Director 2) Report on senior housing 3) Minutes from Planning Commission meetings of June 24, June 30, ' July 14 and July 22. Motion and Vote: Endorsed report and f il6d (no public'hearng). tl OTTE 0 0&MV_&XQX5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: REPORT ON SENIOR HOUSING DATE: August 3, 1987 BACKGROUND One of the "to do" items resulting from the City Council's FY86- 87 policy development retreat was an analysis of potential senior housing sites in Saratoga. This task was assigned to the Planning Department. To accomplish this work task, planning staff prepared a comprehensive report on senior housing for the Planning Commission to review. The report contains extensive background material, including demographic information, a discussion of a questionnaire on senior housing needs /preferences distributed earlier this year, a brief history of senior housing issues and an analysis of the City's existing regulations relating to senior housing. A discussion on the identification of potential sites completes the report. The Planning Commission reviewed the report at four meetings (two regular meetings and two Committee -of- the -Whole study sessions), the minutes of which are attached. Staff was directed to make revisions to the report to incorporate both public and Commission input and concerns. The attached report incorporates all of the suggested revisions. Plannin& Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission believes that the issue of identifying potential senior housing sites in Saratoga must be considered within the context of the City's adopted General Plan. The Commission has evaluated the potential for senior housing throughout the City and has determined that most of the remaining vacant parcels in the flat areas of the City are either in agricultural use under Williamson Act contract or located in R -1 districts. Such parcels cannot be considered for senior housing development because of their location in or proximity to established single - family residential neighborhoods, their R -1 or A zoning and General Plan designation, and their location in planning areas which have specific policies restricting such development. The Commission's recommendations regarding this issue are as follows: 1) The Planning Commission reaffirms the following land use and housing goals and policies in the Saratoga General Plan regarding the protection of single - family residential neighborhoods: GOALS: LU.8.0 AND H.6.0 Affirm that the predominantly a detached residences. City shall continue to be community of single - family H.2.0 Maintain and enhance the character, quality, and livability of the city's residential neighborhoods. POLICIES: LU•.8.1 AND H_.6.1 Existing non - developed sites zoned single - family residential should remain so designated. H.2.6 Maintain the general low- density character of existing single - family residential areas. 2) Sites that are suitable for higher density senior housing developments in Saratoga are currently zoned and designated by the General Plan to allow for such use. The Planning Commission has identified two such sites, the Paul Masson site on Saratoga Avenue and a 9.7 acre P -A zoned parcel directly across Saratoga Avenue from the Masson site. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council accept the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission and decide whether or not to conduct a public hearing on this issue. YUCHUEK HSIA PLANNING DIRECTOR Attachments: 1) Report on senior housing 2) Minutes from Planning Commission meetings of June 24, June 30, July 14 and July 22. .ANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1NE 24, 1987 JBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Page 2 DR -87 -062 J. Lohr Properties, 19606 Via Escuel'a, request for design review approval to allow construction of a new 3,772 sq. ft. single story home in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. -------- - - - - -- ----------- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------- - - - - -- JRGER /TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT ,LENDAR. Passed 5 -0. 7. Senior Housing - City of Saratoga, consider report prepared by Planning Staff and recommendations City Council regarding senior housing issues in Saratoga. The report updates the 1977 Senior Housing Task Force Report, makes recommendations regarding potential sites for senior housing, design and location standards and possible code amendments. ------------------------------------- - - - - -- _ ------------------------------------------------- _ Planning Director Hsia presented Report to the Planning Commission, dated June 19, 1987. Chairwoman Harris noted concern regarding any change to the General Plan which would be required in order to implement the Report; the City Attorney outlined necessary procedures in order to implement any change. Commissioner Burger added chat the report was prepared at the request of die City Council, and was not a policy statement. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:22 P.M. Col. E.T. Barco, 19101 Camino Barco, addressed the following points: Noted his personal and professional interest in -the housing issue - Senior citizen housing was, in fact, multiple housing Site criteria as stated in the Report was misleading and incomplete Only Site 2 would have met criteria established by a private group seeking sites for senior citizen centers A hearing at this time was premature with insufficient notice being given to the public Allowing senior citizen housing in single family, residential neighborhoods was in gross violation of the General Plan and contrary to principles upon which the City was founded The public hearing needed to. be continued to allow adequate Lime for review Mr. Bob Swanson, 19305 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, stated that with regard to Site 2, residents felt strongly that this area should be reconfirmed as a R- 1- 40,000 zoning district; residents were surprised and concerned by the Staff Report on Senior Housing. Mr. Guenther Machol, Ronnie Way, Saratoga, raised the following concerns: Questioned the validity of the survey upon which the Staff Report was based - Did the survey measure need or did it measure desire i - Noted the lack of information on income levels and qualifying age to be considered a senior citizen raised the question of what ass being measured in the survey? Noted the conflict with the General Plan Housing Element Asked that R -1 zoning be eliminated from consideration of sites for. senior housing. Ms. Margaret Russell, 12776 Saratoga Glen Ct., Saratoga, strongly opposed identifying sites ! for senior citizen housing in R -1 districts; such thwarted the intent of the General Plan. She suggested the following considerations before intensifying land use in R -1 zoning: goals and policy statements in 1983 General Plan, area plan guidelines and the 1984 Housing Element. Ms. Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, Saratoga, recalled the history of the 1979 and 1984 Housing Element and felt that the Report was in violation of the goals and policies encompassed in the current General Plan. She noted efforts to maintain and protect the low density of residential neighborhoods. Site 5 in particular, should be described as being bordered by single family residential on three sides rather than on only one. '.ti a1 ,y) 1004 kNNiNG COMMISSION MEETING 1E 24, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 3 Mr. Jerry Lohr, 18755 1vlontewood Dr., Saratoga, suggested consideration of the fact that there were three times the number of seniors than there were when the issue of senior housing was first discussed. While the Commission needed to listen to the request that there be no senior housing in single family, detached residential areas, he noted that the Report was the most comprehensive he had seen. He suggested identification of smaller sites for location of a senior center. Mr. Bert Toevs, Chairman, Housing Committee, Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, commended the Staff Report; he viewed such as a subject for consideration by the Community. MrL,he Rihard Drake, Saratoga, commended the Staff for an outstanding piece of work; he stated service would be done without full consideration of senior citizen issues. He noted ing complexion and needs of the City of Sarat oga. s reached by the Commission to continue this item to a Study Session on June 30th continued Public Hearing being held on July 22, 1987.. Request made by the ioners [o receive copies of the 1977 Task Force Re o�rt for review. c Hearing remained open. Mr. Philip Boyce requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 3, SD -86 -005; he reviewed the background of the property in question and noted his concern regarding the proposed subdivision. He added that the geological soil on this site may be unbuildable and noted the lack of conditions regulating runoff from the Creek. TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO RECONSIDER SD -86 -005. Passed 3 -2, Commissioners Guch and Burger opposed. 3. SD -86 -005 Levine, 20950 Verde Vista Ln., request for tentative map approval for a two -lot subdivision of a partially developed 3.83 acre site located at 20950 Verde Vista Ln., in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, June 24, 1987. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:17 P.M. Ms. Eleanor Levine, Applicant, noted a correction to the Stuff Report. that there was no greenhouse on the property and stated that the driveway was only for use by property owners and the house to the east. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby, Project Civil Engineer, noted that the lot split was designed in accordance with City ordinances; the Applicant would have no objection to standard conditions of.Public Works Department to control the drainage from the proposed building sites. Ms. Hazel Anderson, 20972 Sara Hills Dr., Saratoga, was opposed to the granting of a variance for this property. She noted assurances received that the area would not be further developed and added that the development would be built on fill land. Mr. Philip Boyce reiterated the seriousness of the geological issue and asked that the Commission address at some time in the future, the issue of division and subdivision of properties. The City Attorney noted that the there was no restriction placed on the property when sub- divided seventeen years ago which would prevent further subdivision. GUCH/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:27 P.M. Passed 5 -0. BURGER/GUCH MOVED APPROVAL OF SD -86 -005 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 5 -0. CITY OF SARATOGA,PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE- Tuesday, June 30, 1987 - 7 =00 p.m. PLACE= Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE- Committee -of- the -Whole -------------------------------------------=--------------- - - - - -- The meeting was called•to order at 7 -05 p.m. Present- Commissioners Harris, Guch, Burger, Tucker, Clay, Siegfried Staff - Planning Director Hsia, Associate Planner Young Other - Approximately 15 members of the public I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSIO A. Saratoga Senior Housing Report - review and evaluate report prepared by Planning Staff ' regarding senior housing issues in Saratoga and make recommendations to the City Council. Planning Director Hsia gave a brief introduction to the report, stating that it was prepared in response to a City Council request for an analysis of potential senior housing sites in Saratoga. Chair Harris stated that it was the Commission's job to review and evaluate the report, make changes if necessary and prepare a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the report needs to reflect the individual planning area concerns about this issue and focus on only those sites that really have potential for senior housing. There was consensus to go through each section, with a brief summary provided by Planner Young, and allow public input during the discussion. History Section - Commissioner Siegfried expressed concern that this section was lacking a discussion of issues that were brought, up during the General Plan preparation.- and individual planning area policies. C.'Machol, Ronnie Way, distributed excerpts from the 1984 Housing Element and General Plan development guidelines for area L CKentfield> stating that the policies did not support the development of senior housing on vacant R -1 sites. Commissioner Tucker was concerned that General Plan policies other than those specifically addressing senior housing be included and discussed. Chair Harris concurred and noted that the questionnaire that was sent out when the General Plan was 1 Planning Commission Committee -of- the -Whole Minutes 6/30/87 being done contained a question on senior housing; she would like to see the responses to that question discussed in the report. Demoaraahic section - There was discussion on the use of age 55 rather than 60 to define senior citizen. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the realistic age for when seniors moue is 70 -75. A member of the public expressed his concern that the number of respondents to the recent questionnaire was small in relation to the total number of seniors, and that policy changes should not be based on such a small sample. There was consensus among the Commission that the population projections for seniors should be changed from'age 55 to 60. R. Beverett, 19597 Uia Monte, suggested that the age 55 data be included as important background information for the Council. Existing Facilities section - C. Machol asked that the number'of condominiums figure be updated. There was discussion on the figures showing senior facilities in other communities, and a suggestion that the Saratoga data be included in these figures. Commission felt that there needed to be a statement about the purpose of the figures, that they were not necessarily for comparison purposes, but just to provide background data. Bob Swanson, 19305 Crisp Rue., noted that in comparing the number of Saratoga facilities to those in other communities, Saratoga has quite a few. In response to a question from Commissioner Siegfried, Planner Young noted the-sources and dates of the data. The Commission asked that this information be provided in the report, and that the federally subsidized units be so noted. Existing Regulations section - C. Machol asked if the City of Saratoga was still involved financially with the;Saratoga Court project. Staff will research and report back. Assessment of Needs section - Planner Young gave a brief background on the purpose and development of the questionnaire. Bert Toevs, 14345 Saratoga Avenue, gave information on membership of .SRSCC. U. Young noted that incomplete questionnaires and questionnaires from persons not residing in Saratoga' were not counted in the tabulated results. The Commission noted that one of the strongest responses was that. - most seniors preferred to stay in their own homes for as long as possible. 2 Planning Commission Committee -of- the -Whole Minutes G/30/87 Location Guidelines and Site Identification section - Planning Director Hsia summarized the criteria and how the sites were identified. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the list of sites does not reflect planning area concerns. Commissioner Burger stated that the list was part of the report from Staff and that the Commission needs to refine it to reflect Commission and public input. C. Machol expressed concern about the list getting into the Housing Element and General Plan. There was discussion on the format and content of the report and recommendations to be forwarded to the City Council. Planning Director Hsia said that the Council would get a copy of the staff report along with the Comoi55ion's recommendations regarding its content. Chair Harris felt that the.staff' report should be revised to reflect the concerns expressed tonight, and that the Council shouldn't get two reports, one from staff and one from the Commission. Commissioner Guch concurred and noted that the report should reflect the General Plan history and neighborhood concerns. Commissioner Clay expressed concern that the list of potential sites not be left out of the report so that if the issue came up again in the future this history would be available. C. Machol stated that the issue of identifying multi - family housing sites was addressed in the 1981 Housing Element by identifying the 31 acres of commercially -zoned property which would allow higher density residential development. Chair Harris recommended that all but two of the sites (Paul Masson site and the P =R zoned parcel across from it on Saratoga Avenue> be deleted from the report. All of the other parcels are in the R -1 or R zoning category and should not be considered. The Commission concurred, and stated that the other sites should not be specifically mentioned, but that there should just be a general statement that all potential sites were reviewed and only two are recommended. Issues section - The Commission directed that this section be changed to reflect the decision on the sites. The Commission then continued this item to the July 19, 1987 Committee-of- the -Whole study session, directing staff to make the revisions to the staff report as noted. 3 Planning Commission Committee -of- the -Whole Minutes II. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at-8 :50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ualerie Yo ng Associate lanner UY /dsc 4 6/30/87 Planning Commission Committee -of- the -Whole Minutes 7/11/87 The Chair then asked for input from citizens present. Betty Rowe, Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, expressed concern about building any home at all on the lot, since it is substandard in size. This concern was reiterated by another neighbor present. After additional discussion, the Commissioners agreed that although the overall design, footprint and height were appropriate, the size of the home should be further reduced by at least 200 sq. ft. The applicant indicated that the reduction could be accomplished by reducing the size of the garage and first floor areas, but no further reduction of the 2nd floor would be possible. The Commissioners agreed that this would be acceptable. They also directed the applicant to reverse the layout of the home so that the garage and front porch are on the south Cleft) rather than the north <right) side of the building. The Commissioners also directed staff to investigate further the safety of the proposed front driveway /parking area. The item will be before the Commission again at the August 12 regular meeting. The applicant will submit revised plans to staff for review by July 29th. ----------------------------------------------------------------- B. Senior housing - review report to City Council on senior housing. Planner Young briefed the Commission on the revisions to the report. Commissioner Tucker recommended changing the title to "Report on Senior Housing in Saratoga" and suggested adding sub - headings to the history section. She also suggested deleting the location guidelines part on page 12, just keeping the summary of Planning Commission recommendations; and suggested keeping the recommendations regarding the City's commitment to other senior - related programs in the report. Commissioner Burger recommended that page 12 be reduced to a few statements about General Plan policy and the two sites. Planning Director Hsia suggested dividing page 12 into two sections, location guidelines and Commission recommendations. The Commission agreed and also directed that the cover memo to the City Council contain a summary of the Commission's recommendations. Commissioner Clay expressed concern about quantifying the need for senior housing units. He felt the background information in the report did not lend support to a need for senior housing. Commissioner Siegfried concurred, stating that the material was informative but not important to the Commission's deliberations on the issue. Ki Planning Commission Committee -of -the -Whole Minutes 7t�4t87 C. Machol, Ronnie Way, expressed her opinion that the location guidelines should be deleted from the report. She felt that two _ additional Housing policies (H.2.0 and H.2.6) should be added to page 3, and that these and the Land Use policies should be listed individually instead of buried in a paragraph. The Commission concurred. 8. Toevs, Saratoga Avenue, expressed gratitude for the Commission's attention to this issue, but stated the Commission had not really addressed the Council's directive to identify all potential sites. C. Machol suggested the Commission have a study session on the report with the Council. Chair Harris stated she would discuss the matter with the Mayor. II. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8 =45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �0,6 as W" Ualerie Youn Associate Planner UYtdsc 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 JULY 22, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:28 P.M. Passed 5 -0. Commissioner Burger noted there was no transition between retail /commercial and residential use and added that old did not necessary equate with historical; in this case, she did not feel that this structure was of historical significance and was not favorable to incorporation of this home into the proposed development Commissioner Guch was not favorable to intensifying commercial use on site. Commissioner Burger concurred that a small commercial building would meet the needs of a transitional use and stated that this proposal would accomplish such a transition. Both Commissioners favored a reduction in the height proposed. Commissioner Tucker understood that the three story height was allowed to the rear of the property, where visual impact would be lessened. Commissioner Clay noted that his concerns were: - Automobile traffic crossing the pedestrian walkways - Questions regarding the historic preservation of this building; he suggested a compromise of incorporating the design elements of the present structure in the new building Commissioner Siegfried favored this proposal and added that the requested 33 ft. structure was 100 ft. removed from the street. The structure proposed was less impactful on adjacent properties than a single, large commercial structure to the front of the property. Commissioner Guch noted reservations regarding the 33 ft. height; in addition, she asked that the parking requirements be reviewed Chairwoman Harris expressed concern regarding the plainness of the design for the commercial building; Ms. Fanelli responded that Victorian style design elements would be added. With regard to building height, a.change in the roof style would lower the height 2 -3 ft; however, such would probably be insignificant and the Victorian flavor would be lost. Chairwoman Harris summarized the concerns of the Commission; Planner Caldwell stated that if the Commission did not wish to retain the existing structure on the property, Staff suggested a Condition of Approval be added, to read, 'Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the Marsh - Metzger residence, the Applicant will document the structure by submitting photographs and a floor plan to the Secretary of the Heritage Preservation Commission for inclusion into their resource inventory." GUCH /CLAY MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON UP -87 -011 AND DR -87 -052 TO AUGUST 26, 1987, WITH A STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 4, 1987. Passed 6 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 11. City of Saratoga Saratoga Senior Housing Report, review report of Senior Housing issues in Saratoga and make recommendations to the City Council. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Young reviewed the Memorandum of July 16, 1987, and noted that a cover letter had been drafted for signature by the Director of Planning to be forwarded to the City Council. The Commission was asked to review both the Report which had incorporated the changes requested and the cover letter. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:56 P.M. Ms. Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, Saratoga, cited differences in text between the cover letter and the Report; consensus reached that text be identical. She asked that Area L be included in maps and read the following statement into the record; Housing Element, Section 34, Governmental Constraints, "Another vital consideration is the desire to keep densities low to maintain neighborhood character. Allowing higher densities on inftll parcels create incompatible uses when they are substantially surrounded by low density single family development. One of the major reasons Saratoga incorporated in 1956 was to preserve its low density character." PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 JULY 22, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planner Young noted that Area L had not been separated out in survey responses; consensus reached that Area L be added to the map with a notation clarifying the lack of survey responses. Commissioner Siegfried suggested that on Draft Cover Memo, Background, be expanded to include the first full paragraph in Recommendations. Mr. Andy Beverett, 19597 Via Monte Dr., Saratoga, complimented Planner Young for the Report presented and the Commission for retaining substantial portions of the original Report. He added his concern regarding wording in Senior Housing Sites. 2, statement was incompatible with the social, economic and demographic trends in Saratoga, namely, the aging of its population. He asked that further consideration be given to possible sites. Ms. Peggy Corr, President, Saratoga Senior Coordinating Council, concurred with Mr. Beverett and noted disappointment at the elimination of sites from consideration. She asked that the Commission consider any proposal which might have potential. SIEGFRIED/I'UCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:11 P.M. Passed 6 -0., Commissioner Siegfried suggested that efforts be concentrated on sites currently zoned and designated for higher density use; such would relieve pressure on residents who live near other sites previously considered for senior, multi- density use. The Planning Commission could encourage development of the two sites already designated for this use. Commissioner Tucker noted previous consideration that Appendix B, Government Funding Sources Related to Senior Housing be deleted; consensus reached to retain Appendix B. In the Memorandum, Recommendations regarding the City's involvement in other programs designated to help seniors, consensus reached to retain the first two recommendations on the grounds that they were issues of concern to the Planning Commission and to delete the third recommendation on the grounds that this was a political consideration more appropriately decided by the Council. Recommendations retained to be added to Existing Zoning Regulations relating to Senior Housing in Saratoga. BURG ER /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REPORT ON SENIOR HOUSING. Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Siegfried absent at 9:17 P.M. Break: 9:17 - 9:34 P.M. 12. DR -87 -047 Leverett, 13946 Damon Ln., request for design review approval for a 6,016 sq. ft. two -story single family dwelling in the NHR zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, dated July 22, 1987, and noted that Staff could not made the Finding that the natural landscape was being preserved; therefore, Staff recommended denial without prejudice. Chairwoman Harris reviewed decisions made on adjacent homes and noted concern regarding the height, size and color proposed in this Application. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:40 P.M. Mr. Randell Leverett, Applicant, deferred to the architect on the project. Mr. Don Mariano, Architect, noted that the only issue cited in the Staff Report was the excessive grading; he stated that grading would be done to create a building pad on a very steep site. He reviewed altematives previously considered by the Applicants. REPORT ON SENIOR H0USIN6•IN SARATOGA HISTORY OF SENIOR HOUSING ISSUES IN SARATO6A Senior Citizen-Housing Task Force In 1975, the City Council appointed a seven- member Senior Housing Task Force to study the issue of senior housing needs in Saratoga. After two years of study, the Task Force produced the Senior Citizen Housing Needs Analysis Report (SCHNAR) in January, 1977. The report addressed six related senior housing issues and was intended to serve as a planning basis for the City Council and Planning Commission in addressing the housing needs of Saratoga senior citizens. The Task Force based its report on a variety of data sources, including a comprehensive senior housing questionnaire. A summary of the Task Force recommendations is provided below: a 1. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow senior housing in all zoning classifications. 2. Use HCD funds to landbank City -owned properties for future use as senior sites.. 3. Develop guidelines to be utilized in the development of senior citizen housing. The guidelines should include location criteria and site development standards which may need to be more relaxed than normal residential standards to address senior housing needs. 4. Amend the General Plan and Housing Element to address three related issues: I a. Include �olicies dealing specifically with senior citizen housing needs. b. Establish a yearly inventory, assessment and monitoring process on the status of senior housing. C. Allow 2000 -3000 sq. ft. /unit density standard for senior citizen housing (15 -20 units /acre). 5. Generally encourage the development of senior citizen housing. 6. Develop programs designed to permit seniors to remain in their current housing. 7. Investigate methods of property tax relief. 8. Explore possibilities for the development of volunteer senior citizens service groups. 9. Develop a senior citizens service and resource brochure. Pg. 1 10. Explore the use of school property adjacent to E1 Quito Park as a neighborhood senior center. 11. Consider annexation of properties that could adequately support senior citizen housing. Implementation of Task Force Recommendations In the ten years since completion of the Report, the implementation of those recommendations which relate specifically to housing has been as follows. In 1976, during the preparation period of the Report, a zoning code amendment was under consideration which would have allowed senior housing as a conditional use in all R -1 districts. That amendment was put on hold until after the Task Force report was completed and has not been considered since then. Also in 1976, the City Council adopted a condominium conversion ordinance (Article 14 -75 of the City Code) to protect the few apartment rentals remaining in the City. Conversion of rental apartments to condominiums is allowed only when the apartment vacancy rate is greater than 3%. After the Task,Force report was adopted in 1977, the Council then adopted an ordinance creating the "Planned Residential Development" process. The intent of the process was to allow greater flexibility in development standards for residential projects and a density bonus for projects specifically designed as senior citizen housing. The density bonus allowed a unit increase of 25% beyond the ordinance limit for the zoning district. Saratoga Parkside, a 72 -unit senior condominium /rental project, was approved under the PRD ordinance. The PRD regulations were deleted from the new City Code when it was adopted in January, 1986. The issue of property tax relief was addressed in 1978 when Proposition 13 became effective, initiating property tax increases when real estate sold from one party to.another. In terms of its impact on seniors, Proposition 13 has had both p-;O'sitive and negative effects. If seniors stay in their own homes, theyt are protected from large annual property tax increases. However, if they/ wish or need to buy smaller residences, they may experience significant tax increases which may either prohibit them from moving or severely limit their choice of housing. There is currently a bill pending at the State level (AB60, see Appendix D) which would provide same relief from new property tax assessments for persons over 55 who change residences. General Plan Issues During the preparation of the 1981 -83 General Plan, the issue of senior housing generated a significant amount of discussion. The City was divided into 12 planning area neighborhoods and a questionnaire regarding general city issues was distributed. Question #1 related specifically to housing and was worded as follows: "What positions should Saratoga take on housing alternatives? (multi -unit, condominiums, subsidized, senior citizen, higher density, etc.)." V, In response to this question, there was clear support city -wide for the continuation of single - family detached residential development and that undeveloped sites zoned R -1 should remain so designated. In terms of higher density and senior housing, three planning areas (A, L and G) rejected the concept of condominium development in their areas. Condos and rentals were acceptable in the Village area, and Area F supported condos only for senior citizens. Areas favorable to senior citizen housing were the Village and Area F, while Area L opposed it. The adopted Land Use Element of the General Plan affirms the City's desire to continue to be predominantly a community of single - family detached residences with the following goal and policy. Goal: LU.8.0 - Affirm that the City shall continue to be predominantly a community of single - family detached residences. Policy: LU.8.1 - Existing non - developed sites zoned single- family detached residential should remain so designated. In addition, four of the City's planning areas have development policies restricting future development in those areas to single - family detached residential: Area 8 - Congress Springs /Pierce Road Policy 1: All development of vacant sites within this area shall be limited to single- family detached residential and conform to the density of the surrounding residential area. Area G - Fruitvale -Sobev Road Policy 1: The General Map shall be.modified to limit the future institutional. use of the Odd Fellows property to those portions of the property already used for quasi - public facilities, the remainder of the p,roperty shall be designated Very Low Density Residential (R -1- 40 , 000) . Area H - Fruitvale West Policy 1: Future development in the Fruitvale West area shall be limited to single family detached residential uses.. Areas of more than one unit per acre shall be confined to the west side of Wildcat Creek and its major tributary. Policy 8: Vacant residential parcels shall be developed as single family residential at the same density as the surrounding residential area. Area L - Kentfiel.d Policy 1: Future development in the Kentfield area shall be limited to single - family detached residential zoning. PD zoning, condominiums, townhouses or apartments shall not be permitted in this planning area. 3 Policy 2: Future development of the adjoining parcels (15.1 acres) at the southeast corner of Saratoga and Fruitvale Avenues shall be limited to low- density single- family detached residential (R -1- 20 , 000) . 1984 Housing Element Senior housing and the identification of potential higher density residential sites was again discussed when the City's Housing Element was updated in 1983 -84. The City reaffirmed its commitment to continuing to be a single - family residential community by adopting the above- mentioned Land Use goal and policy (LU.8.0 and LU.8.1) as a Housing goal and policy (H.6.0 and H.6.1). and by the following additional goal and policy: Goal: H.2.0 - Maintain and enhance the character, quality and livability of the City's residential neighborhoods. Policy: H.2.6 — Maintain the general low - density character of existing single- family residential areas. However, in recognition of the special housing needs of seniors, the City also adopted the following related policies: H.1.1 The City shall recognize the changing housing needs of Saratoga residents. H.1.2 The City should encourage private development of a residential stock which will promote opportunities for housing for Saratoga senior citizens. H.1.4 The City shall cooperate with the efforts of the County, non- profit groups, and the private sector to provide help to individuals to continue living in and maintaining their homes. H.1.8 The Cilty shall consider a second unit ordinance. H.2.7 Continue present City policies not to preclude the sharing of existing housing. H.2.8 Continue City efforts to preserve all existing Section 8 rental units for seniors. Instead of identifying specific sites where affordable housing might be provided, the Housing Element addresses this issue by stating that there are 31 acres of commercial land in the City that could be used for multi- family housing upon receipt of a use permit. These commercial lands could provide some of the City's low to moderate housing needs. Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council In 1979, the City Council designated the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) as the local organization responsible for planning, coordinating and delivering services for senior citizens in the Saratoga area. SASCC currently has about 700 -800 members and sponsors numerous 4 committees. They have two housing committees; one focuses on legislation and has provided significant input in the last 5 years on the second unit issue. The other, established in early 1986, has been focusing on bringing a continuing care retirement facility to Saratoga, particularly to the Paul Masson winery site on Saratoga Avenue. The committee did a survey in the March, 1986 Saratogan to determine the level of interest in the construction of a continuing care retirement center in Saratoga. Although the survey did not generate a significant number of responses, there was an indication of support for such a facility. Two recent senior - related housing issues include the second unit and P -D ordinances. These regulations are discussed more fully in the section on zoning regulations relating to senior housing in Saratoga. GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Between 1970 and 1980, the segment of the U.S. population over age 55 grew from 20.1 to 25.5 million, an increase of approximately 28 percent. Projections show that this group will continue to grow in the future, more than doubling in size nationally from 1977 to 2035. The growth of• Saratoga's senior population is reflective of the national trend. 'In 1975, Saratoga seniors (over age 60) represented 8.9% of the total population. By 1980, . they represented over 12.5% of the total. A variety of factors, as discussed below, will probably increase the Saratoga senior population to about 20% of the total by the year 2005. Saratoga's population growth has been and will continue to be slow. From 1975 -80, Saratoga grew by only .4 %; from 1980 -85, the growth rate was 1.5%. Because of the dwindling supply of developable land and because most of the developable land is designated for large -lot single - family residences, Saratoga's population growth is expected to peak in 1995.and stabilize at 31,200 by 2005. i:- Saratoga isla residentially stable community. In 1980, 64% of the Saratoga population over age 5 lived in the same housing unit as 1975, and 93% of the population lived in owner- occupied units. Only 10% of the housing stock was renter - occupied in 1980. Saratoga schools (all levels) have been experiencing consistent declining enrollments since the mid - 1970'5. Not only are married couples having fewer children but couples of child- bearing age (18 -40) are finding it increasingly difficult to move into Saratoga's high - priced housing market. In 1975 there were 3.48 persons per household in Saratoga. By 1980, that figure had dropped to 3.10, and by 2005 the figure is projected to be 2.77. It is a known fact that people now live longer and will continue to do so. Because women will continue to outlive men by 5 -15 years, a large component of the senior population will continue to be made up of single women. 5 Slow population growth, relative residential stability, declining school enrollments, and increasing survival rates all contribute to and are indicative of an "aging" population in Saratoga. Figure 1 shows the total Saratoga population by age and sex in 1980. Figure 2 shows the senior population trend to the year 2005. Figure 1 - Saratoga Population by Ane and Sex (SO.URCE: 1980 U.S. Census) Age Groups Male Female Total Percent of Total 0 -09 1433 1339 2772 9.4 10 -19 3501 3313 6814 23.3 20 -29 1404 1215 2619 9.0 30 -44 2966 3580 6546 22.4 45 -54 2471 2422 4893 16.7 5S -59 1018 950 1968 6.7 60 -64 662 S84 1246 4.3 6S+ 885 1518 2403 8.2 TOTAL 14,340 14,921 29,261 100.0 Figure 2 - Senior Population Projections for Saratoga (SOURCE: ABAG, Department of Population, Saratoga Planning Department) Total Population (- Percent change from previous period 3 Senior Population over age 60 Percent of total population Projected 1980 1990 1995 2005 29 ,261 31,400 31,500 31,200 +0.38% +7.3% +0.32% -0.64% 3,849 6 ,21 7 G,332 6,084 12.5% 19.8% 20.1% 19.5% The projected total population figures for 1990, 1995 and 2005 are provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and are based on Saratoga's plans, policies and regulations affecting the use of land. The figures represent an upper bound and include the population living in the City's Sphere of Influence. The projected senior population figures for 1990, 1995 and 2005 are based on applying the City's overall growth rate percentages to the percentage of seniors in the total population. It is important to emphasize here that these projections are largely based on the premise that trends established in the past will continue into the future, and that the senior population growth in Saratoga will be reflective" of the City's overall population trends. The figures are, at best, an approximation and should by no means be looked at as absolute amounts. They are intended to give the Planning Commission and City Council an indication of the growth of Saratoga's senior population, and should be verified and updated when 1990 Census data becomes available. 0 EXISTING SENIOR HOUSING /CARE FACILITIES IN SARATOGA Senior housing facilities in Saratoga can be divided into two general categories - independent living (single - family detached residence, condominium, rental apartment), and residential care facilities where some medical care and a common dining area are normally provided. Although the majority of seniors in Saratoga live in detached single family residences., there is a significant number living in rental apartments and condominiums. In 1982, there were 263 rental units in Saratoga, 193(73%) of which were rented to seniors; this figure includes the 150 units at Fellowship plaza and the 20 units at Saratoga Court. In 1981, there were 683 condominiums, 323 (47 %) of which were occupied by seniors. There has been no rental apartment construction since 1981, but the number of condominiums has increased to 707 (as of September, 1986); Staff is currently conducting a survey to update the senior occupancy of these units. Figure 3 shows existing senior housing /care facilities in Saratoga. Additional information regarding senior facilities in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area is provided in Figures 4, 5, and G. Figure 4 shows the State- licensed'• senior residential care facilities in Santa Clara County cities. Figure 5 shows continuing care facilities in the Bay Area, and Figure 6 lists federally subsidized senior only housing projects in local Santa Clara County cities. This information is provided as background material only and is not intended to be used for comparison purposes. Definitions of the types of senior housing shown in these figures and discussed in this report are provided in Appendix A. Figure 3 - Existinq Senior Housina /Care Facilities in Saratooa (SOURCE: Saratoga Planning Dept.., 1987) Type of # of Units or Zoning Facility Location Resident Population District 1. Independent LiLing a. Saratoga Court 18855 Cox Ave. 20 apts. R -1- 10,000 (government subsidized) residents R -1- 40,000 b. b. Saratoga Parkside 1,8949 Sara Park Cir. 48 condos 130 rooms 24 apts. R -1- 10,000 72 total units resident's c. Fellowship Plaza 14500 Fruitvale Ave. 150 apts. R- 1- 40,000 (government subsidized) 85 residents R -1- 10,000 2. Residential Care a. Notre Dame Villa 14800 Bohlman Rd. 29 residents R -1- 40,000 b. Odd Fellows Home 14500 Fruitvale Ave. 130 rooms R -1- 40,000 219 resident's c. Our Lady of Fatima 20400 Saratoga -Los 85 residents R -1- 10,000 Gatos Rd. d. Paradise Garden 13397 Sousa Ln. 6 residents R- 1- 10,000 e. Saratoga Place 18611 Sousa Ln. 25 residents R- 1- 10,000 f. Tender Loving Care 12066 Carol Ln. 4 residents R -1- 10,000 7 Figure 4 — Senior Residential Care Facilities in Santa Clara County (SOURCE: State Dept. of Social Services, 1987) Capacity City # of Facilities (# of Persons) Campbell 7 207 Cupertino 3 24 Gilroy 3 18 Los Altos 3 132 Los Gatos 16 307 Milpitas 7 34 Morgan Hill 4 33 Mountain View 14 180 Palo Alto 5 32 San Jose 159 1,245 San Martin 1 21 Santa Clara 11 55 Saratoga 6 368 Sunnyvale 11 69 Fiqure 5 - C_ontinuing Care Facilities in the SF Bav Area (SOURCE.: National Continuing Care. Directory, 1964) 8 #Independent # Skilled Nursing/ City Name Living Units Personal Care Beds /Rooms Carmel Carmel Valley Manor 167 52 Cupertino Sunny View Lutheran Home 70 121 Greenbrae The Tamalpais 280 52 Los Altos PilgriK-Haven 86 84 Los Gatos Los Gatlos Meadows 173 39 The Terraces (under const.) 185 118 Oakland Grand Lake Gardens 103 —0— Lake Park Retirement 258 86 Residence Piedmont Gardens 252 154 Saint Paul's Towers 286 43 Pacific Canterbury Woods 154 33 Grove Forest Hill Manor 98 62 Palo Alto Channing House 227 46 Portola Valley The Sequoias 2.32 66 San The Heritage 85 54 Francisco The Sequoias 300 60 San Rafael Aldersly 88 13 8 Figure 6 - Federally Subsidized Senior -Only Housing Projects in Santa Clara County (SOURCE: Santa Clara County Information and Referral Services, 1986) City # of Projects Total # of Units Campbell 3 4S8 Cupertino 1 100 Gilroy 3 191 Los Gatos 1 107 Mountain View 2 298 Palo Alto 4 272 San Jose 12 1,431 Santa Clara 1 .100 Saratoga 2 170 Sunnyvale 3 298 EXISTING ZONING REGULATIONS RELATING TO SENIOR HOUSING IN SARATOGA Except for the MU -PD district adopted in 1986, "senior housing" is not specifically called out as a principally permitted or conditional use in any other zoning district. There are, however, two senior - related uses that are specifically defined and allowed by City Code. Institutional facilities (defined in Section 15- 06.380) and nursing homes (defined in Section 15- 06.470) are both permitted with a conditional use permit in the A, R -1, HC -RD, NHR, R -M and P -A zoning districts. Institutional facilities are further permitted in the C -N, C -C, and C -V zones. The MU -PD district was developed specifically for the Paul Masson site on Saratoga Avenue and allows senior housing on up to 50% of the site at a density of 20 units per acre; this densilty figure incorporates the 2S% density bonus required by State law for projects devoted to senior and /or low- moderate income persons. The parking requirement for senior housing developments is 1.S spaces per unit, with an additional requirement that half of the spaces be covered. The IOOF (Oddfellows) facility off Fruitvale Avenue was originally established in 1912 as a residential care and nursing home for the elderly. It operated as a legal non - conforming use until 1958, when it was granted a use permit by the City to allow for expansion and to operate as a conditional use in the R -1 zoning district. In 1977, a 150 -unit Section 8/202 apartment project was approved at the site, and was also processed with a use permit, consistent with past actions by the City. The density of the apartment project, which is located on a parcel of approximately 13 acres, is 11 units /acre. The Saratoga Court project on Cox Avenue was also processed with a use permit, with "senior housing" being deemed by the Council at the time as an acceptable and appropriate conditional use in the P -A zone. This 20 -unit, Section 8 project was approved in 1975 with a density of 15 units /acre; the site is approximately 1.3 acres. The project is currently owned by the Midpeninsula Housing Coalition, who intends to keep it as senior housing for as long as possible. 9 The Saratoga Parkside project on Saratoga Avenue is a condominium /apartment subdivision, and was processed under the Planned Residential Development (PRO) permit to allow the developer to tale advantage of the 25% density bonus. The 72 -unit project (48 condos, 24 apartments) was approved in 1979 at a density of 17 units /acre; the site is approximately 4.2 acres. The entire project is age- restricted to persons over age 55 for 20 years, with the rental units restricted as rentals for 10 years. Each year the developer files a written report with the City, certifying that the units are occupied by seniors and indicating the monthly rate for the rentals. The current rental rates are $670 - $695 /mo, for a 1 bedroom /1 bath unit and `900- $1050/mo. for a 2- bedroom /2 bath unit. The City of Saratoga adopted a second unit ordinance in July, 1984. The ordinance specifies that either the second unit or the main dwelling be occupied by a person 60 years of age or older or by a person who is physically handicapped. Although there was a proposed amendment in 1986 to remove the age restriction, the amendment was denied. Since the ordinance was adopted, 20 second unit use permit applications have been processed. Two have been denied. The second unit ordinance does not preclude individuals from house - sharing, provided the residence only has one kitchen facility. Other zoning regulations that might be used for the development of senior housing are those associated with the P -C (Planned Community) District (Article 15 -16 of the City Code). The purpose of the P -C district is to allow for planned residential developments which may have the underlying district regulations pertaining to site frontage, width and depth, site coverage, front - side -rear yards, and distances between structures relaxed in the interest of creating common open space areas and a more "livable" environment. The P -C district is a combininn district that can be used with the R -1 and R -M districts; the zone change process is used to combine the districts. The P -C district allows single and multi - family dwellings and ancillary uses such as recreational centers, social halls, restaurants, medical centers and other related facilities. The density of development is prescribed by thelunderlying zone. In addition to zoning regulations relating to senior housing, the City of Saratoga operates a housing rehabilitation loan program with CDBG funds (SHARP) that has enabled many seniors to make needed repairs to their homes. A total of 46 loans have been issued since the program began in 1978, with 25 of the loans (54% of the total) going to persons age 55 or older. Of these 25 loans, 12 went to individual women and 13 went to married couples. A list of government funding sources for senior housing is provided in Appendix B. The Planning Commission believes that more seniors should be encouraged to participate in the SHARP program through outreach and education, and that the owners of the three existing senior housing projects (Saratoga Parkside, Saratoga Court, Fellowship Plaza) should be encouraged to retain those projects for seniors for as long as possible. 10 1987 SENIOR HOUSING QUESTIONNAIRE To gather input on current senior housing needs and preferences in Saratoga, a questionnaire similar to the one used in 1977 was prepared by planning staff. The scope of the previous questionnaire was much . broader than the current one, and was intended to provide detailed demographic and economic data on Saratoga's seniors. The intent of the current questionnaire was not to gather such detailed data but rather to gain general input on the housing needs and preferences of Saratoga's seniors. The SASCC housing committee provided input on the wording and distribution of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent in the April 1986 Outlook newsletter, which is distributed to the 750 -800 Saratoga members of SASCC. An additional SO -100 were distributed to non - members. A total of 270 completed questionnaires were returned, which represent about 7% of the seniors in Saratoga over age 60. A copy of the .,questionnaire (with a summary of the responses) and charts showing some of- the cross - tabulated data are provided in Appendix C of this report. The following are general statements that can be made about the response data: 1. The age, sex and marital status of the response group is reflective of the senior population of Saratoga as a whole (Charts 1 & 2). 2. Over 80% of the response group are already retired, with the most. common retirement age at 65 -74 (Chart 3). In terms of retirement Plans (Question 22), most of the respondents prefer to stay in their own home. The next preferred retirement plan is either to live independently, in a senior housing apartment or condominium, or live in a senior facility - with some level of services. ' 3. 60% of thei response group has lived in Saratoga for more than 20 years, contributing to a total of 86% living here for 10 years or more. 4. Relatives and children of Saratoga seniors are located in a variety of places, and are not particularly concentrated in the Saratoga area. Family location does not appear to be an overriding factor in the choice to move to or leave Saratoga. 5. The response data indicate that the main reasons for coming to Saratoga are: like the area, climate and geographical features, Saratoga's "reputation," and business or professional opportunity. 6. The majority of seniors in the response group live either with a spouse or alone. Only a very small percentage live with children, grandchildren, parents, relatives or friends (Chart 4). 7. 88% of the response group are home- owners, and 93% of the residences and condominiums have 4 or more rooms (not including bathrooms and garage) (Chart 5). 11 8. Most of the respondents are either very satisfied or satisfied with their living arrangement in terms of size and location (Chart 6). However, the response data shows that one of the major reasons (among others) given for moving is the preference for a smaller dwelling. The responses to Question 20 indicate that most of the respondents would need a variety of services to stay in their homes. Those services selected as the most i.mportant are: visiting homemaker, home repair, home health care and transportation services. 9. 63% of the respondents prefer to stay in Saratoga if they were to rove, and 25% prefer to stay in the Bay Area or California. 10. The response data 'is not conclusive in terms of the relationship between age and the decision to move (Chart 7). However, it can be said generally that the decision regarding moving and housing for one's ret -irement years is usually made during the age of 60 -70. 11. Most of the respondents currently live in Areas D,E,F and J', the older, more developed flat areas of the City (see map in questionnaire). The most preferred locations to live are Areas D,E,G and H. The main reasons chosen for the preferred location are convenience to shopping, type of housing in the area, country -like neighborbood, and convenience to community services. For senior housing, the most preferred locations are Areas E,F,H and J. Area F contains the Paul Masson property, Area H contains the senior center, post office and City Hall, and Area E is where most of the respondents currently live. 12. Most of the respondents either prefer a mixed age group as neighbors, or age makes no difference. 13. 86% of the respondents prefer to keep their own car, even if other forms of transportation are available. 14. Those items selected as being most important (in order of preference) to have in a senior retirement facility include: laundry facilities., security service, transportation, private balcony /patio, dining hall /meal service, maintenance /cleaning service, and a kitchen. Other amenities frequently selected include common garden /open space, medical care, exercise room, and library. 15. Questions 26 and 27 regarding financial ability to pay for certain types of senior housing had the lowest response rate of all the questions asked. It is difficult, therefore, to draw conclusions from the responses, other than to say that most of the responses fall in the middle to lower end of the ranges given. 12 LOCATION GUIDELINES FOR SENIOR HOUSING The 1977 SCHNAR recommended several location guidelines to be considered in the identification of potential senior housing sites. These guidelines have exhibited very little need for change in subsequent years. However, with the advent of "continuing care" facilities, the need for proximity to certain types of services has been diminished because those services are often provided on site. The suggested location guidelines are as follows: a. Proximity to medical facilities, shopping, transportation and community services (senior center, post office, church, etc.). b. Freedom from excessive noise or disturbances. C. Flat terrain, particularly in and around the general circulation areas. d. Compatibility with surrounding neighborhood. e. Proximity to parks or other outdoor areas, particularly-if large open space areas are not provided on the site. f. The minimum site area for senior housing developments should be 5 acres, primarily for reasons of economic feasibility. SENIOR HOUSING SITES - Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission believes that the issue of identifying potential senior housing sites in Saratoga must be considered within the context of the City's adopted General Plan. The Commission has evaluated the potential for senior housing throughout the City and has determined that most of the remaining vacant parcels in the flat areas of the City are either in agricultural use under Williamson Act contract or located in R -1 districts. Such parcels cannot be considered for senior housing development because of their location in or proximity to established single - family residential neighborhoods, their R -1 or A zoning and General Plan -designation, and their location in planning areas which have specific policies restricting such development. The Commission's recommendations regarding this issue are as follows: 1) The Planning Commission reaffirms the following land use and housing goals and policies in the Saratoga General Plan regarding the protection of single-family residential neighborhoods: GOALS: LU.8.0 AND H.6.0 Affirm that the City shall continue to be predominantly a community of single - family detached residences. H.2.0 Maintain and enhance the character, quality, and livability of the city's residential neighborhoods. 13 Appendix A SENIOR HOUSING ALTERNATIVES 1) House sharing - This alternative can take two forms, either renting a room to another person or converting a portion of a home into an apartment. Kitchen privileges and use of other living spaces are usually allowed. 2) Cooperative apartments - These are typic'ally operated on a corporate basis, where a corporation is formed which buys the hand" and building and sells shares of the property to the tenants. The tenants purchase long -term leases from the corporat'ion-and pay rent; the rent covers a pro -rata share.of amounts needed to cover the mortgage debt, taxes, and operating expenses. Offers homeownership tax benefits and equity. 3) Condominiums - The purchaser buys and receives a deed to the unit and an interest in the common areas. The-buyer obtains a mortgage in a manner similar to that of buying a house. Units are taxed separately and an association enforces rules and regulations. _4) Second unit - A separate dwel;l..in.g .unit .on.a • site . .tha -t - already contains a 'legal single - family dwelling. When located in or attached to an existing dwelling, this is a form of house sharing. 5) Rental Retirement or Congregate Housing - Rental housing that usually offers a minimum service package that includes on -site meals served in a common dining room, plus one or more services such as limited medical or nursing service, personal care, recreation, or housekeeping. There is no upfront charge or endowment, only a monthly rental charge. 6) Continuing Care Facility'- A residential /medical 'facility where a person pays an initial accomodation or entry fee and monthly maintenance fees in exchange for living accomodations and services (personal and medical) until the person dies. 7) Convalescent Facility - A type of hospital which provides bed or convalescent care for persons (usually seniors) who, by reason of illness or physical infirmity, are unable to care for themselves properly. 8) Residential Care Facility - A family home or group -care facility providing 24 -hour non - medical care of persons in need of personal service, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living. Residential care facilities serving 6 or fewer persons may locate in any zoning district without a use permit. 15 11 APPENDIX B GOVERNMENT FUNDING SOURCES RELATED TO SENIOR HOUSING 1. Section 8 - helps lower- income families afford housing by paying the difference between what they can afford and the fair market rent for an adequate unit. Based on a formula, the tenant pays a percentage of income for rent. 2. Section 202 - provides direct, low- interest loans to sponsors to finance the construction or rehabilitation of residential projects and related facilities for the elderly and handicapped. Projects may be sponsored by private, nonprofit organizations or consumer cooperatives. The residents of these projects usually receive Section 8 rental assistance. 3. Sections 231 and 201 Mortgage Insurance for Elderly Housing - HUD's principal programs designed solely for unsubsidized apartment rental housing for the elderly. HUD insures mortgage loans to nonprofit or profit motivated entities and public agencies for construction or rehabilitation of rental accomodations for older persons. 4. Sections 221(d)(3) and similar to Section 231. planned to be affordable the elderly. Special this program, and they facilities. (4) - these. are mortgage insurance programs The major difference is that the projects are to low and moderate income families, including projects for the elderly may be insured under nay include special features such as congregate 5. Section 232 Mortgage Insurance for Nursing Homes /Intermediate Care Facilities - insures mortgages for the construction and rehabilitation of long -term care facilities. A state agency must certify the need for the facility. Eligible residents are those needing skilled nursing care and related medical services or those needing minimum but continuous care by trained or licensed personnel. 6. Mortgage Insurance - retirement villages designed exclusively for the elderly are eligible for HUD /FHA single - family mortgage insurance. Subdivisions and planned communities which restrict ownership to those above a certain age, and which restrict the occupancy and the duration of visits by children, can be insured by HUD. 7. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - program funds must be used to help low and moderate income households, eliminate slums and blight, or meet other urgent community development needs. Examples of projects that address the needs and problems of the elderly are: senior citizen centers, housing rehabilitation (the City's SHARP program falls in this category), weatherization services to promote energy efficiency, neighborhood facilities and improvements, and public and social services. 16 8. California Housing Finance Agency. (CHFA) - financing for the development and rehabilitation of low and moderate income housing is provided through the sale of tax- exempt revenue bonds. These projects must combine with Section 8 rental assistance, and 30% of the units must be for very low income. 17 ADaendix C -1 Chart 1t2: CROSS- TABULATION CHARTS FOR SELECTED QUESTIONNAIRE DATA Sex Chart 41: Age /Sex /Marital Status of Respondents Male Total Married 96 Sex /Marital Status 189 (70%) Single 73 Age Female/ Male/ Female/ Male/ 270 Total (63%) Married Married Single Single -55 2 0 2 0 4 (1.5%) 55 -59 7 3 4 0 14 (5.2%) 60 -64 20 15 6 0 41 (15.2%) .65 -69 35 34 13 2 84 (31.1%) 70 -74 18 24 17 1 60 (22.2%) 75 -79 8 7 15 2 32 (11.9%) 80 -84 3 5 10 0 18 (6.6%) 85 -89 3 4 4 2 13 (4.8%) 90+ 0 1 2 1 4 (1.5%) Total 96 93 73 8 270 (35.5%) (34.5%) (27%) (3%) Chart 1t2: Sex /Marital Status-of Respondents Sex Marital Status Female Male Total Married 96 93 189 (70%) Single 73 8. 81 (30%) Total 169 101 270 (63%) (37%) 18 Chart #4: Marital Status /Living Arrangement of Respondents living arrangement Marital Chart #3: Age /Employment Status of Respondents Children/ Employment Status Status Alone Wife Not Employed Parent Relative - Age Employed (Unemployed/ Total 3 (Full /Part /Occas.) Retired) Single -55 3 1 4 55 -64 15 40 55 65 -74 25 118 143 75 -84 6 44 50 8.5+ 1 16 17 •Total 50 219 269 (18.5%) (81.5%) Chart #4: Marital Status /Living Arrangement of Respondents living arrangement Marital Husband/ Children/ Friend/ Status Alone Wife Grandchildren Parent Relative Companion Married 0 189 3 3 1 0 Single 68 0 6 3 2 3 Total 68 189 9 6 3 3 19 e Chart #5: # of Rooms'(excluding bathrooms and garage) Type of Residence Type of Residence Chart 46: Level of Satisfaction /Type of Residence Type of Residence r .Single - family 1 2 Guest Retirement # of Rooms residence Apt. Condo House Facility 1 -3 1 14 4 2 1 4 -5 39 2 24 0 0 6+ 169 0 15 0 0 Chart 46: Level of Satisfaction /Type of Residence Type of Residence r Within 1 2 Age next year Level of Single - family -55 0 Guest Retirement Satisfaction residence Apt. Condo. House Facility Very good 160 7 31 1 0 Satisfactory 23 7 4 1 1 Slightly 9 80 -85 0 1 4 Satisfactory 8 1 8 0 0 Not Satisfactory 4 1 0 0 0 Other 2 0 0 0 0 f 1' CHART 47: Age /When projected to Move When oroiected to move 7 -10 'yrs. Within 1 2 Age next year 2 -3 yrs. 4 -6 yrs. -55 0 1 1 55 -60 0 1 4 60 -65 3 7 7 65 -70 6 15 13 70 -75 4 8 22 75 -80 3 5 9 80 -85 0 1 4 85 -90 0 3 2 90+ 1 0 0 7 -10 'yrs. +10 yrs. 1 2 3 4 7 g 16 23 5 11 5 2 1 4 1 0 0 1 20 APPENDIX 'C- 2 SENIOR HOUSING QUESTIONNAIRE', APRIL 1987 1. What is your age? 4 a, Under.SS --1-4- b. 55 -59 41 C. 60 -64 -60 '''d. 65 -69 e. 70 -74 -— f. 75 -79 18 g: 80 -84 -13-- h. 85 -89 4 i. 90+ 2. Sex 101 a. Female b. Male 3. What is your marital status? 8 �-* a. Single - never married 189 b. Married C. Separated /Divorced d. Widowed *This figure includes the separated /divorced and widowed figures' 4. Are you presently employed ?. 21 a, 15 Yes, full -time 14 b• Yes, part -time C. Yes, occasionally 17 d. No, unemployed 202 e. No, retired S. How long have you lived in Saratoga? 2 a. Less'than one ' - 17 Year b. 1 -4 years ., 16 70 C. 5 -9 years 162 d• 10 -19 yejars e. 20 or more years 3 f. All my life 6. When do you think you might retire? 218 a. Already retired 9 b. Within the next year 12 C. 2 -4 years 8 d. 4 -6 years 3 e. 6 -10 years 3 f. 10+ years 7 g. Don't know 7. Where do your children /relatives live? (Circle one or more that apply) 52 a. In Saratoga d. In California 84 b. Within 5 -10 miles e. Out of State 95 C. In Bay Area 10 9 (cf) 121 e 21 6 3 3 0 a. Alone b. With husband /wife C. With children d. With grandchildren e. With parent(s) f. With relative(s) g. With friend /companion h. As a boarder i. Other (Specify: 10. Do you own or rent? 239 a. Own :. 8. Why did you come to Saratoga? (Circle one or more that apply). $ a. Born here /moved here as a child 14 b. Lived here previously 35 9 C. Moved here to be near children or relatives -• d. To be near friends - 77 e. Business or professional opportunity 14 f. Cultural /recreational activities 12 9, Health, health -care reasons y 87 h. Climate, geographical features 84 M i. Saratoga's reputation (good schools, good atmosphere, etc.) Boarding home (with meals) j. Like the area 22 h. Housing opportunities 11 1. Other (Specify:_ Church, marriage. rpt-irPmeni- ) 9. What is your present living arrangement? (Circle,one'or more-that apply Nursing /convalescent home to you). 6 3 3 0 a. Alone b. With husband /wife C. With children d. With grandchildren e. With parent(s) f. With relative(s) g. With friend /companion h. As a boarder i. Other (Specify: 10. Do you own or rent? 239 a. Own 30 b. Rent 2 C. Other (Specify: Live with children ) 11. I•n which kin} -of the following residence do you'li.ve? -. 207 a. Single family residence -• 1 b. Duplex 17 C. Apartment complex (3 or more units) —, 43 d. Condominium �:. e. Boarding home (with meals) 2 1 f. Guest house or second unit on a lot with a single- family residence g. Retirement facility �— h. Nursing /convalescent home 0 i. Other (Specify: ) 12. How many rooms does your residence have, not including bathrooms or garage? 22 a. 1 - 3 6 b. 4 - S 184 C. 6 or more 22 13. How many bathrooms does your residence have? 45 a,, One 115 b. Two - 97 C. Three 4 d. Four or more 14. How do you feel about your current living arrangement in terms of house size and location? 199 a. Very good 36 b. Satisfactory _ 17 C. Slightly satisfactory 5 d. Not satisfactory 2 e. Other 1S. If 'you were to move, where would your first choice be? 170 a. Saratoga 38 b. In Bay Area 29 C. In California 14 d. Out of state 9 e. Other. (Specify: Hawaii, Costa Rica, out of country) 16. If you were to move, when do you think it might be? 17 41 a. Within the next year 62 b. 2 -3 years 39 C. 4 -6 years 56 d. 7 -10 years e, +10 years 17. If you were to move , .wh.ich of the following would be your reason for moving? (Circle one or more that apply). a. Could noilonger afford present housing 40 18 b. Better access to shopping, medical, recreational facilities - c. Closer to public transpoi-.;tation �4 d. Prefer smaller dwelling 32 e. Quieter surroundings _ 22 26 f. To be with people of same age _ g. To be closer to family h. Deterioration of neighborhood 4 i. Need medical care 49 J. Other (Specify: enter retirement facility, cannot maintain home or yard, can no longer drive, Hwy 85 construction, convert home equity to cash, traffic, security 23 63 124 74 54 64 78 84 88 63 22 8 18. Using the map, please indicate where you currently live, where you would prefer to live given your financial situation, and where you think would be a good location for senior housing or a continuing care facility. Current Preferred 'Senior Location Location Housing a. Mt. Eden (Area A) 6 2 1 b. Congress Springs- Pierce Rd. (Area B) 17 19 2 C. Blue Hills (Area C) 10 6 4 d. Triangle North (Area D) 33 26 23 e. Triangle South ( Area E) 88 57 45 f. Quito - Kentfield (Area F) 25 19 67 g. Fruitvale -Sobey Rd. (Area G) 18 24 21 h. Fruitvale -West (Area H) 18 24 45 i. Glen Una (Area I ) 13 11 6 J. The Village /Downtow.n (Area J) 2.6 22 27 k. Sunland Park (Area K) 0 0 3 1. Kentfield `f e D COX AV E. I "There are no responses for the Kentfield area because it was not shown on the question- naire when it was..originally distributed. &-RATOGA CITY LIMITS�.S V' 19. Which of the following reasons apply to why you chose your preferred location? (Circle one or more that apply). a. Proximity to family and friends b.' Convenient to shopping C. Convenient to church d. Convenient to health care e. Convenient to transportation f. Convenient to Senior Center /City Hall g. Seeking a "country -Tike" neighborhood h. Like the type of housing in the area i. Cost, expense and related financial reasons j. Negative feelings about other areas k. Other (Specify: proximity to: high school, DeAnza /Flint Center, library, post office, West Valley College. Inherited property. 24 163 4 5 64 - 35 59 0 -98 78 73 fit 31 81 •0 .2_ 22. Which of the following best describes your retirement plan in terms of your housing arrangement? a. Maintain prese- nt'li,ving situation, stay in own home. b. Live'with children or other relatives, C. Share a place with friends or acquaintences. d. Live-. independently�:In s&nidr•h -ou's ng -apartment /condo. e. Live in a senior facility which may offer meals and activities. f. Live in a continuing care retirement facility, which has medical facilities and care on —site. g. Other (Specify: ). 23. Which of the .followi*ng would influence the achievement of your retirement housing plan ?. a. Income b.. Affordable Housing c. Health /medical assistance_ d. Home help e. Transportation f.' Convenient location g. Other (Specify: 24. Would you keep your car if other forms of transportation, were available? a. Yes b. No . 25 20. Which of the following would help you 'J' residence? o remain in your present . 88 a, Visiting homemaker (cleaning, eanin g, shopping, laundry, etc.). - 57 b. Home repair service 29 C. Home health care 6 d. Meal delivery e. Transportation'services -9 1 — f. •Ability.to rent out extra rooms or create a secbQd welling unit. g. Other. (Specify:Continue HUD subsidy, financ.ial)help to enlarge hoi gardener, decrease in rent, money 21. What age do you prefer your neighbors to be? 48 a. Own age 8 ' b., :--,Younger C. Older 61 d. Mixed e. Makes .no difference 163 4 5 64 - 35 59 0 -98 78 73 fit 31 81 •0 .2_ 22. Which of the following best describes your retirement plan in terms of your housing arrangement? a. Maintain prese- nt'li,ving situation, stay in own home. b. Live'with children or other relatives, C. Share a place with friends or acquaintences. d. Live-. independently�:In s&nidr•h -ou's ng -apartment /condo. e. Live in a senior facility which may offer meals and activities. f. Live in a continuing care retirement facility, which has medical facilities and care on —site. g. Other (Specify: ). 23. Which of the .followi*ng would influence the achievement of your retirement housing plan ?. a. Income b.. Affordable Housing c. Health /medical assistance_ d. Home help e. Transportation f.' Convenient location g. Other (Specify: 24. Would you keep your car if other forms of transportation, were available? a. Yes b. No . 25 25. Which of the following do you feel are - important to have in a retirement facility for senior citizens? (Circle one or more that apply.) 177 a. Balcony or patio area 117 b, Garden plot or usable open space 112 C. Exercise room 31 d.. Tennis courts /shuffleboard _ 211 e, Laundry facilities 181 f.. Security-service _T7_2 g. Dining hall /meal service 179 h. Transportation to.medical, shopping, cultural facilities 101 i . Library 158 j, Maintenance /cleaning services 116 k::. Medical.. care 71 1. Barber /beauty shop 46' m.- Chapel 150 n. Kitchen 15 o. Other (Specify: entertainment /meeting room, rjcreation director, swimming pool, carports, storage space, workshop /hobby room) 26. What would be the top limit of rent or monthly payments you could make if you were to move into a senior housing apartment complex? 32 a. Less than $500 55 b, $500 - $750 49 c'. $750 - $1000 40 d. $1000 - $1250 24 $1250 - _$1500 13 f . . $.1500 $2000 . 10 g; Over $2000 40 -No answer - 27. Which."of the foll- o.wi_ng represents the amount you would be able to invest as an entry fee to a continuing care facility? 75 a. -' Up° to-$50,000 49 b. $50,000 - $100,000 30 c, $100,000 - $$150,000 21 d. $150,000 - $200,000 -17 e. $200,000 -:-$300,000 - - 8 f. Greater than $300,000 73 -No answer B:ws /Senior - 26 t ?. APPENDIX D r" BILL NUMBER: AB 60 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST 01030000 LAST AMENDED DATE: 06/01/87 AB 60, as amended, Elder. Property taxation.: full' cash value. Existing provisions of the California Constitution permit the Legislature to provide, as specified, for an exception to the reappraisal of real property for property tax purposes upon purchases, changes in ownership, or new construction of that property by means of authorizing any person over the age of 55 years who resides in property which is eligible for the homeowner's exemption to transfer the base year value of their principal residence to a replacement dwelling, as defined, of equal or lesser value located within the same county which is purchased or newly constructed as a principal residence within 2 years of the sale of the original property. These provisions exclude from their application replacement dwellings which were purchased or newly constructed prior to their effective date.. This bill would implement. this constitutional authorization.. This bill would impose additional conditions upon the availability of this exception. This bill would provide for its particular application to various types of real property, to,mobilehomes subject to property taxation, and to property " which is held in coownership. This bill would ;require any person claiming the property tax relief provided by this bill to file a claim for that relief with the assessor disclosing certain information. This bill would impose a state- mandated local program by requiring assessors to provide claimants, upon request,' with the forms for claiming the relief. This bill would also impose a state - mandated local program by requiring assessors to furnish specified information concerning claims made pursuant to the bill to the State Board of Equalization for the purpose of preventing multiple claims for relief by•the same person or persons. This bill would require the State Board of Equalization to design these claim forms. This bill would define various terms used in the constitutional provision's authoriz -ing the property tax relief which the bill would provide. This b.ill.would require that a claim under this bill for relief be filed within 3 years of the date a replacement dwelling is purchased or new construction of that replacement dwelling is completed. This bill would make certain legislative findings and declarations concerning the valuation of replacement dwellings for purposes of determining . eligibility-for the property tax relief provided. This•bill would provide that it does not apply in any case in which the transfer of the original property is not a change in ownership which subjects that property to reappraisal at its current fair market value, as specified,. This bill would provide that it applies to any replacement dwelling which is purchased or newly constructed on or after November 6, 19'86. Existing law requires transferees of real property and mobilehomes subject to property taxation to file a change in ownership statement with the assessor disclosing ,certain information concerning the transfer of the property as will enable the assessor to determine if the, property is subject to reassessment. This bill'would require the statement to include a notice informing the transferees of the property-tax relief available under the provisions of this - bill. The California'Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies ! and-school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for i a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State- mandated local program: yes. —J 27 yZ O �D SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1,3/-7 AGENDA ITEM -7D MEETING DATE: August 19, 1987 CITY MGR APPROVAL AA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maintenance ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK AGREEMENT ----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended Motions Approve "Agreement Concerning the Use of Congress Springs Park ", as prepared by the City Attorney, and authorize Mayor-to execute. Report Summary The City of Saratoga and American Youth Soccer Organization - Region 27 desire to execute this Agreement to establish their respective rights and obligations concerning the use and maintenance of Congress Springs Park. The Agreement provides that the City shall: 1. Prepare the turf and field at the beginning of each season, mow and water the grass and maintain the sprinkler system. 2. Provide utility service for the snack shack. 3. Remove trash from trash containers. 4. Maintain the restrooms and building exterior. 5. Maintain the locks in the snack shack doors. 6. Install and remove goal posts at the beginning and end of each season. It provides the AYSO: 1. Maintain and repair equipment within the snack shack and provide general custodial care of the snack shack interior, general cleanup of the restrooms and storage room. 2. Mark fields for play. 3. Clean up litter and debris after each game and practice. Fiscal Impact AYSO will provide a $2,000 per year income to the City and will provide an additional $5000 per year for 3 years ($15,000) toward the construction cost of the snack shack at Congress Springs Park. Attachments Agreement Concerning Use of Congress Springs Park. Motion & Vote Staff reccnmendation 5 -0. 70 AGREEMENT CONCERNING USE OF CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK THIS AGREEMENT, dated 7 , by and between THE CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal (rpordfion ( "City "), and AMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER ORGANIZATION - REGION 27 ("AYSO" ), is made with reference to the following facts: A. City is the owner of a public. park located on Glen Brae Drive known as Congress Springs Park ( "the Park"), in which City has recently constructed new facilities, including ballfields, a snack shack and parking areas. B. AYSO has regularly utilized the Park for the conduct of games and practices during its season and desires to continue such use. C. AYSO has agreed to share in the cost of constructing the snack shack by making payments to City as specified in this Agreement. In addition, AYSO and Saratoga Little League Baseball, Inc. ( "Little League ") jointly own certain equipment installed within the snack shack, as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. D. City and AYSO desire to execute this Agreement to establish their respective rights and obligations concerning the use and maintenance of the Park. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Times of use. AYSO shall inform City as to the approximate starting and ending dates of its soccer season. Such notice shall be furnished to City at least thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of the season. AYSO shall be entitled to the exclusive use of the ballfields and snack shack seven days per week during the conduct of its games and practices. 'At all other times, the snack shack shall be closed but the ballfields shall remain open for use by the general public and organized activities as authorized by City. 2. Responsibilities of City. City shall be responsible for the following: (a) Preparation of the turf and field at the beginning of each season and general maintenance thereafter, including cutting and watering of grass and maintenance of sprinklers. AYSO shall make arrangements with City for a. preseason .inspection of the ballfields, at which time AYSO shall advise City of any objections to the condition thereof. (b) Providing utility services for the .snack .shack. -1- Rev.* 6/15/87 ' y- following: (c) Removal of trash from the trash containers in the Park. (d) Maintenance of the restrooms within the snack shack and the exterior of the building. (e) Maintenance and changing of locks in the snack shack doors. (f) Installation and removal of goal posts. 3. Responsibilities of AYSO.. AYSO shall be responsible for the (a) Maintenance and repair of the equipment within the snack shack owned by Little League and AYSO, together with general custodial care of the snack shack interior and general clean -up of the restrooms and storage room within the snack shack building. (b) Field markings. (c) Clean up of litter and debris after each game or practice and deposit of all garbage in the trash containers. 4. Rental charge. In consideration for the additional maintenance and other services provided by City, as hereinabove described, and for the exclusive use of the Park, AYSO shall pay a rental charge to City in the amount of $2,000.00 for each season during the term of this Agreement. Such rental charge shall be due and payable on December 1st.. 5. Snack shack contribution. In addition to the rental charge specified in Paragraph 4 of this Agreement, AYSO shall contribute the sum of $15,000 toward the cost of constructing the snack shack, payable to City in three consecutive annual installments of $5,000, each such installment to 'be made concurrent with the payment of the annual rental charge, commencing as of December 1, 1987. . 6. Indemnification of City. AYSO agrees to indemnify and hold City, its officers, officials, employees, volunteers, boards and commissions free and - harmless from and against any and all claims., demands, causes of action, damages, liabilities, costs or expenses (including the expense of attorney's fees for defending any action brought against City or any of its officers, officials, employees, volunteers, boards or commissions), arising out . of or in any manner relating to the use and maintenance of the Park by AYSO. -2- Rev. 6/15/87 ,J 7. Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, AYSO shall maintain in full force and effect broad form comprehensive liability insurance providing occurrence coverage of not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and'property damage. AYSO shall furnish to City an endorsement to its policy in the form of Exhibit "B" attached hereto. 8. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by the parties and shall terminate on AYSO may cancel this Agreement by giving written notice to City not less than sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of its season; provided, however, no such cancellation shall relieve AYSO from any outstanding obligation for payment of the snack shack contribution required under Paragraph 5 hereof. City may cancel this Agreement by giving written notice to AYSO not less than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the date on which the annual rental charge specified in Paragraph 4 would otherwise be due and payable. 'In the event this Agreement is cancelled by City before all of the snack shack contributions have been paid, AYSO shall' be relieved from the obligation to pay any balance of such contribution. 9. Successors and assigns. This Agreement shall, insure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the successors of the parties hereto by merger, consolidation, incorporation of an existing unincorporated association or the formation of additional branches, divisions or regions, but otherwise this Agreement is neither transferable nor assignable. 10. Cancellation of prior agreement. This Agreement supersedes and cancels the prior agreement executed between City, AYSO and other parties dated April 2, 1980, and the same is hereby declared to be of no further force or effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. - - - . :7 i, , Rev. 6/15/87 THE CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation By Mayor Attest- City Clerk AMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER ORG' � ATION - REGION 7 By It ��✓ GL/ C.G 0X,6-4 /3y 12,G Re /,,,,CL/ �.'�`2u'.s,`rr*2R -3-