HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-2023 City Council Agenda Packet, amended 01-18-2023Saratoga City Council Agenda January 18, 2023 – Page 1 of 6
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 18, 2023
AMENDED AGENDA
• 01/18/2023 ITEM 2.1 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO AND PRESENTATION SLIDES
ADDED
Teleconference/Public Participation Information
The Commission Interviews, Study Session and Regular Session will be held in-person and by
teleconference pursuant to amendments to the teleconference rules required by the Ralph M.
Brown Act allowing teleconferencing during a proclaimed state of emergency when a local official
has recommended social distancing. Members of the City Council and the public may participate
in person at the location listed below or via the Zoom platform using the information below.
Members of the public can view and participate in the 5:00 p.m. Closed Session by:
1. Attending the meeting in person at the City Hall Linda Callon Conference Room, located at
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070; OR
2. Accessing the meeting through Zoom
• https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89527052458
• Webinar ID 895 2705 2458 OR
• Calling 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833
The public may comment on Closed Session items at the beginning of the Closed Session; after
public comment the meeting will be closed to the public.
Members of the public can view and participate in the 5:30 p.m. Commission Interviews by:
1. Attending the meeting in person at the City Hall Linda Callon Conference Room, located at
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070; OR
2. Accessing the meeting through Zoom
• https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82342704483
• Webinar ID 823 4270 4483 OR
• Calling 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833
Members of the public can view and participate in the 7:00 p.m. Regular Session by:
1. Attending the meeting in person at the Civic Theater, Council Chambers located at 13777
Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070; OR
2. Accessing the meeting through Zoom
• Webinar URL: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81627041223
• Webinar ID: 816 2704 1223
• Call In: 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833; OR
3. Viewing the meeting on Saratoga Community Access Television Channel 15 (Comcast
Channel 15, AT&T UVerse Channel 99 and calling in following the direction above; OR
4. Viewing online at http://saratoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=2 and calling in
following the direction above.
Saratoga City Council Agenda January 18, 2023 – Page 2 of 6
Written Communication
Comments can be submitted in writing at www.saratoga.ca.us/comment. Written communications
will be provided to the members of the City Council and included in the Agenda Packet and/or in
supplemental meeting materials.
Public Comment
Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3) minutes. The amount of time
for public comment may be reduced by the Mayor or by action of the City Council. Public
Comment will begin with speakers attending in-person first followed by those attending via Zoom.
Meeting Recording Information
In accordance with the Saratoga City Council’s Meeting Recording Policy, City Council Study
Sessions, Joint Meetings, Joint Sessions, Commission Interviews, Retreats, meetings with the
Planning Commission, and Regular Session Meetings are recorded and made available following
the meeting on the City website.
5:00 PM CLOSED SESSION
City Hall, Linda Callon Conference Room | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov’t Code 54957.6)
Agency Designated Representatives: City Manager James Lindsay, City Attorney Richard Taylor,
Administrative Services Director Nick Pegueros, Human Resources Manager Monica LaBossiere,
Human Resources Analyst Babette McKay, Labor Counsel Deanna Mouser
Employee Organizations: Saratoga Employee Association; Northern California Carpenters
Regional Council, Carpenters Forty-Six Northern California Counties Conference Board and their
Affiliated Local Unions
5:30 PM COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
City Hall, Linda Callon Conference Room | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
Time Name Commission Vacancies Incumbent
5:30 p.m. Vicky Chu
Heritage Preservation
Commission 1 partial term No
5:40 p.m. Jim Cargill
Parks and Recreation
Commission 1 full term No
5:50 p.m. Jason Tseng
Parks and Recreation
Commission 1 full term No
6:00 p.m. Isabelle Gecils
Parks and Recreation
Commission 1 full term No
6:10 p.m. Raymond Chou
Traffic Safety
Commission
1 full term, 1
partial term No
6:20 p.m. Xintian (Stephen) Li
Traffic Safety
Commission
1 full term, 1
partial term No
6:30 p.m. Alec Gulesserian
Traffic Safety
Commission
1 full term, 1
partial term No
Saratoga City Council Agenda January 18, 2023 – Page 3 of 6
7:00 PM REGULAR SESSION
Civic Theater, Council Chambers | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA
The agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 13, 2023.
REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
Any member of the public may address the City Council on matters not on the Agenda. The law
generally prohibits the City Council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the
Council may instruct staff accordingly.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
Appointment of Heritage Preservation Commissioners
Recommended Action:
Adopt the Resolution appointing Margarete Minar and Zhen Li to the Heritage Preservation
Commission and direct the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office.
Staff Report
Attachment A - Resolution, Heritage Preservation Commission Appointments
1. CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted
on in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council Member. Any member of the
public may speak on an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request that the Mayor
remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommended Action:
Approve the Minutes for the December 21, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting, the January
4, 2023 City Council Special Meeting and the January 10, 2023 City Council Special
Meeting.
Staff Report
Attachment A - Minutes for the December 21, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting
Attachment B - Minutes for the January 4, 2023 City Council Special Meeting
Attachment C - Minutes for the January 10, 2023 City Council Special Meeting
1.2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers
Recommended Action:
Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles:
12/14/22 Period 6; 12/21/22 Period 6.
Staff Report
Attachment A - Check Register 12-14-2022 Period 6
Attachment B - Check Register 12-21-2022 Period 6
Saratoga City Council Agenda January 18, 2023 – Page 4 of 6
1.3. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended November 30, 2022
Recommended Action:
Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended November 30, 2022.
Staff Report
1.4. Parking Restriction on 6th Street at 14630 Big Basin Way
Recommended Action:
Adopt the Motor Vehicle resolution authorizing a No Parking zone in front of 14630 Big
Basin Way, on the east side of 6th Street for 100’, starting at Big Basin Way.
Staff Report
Attachment A - MV Resolution
Attachment B - Map of Parking Restriction
1.5. Resolution to Appoint City Representatives to the PLAN JPA Board of Directors
Recommended Action:
Adopt the resolution appointing the Human Resources Manager as Board Member,
Administrative Services Director as Board Alternate, and City Manager as Board Alternate
to the Pooled Liability Assurance Network Joint Powers Authority (PLAN JPA) Board of
Directors.
Staff Report
Attachment A - Resolution
1.6. Response to 2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report “Show Me the
Money: Financial Transparency Needed”
Recommended Action:
Approve the draft response to the 2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report
“Show Me the Money: Financial Transparency Needed.”
Staff Report
Attachment A – City of Saratoga Draft Response
Attachment B – Civil Grand Jury Report “Show Me the Money: Financial Transparency
Needed”
2. PUBLIC HEARING
2.1. APCC22-0004 - Appeal of a Design Review application for a new two-story residence
located at 20538 Lynde Court
Recommended Action:
Conduct a public hearing and de novo review of the appeal and adopt the attached resolution
denying appeal APCC22-0004, approving the Design Review and Arborist Review
approvals (PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120) for the construction of a new two-story residence
with an attached accessory dwelling unit, and the removal of three (3) protected trees at
20538 Lynde Court and finding the approvals to be exempt from environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Staff Report
Attachment A - Appeal Application
Attachment B - Resolution to Deny the Appeal
Attachment C - November 9, 2022 Planning Commission Resolution of Approval
Attachment D - November 9, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report (without
attachments)
Attachment E - November 9, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Saratoga City Council Agenda January 18, 2023 – Page 5 of 6
Attachment F - Comment Letters
Attachment G - Project Plans
Attachment H - Single-Family Residential Design Review Handbook
Supplemental Memo - Item 2.1 Written Communications
Public Hearing Presentation from Staff - 20538 Lynde Ct
Public Hearing Presentation from Appellant - 20538 Lynde Ct
Public Hearing Presentation from Applicant - 20538 Lynde Ct
3. GENERAL BUSINESS
3.1. Youth Commission Fundraising Plan 2022/23
Recommended Action:
Approve the Youth Commission Fundraising Plan 2022/23 to collect donations and seek
sponsorship of various Youth Commission initiatives.
Staff Report
Attachment A - Youth Commission Fundraising Plan 2022-23
Attachment B - Donation Policy
3.2. Discussion and action regarding City Council Annual Summer Recess
Recommended Action:
Discuss the City Council’s annual Summer Recess, cancel certain meetings in July and/or
August 2023 and authorize the City Manager, after consultation with the Mayor, to reinstate
a cancelled meeting if any urgent items arise.
Staff Report
COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS
Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons
Cities Association of Santa Clara County-City Selection Committee
Council Finance Committee
Hakone Foundation Executive Board
Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council Board of Directors
West Valley Mayors & Managers Association
Vice Mayor Yan Zhao
Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Legislative Action Committee
Saratoga Ministerial Association
Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Alternate
Council Member Belal Aftab
Association of Bay Area Governments
Hakone Foundation Board of Trustees
Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development (HCD) Advisory Committee
Saratoga Historical Foundation Board of Directors
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee
Saratoga City Council Agenda January 18, 2023 – Page 6 of 6
Council Member Chuck Page
Council Finance Committee
Santa Clara Valley Water Commission
Saratoga Chamber of Commerce Board
West Valley Clean Water Program Authority Board of Directors
West Valley Sanitation District Board of Directors
West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority Board of Directors
Council Member Tina Walia
Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors
KSAR Community Access TV Board
Santa Clara County Library District Board of Directors
Saratoga Sister City Committee Liaison
Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
I, Britt Avrit, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting
of the City Council was posted and available for review on January 13, 2023 at the City of
Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at
www.saratoga.ca.us.
Signed this 13th day of January 2023 at Saratoga, California.
Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk
In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials
provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda, copies of materials
distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda, and materials
distributed to the City Council by staff after the posting of the agenda are available on the City
website at www.saratoga.ca.us and are available for review in the office of the City Clerk at 13777
Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Governor’s Executive Order, if
you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at
bavrit@saratoga.ca.us or calling 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the meeting. The City
will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as
possible while also maintaining public safety. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II]
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:January 18, 2023
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department
PREPARED BY:Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk
SUBJECT:Appointment of Heritage Preservation Commissioners
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the Resolution appointing Margarete Minar and Zhen Li to the Heritage Preservation
Commission and direct the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office.
BACKGROUND:
In the fall of 2022,the City opened the recruitment for three terms on the Heritage Preservation
Commission; one full term that ends December 31, 2026, one partial term that ends December
31, 2025, and one partial term that ends December 31, 2024.After the deadline, staff received
three applications. The City Council interviewed two applicants on December 21, 2022 and
selected Margarete Minar to be appointed to a full term ending December 31, 2026 and Zhen Li
to be appointed to a partial term ending December 31, 2024.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment A -Resolution, Heritage Preservation Commission Appointments
5
RESOLUTION NO. 23-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPOINTING MARGARETE MINAR AND ZHEN LI TO THE HERITAGE
PRESERVATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, one vacancy was created on the Heritage Preservation Commission from the
resignation of Marie Lopresto in May 2022;
WHEREAS, one vacancy was created on the Heritage Preservation Commission from the
expired term of Rina Shah in December 2022;
WHEREAS, the City announced the vacancies, accepted applications until November 18,
2022 and the City Council conducted interviews on December 21, 2022.
NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves that Margarete
Minar is appointed to a full-term ending December 31, 2026 and Zhen Li is appointed to a partial
term ending December 31, 2024.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga City Council on this 18th day of January 2023
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor
ATTEST:
Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk
6
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:January 18, 2023
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department
PREPARED BY:Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk
SUBJECT:City Council Meeting Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the Minutes for the December 21, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting, the January 4,
2023 City Council Special Meeting and the January 10, 2023 City Council Special Meeting.
BACKGROUND:
Draft City Council Minutes for each Council Meeting are taken to the City Council to be reviewed
for accuracy and approval. Following City Council approval, minutes are retained for legislative
history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. The draft minutes are attached to this report
for Council review and approval.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment A -Minutes for the December 21, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting
Attachment B –Minutes for the January 4, 2023 City Council Special Meeting
Attachment C –Minutes for the January 10, 2023 City Council Special Meeting
7
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ December 21, 2022 ~ Page 1 of 7
MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2022
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
At 5:30 p.m., the City Council held interviews for the Heritage Preservation Commission.
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment.
No one requested to speak.
PAGE/WALIA MOVED TO APPOINT MARGARETE MINAR TO THE HERITAGE
PRESERVATION COMMISSION FOR A FULL-TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2026.
MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO,
FITZSIMMONS: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
PAGE/WALIA MOVED TO APPOINT ZHEN LI TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION
COMMISSION FOR A PARTIAL-TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2024. MOTION
PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO,
FITZSIMMONS: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
At 6:00 p.m., the City Council held a Study Session to discuss 2023 Meeting Announcements, the
2023 Meeting Schedule and Summer Recess, Joint Sessions, Council Retreat Discussion Topics
and City Events.
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment.
No one requested to speak.
Mayor Fitzsimmons called the Regular Session to order at 7:05 p.m.
The City Clerk explained the City Council meeting was conducted pursuant to State law as
amended by Assembly Bill 361, which allows the meeting to be conducted by teleconference. The
CityCouncilhasmetalltheapplicablenoticerequirementsandthepublicis welcometoparticipate
in person or by Zoom. Information on how the public can observe the meeting and provide public
comment was provided.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons, Vice Mayor Yan Zhao, Council Members
Belal Aftab, Chuck Page, Tina Walia
ABSENT:None
ALSO PRESENT:James Lindsay, City Manager
Crystal Bothelio Assistant City Manager
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Britt Avrit, City Clerk
John Cherbone, Public Works Director
Nick Pegueros, Administrative Services Director
Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director
Agnes Pabis, Finance Manager
Lauren Blom, Public Information Officer
8
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ December 21, 2022 ~ Page 2 of 7
REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA
The City Clerk reported the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 16, 2022.
REPORT FROM STUDY SESSION
Mayor Fitzsimmons stated the City Council held a Study Session to preview 2023, stated she is
excited for the year to come and looks forward to working with the City Council this year.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment.
The following individuals spoke at this time:
Matthew Bordoni, Isaac Bordoni, Bob Shepherd, Amber East-D’Anna, Brian Vajdic, Perry
Constantine, Carolyn Givens, Don Kellogg, Rana Ranganathan, Kailash Ranganathan, Jonny Oh,
Carol Schuster, Rob Nast, Karen Nose, Jeff Barco, Jim Frankola, Ajay Bmatnagar, Denise &
David Moyles, Joe Beyers, and Keerti Melkote discussed a fence being erected near the Vickery-
Aloha Alley.
Jill Hunter congratulated the City Council, thanked Council Member Walia for her work as Mayor
and discussed the trail near the Vickery-Aloha Alley.
Kathy & Keyvan discussed ongoing issues with tree cutting at their neighbor’s property.
Direction was given to staff to provide the permit activity and inspection history of the properties
mentioned during public comment in the City Council Newsletter.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Fitzsimmons shared information about Commission Recruitments, discussed the City
office closure and wished everyone Happy Holidays.
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
Commendation for Belal Aftab
Recommended Action:
Commend Belal Aftab for his service on the Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission.
The City Council commended Belal Aftab for his service on the Saratoga Traffic Safety
Commission.
Commendation for Rina Shah
Recommended Action:
Commend Rina Shah for her service on the Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission
The City Council commended Rina Shah for her service on the Saratoga Heritage
Preservation Commission.
9
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ December 21, 2022 ~ Page 3 of 7
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment on this item.
The following individuals spoke at this time: Priya Shastri, Marilyn Marchetti.
1.CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Clerk stated she has been made aware corrections are needed to the spelling of
names in the December 13, 2022 Minutes and stated those corrections have been made.
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment on the Consent Calendar.
No one requested to speak.
1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommended Action:
Approve the Minutes for the December 7, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting and the
December 13, 2022 City Council Special Meeting.
ZHAO/WALIA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 7,
2022 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING.MOTION PASSED BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE.
ABSTAIN: AFTAB, PAGE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
ZHAO/WALIA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 13,
2022 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AS AMENDED.MOTION PASSED BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS.
NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
1.2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers
Recommended Action:
Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles:
11/29/22 Period 5; 12/1/22 Period 6; 12/5/22 Period 6.
ZHAO/WALIA MOVED TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR
THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYMENT CYCLES: 11/29/22
PERIOD 5; 12/1/22 PERIOD 6; 12/5/22 PERIOD 6.MOTION PASSED BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES:
NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
1.3. Amendment to the Agreement with Urban Planning Partners, Inc. for preparation of
the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update and General Plan Amendment Environmental
Impact Report
Recommended Action:
Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the agreement with Urban
Planning Partners, Inc. (UPP) to increase the amount not to exceed by $65,000 (from
$481,981to $546,981) for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update and General Plan
Amendment Environmental Impact Report.
10
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ December 21, 2022 ~ Page 4 of 7
ZHAO/WALIA MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS,
INC. (UPP) TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED BY $65,000 (FROM
$481,981TO $546,981) FOR THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA,
ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE.
ABSENT: NONE.
1.4. Commission Local Appointments List and Terms Expiring in 2023
Recommended Action:
Adopt the Local Appointments List for terms expiring in the 2023 calendar year and direct
the City Clerk to post on the City’s website.
ZHAO/WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT THE LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST FOR
TERMS EXPIRING IN THE 2023 CALENDAR YEAR AND DIRECT THE CITY
CLERK TO POST ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE.MOTION PASSED BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES:
NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
2.GENERAL BUSINESS
2.1. Amendment to Agreement with Flock Group Inc.
Recommended Action:
Authorize the City Manager to execute an amended agreement with Flock and approve a
resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter and submit supplemental orders as part of
the City’s agreement with Flock.
Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager presented the staff report.
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment.
No one requested to speak.
RESOLUTION 22-047
WALIA/ZHAO MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH FLOCK FOR LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ZONES ALPR CAMERAS AND APPROVE A
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER AND SUBMIT
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDERS AS PART OF THE CITY’S AGREEMENT WITH
FLOCK. MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE,
WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE.
ABSENT: NONE.
11
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ December 21, 2022 ~ Page 5 of 7
2.2. AB1600 Development Impact Fee Annual Report
Recommended Action:
Review and accept the annual AB1600 Development Impact Fee report for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2021 and June 30, 2022.
Nick Pegueros, Administrative Services Director presented the staff report.
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment.
No one requested to speak.
WALIA/AFTAB MOVED TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT THE ANNUAL AB1600
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE
30, 2021 AND JUNE 30, 2022.MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES:
AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
2.3. Services Agreement for City Manager’s Department Program Support
Recommended Action:
Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Crystal Bothelio to provide
program support for the City Manager’s Department for an amount not to exceed $135,000.
James Lindsay, City Manager presented the staff report.
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment.
No one requested to speak.
PAGE/WALIA MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH CRYSTAL BOTHELIO TO PROVIDE PROGRAM SUPPORT
FOR THE CITY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $135,000.MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB,
PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED:
NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
2.4. Adoption of City Council Assignments
Recommended Action:
Adopt the Resolution establishing City Council assignments for calendar year 2023.
Britt Avrit, City Clerk presented the staff report.
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment.
No one requested to speak.
RESOLUTION 22-048
12
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ December 21, 2022 ~ Page 6 of 7
PAGE/ZHAO MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY
COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2023.MOTION PASSED BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS.
NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS
Council Member Tina Walia
Cities Association of Santa Clara County – stated a General Membership Meeting took place.
Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) Authority Board of Directors – stated PG&E is rolling out an
“Electric Home” rate and provided details associated with this rate; stated the Board approved
rates, effective January 2023, which will be 4% less than PG&E, approved 1% bill credits for
income-qualifiedresidents, approved the 2023 Policy Platform focusing on ‘Clean, Reliable Grid,’
‘Climate Change Mitigation/Fuel Switching,’ and ‘Competitive Equity/Do No Harm,’ and stated
all 13 SVCE member agencies have passed at least first reading with most agencies having fully
adopted their Reach Codes.
Hakone Foundation Board of Trustees and Executive Board –stated the Board approved term
renewals for Board Members Beverly Harada, Emily Lo, Phyllis Tung and Bob Himel; the Lunar
New Year celebration is scheduled for January 29, 2023; financials are in good standing; a fashion
event is being planned for Summer 2024 and a new exhibit from artist Shizu Okino will begin
January 1st.
Vice Mayor Yan Zhao
West Valley Sanitation District Board of Directors – stated the Board met in Closed Session with
no reportable action.
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee – stated the Committee
approved members of the Nomination Committee, received the Ridership Report, and stated the
US101/Blossom Hill Interchange Project has been completed.
Council Member Chuck Page
Saratoga Chamber of Commerce – stated the Chamber had a successful celebration the day after
Thanksgiving and stated the Chamber is in good hands with Tiger Teerlink as the new President.
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
Council Member Aftab requested that a report regarding the Vickery-Aloha Alley be provided to
the Council at a future City Council meeting.
The City Manager stated a report is currently being prepared and will be provided in the Council
Newsletter.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
The City Manager wished everyone a restful holiday break, stated City offices are closed and will
reopen January 3, 2023.
13
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ December 21, 2022 ~ Page 7 of 7
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
None.
ADJOURNMENT
WALIA/PAGE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:55 P.M.MOTION PASSED
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS.
NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
Minutes respectfully submitted:
Britt Avrit, City Clerk
City of Saratoga
14
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 4, 2023 ~ Page 1 of 3
MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2023
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
At 6:05 p.m., the City Council held a Closed Session in the Linda Callon Conference Room.
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment.
The following individuals addressed the City Council on the Anticipated Litigation item: Omari
Bouknight, Sukhinder, David Morley, Dennis Zaff, Ed Chou, Lee Ann Wade
Mayor Fitzsimmons called the Special Meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
The City Clerk explained the City Council meeting was conducted pursuant to State law as
amended by Assembly Bill 361, which allows the meeting to be conducted by teleconference. The
CityCouncilhasmetalltheapplicablenoticerequirementsandthepublicis welcometoparticipate
in person or by Zoom. Information on how the public can observe the meeting and provide public
comment was provided.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons, Vice Mayor Yan Zhao, Council Members
Belal Aftab, Chuck Page, Tina Walia
ABSENT:None
ALSO PRESENT:James Lindsay, City Manager
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Britt Avrit, City Clerk
John Cherbone, Public Works Director
Nick Pegueros, Administrative Services Director
Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director
Lauren Blom, Public Information Officer
REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA
The City Clerk reported the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 16, 2022.
REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Fitzsimmons stated the City Council met in Closed Session to confer with Legal Counsel
regarding existing and anticipated litigation and to discuss labor negotiations and stated Closed
Session will be continued at the conclusion of the Special Meeting.
1.CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment on the Consent Calendar.
No one requested to speak on the Consent Calendar.
15
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 4, 2023 ~ Page 2 of 3
1.1. Reconsider and confirm findings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361
Recommended Action:
Reconsider and confirm findings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 of the continued public
health officials’ recommendation to social distance and to therefore continue providing
members of City of Saratoga Brown Act bodies with the option to attend meetings by
teleconference.
WALIA/AFTAB MOVED TO RECONSIDER AND CONFIRM FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361 OF THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEALTH
OFFICIALS’ RECOMMENDATION TO SOCIAL DISTANCE AND TO
THEREFORE CONTINUE PROVIDING MEMBERS OF CITY OF SARATOGA
BROWN ACT BODIES WITH THE OPTION TO ATTEND MEETINGS BY
TELECONFERENCE.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL VOTE. AYES:
AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
2.GENERAL BUSINESS
2.1. Pavement Management Program Update
Recommended Action:
Receive report and provide direction to staff regarding the City’s Roadway Conditions &
Pavement Management Program
Macedonio Nunez, City Engineer, and Emma Burkhalter Associate Civil Engineer,
presented the staff report.
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment.
No one requested to speak at this time.
ZHAO/AFTAB MOVED TO RECEIVE THE REPORT REGARDING THE CITY’S
ROADWAY CONDITIONS & PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. MOTION
PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL VOTE. AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO,
FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT:
NONE.
2.2. Existing Labor Agreements and Framework for Negotiations
Recommended Action:
Receive and file report on existing labor agreements and framework for negotiations.
Nick Pegueros, Administrative Services Director presented the staff report.
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment.
No one requested to speak at this time.
Additional discussion regarding this item will take place in Closed Session, no motion needed.
16
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 4, 2023 ~ Page 3 of 3
2.3. 2023-24 Budget Considerations and 3-year Forecast Presentation
Recommended Action:
Receive presentation on major 2023-24 budget considerations and a preliminary 3-year
forecast.
Nick Pegueros, Administrative Services Director presented the staff report.
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment.
No one requested to speak at this time.
WALIA/ZHAO MOVED TO RECEIVE THE PRESENTATION ON MAJOR 2023-24
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS AND A PRELIMINARY 3-YEAR FORECAST.
MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL VOTE. AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA,
ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE.
ABSENT: NONE.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Fitzsimmons adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 8:12 p.m.
REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
The City Manager reported out from the continued closed session. He reported that the City
Council designated the City Manager as the lead to work with the negotiating team for labor
negotiations (Fitzsimmons, Zhao, Aftab, Walia voting in favor; Page recused) and that there was
no other reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT
The Closed Session meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted:
Britt Avrit, City Clerk
City of Saratoga
17
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 10, 2023 ~ Page 1 of 2
MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2023
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Mayor Fitzsimmons called the Special Meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. via teleconferencing through
Zoom.
The City Clerk explained the City Council meeting was conducted pursuant to State law as
amended by Assembly Bill 361, which allows the meeting to be conducted by teleconference. The
CityCouncilhasmetalltheapplicablenoticerequirementsandthepublicis welcometoparticipate
in person or by Zoom. Information on how the public can observe the meeting and provide public
comment was provided.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons, Vice Mayor Yan Zhao, Council Members
Belal Aftab, Chuck Page, Tina Walia
ABSENT:None
ALSO PRESENT:James Lindsay, City Manager
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Britt Avrit, City Clerk
John Cherbone, Public Works Director
Lauren Blom, Public Information Officer
REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA
The City Clerk reported the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 9, 2023.
AGENDA ITEM
Resolution Proclaiming a Local Emergency
Recommended Action:
Approve the resolution confirming and ratifying the proclamation of a local emergency
issued by the City of Saratoga Director of Emergency Services on January 5, 2023 resulting
from severe winter storms.
ZHAO/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION CONFIRMING AND
RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY ISSUED BY
THE CITY OF SARATOGA DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES ON
JANUARY 5, 2023 RESULTING FROM SEVERE WINTER STORMS.MOTION
PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL VOTE. AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO,
FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT:
NONE.
18
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 10, 2023 ~ Page 2 of 2
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Fitzsimmons adjourned the meeting at 5:06 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted:
Britt Avrit, City Clerk
City of Saratoga
19
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: January 18, 2023
DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services - Finance
PREPARED BY: Vivian Lu, Accounting Technician
SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles:
12/14/22 Period 6; 12/21/22 Period 6.
BACKGROUND:
The information listed below provides detail for City check runs. Checks issued for $20,000 or greater are
listed separately as well as any checks that were voided during the time period. Fund information, by check
run, is also provided in this report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - 12/14/22 Check Register in the ‘A/P Checks by Period and Year’ report format
Attachment B - 12/21/22 Check Register in the ‘A/P Checks by Period and Year’ report format
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached are Check Registers for:
Date
Ending
Check #
12/14/2022 146480 146511 32 735,626.40 12/14/2022 12/5/2022 146479
12/21/2022 146512 146591 80 366,239.88 12/21/2022 12/14/2022 146511
Accounts Payable checks issued for $20,000 or greater:
Date Check # Dept. Amount
12/14/2022 146496 SCC Off of the Sheriff
General Fund ASD Law Enforcement December 2022 612,754.50
12/14/2022 146505 Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger General Fund Various Attorney Services 48,686.66
12/21/2022 146523 BKF Engineers CIP Parks Project Fund PW Railroad Crossing Improvement 35,540.25
12/21/2022 146569 Sandis Civil Engineers Surveyors ARPA/SLFRF Fund PW Village Parking & Citywide Storm Drain 21,490.07
12/21/2022 146571 SCA of CA LLC General Fund PW August - November Citywide Street Sweep 82,458.00
Accounts Payable checks voided during this time period:
AP Date Check #Amount
11/3/2022 146231 Alfred Murabitu Payee Address Changed 3,625.00
Accounts Payable
Accounts Payable
Ending Check
#
Starting
Check #Type of Checks Date
Prior Check Register
Checks ReleasedTotal Checks Amount
Fund Purpose
StatusReason Issued to
Issued to
Reissued
20
21
22
23
24
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1
DATE: 12/21/2022 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 14:16:55 CHECK REGISTER - FUND TOTALS ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/23
FUND FUND TITLE AMOUNT
111 GENERAL FUND 183,074.83
233 SARAHILLS LIGHTING DIST 235.10
241 ARROYO DE SARATOGA LNDSCP 337.29
242 BONNET WAY LANDSCAPE 53.03
244 CUNNINGHAM/GLASGOW LND 10.89
245 FREDERICKSBURG LANDSCAPE 324.55
246 GREENBRIAR LANDSCAPE 565.74
247 KERWIN RANCH LANDSCAPE 390.00
248 LEUTAR COURT LANDSCAPE 302.44
251 MCCARTYSVILLE LANDSCAPE 908.66
252 PRIDES CROSSING LANDSCAPE 1,177.45
253 SARATOGA LEGEND LANDSCAPE 200.00
255 TRICIA WOODS LANDSCAPE 100.00
256 ALLENDALE LANDSCAPE 150.00
257 COVINA LANDSCAPING DIST 5,373.90
271 BEUACHAMPS L&L 70.75
272 BELLGROVE L&L 4,860.15
273 GATEWAY L&L 913.21
274 HORSESHOE DRIVE L&L 160.84
276 TOLLGATE L&L 117.20
278 WESTBROOK L&L 100.00
279 BROOKVIEW L&L 460.26
292 PARAMOUNT COURT SWD 606.29
411 CIP STREET PROJECTS FUND 83,915.79
412 CIP PARKS PROJECT FUND 25,389.11
435 ARPA/SLFRF FUND 21,490.07
612 WORKERS COMP FUND 79.00
621 OFFICE SUPPORT 257.28
622 IT SERVICES 2,800.37
623 VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT MAINT 544.11
624 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 20,817.98
713 WVCWP AGENCY FUND 10,453.59
TOTAL REPORT 366,239.88
25
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1
DATE: 12/21/2022 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 14:15:20 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 MONTHLY RECUR CHARGES 167.08
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 PROSPECT CENTER 124.67
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 BLANEY IRRIGATION 26.27
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 PRSPCT CTR EMER ALARM 286.46
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 CRP YRD EMER POTS LNS 52.25
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 ALARM SYS CIVIC THTR 249.08
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 SENIOR CENTER ALARMS 51.12
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 GATEWAY IRR CONTROL 26.24
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 ELEC PANEL CVC THTR 26.24
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 PHONE LNS PARKS/LIB 26.79
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 EMER POTS LN VM 26.24
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 EMER POT LN CDD LBBY 26.24
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 EMER POTS LN VM 31.40
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 AM 1610 RADIO 26.24
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 BOOK GO ROUND ALARM 51.50
146512 11111 12/21/22 234 A T & T 63211 CSP HVB FOR IRR 51.93
TOTAL CHECK 1,249.75
146513 11111 12/21/22 546 ASSOC OF BAY AREA GOV/ABA 63111 GAS SERVICE 1,426.74
146514 11111 12/21/22 1130 ABLE SEPTIC TANK SVC 64734 STORM DRAIN MAINT 3,240.00
146515 11111 12/21/22 56 ACE FIRE EQUIPMENT & SVC 64513 ALARM INSPECTIONS 729.75
146516 11111 12/21/22 500 ALFRED MURABITU 22113 REF DEP ATFTR22-0031 3,625.00
146517 11111 12/21/22 1600 ARTICULATE SOLUTIONS, INC 64313 WVCWP OUTREACH SPPL 240.50
146518 11111 12/21/22 1187 ASSOCIATED SERVICES COMPA 61133 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 608.53
146518 11111 12/21/22 1187 ASSOCIATED SERVICES COMPA 61133 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 310.06
TOTAL CHECK 918.59
146519 11111 12/21/22 1192 BAKER'S LOCK AND KEY SERV 61133 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 119.22
146520 11111 12/21/22 1137 BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS 64535 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT 4,205.00
146520 11111 12/21/22 1137 BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS 64534 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT 1,000.00
TOTAL CHECK 5,205.00
146521 11111 12/21/22 1137 BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS 81161 BATTERY BACKUP SYSTEM EME 15,752.00
146522 11111 12/21/22 1316 BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES, IN 81142 SARA TDA SIDEWALK 353.75
146523 11111 12/21/22 641 BKF ENGINEERS 81143 RAILROAD CROSSING IMP 24,263.00
146523 11111 12/21/22 641 BKF ENGINEERS 81144 SARA VILLAGE SURVEY 2,000.50
146523 11111 12/21/22 641 BKF ENGINEERS 81143 NOV VIL PED ENHANCE 9,276.75
TOTAL CHECK 35,540.25
146524 11111 12/21/22 1758 BRITT AVRIT 66213 MILEAGE REIMB 80.63
146525 11111 12/21/22 179 CIM AIR, INC 64514 HVAC REPAIRS 680.00
146526 11111 12/21/22 188 CITY OF CAMPBELL 62624 WVCWP 22/23 JAN LEASE 1,967.00
146527 11111 12/21/22 666 CITY OF FOSTER CITY 61111 WVCWP JOB POSTING 540.00
146528 11111 12/21/22 1152 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEME 62631 NOV RECORDS STORAGE 257.28
26
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 2
DATE: 12/21/2022 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 14:15:20 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146529 11111 12/21/22 342 DATA TICKET INC 62481 NOV 2022 CITATION 406.65
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 NOV AZULE PARK 715.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 NOV BROOKGLEN PARK 120.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 NOV FOOTHILL PARK 191.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 NOV GARDINER PARK 191.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64547 NOV PRODES CROSSING 268.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64543 NOV PROSPECT MEDIANS 417.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 NOV RAVENWOOD PARK 120.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64555 NOV TRL DOG STATIONS 652.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 DEC AZULE PARK 715.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 DEC BROOKGLEN PARK 120.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 DEC FOOTHILL PARK 191.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 DEC GARDINER PARK 191.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64547 DEC PRODES CROSSING 268.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64543 DEC PROSPECT MEDIANS 417.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 DEC RAVENWOOD PARK 120.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64555 DEC TRL DOG STATIONS 652.00
146530 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64549 AZULE PARK ENHANCE 3,392.90
TOTAL CHECK 8,740.90
146531 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64555 TRAIL MAINT SERVICES 3,667.97
146532 11111 12/21/22 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64549 LANDSCAPE REPAIRS 5,268.90
146533 11111 12/21/22 1688 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASS 81141 NOV BRIDGE MAINT 7,493.75
146533 11111 12/21/22 1688 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASS 81141 NOV BLUE HILLS PED RR 1,126.11
TOTAL CHECK 8,619.86
146534 11111 12/21/22 416 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 81161 CITY HALL WEED CONTRL 5,500.00
146535 11111 12/21/22 419 EVENT SERVICES 64552 CSP FIELD CONVERSIONS 333.94
146536 11111 12/21/22 426 ENNIS-FLINT, INC 81121 STREETS SUPPLIES 1,104.82
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 81161 SEP MNTHLY WEED ABATE 884.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 81161 OCT MNTHLY WEED ABATE 884.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 81161 NOV MNTHLY WEED ABATE 884.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 DEC ALLENDALE MEDIANS 150.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 DEC ALLNDLE/HARLEIGH 150.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 DEC AUSTIN WAY 100.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64541 DEC BEAUCHAMPS PARK 360.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64541 DEC BLANEY PLAZA 300.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 DEC BROOKGLEN LLA 175.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 DEC CANYON VIEW/ELVA 45.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64541 DEC CONGRESS SPRINGS 600.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 DEC COVINA LLA 105.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64221 DEC DOWNTOWN TRASH 200.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64221 DEC DOWNTWN LNDSCAPE 700.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 DEC FREDRICKSBURG LLA 215.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 DEC HORSESHOE LLA 150.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 DEC HWY 9/VICKERY 57.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 DEC KERWIN RANCH LLA 390.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 DEC LEGENDS LLA 200.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64548 DEC LIBRARY 688.00
27
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 3
DATE: 12/21/2022 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 14:15:20 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 DEC MCCARTYSVILLE LLA 325.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 DEC PALO OAKS/COX AVE 132.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 DEC PARAMOUNT LLA 495.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64541 DEC PARK TRASH DETAIL 575.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64542 DEC PROSPECT CENTER 600.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 DEC QUITO/MARTHA 150.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 DEC SARATOGA/KOSICH 85.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 DEC SEAGRAVES 100.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 DEC TOLLGATE LLA 100.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 DEC TRICIA WOODS LLA 100.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 DEC TRINITY 40.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 DEC WESTBROOK LLA 100.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 DEC WORDEN WAY MED 88.00
146537 11111 12/21/22 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 81161 DEC MNTHLY WEED ABATE 884.00
TOTAL CHECK 11,011.00
146538 11111 12/21/22 1268 GIULIANI & KULL - SAN JOS 65519 JOB#09153-BURNETT DR 155.00
146539 11111 12/21/22 463 GRAINGER 61133 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 113.66
146539 11111 12/21/22 463 GRAINGER 61133 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 53.21
TOTAL CHECK 166.87
146540 11111 12/21/22 1608 GREEN HALO SYSTEMS INC. 64323 DEC TRACKING FEE 192.00
146541 11111 12/21/22 472 HT HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 81141 QUITO ROAD BRIDGES 544.00
146541 11111 12/21/22 472 HT HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 81141 QUITO ROAD BRIDGES 712.00
TOTAL CHECK 1,256.00
146542 11111 12/21/22 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 64212 EL CAMINO PUMP MAINT 147.00
146542 11111 12/21/22 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 64549 MANOR DR LEAK RPR 428.37
TOTAL CHECK 575.37
146543 11111 12/21/22 61 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM 61361 AUTO PARTS 141.63
146544 11111 12/21/22 63 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTRO 81121 STREETS SUPPLIES 399.22
146545 11111 12/21/22 1595 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES 67713 WVCWP LIAB INS 22/23 2,683.00
146545 11111 12/21/22 1595 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES 67711 WVCWP AUTO INS 22/23 270.00
TOTAL CHECK 2,953.00
146546 11111 12/21/22 1576 LANGUAGE NETWORK, INC 64131 TRANSLATION SERVICES 200.00
146547 11111 12/21/22 1546 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 64341 NOV GIS SUPPORT 375.00
146547 11111 12/21/22 1546 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 64341 NOV GIS SUPPORT 375.00
TOTAL CHECK 750.00
146548 11111 12/21/22 1750 MARIO TOPETE TREE CARE, I 64544 SARA-SUNNYVL TR MAINT 1,000.00
146548 11111 12/21/22 1750 MARIO TOPETE TREE CARE, I 64544 PARKING AREA TR MAINT 750.00
TOTAL CHECK 1,750.00
146549 11111 12/21/22 1783 MARTIN BARAJAS 66211 TRAVEL REIMB 137.00
146550 11111 12/21/22 1572 NBBM SERVICES, INC 64511 JANITORIAL SERVICES 1,526.00
146550 11111 12/21/22 1572 NBBM SERVICES, INC 64511 JANITORIAL SERVICES 1,708.00
TOTAL CHECK 3,234.00
28
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 4
DATE: 12/21/2022 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 14:15:20 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146551 11111 12/21/22 1572 NBBM SERVICES, INC 64551 DEC WKND PK RESTROOM 3,854.40
146552 11111 12/21/22 1324 READYREFRESH 62614 DRINKING WATER SVC 112.10
146553 11111 12/21/22 1745 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, L 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 37.11
146553 11111 12/21/22 1745 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, L 61166 PC COMMISSION SUPPLY 24.99
146553 11111 12/21/22 1745 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, L 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 140.56
146553 11111 12/21/22 1745 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, L 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 273.18
TOTAL CHECK 475.84
146554 11111 12/21/22 1658 ORCHARD KEEPERS, INC. 64554 OCT/NOV ORCHARD MAINT 12,315.74
146555 11111 12/21/22 610 PACIFIC DISPLAY, INC 64537 NOV VIL PED LIGHTING 900.00
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 BEAUCHAMPS 70.75
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 BELLGROVE CIRCLE 810.87
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 BUILDINGS 8,409.76
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 CUNNINGHAM/GLASGOW 10.89
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 HORSESHOE DR LNDSCAP 10.84
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 MCCARTYSVILLE 21.68
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 770.03
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 PRIDES CROSSING 33.46
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 SARAHILLS LIGHTING 235.10
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 TOLLGATE 17.20
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 1,817.57
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 CITYWIDE STREETLIGHTS 887.47
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 VILLAGE LIGHTING 4,641.81
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 AZULE LIGHTING 246.74
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 QUITO LIGHTING 693.17
146556 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 LOAN RETROFIT PROGRAM 653.69
TOTAL CHECK 19,331.03
146557 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 VILLAGE LIGHTING 1,697.57
146558 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 CITYWIDE STREETLIGHTS 22.57
146558 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 PUB LIB/LNDSCP LIGHTS 25.46
TOTAL CHECK 48.03
146559 11111 12/21/22 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 VILLAGE LIGHTING 490.99
146560 11111 12/21/22 1092 PALACE ART & OFFICE SUPPL 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8.53
146560 11111 12/21/22 1092 PALACE ART & OFFICE SUPPL 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 13.39
146560 11111 12/21/22 1092 PALACE ART & OFFICE SUPPL 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 414.74
TOTAL CHECK 436.66
146561 11111 12/21/22 204 PENINSULA BLDG MATERIALS 61341 BEAUCHAMPS PAVERS 733.32
146562 11111 12/21/22 602 PRECISION CONCRETE CUTTIN 81161 SIDEWALK REPAIRS 13,112.94
146563 11111 12/21/22 908 PRO DOOR & GLASS 64528 CORP YARD DOOR MAINT 290.00
146564 11111 12/21/22 1777 PUBLIC SOLUTION CONSULTIN 64221 LANDSCAPE MAINT 3,171.86
146565 11111 12/21/22 1674 RAFLES WARNARS 66111 WVCWP RECOGNITION RMB 272.22
146566 11111 12/21/22 1720 RIVERVIEW SYSTEMS GROUP, 64523 ELECTRICAL RPLC SVCS 185.00
29
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 5
DATE: 12/21/2022 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 14:15:20 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146566 11111 12/21/22 1720 RIVERVIEW SYSTEMS GROUP, 64523 PROJECTOR REPAIRS 936.11
TOTAL CHECK 1,121.11
146567 11111 12/21/22 1663 SAN JOSE MAILING 64121 POSTCARDS NOV 22 4,157.13
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 12050 BROOKGLN DR 50% 285.26
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 ARROYO DE SARATOGA 337.29
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 BELLGROVE 4,049.28
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 BONNET WAY 10% 53.03
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 FREDERICKSBURG 109.55
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 GATEWAY PROJECT 913.21
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 GREENBRIAR 565.74
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 LEUTAR CT 302.44
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MCCARTYSVILLE 25% 117.04
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 PARAMOUNT COURT 111.29
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 889.78
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 PRIDES CROSSING 607.99
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MCCARTYSVILLE 444.94
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MEDIANS/PARKWAYS 2,594.84
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MED/PRKWYS 90% BONNE 477.26
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MED/PRKWYS 50% BRKGLN 285.27
146568 11111 12/21/22 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MED/MCCARTYSVILLE 75% 351.13
TOTAL CHECK 12,495.34
146569 11111 12/21/22 1754 SANDIS CIVIL ENGINEERS SU 81142 VILLAGE PARKING PROJ 9,255.07
146569 11111 12/21/22 1754 SANDIS CIVIL ENGINEERS SU 81142 CITYWIDE STORM DRAIN 12,235.00
TOTAL CHECK 21,490.07
146570 11111 12/21/22 1 SANTA CLARA COUNTY - DTAC 62325 NOV HANDICAP CITATION 69.60
146570 11111 12/21/22 1 SANTA CLARA COUNTY - DTAC 62325 NOV PARKING CITATION 200.00
TOTAL CHECK 269.60
146571 11111 12/21/22 1746 SCA OF CA. LLC 64531 AUG CITYWIDE ST SWEEP 20,614.50
146571 11111 12/21/22 1746 SCA OF CA. LLC 64531 SEP CITYWIDE ST SWEEP 20,614.50
146571 11111 12/21/22 1746 SCA OF CA. LLC 64531 OCT CITYWIDE ST SWEEP 20,614.50
146571 11111 12/21/22 1746 SCA OF CA. LLC 64531 NOV CITYWIDE ST SWEEP 20,614.50
TOTAL CHECK 82,458.00
146572 11111 12/21/22 124 SCHWAAB INC 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 327.92
146572 11111 12/21/22 124 SCHWAAB INC 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 163.96
146572 11111 12/21/22 124 SCHWAAB INC 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 81.92
146572 11111 12/21/22 124 SCHWAAB INC 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 81.98
146572 11111 12/21/22 124 SCHWAAB INC 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 81.98
TOTAL CHECK 737.76
146573 11111 12/21/22 500 SHARAT C PRASAD 43481 TREE REF TRP22-0400 130.00
146574 11111 12/21/22 1601 SHEILA TUCKER 66111 WVCWP RECOGNITION RMB 39.29
146575 11111 12/21/22 313 BAY AREA NEWS GROUP 62132 LL0006710160 188.00
146575 11111 12/21/22 313 BAY AREA NEWS GROUP 62132 LL0006710223 186.00
146575 11111 12/21/22 313 BAY AREA NEWS GROUP 62132 LL0006711978 93.00
146575 11111 12/21/22 313 BAY AREA NEWS GROUP 62132 LL0006714392 93.00
146575 11111 12/21/22 313 BAY AREA NEWS GROUP 62132 LL0006714397 80.00
146575 11111 12/21/22 313 BAY AREA NEWS GROUP 62132 LL0006714400 82.00
TOTAL CHECK 722.00
30
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 6
DATE: 12/21/2022 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 14:15:20 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146576 11111 12/21/22 787 SPRAY TECHNOLOGY 81161 RECYCLING BIN SVCS 18,000.00
146577 11111 12/21/22 248 STATE OF CA FRANCHISE TAX 21252 DED:2011 FTB W/H 50.00
146578 11111 12/21/22 256 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC 81121 STREETS SUPPLIES 180.06
146579 11111 12/21/22 1261 THE FRUITGUYS 61192 EMPLOYEE WELLNESS 79.00
146580 11111 12/21/22 317 THE NAPKIN RING 66111 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION 6,809.40
146581 11111 12/21/22 343 TMT ENTERPRISES INC 61341 REDWOOD SAWDUST 218.75
146581 11111 12/21/22 343 TMT ENTERPRISES INC 61341 REDWOOD SAWDUST 164.06
TOTAL CHECK 382.81
146582 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P VOID: MULTI STUB CHECK
146583 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P VOID: MULTI STUB CHECK
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61133 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 1,398.16
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61132 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 700.58
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 63113 REFUSE COLLECTION 290.49
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61341 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 8.72
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66211 TRAVEL EXPENSES 321.01
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61167 P&R COM MEETING 60.48
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 68624 CLBRATION LIGHT SPPLS 548.54
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61151 COMMUNITY ART SPPLS 963.30
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66112 COUNCIL MTG EXPENSES 975.00
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 62131 MARKETING EXPENSES 115.00
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66111 MEETING EXPENSES 316.25
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 68353 NBHD WATCH PROG 454.00
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61278 SOFTWARE 354.95
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 68618 SOTC CITY EVENT 54.95
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 68621 TREE LIGHTING SPPLS 474.55
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 24911 WVMM MTG EXPENSES 476.86
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61341 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 91.61
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 177.16
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66211 TRAVEL EXPENSES 213.98
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61313 UNIFORMS 108.98
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61112 POSTAGE 55.19
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66311 CALBO RECURITMENT 135.00
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61116 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION 108.00
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66211 CCCM CONFERENCE 750.00
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66111 MEETING EXPENSES 91.42
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66215 NEW MYR/CNCL TRAINING 2,500.00
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66212 TRAVEL EXPENSES 33.00
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 125.89
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 125.89
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 62251 CPRS MEMBERSHIP 185.00
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61165 YOUTH COMM SUPPLIES 606.12
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61166 PC MTG EXPENSES 30.86
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 64136 PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES 596.23
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 62251 APA MEMBERSHIP 507.00
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 62251 CACEO MEMBERSHIP 100.00
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 77.31
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61166 PC MTG EXPENSES 27.00
31
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 7
DATE: 12/21/2022 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 14:15:20 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61132 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 58.22
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61211 IT SUPPLIES 293.58
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 252.91
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 62251 CSMFO MEMBERSHIP 50.00
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61361 AUTO PARTS 371.97
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61362 FUEL 30.51
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 132.50
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 62112 PLUG N PLAY FEE 15.00
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61112 POSTAGE 12.00
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 64323 LICENSES SUPPORT 54.00
146584 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 62251 ASCE MEMBERSHIP 340.00
TOTAL CHECK 15,769.17
146585 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66212 WVCWP CONF/LODGING 3,074.94
146585 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 63213 WVCWP INTERNET 171.77
146585 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66111 WVCWP MEETING EXPENSE 399.99
146585 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 WVCWP OFFICE SUPPLY 93.71
146585 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61119 WVCWP OUTREACH SUPPLY 228.53
146585 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 63211 WVCWP PHONE BILL 366.66
146585 11111 12/21/22 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61171 WVCWP SOFTWARE 105.98
TOTAL CHECK 4,441.58
146586 11111 12/21/22 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 63212 ADMIN SERVICES 50.57
146586 11111 12/21/22 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 63212 BUILDING & INSPECTION 119.38
146586 11111 12/21/22 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 63212 GENERAL ENGINEERING 181.55
146586 11111 12/21/22 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 63212 IT SERVICES 98.04
146586 11111 12/21/22 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 63212 PARKS 62.37
146586 11111 12/21/22 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 63212 STREETS 256.33
TOTAL CHECK 768.24
146587 11111 12/21/22 1524 VILLALOBOS & ASSOCIATES 81161 GUAVA COURT REPAIRS 5,950.00
146588 11111 12/21/22 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64549 CIVIC CTR LANDSCAPE 880.00
146589 11111 12/21/22 901 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 61132 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 632.28
146590 11111 12/21/22 432 WEST VALLEY COLLECTIONS 62616 DEC CS BINS 536.00
146591 11111 12/21/22 696 ZAG TECHNICAL SERVICES, I 64315 NOV IT SUPPORT SVCS 2,408.75
TOTAL FUND 366,239.88
TOTAL REPORT 366,239.88
32
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:January 18,2023
DEPARTMENT:Administrative Services
PREPARED BY:Ann Xu, Accountant
Agnes Pabis, Finance Manager
SUBJECT:Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended November 30, 2022
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended November 30, 2022.
BACKGROUND:
California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer submits to the City
Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and
fund balances. The Municipal Code of the City of Saratoga, Article 2-20, Section 2-20.035
designates the City Manager as the City Treasurer. This report is prepared to fulfill this
requirement.
The following attachments provide various financial transaction data for the City of Saratoga’s
Funds collectively as well as specifically for the City’s General (Operating) Fund, including an
attachment from the State Treasurer’s Office of Quarterly LAIF rates from the 1st Quarter of 1977
to the present.
FISCAL STATEMENT:
Cash and Investments Balance by Fund
As of November 30, 2022, the City’s unaudited cash and investments totaled $36,269,518. The
City Council’s adopted policy on the Working Capital Reserve Fund states that effective July 1,
2016: for cash flow purposes and to avoid the occurrence of dry period financing, pooled cash
from all funds should not be allowed to fall below $1,000,000. The total pooled cash balance of
$36.3 million exceeds the minimum amount required.
Comerica Bank 4,137,512$
Deposit with LAIF 32,132,006$
Total Cash 36,269,518$
Cash Summary
33
City’s Current Financial Position
In accordance with California government code section 53646 (b) (3), the City is financially well
positioned and able to meet its estimated expenditure requirements for the next six months. As of
November 30, 2022, the City’s financial position (Assets $36.4M, Liabilities $4.9M, and Fund
Equity $31.5M) remains very strong and there are no issues in meeting financial obligations now
or in the foreseeable future.
The following Fund Balance schedule represents actual funding available for all funds at the end
of the monthly period. This amount differs from the above Cash Summary schedule as assets
and liabilities are components of the fund balance. As illustrated in the summary below, Total
Cash is adjusted by the addition of Total Assets less the amount of Total Liabilities to arrive at
the Ending Fund Balance –which represents the actual amount of funds available.
ATTACHMENTS:
Table 1 – Change in Total Fund Balances by Fund
Table 2 – Change in Total Fund Balances by CIP Project
Chart 1 – Change in Investment Pool Balance by Month
Chart 2 – Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Quarterly Apportionment Rates
"+
Total Cash 36,269,518$
Plus: Assets 174,830
Less: Liabilities (4,889,654)
Ending Fund Balance 31,554,694$
Adjusting Cash to Ending Fund Balance
34
TABLE 1: CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE
*Negative fund balance due to authorized spending of anticipated revenues
These figures will be updated for future reports once the FY 2017/18 pendent audit is co
Fund Description
Prior Year
Carryforward
7/1/2022
Increase/
(Decrease)
Jul - Oct
Current
Revenue
Current
Expenditure
Transfer
In
Transfer
Out
Fund Balance
11/30/2022
General Fund
Committed Fund Balances:
Hillside Stability Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000
Assigned Fund Balances:
Future Capital Replacement & Efficiency Project Reserve 3,509,000 - - - - - 3,509,000
Carryforwards Reserve 20,000 - - - - - 20,000
Facility Reserve 3,700,000 - - - - - 3,700,000
Unassigned Fund Balances:
Working Capital Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000
Fiscal Stabilization Reserve 3,250,000 - - - - - 3,250,000
Compensated Absences Reserve 330,000 - - - - - 330,000
Other Unassigned Fund Balance Reserve (Pre YE distribution)2,601,458 (4,317,700) 3,413,904 (1,588,600) - (2,509,000) (2,399,938) *
General Fund Total 15,410,458 (4,317,700) 3,413,904 (1,588,600) - (2,509,000) 10,409,062
Special Revenue
Landscape/Lighting Districts 977,231 (74,537) 3,307 (33,136) - - 872,865
ARPA Federal Grants 7,127,589 - - - - - 7,127,589
Special Revenue Fund Total 8,104,820 (74,537) 3,307 (33,136) - - 8,000,454
Debt Service
Library Bond 805,311 (708,180) 3,553 - - - 100,685
Arrowhead Bond 124,402 (70,308) - 73,931 - - 128,026
Debt Service Fund Total 929,714 (778,488) 3,553 73,931 - - 228,711
Internal Service Fund
Liability/Risk Management 641,403 (599,385) 46 (8,433) - - 33,631
Workers Compensation 232,829 (53,699) - (4,657) - - 174,472
Office Support Fund 155,443 3,214 368 (5,790) - - 153,236
Information Technology Services 661,159 (55,655) 748 (73,924) - - 532,329
Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance 278,317 (5,181) - (27,839) - - 245,297
Building Maintenance 764,302 (31,324) - (59,574) - - 673,403
Vehicle & Equipment Replacement 905,217 24,738 - - - - 929,954
Technology Replacement 798,337 37,263 - - - - 835,600
Facility FFE Replacement 941,400 46,334 - - - - 987,735
Internal Service Fund Total 5,378,407 (633,694) 1,162 (180,218) - - 4,565,657
Trust/Agency
WVCWP Agency Fund 558,655 150,115 - (61,939) - - 646,830
Trust/Agency Fund Total 558,655 150,115 - (61,939) - - 646,830
Capital Project
Street Projects 3,381,066 (386,312) 37,901 (154,306) 2,209,000 - 5,087,350
Park and Trail Projects 849,562 (18,544) - (95,406) 275,000 - 1,010,613
Facility Projects 623,475 (152,773) 19,056 (16,742) - - 473,015
Administrative Projects 1,429,921 (59,119) 6,701 (128,592) 25,000 - 1,273,911
Tree Fund Projects 52,541 - 300 - - - 52,841
Park In-Lieu Projects 1,172,555 (32,565) - (6,738) - - 1,133,253
CIP Grant Street Projects (46,912) (14,359) - - - - (61,271) *
CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects - (96,841) - - - - (96,841) *
CIP Grant Administrative Projects (164,574) - - (41,672) - - (206,246) *
CIP Grant ARPR/SLFRF Projects - (324,830) - (124,563) - - (449,393) *
Gas Tax Fund Projects 247,731 (887,944) 126,963 - - - (513,250) *
CIP Fund Total 7,545,366 (1,973,286) 190,921 (568,018) 2,509,000 - 7,703,982
Total City 37,927,419 (7,627,591) 3,612,847 (2,357,981) 2,509,000 (2,509,000)31,554,694
35
TABLE 2: FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT
*Negative fund balance due to authorized spending of anticipated revenues
CIP Funds/Projects
Prior Year
Carryforward
7/1/2022
Increase/
(Decrease)
Jul - Oct
Current
Revenue
Current
Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out
Fund Balance
11/30/2022
Street Projects
Annual Road Improvements 1,009,556 (42,606) 37,901 (135,581) 1,000,000 - 1,869,271
Roadway Safety & Traffic Calming 147,118 - - - 150,000 - 297,118
Citywide Traffic Signal Battery Backup 266,315 - - (8,288) - - 258,026
Portable Radar Feedback Sign 1,548 - - - - - 1,548
Local Roadway Safety Plan 3,410 (363) - - - - 3,047
Traffic Signal Controller Upgrades - - - - 80,000 - 80,000
Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement 309,379 - - - - - 309,379
Village Clock 8,626 (6,066) - - - - 2,560
Big Basin Way/Blaney Trash Can Replacement 50,802 - - - - - 50,802
Annual Infrastructure Maintenance & Repairs 41,431 (13,705) - (8,884) 250,000 - 268,842
Guava Court Curb & Gutter Replacement 280,000 - - - - - 280,000
El Camino Grande Storm Drain Pump 104 - - - - - 104
Saratoga Village Crosswalk & Sidewalk Rehabilitation 49,055 (1,052) - (629) - - 47,375
Quito Road Sidewalk Improvements 43,370 - - - - - 43,370
Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road Sidewalk 92,158 - - - - - 92,158
Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. Pathway Rehab Cox to RRX - - - - 50,000 - 50,000
Quito Road Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Gap Closure 182,609 - - - - - 182,609
Quito Road Sidewalk Rehabilitation Gap Closure Phase 2 - - - - 300,000 - 300,000
Fourth Street Bridge Widening 99,837 (1,438) - - - - 98,399
Quito Road Bridge Replacement 132,197 (162) - (924) - - 131,111
Quito Road Bridge - ROW Acquisition 3,662 - - - - - 3,662
Bridge Rehabilitation Project Phase 1 - - - - 350,000 - 350,000
Annual Retaining Wall Maintenance & Repairs 222,450 2,877 - - 200,000 - 425,327
Mt. Eden Erosion Repair 59,622 (3,209) - - - - 56,412
Continental Circle Landslide Stabilization 57,447 - - - - - 57,447
Pierce Road Retainment 300,290 (320,589) - - - - (20,299) *
Mt. Eden Emergency Landslide 20,080 - - - - - 20,080
Unallocated Street Funds - - - - (171,000) - (171,000)
Total Street Projects 3,381,066 (386,312) 37,901 (154,306) 2,209,000 - 5,087,350
Parks & Trails Projects
Park/Trail Repairs 32,873 - - (2,850) 250,000 - 280,023
Hakone Gardens Infrastructure Improvements 16,599 - - - 25,000 - 41,599
Hakone Pond Reconstruction 300,000 - - - - - 300,000
Beauchamps Park Playground Replacement 35,131 (11,418) - (7,620) - - 16,093
Guava/Fredericksburg Entrance 235,970 (7,126) - (84,936) - - 143,909
Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design 228,989 - - - - - 228,989
Total Parks & Trails Projects 849,562 (18,544) - (95,406) 275,000 - 1,010,613
Facility Projects
Open Work Space 80,000 - - - - - 80,000
Civic Theater Improvements - 9,486 - - - - 9,486
PEG Funded Project 113,650 - 19,056 - - - 132,706
Community Center Improvement 24,513 (3,351) - - - - 21,162
Community Center Generator and EV Charging Stations 395,312 (158,908) - (16,742) - - 219,662
Library Building Exterior Maintenance 10,000 - - - - - 10,000
Total Facility Projects 623,475 (152,773) 19,056 (16,742) - - 473,015
Administrative and Technology Projects
Safe Routes to School - (1,245) - - 160,000 - 158,755
City Website/Intranet 16,948 - - - - - 16,948
Development Technology 20,538 (8,890) 220 (2,960) - - 8,907
Software Technology Management 118,695 26,129 6,481 - - - 151,305
LLD Initiation Match Program 25,000 - - - - - 25,000
Horseshoe Beautification 13,295 (290) - (870) - - 12,135
Business Renewal Program 6,643 (2,345) - - - - 4,298
Citywide Accessibility Assessment 28,066 - - (49,500) 100,000 - 78,566
City Art Program 53,669 - - - 25,000 - 78,669
Safe Routes to School Needs Assessment 15,748 - - - - - 15,748
El Quito Neighborhood Improvements 284,507 - - - - - 284,507
Parking District ADA Improvements and Rehabilitation 250,000 - - - - - 250,000
Storm Drain Master Plan 300,000 - - - - - 300,000
ADA Self Assessment - (2,250) - - 322,500 - 320,250
General Plan Update 238,592 (70,228) - (75,261) - - 93,103
Wildfire Mitigation Program 4,067 - - - - - 4,067
Risk Management Project Funding 54,153 - - - - - 54,153
Unallocated Administrative Funds - - - - (582,500) - (582,500)
Total Administrative and Technology Projects 1,429,921 (59,119) 6,701 (128,592) 25,000 - 1,273,911
36
TABLE 2 (cont.): FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT
*Negative fund balance due to authorized spending of anticipated revenues
CIP Funds/Projects
Prior Year
Carryforward
7/1/2022
Increase/
(Decrease)
Jul - Oct
Current
Revenue
Current
Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out
Fund Balance
11/30/2022
Tree Fund Projects
Citywide Tree Planting Program 26,666 - 300 - - - 26,966
Tree Dedication Program 25,875 - - - - - 25,875
Total Tree Fund Projects 52,541 - 300 - - - 52,841
Park In-Lieu Projects
Orchard Irrigation & Tree Planting 10,947 - - - 30,000 - 40,947
Hakone Gardens Infrastructure 82,420 - - - - - 82,420
Hakone Gardens Neighbor Wood Fence Replacement - - - 75,000 - 75,000
Quarry Park Maintenance Building Utility Project - - - 35,000 - 35,000
Beauchamps Park Playground Replacement 10,079 (60,079) - - 50,000 - -
EL Quito Park Pickleball - (2,584) - (6,738) 154,299 - 144,977
Joe's Trail Phase II - (1,245) - - 132,000 - 130,755
Joe's Trail Phase III - - - - 264,000 - 264,000
Trail Pet Stations 25,000 - - - - - 25,000
Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design 73,810 - - - 150,000 - 223,810
Village Oaks Bridge Reconstruction and Erosion Control - - - - 30,000 - 30,000
Hakone Gardens to Quarry Park Trail Gap Closure Phase 1 - - - - 50,000 - 50,000
Park and Trail Fire Mitigation - - - - 100,000 - 100,000
Unallocated Park In-Lieu Funds 970,299 31,343 - - (1,070,299) - (68,657)
Total Park In-Lieu Projects 1,172,555 (32,565) - (6,738) - - 1,133,253
CIP Grant Street Projects
Local Roadway Safety Plan (1,619) (3,263) - - - - (4,882) *
Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement (19,217) - - - - - (19,217) *
Citywide Signal Upgrade II 18 - - - - - 18
Saratoga Ave Sidewalk (34,146) - - - - - (34,146) *
Village Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter - Phase II Construction (91) - - - - - (91) *
Saratoga Village Crosswalk & Sidewalk Rehabilitation (834) - - - - - (834) *
4th Street Bridge - (11,096) - - - - (11,096) *
Quito Bridge Replacement 18,597 - - - - - 18,597
Quito Road Bridges - ROW Acquisition (9,619) - - - - - (9,619) *
Total CIP Grant Street Projects (46,912) (14,359) - - - - (61,271)
CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects
Beauchamps Park Playground - (196,841) - - - - (196,841) *
Park and Trail Fire Mitigation - 100,000 - - - - 100,000
Total CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects - (96,841) - - - - (96,841)
CIP Grant Administrative Projects
CDD Software/ADA (14,574) - - - - - (14,574) *
General Plan Update (LEAP)(150,000) - - (41,672) - - (191,672) *
Total CIP Grant Administrative Projects (164,574) - - (41,672) - - (206,246)
CIP Grant ARPA/SLFRF Projects
Storm Water Master Plan - (227,453) - (98,902) - - (326,355) *
Saratoga Village Water Improvement - (97,377) - (25,661) - - (123,038) *
Total CIP Grant ARPA/SLFRF Projects - (324,830) - (124,563) - - (449,393)
Gas Tax Fund Projects
Annual Roadway Improvements 194,170 (887,944) 126,963 - - - (566,811) *
Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvements 48,278 - - - - - 48,278
Big Basin Way Sidewalk Repairs (1,802) - - - - - (1,802) *
Quito Road Bridges 7,085 - - - - - 7,085
Total Gas Tax Fund Projects 247,731 (887,944) 126,963 - - - (513,250)
Total CIP Funds 7,545,366 (1,973,286) 190,921 (568,018) 2,509,000 - 7,703,982
37
CHART 1: CHANGE IN INVESTMENT POOL BALANCE BY MONTH
38
CHART 2
March June September December
1977 5.68 5.78 5.84 6.45
1978 6.97 7.35 7.86 8.32
1979 8.81 9.10 9.26 10.06
1980 11.11 11.54 10.01 10.47
1981 11.23 11.68 12.40 11.91
1982 11.82 11.99 11.74 10.71
1983 9.87 9.64 10.04 10.18
1984 10.32 10.88 11.53 11.41
1985 10.32 9.98 9.54 9.43
1986 9.09 8.39 7.81 7.48
1987 7.24 7.21 7.54 7.97
1988 8.01 7.87 8.20 8.45
1989 8.76 9.13 8.87 8.68
1990 8.52 8.50 8.39 8.27
1991 7.97 7.38 7.00 6.52
1992 5.87 5.45 4.97 4.67
1993 4.64 4.51 4.44 4.36
1994 4.25 4.45 4.96 5.37
1995 5.76 5.98 5.89 5.76
1996 5.62 5.52 5.57 5.58
1997 5.56 5.63 5.68 5.71
1998 5.70 5.66 5.64 5.46
1999 5.19 5.08 5.21 5.49
2000 5.80 6.18 6.47 6.52
2001 6.16 5.32 4.47 3.52
2002 2.96 2.75 2.63 2.31
2003 1.98 1.77 1.63 1.56
2004 1.47 1.44 1.67 2.00
2005 2.38 2.85 3.18 3.63
2006 4.03 4.53 4.93 5.11
2007 5.17 5.23 5.24 4.96
2008 4.18 3.11 2.77 2.54
2009 1.91 1.51 0.90 0.60
2010 0.56 0.56 0.51 0.46
2011 0.51 0.48 0.38 0.38
2012 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.32
2013 0.28 0.24 0.26 0.26
2014 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.25
2015 0.26 0.28 0.32 0.37
2016 0.46 0.55 0.60 0.68
2017 0.78 0.92 1.07 1.20
2018 1.51 1.90 2.16 2.40
2019 2.55 2.57 2.45 2.29
2020 2.03 1.36 0.84 0.63
2021 0.44 0.33 0.24 0.23
2022 0.32 0.75 1.35
Quarterly Apportionment Rates
Local Agency Investment Fund
39
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:January 18, 2023
DEPARTMENT:Public Works Department
PREPARED BY:Emma Burkhalter, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT:Parking Restriction on 6th Street at 14630 Big Basin Way
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the Motor Vehicle resolution authorizing a No Parking zone in front of 14630 Big Basin Way,
on the east side of 6th Street for 100’, starting at Big Basin Way.
BACKGROUND:
The owner of 14630 Big Basin Way has completed a new sidewalk along the property’s 6th Street
frontage as required by the conditions of approval for the new building. This made the space too
narrow to support parking along this 100’ frontage. Previously, parking had been available for vehicles
parking half-on, half-off the road, but with the new curb, gutter, and sidewalk, this is no longer an
option.
It is therefore recommended that Council approve the Motor Vehicle resolution to authorizing a 100’
No Parking zone on 6th Street.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A –Motor Vehicle Resolution
Attachment B –Map of Parking Restriction
40
RESOLUTION NO. MV- ______
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A NO PARKING ZONE ON
THE EAST SIDE OF 6th STREET FOR 100 FEET, STARTING AT BIG BASIN WAY
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
I. Based upon an engineering and traffic study:
NAME OF STREETS LOCATION RESTRICTION
6th Street The 6th Street frontage
of 14630 Big Basin
Way
No Parking zone for 100’ with red
curb and signage.
II. All prior resolutions and other enactments imposing a parking restriction at the location
specified above are hereby repealed to the extent of their inconsistency with the restriction
specified above.
III. This resolution shall become effective at such time as the 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 meeting held on the 21
st day of December, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______________________________
Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Britt Avrit, City Clerk
1170540.1
41
Attachment B – Map of Parking Restriction
100’ No Parking
Restriction on 6th
Street in front of 14630
Big Basin Way
42
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:January 18, 2023
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department
PREPARED BY:James Lindsay,City Manager
SUBJECT:Resolution to Appoint City Representatives to the PLAN JPA Board of
Directors
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the resolution appointing the Human Resources Manager as Board Member,Administrative
Services Director as Board Alternate, and City Manager as Board Alternate to the Pooled Liability
Assurance Network Joint Powers Authority (PLAN JPA)Board of Directors.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Saratoga is one of 28 member cities that comprise the insurance authority, Pooled
Liability Assurance Network Joint Powers Authority (PLAN JPA). Members of PLAN JPA
collectively share the risk of self-insured losses and contracts with a third-party administrator to
handle the day-to-day operations of the group. Third-party administrator employees provide
general administration, financial management, underwriting, loss prevention, claims management,
litigation management, risk management, training and education, and other services necessary to
support the operations of the group.
The JPA Board of Directors consists of Primary and Alternate staff representatives from each
member agency. The PLAN JPA Board of Directors appoints officers of PLAN JPA, elects
committee members, and approves contracts, governing documents, and budgets.
The City Council designates the appointees to represent the City through the adoption of a
resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A –Resolution
43
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPOINTING CITY POSITIONS TO THE POOLED LIABILITY
ASSURANCE NETWORK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (PLAN JPA)
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga is a member of the Pooled Liability Assurance Network
Joint Powers Authority (PLAN JPA), effective July 1, 2018; and
WHEREAS, PLAN JPA is a self-funded insurance pool serving public agencies;
and
WHEREAS, the operations of these programs are governed by the JPA Board of Directors
and consists of Primary and Alternate staff representatives from each member agency; and
WHEREAS, participation on the Board of Directors is carried out by the City of Saratoga
staff as part of its regular duties and does not result in any remuneration to the employee.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby designates the following
positions as appointees to the PLAN JPA Board of Directors, effective January 18, 2023: Human
Resources Manager as Board Member, and the Administrative Services Director or the City
Manager as Board Alternate.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga
City Council held on the 18th day of January 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor
ATTEST:
DATE:
Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk
44
45
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:January 18, 2023
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department
PREPARED BY:Crystal Bothelio
SUBJECT:Response to 2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report “Show
Me the Money: Financial Transparency Needed”
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the draft response to the 2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report “Show Me
the Money: Financial Transparency Needed.”
BACKGROUND:
On December 14, 2022, the Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County released a report titled Show
Me the Money: Financial Transparency Needed.”The Grand Jury evaluated Treasurer’s Reports
of general law cities in the County from March to August 2022 for compliance with requirements
in California Government Code. The Grand Jury concluded that six of the nine general law cities
in the County are noncompliant with State law. Both Saratoga and Morgan Hill were compliant
prior to the Grand Jury’s investigation and Cupertino took corrective action to become compliant
during the investigative process. The City is required to submit a response no later than March 14,
2023 to Finding 9 of the Grand Jury Report, which commends Saratoga for producing Treasurer’s
Reports that are compliant with Government Code 41004. Once approved by the City Council, the
draft response will be signed by the Mayor and submitted to the Grand Jury of Santa Clara County.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A –City of Saratoga Draft Response
Attachment B –Civil Grand Jury Report “Show Me the Money: Financial Transparency Needed”
46
Incorporated October22, 1956
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Belal Aftab
Kookie Fitzsimmons
Chuck Page
Tina Walia
Yan Zhao
January 18, 2023
Honorable Beth McGowen
Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
Superior Court of Santa Clara County
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Subject: 2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report
“Show Me the Money: Financial Transparency Needed”
Dear Judge McGowen,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the 2022 Civil Grand Jury of
Santa Clara County Report “Show Me the Money: Financial Transparency Needed.”
Please find the enclosed response to finding 9 of the report. The City of Saratoga’s
response was approved by the City Council at the January 18, 2023 City Council
Meeting.
Sincerely,
Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor
City of Saratoga
47
City of Saratoga Response to Finding 9
2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report
“Show Me the Money: Financial Transparency Needed”
FINDING 9
The Civil Grand Jury commends the City of Saratoga for producing monthly treasurer’s
reports that include disbursements, receipts, and fund balances. The City of Saratoga is
in full compliance with California Government Code section 41004.
Response: Agree.
The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury evaluated the monthly treasurer’s
reports of general law cities in the county from March to August 2022 to assess
their compliance with State requirements and found that Saratoga was compliant
with the California Government Code. Starting with the City of Saratoga March
2022 Treasurer’s Report, the City transitioned to a new format for the report that
included information about monthly pooled cash transactions, quarterly
investments, and monthly budget summary by capital improvement plan budget
project. These changes were implemented to further align with California
Government Code section 41004 and to improve accessibility, clearly explain
major changes in cash, minimize opportunities for error, and maximize the City’s
ability to identify anomalies, concerns, or mistakes.
48
Release date here Page 0 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY:
FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
2022 Santa Clara County
Civil Grand Jury
December 14, 2022
49
Page 1 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... 2
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 3
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 4
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 5
INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................................................ 6
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 11
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 12
REQUIRED RESPONSES ......................................................................................................... 15
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................. 16
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 19
50
Page 2 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
Government Code, Section
41004
California Government Code section 41004 states:
“Regularly, at least once each month, the city treasurer
shall submit to the city clerk a written report and
accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund
balances. The city treasurer shall file a copy with the
legislative body.”
Treasurer’s Reports
The reports required by Government Code section 41004
may have various styles and titles. For purposes of this
report, the Civil Grand Jury will refer to these reports
throughout as "treasurer's reports."
Charter City
Article XI, section 3(a) of the California Constitution
authorizes the adoption of a city charter and provides that
the charter has the force and effect of state law. Article XI,
section 5(a), the "home rule" provision, grants to charter
cities the ability to govern over "municipal affairs."
There are six charter cities in Santa Clara County: San
José, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Gilroy, and
Mountain View.
General Law City
A general law city may only have a form of government
authorized by state general law. A city that has not
adopted a charter is bound by the state’s general laws even
with respect to municipal affairs.
There are nine general law cities and towns in Santa Clara
County: Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas,
Campbell, Monte Sereno, Cupertino, Saratoga and
Morgan Hill. The scope of this investigation is limited to
general law cities.
GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles: a set of
accounting rules and standards established by the
accounting industry.
51
Page 3 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
SUMMARY
General law cities in California are required to comply with California Government Code section
41004 (Section 41004), which states, “at least once each month, the city treasurer shall submit to
the city clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances.
The city treasurer shall file a copy with the legislative body.” The benefit of the law is to ensure
financial accountability and public transparency as well as to foster better fiscal affairs. Treasurer's
reports provide city councils with timely and accurate financial information necessary to make
reliable and sound decisions.
The 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) found that there is widespread
noncompliance with this state requirement throughout Santa Clara County (County) by the general
law cities. As of the date of this report, six of the nine general law cities 1 in the County are
noncompliant with this state law: Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Campbell, and
Monte Sereno. Additionally, the City of Cupertino was initially noncompliant until the city took
corrective action during the Civil Grand Jury’s investigation. The City of Saratoga and City of
Morgan Hill were the only two cities compliant prior to the investigation.
Based on responses from city officials, the Civil Grand Jury determined that there is a widespread
misunderstanding among these general law cities in the County regarding Section 41004 reporting
requirements. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that the noncompliant cities – Los Altos, Los
Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Campbell, and Monte Sereno – comply with Section 41004.
1 The Town of Los Altos Hills and the Town of Los Gatos are general law cities.
52
Page 4 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
BACKGROUND
The State Legislature established the office of city treasurer by enactment of California
Government Code, Title 4 - Government of Cities, Division 3 - Other Officers, Chapter 3 - City
Treasurer. The statutory duties for city treasurers may generally be found in the following sections:
Section 41001: The city treasurer shall receive and safely keep all money the treasurer
receives.
Section 41002: (a) The city treasurer shall comply with all laws governing the deposit and
securing of public funds and the handling of trust funds in their possession; and (b) if the
city has issued bonds, the city treasurer shall use a system of accounting and auditing that
adheres to generally accepted accounting principles.
Section 41003: The city treasurer shall pay out money only on warrants signed by legally
designated persons.
Section 41004: Regularly, at least once each month, the city treasurer shall submit to the
city clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances.
The city treasurer shall file a copy with the legislative body.
Pursuant to California Government Code section 36502, the city treasurer is an elective office.
California Government Code section 36508 and California Elections Code section 9222 permit
cities to submit to the electors the question of whether the city treasurer position should be an
appointive office. In that instance, the financial duties assigned by the state statutes to the city
treasurer are transferred from an elected treasurer to an appointed officer if approved by the
electorate. Only one general law city in the County, Morgan Hill, continues to have an elected city
treasurer, who serves for four years. All other cities in the County have opted to assign city
treasurer duties to senior administrative staff.
53
Page 5 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
METHODOLOGY
Upon receiving a complaint regarding Government Code section 41004 noncompliance in
Cupertino, the Civil Grand Jury decided to expand the investigation to review all nine general law
cities in the County: Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Campbell, Monte Sereno,
Cupertino, Saratoga, and Morgan Hill. From March to August 2022, the Civil Grand Jury began
the process by polling these Cities to determine if they produced treasurer’s reports.
The Civil Grand Jury took the following steps:
• Contacted a total of 22 officials across nine cities who were responsible for tasks relevant
to the topic of this report.
• Reviewed relevant sections of the California Government Code, California Elections Code,
and examined the ordinances, policies, and memos of each city relevant to their city
treasurer duties.
• Reviewed published city council and city committee agendas relevant to Section 41004.
• Reviewed other relevant city documents, including but not limited to financial audits, city
organizational charts, and relevant job descriptions.
• Verified the six most recent treasurer’s reports of each city, if submitted.
The Civil Grand Jury inspected the contents of each report to verify the inclusion of the required
elements: monthly disbursements, receipts, and fund balances. The Civil Grand Jury also
determined whether the reports were published at least once each month to be compliant with
Section 41004.
It should be noted that most cities do not call their report “Treasurer’s Report.” Appendix A
provides links to examples of compliant Section 41004 reports, showcasing variations in terms of
report name, style, layout, and appearance.
The Civil Grand Jury used the 2011-2012 Solano County Civil Grand Jury report entitled “City
Treasurer Functional Review” as a reference for this report.
54
Page 6 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
INVESTIGATION
All interviews and email correspondence were designed to determine if general law cities complied
with Section 41004. To be deemed compliant, a city must produce a financial document at least
once each month that details all of the following: monthly disbursements, receipts, and fund
balances – and must be filed with the legislative body. Six months of reports were requested to
verify an existing track record. Data collection and verification took place from March to July
2022.
The results of this investigation are depicted in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Section 41004 Compliance Among Nine General Law Cities
City/Town Compliant Noncompliant
Los Altos X
Los Altos Hills X
Los Gatos X
Milpitas X
Campbell X
Monte Sereno X
Cupertino X*
Saratoga X
Morgan Hill X
*During the investigation, Cupertino started complying with Section 41004.
There are a number of reasons for cities’ noncompliance:
• Some cities were under the impression that the Section 41004 mandate was a discretionary
guideline.
• Others adopted the practice of other cities that did not produce the requisite monthly
reports.
However, the primary error among the cities was that they produced abbreviated reports that
omitted required information such as receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. Some of the
deficient reports lacked substance, with abbreviated information presented without context or
details.
The Civil Grand Jury believes there is no fiscal impact involved in complying with Section 41004.
Outside resources should not be required since existing staff already make some financial reports,
collect this type of data, and should be able to produce treasurer’s reports. Therefore, each of the
deficient cities can be compliant with minimal effort or burden.
55
Page 7 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
Noncompliant Cities and Towns
Los Altos
The City of Los Altos does not have an elected city treasurer. Further, the Los Altos Municipal
Code does not specifically state which official performs the duties of a city treasurer. Los Altos
Municipal Code Section 2.01.060, however, provides that the city manager is the administrative
head of the city and is specifically empowered “keep the council at all times fully advised as to the
financial condition and needs of the city.” In the City of Los Altos, monthly treasurer’s reports are
not prepared and submitted to the city clerk in accordance with Section 41004.
At the time of the Civil Grand Jury inquiry in June 2022, the City of Los Altos did not submit any
treasurer’s reports. According to the City of Los Altos, Government Code section 37208
indemnified them from the Section 41004 mandate. However, the language of Government Code
Section 37208 refers to payroll warrants or checks and makes no mention of the reporting required
by Section 41004, which requires a report of “receipts, disbursements and general fund balances.”
Moreover, the language of Government Code Section 37208 neither excuses a city from complying
with Section 41004 nor makes any reference to Section 41004.
Further, the city erroneously noted that its Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
policy on financial reporting excused noncompliance with Section 41004 reporting requirements.
In 2015, the city adopted a “Financial Policy” that reads in part, “The city’s accounting and
financial reports are to be maintained in accordance with GAAP.” GAAP accounting does not
address the Section 41004 mandated requirements.
56
Page 8 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
The Civil Grand Jury determined that the City of Los Altos does not produce treasurer’s reports
and thus is noncompliant.
Los Altos Hills
The Town of Los Altos Hills does not have an elected city treasurer. The town’s Municipal Code
is silent on who performs the duties of the treasurer; however, the Civil Grand Jury learned that
the treasurer responsibilities fall to the director of administrative services.
The Civil Grand Jury received monthly treasurer’s reports in June 2022. Upon inspection,
however, they contained only disbursements and lacked receipts as well as fund balances; thus the
reports are incomplete and noncompliant.
Los Gatos
The Town of Los Gatos does not have an elected city treasurer. The town’s Municipal Code
Section 2.30.035 delegates the responsibility of the treasurer and the ability to assign those duties
to the town manager. The director of finance is responsible for the town’s financial matters. The
Town of Los Gatos produces quarterly reports, not monthly reports as required by Section 41004.
While the disbursements, receipts, and fund balances are in the reports, they must be published at
least once each month to comply with Section 41004. Because the production intervals are
quarterly, the Town of Los Gatos is not in compliance.
Milpitas
The City of Milpitas does not have an elected city treasurer. Milpitas Municipal Code section VI-
1-3.02 vests the duties of a city treasurer with the city manager, who is empowered to appoint a
city treasurer pursuant to Section VI-1-3.04. In the City of Milpitas, the finance director produces
weekly disbursement reports, quarterly receipt and investment reports for the general and special
districts’ funds, and annual reports for all other reporting.
At the time of inquiry in June 2022, the Civil Grand Jury noted well-prepared reports. However,
the frequency of report submission does not meet Section 41004 criteria, which requires monthly
reports. Reports showing all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances must be filed with the city
clerk at least once each month. Due to submission infrequency, the City of Milpitas is not in
compliance.
Campbell
In November of 2010, voters in the City of Campbell approved Measure O, which changed the
office of the city treasurer (and city clerk) from an elected to an appointed office. The City of
57
Page 9 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
Campbell’s Municipal Code is silent on who has officially assumed those duties.2 The Civil Grand
Jury learned that the city’s finance director has the responsibilities of a treasurer and oversees the
preparation of financial reports. The reports are prepared by the accounting clerk, reviewed by the
finance manager and the finance director, and approved by the city manager for inclusion in the
council packet.
At the time of inquiry in June 2022, 21 reports were submitted. The submitted documents had no
payroll records and accounts payable balances with paid or disbursed funds. Additionally, the
required information was not published at least once each month.
The City of Campbell’s submitted reports do not comply with Section 41004 because
disbursements, receipts, and balances are not filed at least once each month.
Monte Sereno
The City of Monte Sereno does not have an elected city treasurer. The Monte Sereno Municipal
Code section 2.04.010 designates the city manager as the director of finance and tasks the city
manager with “performing all duties of City treasurer as set forth in Government Code sections
41000 et seq.” At the time of inquiry in June 2022, six treasurer’s reports were received by the
Civil Grand Jury. While the reports did contain the required fund balances, the receipts and
disbursements were not compliant with the Section 41004 requirement.
Compliant Cities
Cupertino
The City of Cupertino does not have an elected city treasurer. The City of Cupertino’s Municipal
Code section 2.24.030 states:
The treasurer shall make monthly reports which conform to the requirements of
Government Code Section 41004. Said reports shall be delivered to the City Council, city
manager and made available for review by such other persons who may so request.
Until 2022, no staff member for the City of Cupertino had been preparing and delivering a monthly
treasurer’s report to the Cupertino City council. However, during the Civil Grand Jury's
2 The City of Campbell’s Municipal Code does not appear to have been updated. The City of Campbell’s Municipal
Code section 2.08.010 still states that the elected officers shall be those designated by general laws, which includes a
city treasurer. Further, the code has other references to an elected city treasurer. (See Sections 2.16.040 [city treasurer
compensation] and 2.16.010 [establishment of salaries].)
58
Page 10 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
investigation, the belated monthly treasurer’s reports for January and February 2022 were
published and placed on the Cupertino Audit Committee agenda.
The Civil Grand Jury recognizes the action taken by the City of Cupertino as soon as it was brought
to their attention. The City of Cupertino is now compliant with Section 41004 as of March 2022,
despite the stated history of not submitting the required reports.
Saratoga
The City of Saratoga does not have an elected city treasurer. The City of Saratoga Municipal Code
section 2-20.035 states that the city manager shall serve as the city treasurer and be responsible for
“other duties and responsibilities as required by law to be performed by the City Treasurer.” Thus,
the city manager is responsible for the preparation and submission of monthly treasurer’s reports.
The Civil Grand Jury verified in June 2022 that regular monthly treasurer’s reports are filed with
the City of Saratoga and are fully compliant with Section 41004. These reports can also be found
by the public on the city’s website. An example is shown in Appendix A.
Morgan Hill
The City of Morgan Hill has an elected city treasurer. The treasurer, in conjunction with the finance
director, prepares the treasurer’s reports.
The Civil Grand Jury verified in June 2022 that regular monthly treasurer’s reports are produced.
The reports contain all the required components of disbursements, receipts, and fund balances.
Thus, the City of Morgan Hill is compliant with Section 41004. A compliant Morgan Hill
treasurer’s report is shown in Appendix A.
59
Page 11 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
CONCLUSION
Within the County, there is widespread noncompliance with California Government Code section
41004 by the general law cities. The Civil Grand Jury commends the cities of Saratoga and Morgan
Hill for being in full compliance and notes the City of Cupertino’s quick action to become
compliant. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that the noncompliant cities of Los Altos, Los Altos
Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Campbell, and Monte Sereno comply with Section 41004. This is to be
done by producing treasurer’s reports at least once each month containing the required
disbursements, receipts, and fund balance information. The benefit of implementing this
recommendation overshadows any limited cost impact since existing staff could compile the
report. In short, there is great benefit in producing these reports, as they improve financial
transparency to the residents of the cities.
60
Page 12 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that noncompliant cities start producing treasurer’s reports as required by law.
Some cities produce abbreviated information that does not include requisite financial information
as defined in state Government Code section 41004. Some cities produce requisite reports, but not
on a monthly basis.
Finding 1
The City of Los Altos is not submitting monthly treasurer’s reports in compliance with California
Government Code section 41004.
Recommendation 1
The City of Los Altos should comply with Government Code section 41004 by submitting monthly
treasurer’s reports that include monthly disbursements, receipts, and fund balances and by filing
those reports with the city. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023.
Finding 2
The City of Los Altos does not produce treasurer’s reports in compliance with California
Government Code section 41004. The reason provided for non-compliance was that the City of
Los Altos’ financial policy does not require the preparation and submission of treasurer’s reports.
It is an erroneous belief that internal policies excuse compliance with Government Code section
41004.
Recommendation 2
The City of Los Altos should amend its financial policy to require that monthly treasurer’s reports
be prepared and submitted in accordance with California Government Code section 41004 by
March 15, 2023.
Finding 3
The Town of Los Altos Hills produces monthly treasurer’s reports but the content of those reports
lacks monthly disbursements, receipts, and fund balances required by California Government Code
section 41004.
Recommendation 3
The Town of Los Altos Hills should update their existing monthly reports to include monthly
disbursements, receipts, and fund balances by March 15, 2023.
Finding 4
The Town of Los Gatos produced reports that contain the required content but does not produce
the treasurer’s reports on a monthly basis as required by California Government Code section
41004.
61
Page 13 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
Recommendation 4
The Town of Los Gatos should produce its reports on a monthly basis to comply with California
Government Code section 41004 by March 15, 2023.
Finding 5
The City of Milpitas does not produce monthly treasurer’s reports as required by California
Government Code section 41004.
Recommendation 5
The Civil Grand Jury recommends that the City of Milpitas comply with California Government
Code section 41004 by producing monthly treasurer’s reports that include monthly disbursements,
receipts, and fund balances by March 15, 2023.
Finding 6
The City of Campbell does not produce monthly treasurer’s reports as required by California
Government Code section 41004.
Recommendation 6
The City of Campbell should comply with California Government Code section 41004 by
producing monthly treasurer’s reports that include monthly disbursements, receipts, and fund
balances by March 15, 2023.
Finding 7
The City of Monte Sereno does not produce monthly treasurer’s reports as required by California
Government Code section 41004.
Recommendation 7
The City of Monte Sereno should comply with California Government Code section 41004 by
producing monthly treasurer’s reports that include monthly disbursements, receipts, and fund
balances by March 15, 2023.
Finding 8
When the Civil Grand Jury began this investigation, the City of Cupertino was not in compliance
with California Government Code section 41004. However, starting in March 2022, the City of
Cupertino began producing treasurer’s reports compliant with Section 41004.
Recommendation 8
The City of Cupertino should maintain compliance with California Government Code section
41004. Continued compliance is recommended.
62
Page 14 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
Finding 9
The Civil Grand Jury commends the City of Saratoga for producing monthly treasurer’s reports
that include disbursements, receipts, and fund balances. The City of Saratoga is in full compliance
with California Government Code section 41004.
Recommendation 9
No recommendation.
Finding 10
The Civil Grand Jury commends the elected city treasurer for producing monthly treasurer’s
reports that include monthly disbursements, receipts, and fund balances. The City of Morgan Hill
is in full compliance with California Government Code section 41004.
Recommendation 10
No recommendation.
63
Page 15 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(b) et seq. and California Penal Code section
933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies:
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
City of Los Altos 1, 2 1, 2
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
Town of Los Altos Hills 3 3
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
Town of Los Gatos 4 4
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
City of Milpitas 5 5
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
City of Campbell 6 6
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
City of Monte Sereno 7 7
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
City of Cupertino 8 8
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
City of Saratoga 9
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
City Treasurer of Morgan Hill 10
64
Page 16 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES OF COMPLIANT TREASURER’S
REPORTS
On the following pages are two examples of monthly treasurer’s reports that contain the required
disbursements, receipts, and starting and ending fund balances and are therefore compliant with
California Government Code section 41004. They are included to show that there are various
names and formats that the reports may take. Following the examples are links to the full reports
for ease of access.
65
Page 17 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
Example 1. Page 3 of 7 from Saratoga August 2022 Treasurer’s Report
https://legistarweb-
production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1578630/Treasurer_Report_for_August_
2022.pdf
66
Page 18 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
Example 2. Page 12 of 21 from Morgan Hill March 2022 Financial and Investment Report
https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/40944/March-2022-Financial-and-
Investment-Report-PDF
67
Page 19 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
REFERENCES
Bibliography
Campbell City Council meetings: December 7, 2021-June 7, 2022. Regular agenda item from the
Finance Department, titled Approving Bills and Claims. https://campbellca.gov/AgendaCenter/
(Accessed November 28, 2022).
Campbell City Council meeting: February 1, 2022. Regular agenda item from the Finance
Department, titled Investment Report – Quarter Ending December 2021.
https://campbellca.gov/AgendaCenter/ (Accessed November 28, 2022).
Campbell City Council meeting: May 3, 2022. Regular agenda item from the Finance Department,
titled Investment Report – Quarter Ending March 2022. https://campbellca.gov/AgendaCenter/
(Accessed November 28, 2022).
Campbell City Council meetings: December 7, 2021 – June 7, 2022. Regular agenda item from
the Finance Department, titled Monthly Investment Transactions Report.
https://campbellca.gov/AgendaCenter/ (Accessed November 28, 2022).
Campbell City Council meeting: April 25, 2022, Study Session Meeting of the Campbell City
Council. https://campbellca.gov/AgendaCenter/ (Accessed November 28, 2022).
City of Cupertino, A- Payments to Chamber Jan 2015- Mar 2022. Report, 2022.
https://cupertino.legistar.com/ (Accessed November 28, 2022).
City of Cupertino Administrative Services Department Finance Division, Fiscal Year 2019-2020
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. https://cupertino.legistar.com/ (Accessed November 28,
2022).
City of Cupertino, Audit Committee meeting, May 23, 2022.
https://cupertino.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=923553&GUID=0C41F4A6-93D2-4B90-
AAEB-7E5FF0F1EF8C&Search= (Accessed November 28, 2022).
City of Cupertino, B- Festivals – City Fees Waived & City Expenses. Report, 2022.
https://cupertino.legistar.com/ (Accessed November 28, 2022).
Cupertino City Council meeting, April 21, 2022: March 2022 Report of City-wide Fund
Balances/Net Position. http://cupertino.legistar.com/ (Accessed November 28, 2022).
Cupertino City Council meeting April 21, 2022: March 2022 Report of City-wide Receipts,
Disbursements, and Cash Balances Cash Investments. http://cupertino.legistar.com/ (Accessed
November 28, 2022).
68
Page 20 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
Cupertino City Council meeting, April 25, 2022. Administrative Services Department, Audit
Committee Staff Report for March, 2022. https://cupertino.legistar.com/ (Accessed November 28,
2022).
Cupertino City Council meeting, May 3, 2022. City Manager’s Office, City Council Staff Report.
https://cupertino.legistar.com/ (Accessed November 28, 2022).
Cupertino City Council meeting, May 19, 2022. Amended Agenda of the Cupertino City Council.
https://cupertino.legistar.com/ (Accessed November 28, 2022).
Cupertino Office of the City Clerk, Notice of Adjournment of the May 17, 2022. Notice, May 17,
2022. https://cupertino.legistar.com/ (Accessed November 28, 2022).
Cupertino, Payment Register. Report, December 21, 2021. http://cupertino.legistar.com/
(Accessed November 28, 2022).
Cupertino, Resolution NO. 22-015. Resolution, 2022. http://cupertino.legistar.com/ (Accessed
November 28, 2022).
City of Lancaster, Excerpt from A Quick Summary for the Press and Researchers,
https://www.cityoflancasterca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/10103/635775792210230000
(Accessed November 28, 2022).
Los Altos City Council meetings, January, 2022 – May, 2022. Monthly Disbursement Listing.
https://www.losaltosca.gov/calendar/month?field_microsite_tid=2131&field_microsite_tid_1=Al
l (Accessed November 28, 2022).
Los Altos City Council meeting, May 24, 2022. Quarterly Investment Portfolio Report – Quarter
Ended March 31, 2022. https://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/page/city-council-meeting-155
(Accessed November 28, 2022).
Los Altos City Council meeting, March 8, 2022. Quarterly Investment Portfolio Report – Quarter
Ended December 31, 2021. https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losaltosca-
meet-419c5823741c494d9706451908d3061f/ITEM-Attachment-001-
0979a9a16c5c4dc898b8e8d7d4d4a6e1.pdf (Accessed November 28, 2022).
Los Gatos Town Council meeting, February 15, 2022. Second Quarter Investment Report (October
through December 2021) for Fiscal Year 2021/22.
https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-pubu/MEET-Packet-
94e86df454424b8b95ccc3f6eff96e41.pdf (Accessed November 28, 2022).
Los Gatos Town Council meeting, May 17, 2022. Third Quarter Investment Report (January
through March 2022) for Fiscal Year 2021/22
https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-pubu/MEET-Packet-
997ea555609c4af9b94eeb28b34fc7e3.pdf (Accessed November 28, 2022).
Monte Sereno City Council meetings: December 28, 2021 – June 3, 2022. Regular agenda item
from the Finance Department submitting the monthly Treasurer’s Report.
https://montesereno.civicweb.net (Accessed November 28, 2022).
69
Page 21 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
City of Morgan Hill Finance Division, Monthly Financial and Investment Reports. March 31,
2022. https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/40944/March-2022-Financial-and-
Investment-Report-PDF (Accessed November 28, 2022).
City of Saratoga Administrative Services, Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended August 31,
2022. Final Report, October 5, 2022. https://legistarweb-
production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1578630/Treasurer_Report_for_August_
2022.pdf (Accessed November 28, 2022).
Solano County 2011-2012 Grand Jury, City Treasurer Functional Review. Final Report, January
12, 2012. https://solano.courts.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/111227-City-Treasurer-
Final.pdf (Accessed November 28, 2022).
California Government Code Sections 34000 – 45345.
Los Gatos Municipal Code 2.30.035.
Milpitas Municipal Code VI-1-3.04.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted with 16 individuals between April 25, 2022, and June 16, 2022.
70
Page 22 of 22
SHOW ME THE MONEY: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
This report was ADOPTED by the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 14th day of
December, 2022.
______________________________
Karen Enzensperger
Foreperson
71
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: January 18, 2023
DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department
PREPARED BY: Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: APCC22-0004 - Appeal of a Design Review application for a new two-story
residence located at 20538 Lynde Court
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct a public hearing and de novo review of the appeal and adopt the attached resolution
denying appeal APCC22-0004, approving the Design Review and Arborist Review approvals
(PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120) for the construction of a new two-story residence with an attached
accessory dwelling unit, and the removal of three (3) protected trees at 20538 Lynde Court and
finding the approvals to be exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
BACKGROUND:
On November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a Design
Review application to replace an existing single-story residence with a new 3,403 square foot, two-
story single-family residence located at 20538 Lynde Court. The application was submitted by
Rajesh & Sunita Lalwani. A copy of the Development Plan is included as Attachment G.
The Planning Commission previously reviewed the project at their meeting of September 14, 2022
and continued the item with the recommendation that the second story balcony on the front
elevation be removed and the windows on the front elevation be reduced in height to reduce
privacy impacts to the neighboring property across the street located at 20579 Lynde Court. The
applicant revised the project plans, reducing the length of the front balcony and windows, and
replacing the metal wire railing along the front of the balcony with a 3-foot-tall solid stucco wall
to reduce visibility from the balcony. The metal wire railing was also replaced with a 3-foot-tall
solid stucco wall along the rear balcony as well.
On November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised project plans and approved
the application. The Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes are included as
Attachment D and Attachment E, respectively.
72
2 | P ag e
On November 21, 2022, Jerry Han and Penny Li, also on behalf of Chris Chiang, Lynne Chiang,
Henry Tan, and Lydia Tan (Appellants) appealed the Planning Commission’s approval of the
Design Review application (PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120). The appeal application is included as
Attachment A. The Appellants live on two adjacent parcels to the north and south, and across the
Lynde Court cul de sac west of the project site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project site is located in a cul-de-sac at the end of Lynde Court in the R-1-10,000 (Single
Family Residential) zoning district. The site is currently developed with a single-story residence.
The site is surrounded by single-family homes to the north, south and west. Saratoga High School
is located to the east of the site, across Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.
On December 8, 2021, the Applicant submitted a Design Review and Arborist Review application
to demolish the existing single-story residence and construct a new 3,403 square foot, two-story
single-family residence with an attached 752 square foot one-bedroom accessory dwelling unit.
Three protected trees are proposed for removal. The City Arborist has approved the removal of
one Liquidambar, one Silver Maple, and one Modesto Ash which are in poor condition due to
disease and decay.
The application included five completed neighbor notification forms, two of which had no
comments. Three neighbor notification forms contained comments which expressed concerns with
the architectural style of the home being out of place in the neighborhood, potential privacy
impacts from the second story windows and balconies, and potential impacts to sunlight. The City
later received three letters of support from two neighbors residing on Lynde Court and one residing
on Lynde Avenue, as well as, ten comment letters from four neighbors residing on Lynde Court
further detailing concerns with shadows and potential privacy impacts from the second story
windows and balconies. A copy of the comment letters are included as Attachment F.
In response to neighbor concerns, the applicant modified the second story windows on the side
elevations with sill heights of 6’-6” and 6’ tall privacy walls on the sides of the front and rear
balconies to avoid impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties. Solid balcony walls are also
proposed, rather than the originally proposed metal wire railings, to partially obstruct views from
the balconies and sliding glass doors. A row of six 10-foot-tall (24” box) evergreen trees will also
be planted along the northern side property line for privacy.
APPEAL:
The Appellants listed one main issue within their appeal submittal as to why they believe the City
Council should overturn the Planning Commission’s decision and deny application PDR21-
0032/ARB21-0120. The Appellants’ appeal is summarized below with each issue followed by staff
explanation:
• Loss of privacy due to front and rear balconies
The second story balcony on the front elevation has a 6-foot-tall solid privacy wall along the
northern side of the balcony and the 10’-6” wall of the master bedroom closet along the southern
side.
73
3 | P ag e
The second story balcony on the rear elevation has a 6-foot-tall solid privacy wall along the
southern side of the balcony and the 10’-6” wall of the guest bedroom closet along the northern
side. A row of six 10-foot-tall (24” box) evergreen trees will also be planted along the northern side
property line in the rear yard to help mitigate privacy impacts.
Because this appeal requires de novo consideration by the City Council, staff recommends that the
City Council make each of the findings pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.080 required for Design
Review approval as set forth below:
a. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is
appropriate given the property’s natural constraints.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project minimizes changes to the
contours of the site. Grading will be limited to the location of the new residence, as well as
contouring the site as necessary to direct water to landscaped areas. The site development
is appropriate to the site’s natural constraints with single family homes around it.
b. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If
constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native
trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any
smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized
using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the City Arborist has reviewed and
recommends approval for the proposed removal of 3 protected trees. The number of protected
trees to be removed is being kept to a minimum and limited to trees that are in poor condition.
c. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are
designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to
community viewsheds.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the second story has a proposed height
that does not exceed the maximum allowable height for a single-family residence and
proposed setbacks that are in compliance with the minimum required by the zoning district.
The second story windows on the side elevations will have bottom sill heights of 6’-6” and
both balconies will have 6’ tall privacy walls on the sides of the balcony and 3’ tall solid
stucco walls on the front of the balconies to avoid impacts to the privacy of adjoining
properties. A row of 24” box evergreen trees will also be planted along the northern side
property line to help mitigate privacy impacts. No community viewsheds are located in the
vicinity of the project.
d. The overall mass and height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale
with the structure itself and with the neighborhood.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building has varying exterior
materials and architectural forms. The brown wood siding combined with the white smooth
stucco help break up the appearance of mass. The varying roof forms and recessed second
story also reduce the overall mass of the structure.
74
4 | P ag e
e. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains
elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape.
This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project includes a condition of
approval that front yard landscaping is to be installed prior to building department final
inspection. The City Code requires that at least 50% of the front setback area be landscaped.
f. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties
to utilize solar energy.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the development will not unreasonably
impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy as the project complies with
required setbacks and height restrictions.
g. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the
Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055.
This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the
applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook (provided
as Attachment H) in terms of compatible bulk and avoiding unreasonable interference with
privacy and views as detailed in the findings above.
h. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts
to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance
with Section 15-13.100.
This finding is not applicable as the project is not on a hillside lot. The project is not located
on a ridgeline and will not affect any significant hillside features or community viewsheds.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section
15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources
Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of a single-family residence and small
structures in a residential area.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
All notice requirements for the appeal have been satisfied. Notice of the public hearing was mailed
to property owners and residents and the hearing was advertised in the Saratoga News.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Appeal Application
Attachment B – Resolution of the City Council to Deny the Appeal
Attachment C – November 9, 2022 Planning Commission Resolution of Approval
Attachment D – November 9, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments)
75
5 | P ag e
Attachment E – November 9, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Attachment F – Comment Letters
Attachment G – Project Plans
Attachment H – Single-Family Residential Design Review Handbook
1604741.1
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
RESOLUTION NO: 23-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
DENYING APPEAL APPC22-0004, AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
PDR21-0032 AND ARBORIST REPORT ARB21-0120 LOCATED AT 20538
LYNDE COURT (APN 503-52-012)
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2021 an application was submitted by Rajesh & Sunita
Lalwani (“Applicant”), requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 3,403 square foot
two-story single-family residence with a 752 square foot accessory dwelling unit located at 20538
Lynde Court (“Project”).
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the Project, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and the
property owners; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission approved the Design
Review and Arborist Review application (PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120); and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2022, an appeal to the City Council was filed by Jerry Han
and Penny Li, also on behalf of Chris Chiang, Lynne Chiang, Henry Tan, and Lydia Tan
(“Appellants”); and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2023, following a duly noticed public hearing where the City
Council conducted a de novo review of the appeal, at which all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, the City Council considered the application, site plan,
architectural drawings, CEQA documentation, and other materials, exhibits, and evidence presented
by City Staff, the appellant, the applicant, and other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommends that the City Council
determine that this Project is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines § 15303, New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby denies the appeal of
theappellants,affirmsthedecisionofthePlanningCommissionoftheCityof SaratogaonNovember
9, 2022, and approves the applicant’s Design Review and Arborist Review application and further
finds, determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference. The documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based
are located in the City of Saratoga Department of Community Development and are maintained by
the Director of that Department.
Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures.” This exemption allows for the construction of a single-family
residence and small structures in a residential area.
83
Resolution 23-
Page 2
Section 3: City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1), Design Review approval by the Planning
Commission is required because the project includes new multi-story main structure. The Design
Review approval requirement implements the Saratoga General Plan, including but not limited to:
Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the
new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent
surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require
that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a
residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the
City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact
of new development.
Section 4: The required Design Review approval findings under Section 15-45.080 of the
City Code can be made and are set forth as follows:
Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is
appropriate given the property’s natural constraints.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project minimizes changes to the
contours of the site. Grading will be limited to the location of the new residence, as well as
contouring the site as necessary to direct water to landscaped areas. The site development is
appropriate to the site’s natural constraints with single family homes around it.
All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations).
If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and
native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal
of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be
minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the City Arborist has reviewed and
recommends approval for the proposed removal of 3 protected trees. The number of protected
trees to be removed is being kept to a minimum and limited to trees that are in poor condition.
The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are
designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to
community viewsheds.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the second story has a proposed height
that does not exceed the maximum allowable height for a single-family residence and
proposed setbacks that are in compliance with the minimum required by the zoning district.
The second story windows on the side elevations will have bottom sill heights of 6’-6” and
both balconies will have 6’ tall privacy walls on the sides of the balcony and 3’ tall solid
stucco walls on the front of the balconies to avoid impacts to the privacy of adjoining
properties. A row of 24” box evergreen trees will also be planted along the northern side
property line to help mitigate privacy impacts. No community viewsheds are located in the
vicinity of the project.
84
Resolution 23-
Page 3
The overall mass and height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale
with the structure itself and with the neighborhood.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building has varying exterior materials
and architectural forms. The brown wood siding combined with the white smooth stucco help
break up the appearance of mass. The varying roof forms and recessed second story also
reduce the overall mass of the structure.
The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains
elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape.
This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project includes a condition of
approval that front yard landscaping is to be installed prior to building department final
inspection. The City Code requires that at least 50% of the front setback area be landscaped.
Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties
to utilize solar energy.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the development will not unreasonably
impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy as the project complies with
required setbacks and height restrictions.
The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the
Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055.
This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the
applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of
compatible bulk and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed
in the findings above.
On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts
to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance
with Section 15-13.100.
This finding is not applicable as the project is not on a hillside lot. The project is not located
on a ridgeline, and will not affect any significant hillside features or community viewsheds.
Section 5: The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby approves Design Review and
Arborist Review Application PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120 located at 20538 Lynde Court (APN
503-52-012).
85
Resolution 23-
Page 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1.Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is
expressly otherwise allowed by applicable sections of the City Code, including but not limited
to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16-05.035.
2.The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Design Review and
Arborist Review Approval and may, at any time, modify, delete, or impose, any new conditions
of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, andwelfare.
3.The Community Development Director shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing,
on or after the time the Resolution granting the Design Review and Arborist Review Approval
is duly executed by the City, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection
with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”).THIS
APPROVAL SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS
MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT
BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Building Permit may be issued until the Community Development
Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus
balance of $500 ismaintained).
4.The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by thisreference.
5.Prior to final sign-off of any Building Permit to implement this Design Review Approval the
Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the Community Development
Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the Community Development
Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements of thisResolution.
6.Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend City as to Action Challenging
Approval of Application and as to Damage from Performance of Work Authorized by
Design Review Approval. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree
to defend, indemnify, and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions,
employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against:
a.any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action
on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken,
done or made prior to said action; and
b.any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any
manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or
grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting
on their behalf.
In addition, prior to issuance of an approved final inspection (i.e., a “finaled”) Building Permit
from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate
agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and
Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the Community
Development Director and the City Attorney.
86
Resolution 23-
Page 5
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City
Council held on the 18th day of January 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor
ATTEST:
Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: November 9, 2022 (Continued from September 14, 2022)
Application: PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120
Address/APN: 20538 Lynde Court/503-52-012
Property Owner: Rajesh & Sunita Lalwani
From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director
Report Prepared By: Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner
97
Report to the Planning Commission
20538 Lynde Court – Application # PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120
November 9, 2022
Page | 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 3,403 square foot two-story
residence with a 752 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. Three protected trees are
proposed for removal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 22-020 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in
Attachment 1.
Pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1), approval by the Planning Commission is required as
the project includes new multi-story main structure.
PROJECT DATA
Gross/Net Site Area: 11,066 sq. ft. (0.25 acres)
Average Site Slope: Less than 10%
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (M-10)
Zoning: R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential)
Proposed Allowed/Required
Site Coverage
Residence w/Garage
ADU
Driveway/Walkways
Patios/Porches
Total Proposed
1,972 sq. ft.
752 sq. ft
598 sq. ft.
1,383 sq. ft.
4,705 sq. ft. (42.5%)
7,439.6 sq. ft. (60%)
Floor Area
Residence w/Garage
ADU
Total Floor Area
3,403 sq. ft.
752 sq. ft.
4,155 sq. ft.*
4,340 sq. ft.*
Height 25’11” 26’
Setbacks
Front:
Left Side:
Right Side
Rear:
1st Floor 2nd Floor
30’11” 33’8”
8’5” 21’7”
8’6” 13’3”
28’6” 35’
1st Floor 2nd Floor
25’ 25’
8’ 3” 13’ 3”
8’ 3” 13’ 3”
25’ 35’
Grading Cut = 60 CY Fill = 10 CY
Export = 50 CY
No grading limit in the
R-1-10,000 zoning district
* Includes one-time 800 sq.ft. allowance for ADU per City code Section 15-56.025(5)(b).
Background
The Planning Commission previously reviewed the project at their meeting of September 14,
2022. The Commission continued the item with the recommendation that the second story
balcony on the front elevation be removed and the windows on the front elevation be reduced in
height to reduce privacy impacts to the neighboring property across the street located at 20579
Lynde Court.
98
Report to the Planning Commission
20538 Lynde Court – Application # PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120
November 9, 2022
Page | 3
The applicant has revised the project plans which include the following modifications:
• The second story balcony on the front elevation has been reduced in length by 6’-9” from
27’-1” to 20’-4.” The reduction of the balcony length has been accomplished by
enclosing the right side of the balcony to create a closet for the master bedroom. The
metal wire railing along the front of the balcony has been replaced with a 3-foot-tall solid
stucco wall to reduce visibility from the balcony and sliding glass doors. The balcony
depth remains the same at 4’-4.”
• The second story sliding glass doors on the front elevation have been reduced in length
by 6’-6 ½” from 23’ to 16’-5 ½.” The reduction in the length of the sliding glass doors
has been accomplished by removing one of the glass doors to accommodate the closet on
the right side of the balcony. The height of the sliding glass doors remains the same,
however a 3-foot-tall solid balcony wall obstructs the view of the bottom of the sliding
glass doors.
• The metal wire railing of the rear balcony has been replaced with a 3-foot-tall solid
stucco wall to reduce visibility from the balcony and sliding glass doors. The balcony
depth remains the same at 3’-8.”
SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Description
The project site is located at 20538 Lynde Court in the R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential)
zoning district. The 11,066 square foot property has an average slope of 1.4% and is currently
developed with a single-story residence. The site is surrounded by single-family homes to the
north, south and west. Saratoga High School is located to the east of the site, across Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road.
Project Description
The proposed lower floor of the residence is 1,972 square feet and includes a living room, dining
room, kitchen, office and attached two-car garage. The lower floor also contains an additional 752
square foot attached ADU which has one bedroom, one bathroom, living room, and kitchen. The
proposed upper floor is 1,431 square foot and includes three bedrooms.
The applicant has provided a color and materials board (Attachment 5). Below is a list of the
proposed exterior materials.
Detail Colors/Materials
Exterior White Stucco and Brown Wood Siding
Windows/Trim Black Metal Window Frames
Front door/Garage door Brown Wood
Roof White (flat roof)
99
Report to the Planning Commission
20538 Lynde Court – Application # PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120
November 9, 2022
Page | 4
Trees
The project Arborist inventoried eight (8) protected trees on the site. Three (3) protected tree are
proposed for removal. The City Arborist has approved the removal of one Liquidambar, one Silver
Maple, and one Modesto Ash which are in poor condition due to disease and decay. Replacement
trees are required to be planted on the site (Attachment 2).
Landscaping
The installation of front yard landscaping is required prior to building permit final inspection. The
project includes a condition of approval that landscaping is to be installed per City Code Section 15-
12.095.
FINDINGS
Design Review
The findings required for issuance of Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-
45.080 are set forth below.
a. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is
appropriate given the property’s natural constraints.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project minimizes changes to the
contours of the site. Grading will be limited to the location of the new residence, as well
as contouring the site as necessary to direct water to landscaped areas. The site
development is appropriate to the site’s natural constraints with single family homes
around it.
b. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If
constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native
trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any
smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized
using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that three (3) protected trees are requested
for removal which are in poor condition.
c. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are
designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to
community viewsheds.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the second story has a proposed height
that does not exceed the maximum allowable height for a single-family residence and
proposed setbacks that are in compliance with the minimum required by the zoning district.
The second story windows on the side elevations will have bottom sill heights of 6’-6” and
both balconies will have 6’ tall privacy walls on the sides of the balcony and 3’ tall solid
stucco walls on the front of the balconies to avoid impacts to the privacy of adjoining
properties. A row of 24” box evergreen trees will also be planted along the northern side
100
Report to the Planning Commission
20538 Lynde Court – Application # PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120
November 9, 2022
Page | 5
property line to help mitigate privacy impacts. No community viewsheds are located in the
vicinity of the project.
d. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in
scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building has varying exterior
materials and architectural forms. The brown wood siding combined with the white
smooth stucco help break up the appearance of mass. The varying roof forms and
recessed second story also reduce the overall mass of the structure.
e. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains
elements that are complimentary to the neighborhood and streetscape.
This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project includes a condition of
approval that front yard landscaping is to be installed prior to building department final
inspection. The City Code requires that at least 50% of the front setback area be
landscaped.
f. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining
properties to utilize solar energy.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the development will not unreasonably
impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy as the project complies
with required setbacks.
g. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the
Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055.
This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the
applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of
compatible bulk and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as
detailed in the findings above.
h. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable
impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in
compliance with Section 15-13.100.
This finding is not applicable as the project is not on a hillside lot. The project is not
located on a ridgeline, and will not affect any significant hillside features or community
viewsheds.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence
The Community Development Department mailed public notices to property owners within 500 feet
of the site. The public hearing notice and description of the project was also published in the
Saratoga News.
101
Report to the Planning Commission
20538 Lynde Court – Application # PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120
November 9, 2022
Page | 6
The City received five (5) completed neighbor notification forms, two (2) of which had no
comments. Three (3) neighbor notification forms contained comments which expressed concerns
with the architectural style of the home being out of place in the neighborhood, potential privacy
impacts from the second story windows and balconies, and potential impacts to sunlight.
The City also received three (3) letters of support from two (2) neighbors residing on Lynde Court
and one (1) residing on Lynde Avenue, as well as, ten (10) comment letters from four (4) neighbors
residing on Lynde Court further detailing concerns with shadows and potential privacy impacts
from the second story windows and balconies. The letters include photos of the neighborhood and
story poles, as well as additional diagrams (Attachment 3). The proposed second story windows on
the side elevations will have sill heights 6’-6” and the balconies will have 6’ tall privacy walls on
the sides to avoid impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties. Solid balcony walls are also
proposed, rather than the originally proposed metal wire railings, to partially obstruct views from
the balconies and sliding glass doors. A row of 10’ tall evergreen trees will also be planted along the
northern side property line for privacy.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section
15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources
Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of a single-family residence and small
structures in a residential area. The project, as proposed, is for the construction of a new residence
replacing an existing residence.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 22-020
2. Arborist Report
3. Neighbor Notification Forms
4. Story Pole Certification
5. Material Board
6. Revised Project Plans
102
Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 1 of 3
APPROVED MINUTES
WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 9, 2022
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
Chair Zheng called the virtual Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. via teleconferencing through
Zoom. Prior to Roll Call, the Chair and Community Development Director explained that the
Planning Commission meeting was conducted pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e) of
the Ralph M. Brown Act allowing teleconferencing during a proclaimed state of emergency when
state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing. The
Planning Commission met all the applicable notice requirements and the public is welcome to
participate in this meeting. Information on how the public can observe the meeting and provide
public comment was also shared. Additionally, the Chair explained that votes would be taken
through roll call.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Herman Zheng, Vice Chair Clinton Brownley, Commissioners Sunil
Ahuja, Jojo Choi, Anjali Kausar, Ping Li, Razi Mohiuddin
ABSENT: None
ALSO
PRESENT:
Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director
Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner
Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 12, 2022.
Recommended Action:
Approve Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 12, 2022.
AHUJA/KAUSAR MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 9, 2022
MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, BROWNLEY, CHOI, KAUSAR, LI, ZHENG.
NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: MOHIUDDIN.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS: NONE
REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS
2. PUBLIC HEARING
2.1 Application PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120; 20538 Lynde Court (503-52-012); Rajesh & Sunita
Lalwani (Continued from September 14, 2022) – The applicant is requesting Design Review
approval for a new 3,369 square foot two-story single-family home (maximum height 25’-11”)
with a 752 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. Three protected trees are proposed for
removal. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density
Residential (M-10). Staff Contact: Victoria Banfield (408) 868-1212 or vbanfield@saratoga.ca.us.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 22-020 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in
Attachment 1.
103
Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 2 of 3
The following individuals spoke at this time:
Jerry Han, Brian, Penny, Shon Shon Liu, Vipen, Henry Tan, Mr. & Mrs. Shadri, Vijay, Lydia Tan,
Chris Chiang, Lynn Chiang.
Two motions were made. The second motion was voted on first.
Motion #2
CHOI/ZHENG MOVED TO DENY APPLICATION PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120. MOTION
FAILED. AYES: CHOI, LI, ZHENG. NOES: AJHUJA, BROWNLEY, KAUSAR,
MOHIUDDIN. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
Motion #1
MOHIUDDIN/KAUSAR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 22-020 SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AJHUJA, BROWNLEY, KAUSAR,
MOHIUDDIN. NOES: CHOI, LI, ZHENG. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
2.2 Application VAR22-0003; 20711 Leonard Road (503-19-035); Yueyue Wenren & Weiheng
Chen – The applicant is requesting a Variance for an outdoor kitchen, firepit, and shed located
within the front setback area. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 with a General Plan Designation of
RVLD (Residential Very Low Density). Staff Contact: Victoria Banfield (408) 868-1212 or
vbanfield@saratoga.ca.us.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 22-025 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in
Attachment 1.
LI/ZHENG MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 22-025 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: AJHUJA, CHOI, BROWNLEY, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN,
ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
2.3 Application SUB20-0003/ENV20-0003/ARB20-0053; 14521 Quito Road; (397-05-028);
Pinn Brothers Development (Applicant) – The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing
11.43-acre parcel located at 14521 Quito Road into ten-lots ranging in size from .92 acres to 1.2
acres. The Project would create a new private cul-de-sac with a connection to Quito Road. The
private street would provide access to seven parcels and the remaining three parcels would take
access from Vessing Road. A .34-acre portion of the site is located on the opposite side of Quito
Road and would be dedicated to the City of Saratoga for open space use. Fifty-six protected trees
are proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 with a General Plan Designation of
Residential Very Low Density (RVLD). Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or
criordan@saratoga.ca.us.
Recommended Action:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 22-023 - recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration
2. Adopt Resolution No. 22-024 - recommending approval of the ten-lot subdivision and
removal of 56 protected trees
The following individuals spoke at this time:
Bob Shepard, Livia Hug, Richard Wong.
104
Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 3 of 3
CHOI/KAUSAR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS NO. 22-023 AND 22-0024 SUBJECT
TO CONDITIONS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AJHUJA, BROWNLEY, CHOI, KAUSAR, LI,
MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
2.4 Application FER22-0002; 14920 Sobey Road (397-04-071); Creston Dr LLC – The applicant
is requesting a Fence Exception for a 6-foot-tall fence within the front and exterior side setback
area where 3 feet is allowed. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 with a General Plan Designation of
RVLD (Residential Very Low Density). Staff Contact: Victoria Banfield (408) 868-1212 or
vbanfield@saratoga.ca.us.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 22-026 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in
Attachment 1.
CHOI/BROWNLEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 22-026 SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AJHUJA, BROWNLEY, CHOI, KAUSAR, LI,
ZHENG. NOES: MOHIUDDIN. ABSENT: NONE.
3. DIRECTOR ITEMS:
Director Pedro announced that Associate Planner, Victoria Banfield has left her position with
the City and will remain on a temporary part time status to assist with the transition.
4. COMMISSION ITEMS: NONE
5. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Kausar moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:07 PM.
Minutes respectfully submitted:
Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst
City of Saratoga
105
To:Saratoga Planning Commission
Project Address: 20538 Lynde Ct, Saratoga, CA 95070
A two-story single-family home project is proposed at the above address. I have reviewed the
plans. I don’t have any concerns with the project and I support it.
Neighbor Name:: ________________________________________________________
Neighbor Address: __________________________________________________
Date:________________________________________________________
Neighbor Signature: ___________________________________
VIJAY SHRIVASTAV & DIPTI SRIVASTAVA
LYNDE AVE, SARATOGA, CA 95070
10/10/2022
106
107
108
109
110
111
From:henry tan
To:Victoria Banfield; Victoria Banfield; Lydia Tan
Cc:henry tan
Subject:Re: Letter to Planning Commission regarding 20538 Lynde Ct.
Date:Monday, October 10, 2022 10:57:47 PM
Attachments:Picture from our Backyard Patio sight.pdf
Picture from our Master Bedroom sight.pdf
Picture from our Backyard pool sight.pdf
Hi Victoria,
Somehow I couldn't find the two pictures I sent last time in the neighborhood notification
forms. Therefore, I re-send them to you again and please attach them with our new comments.
Surprisingly, Mr. Lalwani didn' keep his promise to remove the front balcony and
high sliding doors.
Obviously, Mr. Lalwani knew the front balcony with high sliding doors would invade and
violate our privacy. Anyone standing on the front balcony can see through our whole
backyard including my master bedroom (see attached).
Let me quote what he suggested in his email. "Adding any trellis on top of your fence or
planting any plants to further reduce any visibility into your backyard" , reduce not block. If I
follow what he suggested. I have to remove my wooden deck and beautiful arbor, replace the
fence, replace and relocate my swimming pool equipment, etc. Wow, that will cost me so
much work and money. Contrarily, he should build a tall fence and plant more trees in his
front yard as long as they're tall enough to block the visibility into our backyard.
Once again, thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Best Regards,
Henry & Lydia Tan
112
113
114
115
October 10, 2022
Saratoga Planning Commission
Attn.: Victoria Banfield
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Project Application of 20538 Lynde Court,
Dear Chair Zheng, Vice Chair Brownley, and Planning Commission members,
After reviewing the revised design of this project, I want to dispute the project builder
Livio’s false claims about Vision Triangle, Limited View, and Side Window Height.
The vision triangle, also known as the clear sight triangle, is a triangular shaped portion of
a yard at the corner of a street or driveway intersection. It’s a term used by city street traffic
engineers. Livio misused Vision Triangle and misinterpreted it as a limited view from the
2nd floor balcony and side window of this project.
Humans have a slightly over 210-degree forward-facing horizontal arc of their visual field,
without eye movements. The vertical range of the visual field in humans is around 150
degrees. A camera can only catch pictures at a fix location and position. On the contrary,
humans move around with constant eye movements. Therefore, a digital camera, even with
a fisheye lens, can’t produce the exact field of view of humans. Livio claimed our neighbors
will only see a small part of our backyard is a distorted statement.
Livio claimed the 2nd floor side windows will be at 6’5” high of the exterior wall. However,
common sense tells us that windows at exterior wall height is not the same as the interior
floor height. Because there will be more subfloor plywood, cement boards and floor
coverings, such as tile, hardwood, or carpet added on top of the interior floor. So this
statement from Livio is a partial truth, not the whole truth.
Attached is a PDF file, including more detailed statements and pictures of my privacy
concerns.
Thank you for taking my privacy concerns into your consideration of this project
development. I am still hoping that this project can reach a mutually acceptable solution
116
for the applicants and all concerned neighbors, so that the peace and harmony of our
neighborhood can be restored.
Sincerely,
Koh-Shyan Chris Chiang
Enclosures: As stated
117
Privacy Concerns about 20538
Lynde Ct. Project
Dispute of Livio’s Vision Triangles,
Limited Views, and Side Window
Heights
10/10/2022
118
The vision triangle, also
known as the clear sight
triangle, is a triangular
shaped portion of a yard at
the corner of a street or
driveway intersection
where nothing between the
height of 4 feet and 10 feet
is permitted in most US
cities.
https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1744/637820860710700000
119
Livio misused
Vision
Triangle and
misinterpreted
it as limited
views from the
2nd floor
balcony and
side window.
120
Humans have a
slightly over 210-
degree forward-
facing horizontal arc
of their visual field
(i.e. without eye
movements).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view
121
The vertical range of
the visual field in
humans is around 150
degrees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view
122
123
Livio’s false claim of limited view
when a person standing on the
2nd floor back balcony
124
125
Picture taken from a
ladder in my
backyard at 6’ height
with iPhone 13 Max
Pro wide angle lens
(18mm). If my
camera can catch this
picture, my neighbors
can see my backyard
even better from their
back balcony.
Because they will be
at a higher elevation
with better horizontal
and vertical field of
view than my camera.
126
Livio’s limited
vertical view (no
horizontal view)
of a person
standing on the
2nd floor.
127
Adding additional subfloor plywood and floor covering such as tile,
hardwood, or carpet on top of level 1 structure will make these
windows less than 6’5” high from the actual floor inside the house.
Wall height vs. Actual height inside the house
128
129
Picture taken from
the roof top of my
house with iPhone
13 Max Pro wide
angle lens (18mm).
If my camera can
catch this picture,
my neighbors can
see my backyard
even better from
their 2nd floor side
windows . Because
they have better
horizontal and
vertical field of
views than my
camera.
130
Livio’s
limited
Vision
Triangles
131
132
Picture taken from a
ladder inside my
backyard at 6’ height
with iPhone 13 Max
Pro wide angle lens
(18mm). If my
camera can catch this
picture, my
neighbors can see
my backyard even
better from their
front balcony.
Because they will be
at a higher elevation
with better
horizontal and
vertical field of views
than my camera.
133
134
135
From:Jerry Han
To:V c oria Banf eld
Cc:Li Penny
Subject:Re: Privacy Concerns of 20538 Lynde Court Project
Date:Wednesday September 14 2022 11:23:27 AM
Attachments:image004 ng
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
Hi Victoria,
Thank you and other mission members' visit yesterday. Here I just want to add one more thing about the rear side balcony since
some members thought there is a wall extended outside.
For the yellow frame portion, actually there is no wall there but it's miss leading with the tall poles there. The contractor finally
admitted that they can see a lot of our backyard although they made a mistake in the beginning as a professional contractor.
Please find the following email exchange.
They claimed to plant the 20-30 feet trees to address my privacy concern caused by their backyard balcony, but it comes with
the cost of losing my backyard sunshine. Based on measurements, it will block over 2000 sq ft of sunshine in the morning. That
explains why they don't plan to plant trees near the border of the other neighborhood since those trees on the east will block
20538's front balcony sunshine, for their own benefits. I don't think this shows respect to the neighbourhood. Not to mention in
the beginning they put the side windows which face our two bathrooms at a height of 4 feet and 6 inches high, which totally
does not respect the neighbourhood.
Could you please update these latest information to the members before the hearing if possible? Sorry for bothering you many
times, but this project concerns us a lot. Thank you very much for your help! Appreciate it!
136
137
138
From:Joyce
To:Victoria Banfield
Subject:Re: Planning Commission September 2022 Meetings
Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 5:41:39 PM
Attachments:09132022 Site Visit Agenda.pdf
09142022 Meeting Agenda web.pdf
Thank you so much for the information.
Unfortunately, I am 11 hour time difference away from home, won’t to be able to attend the
meeting.
However, I expressed my concern to the homeowner, wished him good luck at the same time
about two weeks ago. Didn’t hear from from them.
1.The proposed two story home would lower the value of my home. Because I, so are the
potential buyers I would assume, love the fact that mine is the only two story home in the cul
de sac, thus the privacy and the bragging right are worth some.
2. At the moment, I can enjoy a nice tree top and roof top view from my study window , the
proposed modernistic two story home would impose me a light sharp edged block arising
out of from the suburban residential sight. I am imagining an eye sore looking out.
Since rhe homeowber didn’t respond to my
message, thought to write to you directly.
I don’t mind you forwarding this email to them.
They are great neighbors and I wish them the best. I just hope that I don’t became the
collateral damage during the process.
Thank you Victoria !
Joyce
Sent from my iPhone
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
From:Jerry Han
To:Victoria Banfield; Li Penny
Subject:Privacy Concerns of 20538 Lynde Court Project
Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 1:42:48 PM
Attachments:Backyard Privacy Concern - 20538 Lynde Ct.pdf
Hi Victoria,
I reviewed the updated project design of 20538 Lynde Court. house with you on Aug
12, 2022. As my privacy concern of this project was not fully addressed in the updated
design, here I would like to reiterate it again.
We have strong concerns about the planned balcony and the French windows in the back of the project. First, there is no single house in this area which has a balcony in the front or back side. Secondly and most importantly, the balcony is 24.6 feet wide with two 8 feet French window sliding doors facing to the backyard. When standing on
the right corner of the balcony, the neighbor can either intentionally or unintentionally see almost half of our backyard, around 3100 sq ft. It feels like we are on exhibit at the zoo and hurts our privacy a lot. Please find the attached drawing estimation based on project plan’s page 2. Even if there is no balcony, near the French windows the neighbor can see around 1500 sq ft of our backyard, which also hurts our privacy.
I would appreciate your assistance to pass this information to the commission. I will also stop by City Hall this week to give you a copy of this letter with my and my wife's signatures. Thank you!
Best regards,Jerry Han
148
149
August 12, 2022
Saratoga Planning Commission
Attn.: Victoria Banfield
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Project Application of 20538 Lynde Court,
Dear Chair Zheng, Vice Chair Brwonley, and Planning Commission members,
Our names are Koh-Shyan Chris Chiang and Ling-Ju Lynne Chiang. We are the owners
of our house at 20540 Lynde Court and have been living here peacefully and happily since
1988.
Last December we were informed by the applicant of 20538 Lynde Court project.
Consequently, we sent our privacy concerns regarding this proposed project to the Planning
Commission by the way of the City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form on December
6, 2021. As I stated in the form, the majority (more than 90%) of two-story houses in our
Reid/Lynde/Deerpark neighborhood have no balconies and no side windows. In addition,
most of the front and back windows of these houses have a maximum height of 3 feet.
Please see the attached “Reid/Lynde/DeerPark 2-Story Houses Summary” document for
more details.
In contrast, the new 20538 Lynde Court proposed house design has side windows,
front and back balconies, and 7 feet tall sliding doors. A south side window facing our
backyard, the front and the back balconies, and 7 feet tall sliding doors in the front and
back will definitely be major privacy issues for us. Because majority of our backyard will
be visible from the above mentioned locations. Since we are retired seniors spending most
of our time in our yard, with this new design we will be living under the constant pressure
of worrying that our neighbors will be looking into our backyard either intentionally or
unintentionally.
A recent review of this project plan at City Hall on July 20, 2022 showed that the project
applicants simply ignored our privacy concerns and moved forward with their original
design without any communication with us. Therefore, we would like to bring our
unaddressed privacy issues regarding 20538 Lynde Court project to your attention.
150
We respect that our neighbors have the right to pursue and build their new dream house.
However, if this project comes at the cost of our anxiety and impacts our existing daily
activities in our home and backyard, someone’s new dream house then becomes a
nightmare for us living in our existing house. Furthermore we are conscious about not
disrupting the peace and harmony of this neighborhood. We worry that this will be broken
if the project proceeds.
In our country, established with rules and laws, all citizens have the right to build, defense
and preserve their dream homes, either new ones or existing ones, with all their heart, all
their soul, all their mind, and all their strength. So I am requesting your assistance to resolve
these unaddressed privacy issues.
Sincerely,
Koh-Shyan Chris Chiang & Ling-Ju Lynne Chiang
Enclosures: As stated
151
2-Story Houses in
Reid/Lynde/Deerpark
Neighborhood
152
20538
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
11
20540
153
154
House #1
20575 Reid Lane
155
House #2
20587 Reid Lane
156
House #3
13909 LyndeAve.
157
House #4
13901 LyndeAve.
158
House #5
13893 LyndeAve.
159
House #6
13885 LyndeAve.
160
House #7
13877 LyndeAve.
161
House #8
13869 LyndeAve.
162
House #9
20557 Deerpark Ct.
163
House #10
20531 Deerpark Ct.
164
House #11
20576 Lynde Ct.
165
August 15, 2022
Saratoga Planning Commission
Attn.: Victoria Banfield
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Project Application of 20538 Lynde Court,
Dear Chair Zheng, Vice Chair Brownley, and Planning Commission members,
To give you a better understanding of how this proposed project will seriously impact
our daily life because of privacy concerns, Ms. Banfield suggested sending you pictures of
our backyard facing this project.
Attached are 3 sets of pictures taken after the applicant installed “story poles” on the
site.
1.The first set of pictures shows what we can see from the ground level of our
backyard to the front balcony of this project.
2.The second set of pictures shows the south side windows on the 2 nd floor of this
project. These pictures were taken at various locations in our backyard, one of
them was about 100 feet away from the fence.
3.The third set of pictures shows the back balcony.
In addition, we are sending you the fourth set of pictures taken at the top of a fence
separating our backyard and the applicant’s property. We raised a question about side
setback compliance in last December. Based on the zoning compliance, the
allowed/required right side setback of the main house (1st floor) is 8’ 3”. However, this
project proposed a 5’ 4” right side setback. During my last visit to City Hall on July 20,
2022, Ms. Banfield told me the applicant has corrected his design to meet the compliance.
The pictures shows that the current right side setback of the main house (1 st floor) is still
5’ 4”.
There is one more issue regarding the applicant’s plan to mitigate our privacy
concerns. This plan will actually create more problems for us than solving our privacy
concerns. First, various tree species will take 10 – 20 years to reach enough height to block
my neighbor’s view to our backyard. Second, there are grapevines in our backyard near the
166
fence. These new tree canopies will block sunshine and hinder growth of our existing
grapevines. Third, since these trees will be planted so close to our backyard, we will be
then forced to clean up falling leaves and trim branches regularly.
Thank you for taking our privacy concerns and right side setback compliance issue into
your consideration of this project development. We really hope that this project can reach
a mutually acceptable solution for the applicants and all neighbors, so that the peace and
harmony of our neighborhood will be preserved and grow stronger.
Sincerely,
Koh-Shyan Chris Chiang & Ling-Ju Lynne Chiang
Enclosures: As stated
167
Privacy Concerns and Side
Setback Issue of 20538 Lynde Ct.
168
Picture #1-1
Front Balcony
169
Picture #1-2
Front Balcony
170
Picture #1-3
Front Balcony
171
Picture #2-1
Right Side Windows
172
Picture #2-2
Right Side Windows
173
Picture #2-3
Right Side Windows
174
Picture #2-4
Right Side Windows
175
Picture #3-1
Back Balcony
176
Picture #3-2
Back Balcony
177
Picture #4-1
Right Side Setback
178
Picture #4-2
Right Side Setback
179
Picture #4-3
Right Side Setback
180
September 7, 2022
Saratoga Planning Commission
Attn.: Victoria Banfield
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Project Application of 20538 Lynde Court,
Dear Chair Zheng, Vice Chair Brownley, and Planning Commission members,
Our names are Bi Jerry Han and Yanping Penny Li . We are the owners of our house at
20526 Lynde Court and just moved to this neighborhood in June last year.
Last December we were informed by the applicant of the 20538 Lynde Court project.
Consequently, we sent our privacy concerns regarding this proposed project to the Planning
Commission in December 2021 and Aug 2022. As we stated, the balcony is 24.6 feet
wide with two 8 feet French window sliding doors facing to the backyard. When standing
on the boundary of the balcony, the neighbor can either intentionally or unintentionally
see almost half of our backyard. It feels like we are on exhibit at the zoo and hurts our
privacy a lot. Please find the estimation and the vision from our backyard side (with the
mutual vision the neighbor can see our backyard as well) based on the balcony pillar
location. Please see the attached document page 1&2 for more details.
The new 20538 Lynde Court proposed house design with 10 ft box trees. Based on
the measurement from our backyard, 10 ft trees won’t solve the privacy issue. If the trees
are too tall, that will block the morning sunshine from the east to our backyard, hurt our
trees and vegetables, and prevent drying clothes. Basically, trying to plant the tree on our
east side to prevent the privacy issue caused by the balcony & 8 feet French window
sliding doors is creating a new problem when trying to solve the old problem. Please see
the attached document page 3 for more details.
We noticed that the shadow analysis was done for Dec, but the sun locations are
different in June and Dec and only having data for Dec is not convincing. So, we hope
this issue can be addressed as well. Please see the attached document page 4 for more
details.
During the recent open house, we noticed that the pillar which is set by the builder to
specify the boundary of the house is 8 feet close to the existing fence. According to the
recent boundary survey, our front yard boundary will be moved to our side a little while
most of our backyard boundary will be moved to 20538 Lynde Court side a little, which
gets the setback between the pillar and the new boundary smaller than 8 feet. This issue
should be addressed. Please see the attached document page 5 for more details. 181
We also noticed that the 2nd floor bathroom’s window will face our two bathrooms’
windows directly, which concerns us a lot since this is extremely private. Please see the
attached document page 6 for more details.
Saratoga is a community where the common good prevails and neighborhoods are peaceful.
We respect our neighbors’ right to build their new houses. However, the projects should
not be built at the expense of our anxiety and privacy. Furthermore, we have concerns
that it might disrupt the peace and harmony of this neighborhood. So, we are requesting
your assistance to resolve these privacy issues and concerns.
Sincerely,
Bi Jerry Han & Yanping Penny Li
Enclosures: As attached
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
1. HERS VERIFICATION REQUIRED FOR THE HVAC COOLING, HVAC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FAN SYSTEMS, AND IAQ (INDOOR AIR QUALITY).
PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION (HERS) TO PROJECT BUILDING INSPECTOR, PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION.
2. AT FINAL INSPECTION, A MANUAL, COMPACT DISC, WEB-BASED REFERENCE, OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE MEDIA INCLUDING ITEMS 1
THROUGH 10 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CGBSC SECTION 4.410.1 SHALL BE PLACED IN THE BUILDING.
3. ALL ADHESIVES, SEALANTS, CAULKS, PAINTS, COATINGS, AND AEROSOL PAINT CONTAINERS MUST REMAIN ON THE SITE FOR FIELD
VERIFICATION BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
4. PRIOR TO ENCLOSING THE WALL AND FLOOR FRAMING, CONFIRMATION MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR SHOWING
THE FRAMING MEMBERS DO NOT EXCEED 19% MOISTURE CONTENT.
5. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING, PROVIDE A LETTER FROM THE CERTIFIED GREENPOINT RATER THAT VERIFIES COMPLIANCE
WITH THE CHECKLIST AND THE MINIMUM REQUIRED POINTS WERE ACHIEVED.
6. PROPERTY LINE SURVEY WILL BE COMPLETED BY LICENSED SURVEYOR AND PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR PRIOR TO
FOUNDATION INSPECTION
7. BUILDING HEIGHT VERIFICATION WILL BE COMPLETED BY LICENSED SURVEYOR AND PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR PRIOR
TO FRAMING INSPECTION
8. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL LISTED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED
TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AT ROUGH INSPECTION
9. EWAS SYSTEM WILL BE INSTALLED
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
1/4" = 1'-0"
A1.001
TITLE SHEET
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
NEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSE
20538 Lynde Ct, Saratoga, CA
95070-5312
ZONING COMPLIANCE
SQUARE FOOTAGE BREAKDOWN
LOT CALCULATIONS
VICINITY MAP N.T.S
GENERAL NOTESCONTACT INFO
SCOPE OF WORK
SHEET INDEX
DEFERRED SUBMITTALS
ZONING COMPLIANCE
EXISTING PROPOSED Allowed/Required
LOT COVERAGE
FLOOR AREA
SETBACKS (MAIN HOUSE)
EXISTING CHANGE IN TOTAL PROPOSED
HABITABLE LIVING AREA
NON-HABITABLE AREA
NET LOT AREA
LANDSCAPE BREAKDOWN
OVERALL:
VICINITY MAP N.T.S
2,494 SF 3,953 (1,972 + 384+ 1,597) SF 6639.6 SF
FIRST LEVEL = 1,972 Sq.ft.
COVERED PORCH = 384 Sq.ft.
REMAINING
IMPERVIOUS AREA =1,597 Sq.ft.
3,403 (1,972 + 1,431) SF 3,540 SF
DEMOLITION OF 2,494 SF OF EXISTING RESIDENCE STRUCTURE, NEW
CONSTRUCTION OF 3,403 SF MAIN HOUSE AND 752 SF ADU SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE OVER GROSS LOT AREA OF 11,066 SF.
2,494 SF
(22.53 %)(35.7 %)(60 %)
(22.53 %)(30.75 %)( 32 %)
ADU=752 SF (6.80%)ADU=800 SF (7.22%)
FIRST LEVEL= 1,972 Sq.ft,
SECOND LEVEL= 1,431 Sq.ft
44' 4"
78' 8"
9' 6"
8' 3"
30' 11" / 33' 8"
28' 6" / 35' 0"
8' 5" / 21' 7"
8' 6" / 13' 3"
FRONT (1st / 2nd)
REAR (1st / 2nd)
RIGHT SIDE (1st / 2nd)
LEFT SIDE (1st / 2nd)
464' 7"
25' 0" / 25' 0"
25' 0" / 35' 0"
8' 3" / 13' 3"
8' 3" / 13' 3"
OWNER : RAJESH LALWANI & SUNITA LALWANI
+1 (408) 621-9305 & +1 (408) 621-9342
ARCHITECT: LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS
CIVIL ENGINEER: RW ENGINEERING
408-262-1899
LAND SURVEYOR: GREG LEWIS
831-359-0960
SITE
FIRE SPRINKLERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13D AND STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS NOTE THAT PER CRC
313.3.7, A SIGN OR VALVE TAG SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE MAIN SHUTOFF VALVE TO THE WATER DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM STATING THE FOLLOWING: WARNING, THE WATER SYSTEM FOR THIS HOME SUPPLIES FIRE SPRINKLERS THAT
REQUIRE CERTAIN FLOWS AND PRESSURES TO FIGHT A FIRE. DEVICES THAT RESTRICT THE FLOW OR DECREASE THE
PRESSURE OR AUTOMATICALLY SHUT OFF THE WATER TO THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, SUCH AS WATER SOFTENERS,
FILTRATION SYSTEMS AND AUTOMATIC SHUTOFF VALVES, SHALL NOT BE ADDED TO THIS SYSTEM WITHOUT A REVIEW
OF THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM BY A FIRE PROTECTION SPECIALIST. DO NOT REMOVE THIS SIGN.
LALWANI'S
RESIDENCE
THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH
2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)
2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING
STANDARDS CODE
CITY OF SARATOGA ORDINANCE
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION : V-B
ZONE DISTRICT : R-1-10
LOT AREA: 11,066 SF
HISTORICAL: NO
NEW STRUCTURE
CALCULATION FOR ALLOWABLE FAR AS PER CITY CODE
15-12.085
3,200 + 170(2) = 3,540 SF
ADU = 800SF
NEW TWO STORY ALLOWABLE FAR 4340 Sq.ft. MAX
TOTAL FLOOR AREA
MAIN HOUSE LIVING AREA 3,403 SF
ADU LIVING AREA 748 SF
TOTAL COUNTABLE AREA 4,151 SF
GROSS LOT AREA = 11066 SF
NET LOT AREA = GROSS LOT
NET LOT AREA = 11,066
IMPERVIOUS AREA
DRIVEWAY 505 SF
WALKWAY 93 SF
BACK SIDE PORCH 1100 SF
FRONT PORCH 283 SF
FIRST FLOOR 1972 SF
ADU 752 SF
TOTAL 4705 SF
AVERAGE SLOPE:
S= 100(I)(L)or 0.0029(I)(L)
43560A A
AVERAGE SLOPE = 0.00229(1)(160.7)/(11,067/43,560) = 1.4%
FRONT YARD SETBACK CALCULATION:
HARDSCAPE AREA 598 SF
SOFTSCAPE AREA 997 SF
FRONT YARD AREA 1595 SF
SOFTSCAPE AREA (PERCENTGE) = 62.50 %
SITE
ADU=752 SF ADU=800 SF
LOWEST ELEVATION POINT AT THE BUILDING EDGE FROM NATURAL GRADE
HEIGHEST ELEVATION POINT AT THE BUILDING EDGE FROM NATURAL GRADE
AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT
TOP MOST ELEVATION POINT -MEASURED FROM AVERAGE POINT (ABOVE) TO
THE TOP MOST POINT OF THE ROOF (INCLUDE SEPARATE CALCULATIONS FOR
CHIMNEY, ETC.)
HEIGHT CALCULATIONS
464' 1"
465' 3"
25' 10.75" 26'
1,955 SF 3,724 SF
431 SF
3,724 SF
431 SF502 SF
TOTAL HARDSCAPE AREA (EXISTING AND PROPOSED): 4,705 Sq. ft.
EXISTING SOFTSCAPE (UNDISTURBED): 0 Sq. ft.
NEW SOFTSCAPE (NEW OR REPLACED LANDSCAPING)AREA: 6,361 Sq. ft.
SUM OF ALL THREE SHOULD EQUAL THE SITE'S NET LOT AREA 11,066 Sq.ft
(Net Lot Area)
LANDSCAPE BREAKDOWN
FRONT YARD:DRIVEWAY 505 SF
WALKWAY 93 SF
TOTAL 598 SF
FRONT SETBACK AREA = 1595 SF
SITE
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS = 3953 + 752
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS = 4,705 SF
DRG NUMBER DARWING NAME DATE
A1.001 TITLE SHEET 22-SEPT-22
A1.002 NEIGHBOURHOOD SITE LAYOUT 22-SEPT-22
A1.003 NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTEXT MAP 22-SEPT-22
A1.004 SITE LAYOUT 22-SEPT-22
A1.005 SITE DEMOLITION 22-SEPT-22
A1.006 SHADOW ANALYSIS DIAGRAM 22-SEPT-22
A1.007 PRIVACY DIAGRAM 22-SEPT-22
A2.001 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 22-SEPT-22
A2.002 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 22-SEPT-22
A2.003 ROOF PLAN 22-SEPT-22
A3.001 REAR AND LEFT ELEVATION 22-SEPT-22
A3.002 FRONT AND RIGHT ELEVATION 22-SEPT-22
A4.001 SECTION A-A & B-B 22-SEPT-22
A5.001 DOOR SCHEDULE 22-SEPT-22
A5.002 WINDOW SCHEDULE 22-SEPT-22
A6.001 AREA CALCULATION 22-SEPT-22
A7.001 MATERIAL BOARD 22-SEPT-22
C-1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 22-SEPT-22
C-2 EROSION CONTROL PLAN 22-SEPT-22
C-3 BEST CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PRACTICE 22-SEPT-22
L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 22-SEPT-22
SU-1 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 22-SEPT-22
T-1 TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION 22-SEPT-22
T-2 TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION 22-SEPT-22
T-3 TREE PROTECTION PLAN 22-SEPT-22
U-1 UTILITY PLAN 22-SEPT-22
HARDSCAPE = 37.50%
189
N 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24' 00" W 121. 80'
Δ
=
8
1
D
5
1'
0
4"L= 60.0 0'
R
=42.0
0'
5' P .U. E.
5' W .C. E.
LOT 11
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
LOT 13
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
4 64 .334 64 .704 64 .86464. 73SIT E B E N CHM A RKSS MH R IM4 65 .46TC4 65 .26TC4 64 .51TC4 64 .42TC4 64 .91TC4 65 .144 65 .004 64 .884 64 .844 64 .844 64 .604 64 .894 64 .534 64 .174 64 .504 64 .244 64 .464 64 .904 64 .204 64 .164 64 .224 64 .204 64 .314 64 .274 64 .554 64 .404 64 .654 64 .684 64 .494 64 .384 64 .404 64 .174 64 .504 64 .124 64 .214 64 .104 64 .124 64 .634 64 .554 64 .574 64 .484 64 .024 64 .274 64 .374 64 .394 64 .404 64 .374 64 .324 64 .254 64 .244 64 .224 63 .664 63 .134 63 .494 63 .744 63 .554 63 .284 62 .914 63 .134 62 .644 62 .414 62 .844 63 .834 64 .664 64 .484 64 .594 64 .874 64 .324 63 .874 63 .824 63 .744 63 .984 64 .374 64 .304 64 .054 6 4. 2 8
C
B
WM
MB
CONC D
/
W
WOOD
D
ECK
EL=465.7
SPA
CONC
PATI
O
CONC
W
ALK
EXISTING GARA
GE
FF=464.4GM
TR
EE #19.3" /5.6 "TRE
E #712.3"TRE
E #23"/3"TRE
E #36.5"TRE
E #45.8"TRE
E #65.1"TRE
E #87.4"TRE
E #1
014"TRE
E #95.8"TRE
E #1
128.8"TRE
E #1
223"TRE
E #1
316.1"TRE
E #1
418.8"TRE
E #1
521.2"LYNDE
C
O
U
R
T
20538
20540
20552
20564
20576
20588
20526
13904
20579
1391713909
139011389313885
13888 13896
LYNDE CT
LYNDE AVE 111.93126.59129.2779.0080.00 85.00 126.74 78.28
39.2272.09
48.9
525.67
58.0260.00
60.00
24.6
2
13.9
725.96
60.
0
0
25.5034.5087.0087.0087.0087.00115.0074.38
63.97143.00121.80
86.49
50.8737.59
104.48
31
.
4
2
1
7
8
.
0
1 115.61137.48130.5
1
115.00
115.00
115.00
96.6285.0085.0085.0085.00
96.6285.0085.0085.0085.00
120.00120.00120.00120.00120.0023.6
1
64.5429.48156.30NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
As indicated
A1.002
NEIGHBOURHOOD SITE LAYOUT
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
Lynde Ct
20552205402053820526
13904
Lynde Ave
20579
13909 13901 13893
20538
20526
20538
20540
1" = 20'-0"11 NEIGHBOURHOOD SITE LAYOUT
190
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
As indicated
A1.003
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTEXT MAP
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
20526 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,
WIDE SIDING
CONTEXT MAP
20579 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,
WIDE HORIZONTAL SIDING 20540 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,
WIDE BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING 20552 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,
STUCCO FINISH
20538 TWO STORY, TPO ROOF,
WIDE SIDING
13909 TWO STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,
STUCCO FINISH 13901 TWO STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,
WIDE SIDING 13893 TWO STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,
WIDE SIDING13904ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,
WIDE SIDING
191
N 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80'
Δ=81
D
5
1'
0
4"
L=60.0
0'
R=42.0
0'
N0°24'00"W 35.00'
BASIS OF BEARINGS
5' P.U.E.
5' W.C.E.
LOT 11
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
LOT 13
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARK465.91465.60465.51SSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.16464.22464.20464.31464.27464.55464.40464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.59464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.30464.28LYNDE
C
O
U
R
TN 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80'
Δ=81
D
5
1'
0
4"
L=60.0
0'
R=42.0
0'
N0°24'00"W 35.00'
BASIS OF BEARINGS
5' P.U.E.
5' W.C.E.
LOT 11
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
LOT 13
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARK465.91465.60465.51SSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.16464.22464.20464.31464.27464.55464.40464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.59464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.30464.28LYNDE
C
O
U
R
T
PROPERTY LINE
LEVEL 2
SETBACK LINE
9
3
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
OH
OHOH
OH
OH
SECOND LEVEL
BUILDING OUTLINE
CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
PROPERTY LINE
E
N
T
R
Y
CONCRETE
OR TILES ON
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
OR TILES ON
CONCRETE
UPNTR-1
TR-11
TR-15
4
2
'
-
0
"
3
4
'
-
1
3
/
4
"
GM
EM
JTJTJTJTJTJTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSCO (N)W
W
W
W CONCRETE WALKWAY8
3
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
NEW WATER
METER
OPEN PATIO
COVERED
PORCH
OPEN
PORCH
4' - 11 3/4"ADJC
E
N
T
H
O
U
S
E
ADJCENT HOUSE
FENCING
AC / HEAT PUMP
AC / HEAT PUMP
ADU
1ST LVL PROPSED SETBACK8' - 5"46'
-
2
1
/4
"44'
-
4
1
/2
"25'
-
0
3
/4
"
2
0
'
-
0
"
GARAGE 115'
-
7
1
/4
"
1
7
7
'
-
1
0
"
122' - 0 3/4"2ND LVL ALLOWED SETBACK35' - 0"LOT WI
DT
H82' - 5 3/4"2ND LEVEL PROPOSED SETBACK21' - 6 3/4"2ND LVL PROPOSED SETBACK35' - 0"TREE
PROTECTION
FENCE 20' - 0"1
S
T
L
V
L
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
E
T
B
A
C
K
3
0
'
-
1
0
3
/
4
"
2
N
D
L
V
L
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
3
3
'
-
7
3
/
4
"
DRIVEWAY O
P
E
N
I
N
G
21' - 3 1/2"
1ST LVL
A
L
L
O
W
E
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
8' - 3"
2ND LVL
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
13' - 3"
2ND LV
L
A
L
L
O
W
E
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
13' - 3"1ST LVL ALLOWED SETBACK25' - 0"1
S
T
&
2
N
D
L
V
L
A
L
LOW
E
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
2
5
'
-
0
"
TR-1
TR-3-R
TR-7-R
12"
TR-8-R
7.4"
TR-9-R
5.8"
TR-11
29"TR-12-R
23"
TR-13-R
16"
TR-14
19"
TR-16-R
5"
CHERRY
LAUREL
CHERRY
LAUREL
LIQUIDAMABAR
PEAR
PLUMOT
DEODAR
CEDAR MODESTO
ASH
MODESTO
ASH
MODESTO
ASH
7"
6.5"
BLACK
ACACIATR-4-R
6"
LEMON
MODESTO
ASH
DOGWOODTR-2-R
3"
CHERRY
LAUREL
TR-6-R
5"
TR-5-R
6"
BLACK
ACACIA
TR-15
21"2ND LVL ALLOWED SETBACK13' - 3"1ST LVL PROPSED SETBACK28' - 6"1ST LVL
P
R
O
P
S
E
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
8' - 5 3/4"1ST LVL ALLOWED SETBACK8' - 3"LO
T
DE
P
TH
1
3
4
'
-
1
1
/
4
"
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
OUTDOOR
KITCHEN
TREE PROTECTION
FENCE
SECOND STORY FOOTPRINT
SETBACK LINE
SITE LEGENDS :
TREE TO BE REMOVE
JOINT TRENCH
SANITORY SEWER
WATER LINE
JT JT JT
SS SS SS
W W W
1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
As indicated
A1.004
SITE LAYOUT
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
192
N 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80'
Δ=81
D
5
1'
0
4"
L=60.0
0'
R=42.0
0'
N0°24'00"W 35.00'
BASIS OF BEARINGS
5' P.U.E.
5' W.C.E.
LOT 11
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
LOT 13
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARK465.91465.60465.51SSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.76464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.27464.31464.44464.16464.20464.25464.12464.19464.77464.35464.30464.31464.31464.08464.55464.40464.41464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.48464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.59464.61464.87464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.42464.37464.30464.05464.03464.26464.28NEIGHB
O
RI
N
G
H
O
USE
CB
WM
MB
CONC D/
W
WOOD DECKEL=465.7SPACONC PATI
O
CONC
WALK
CHIMNEY
CONC
WALK
NEIGHB
O
RI
N
G
H
O
USE
TREE #19.3"/5.6"TREE #712.3"TREE #23"/3"TREE #36.5"TREE #45.8"TREE #56"TREE #65.1"TREE #87.4"TREE #1014"TREE #95.8"TREE #1128.8"TREE #1223"TREE #1316.1"TREE #1418.8"TREE #1521.2"TREE #176"LYNDE
C
O
U
R
TN 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80'
Δ=81
D
5
1'
0
4"
L=60.0
0'
R=42.0
0'
N0°24'00"W 35.00'
BASIS OF BEARINGS
5' P.U.E.
5' W.C.E.
LOT 11
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
LOT 13
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARK465.91465.60465.51SSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.76464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.27464.31464.44464.16464.20464.25464.12464.19464.77464.35464.30464.31464.31464.08464.55464.40464.41464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.48464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.59464.61464.87464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.42464.37464.30464.05464.03464.26464.28NEIGHB
O
RI
N
G
H
O
USE
CB
WM
MB
CONC D/
W
WOOD DECKEL=465.7SPACONC PATI
O
CONC
WALK
CHIMNEY
CONC
WALK
NEIGHB
O
RI
N
G
H
O
USE
TREE #19.3"/5.6"TREE #712.3"TREE #23"/3"TREE #36.5"TREE #45.8"TREE #56"TREE #65.1"TREE #87.4"TREE #1014"TREE #95.8"TREE #1128.8"TREE #1223"TREE #1316.1"TREE #1418.8"TREE #1521.2"TREE #176"LYNDE
C
O
U
R
TN 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80'
Δ=81
D
5
1'
0
4"
L=60.0
0'
R=42.0
0'
N0°24'00"W 35.00'
BASIS OF BEARINGS
5' P.U.E.
5' W.C.E.
LOT 11
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
LOT 13
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARK465.91465.60465.51SSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.76464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.27464.31464.44464.16464.20464.25464.12464.19464.77464.35464.30464.31464.31464.08464.55464.40464.41464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.48464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.59464.61464.87464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.42464.37464.30464.05464.03464.26464.28NEIGHB
O
RI
N
G
H
O
USE
CB
WM
MB
CONC D/
W
WOOD DECKEL=465.7SPACONC PATI
O
CONC
WALK
CHIMNEY
CONC
WALK
NEIGHB
O
RI
N
G
H
O
USE
TREE #19.3"/5.6"TREE #712.3"TREE #23"/3"TREE #36.5"TREE #45.8"TREE #56"TREE #65.1"TREE #87.4"TREE #1014"TREE #95.8"TREE #1128.8"TREE #1223"TREE #1316.1"TREE #1418.8"TREE #1521.2"TREE #176"LYNDE
C
O
U
R
T
HATCHED AREA
TO BE DEMOLISHED
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
1/8" = 1'-0"
A1.005
SITE DEMOLITION
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE DEMOLITION
193
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
3/64" = 1'-0"
A1.006
SHADOW ANALYSIS DIAGRAM
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SHRADHA M.
SUBHENDU
3/64" = 1'-0"1 DECEMBER 21 AT 3.00 PM
3/64" = 1'-0"2 DECEMBER 21 AT 9.00 AM
SHADOW ANALYSIS AT 09:00 AM ON 21ST DECEMBER
N
N
Shadow at 09:00 AM falls behind the proposed building.
West neighbouring house
Lot Area : 11631 sq.ft.Shadow percentage on lot : 7.52 % Shadow Area : 874.88 sq.ft
Roof area : 2607 sq.ft. Shadow percentage on roof : 3.20 %Shadow Area : 83.44 sq.ft.
SITE
SHADOW ANALYSIS AT 03:00 PM ON 21ST DECEMBER
Shadow at 03:00 PM falls on the East side neighbouring house.
East neighbouring house
Lot Area : 11404 sq.ft.Shadow percentage on lot : 0 % Shadow Area : 0 sq.ft.
Roof area : 3036 sq.ft. Shadow percentage on roof : 0 %Shadow Area : 0 sq.ft.
EAST NEIGHBOURING HOUSE
WEST NEIGHBOURING HOUSE
EAST NEIGHBOURING HOUSE
WEST NEIGHBOURING HOUSE
20538 LYNDE CT
20538 LYNDE CT
194
N 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80'
Δ=81
D
5
1'
0
4
"
L=60.0
0'
R=42.0
0'
5' P.U.E.
5' W.C.E.
LOT 11
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
LOT 13
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARKSSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.16464.22464.20464.31464.27464.55464.40464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.30464.28LYNDE
C
O
U
R
TN 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80'
Δ=81
D
5
1'
0
4
"
L=60.0
0'
R=42.0
0'
5' P.U.E.
5' W.C.E.
LOT 11
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
LOT 13
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARKSSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.16464.22464.20464.31464.27464.55464.40464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.30464.28LYNDE
C
O
U
R
TN 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80'
Δ=81
D
5
1'
0
4
"
L=60.0
0'
R=42.0
0'
5' P.U.E.
5' W.C.E.
LOT 11
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
LOT 13
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARKSSMH RIM465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42TC464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.16464.22464.20464.31464.27464.55464.40464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.30464.28LYNDE
C
O
U
R
T
ADJCENT HOUSE
2
A1.007
G
R
E
A
T
R
O
O
M
B
E
L
O
W
3
A1.007
8' - 6"2' - 0"20526 20538
8' - 3"1' - 9"20540
20538
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
As indicated
A1.007
PRIVACY DIAGRAM
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
3/32" = 1'-0"1 PRIVACY DIAGRAM -LEVEL 2
3/16" = 1'-0"2 PRIVACY SECTION 1
3/16" = 1'-0"3 PRIVACY SECTION 2
ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE, ALL ARE THE CLERESTORY WINDOWS.
FRONT AND REAR SIDE OF THE LOT IS HAVING ROAD VIEWS.
NOTE
195
?
FOYER
8'-9" X 6'-5"
PANTRY
10'-3" X 10'-0"
MUD/LAUNDRY
21'-3" X 18'-10"
GARAGE
11'-10" X 10'-3"
OFFICE
16'-0" X 13'-6"
ADU BEDROOM
9'-7" X 4'-3"
ADU
WALK IN
CLOSET
8'-9" X 5'-6"
POWDER
ROOM 4'-0" X 4'-0"
ELE
13'-7" X 13'-0"
ADU LIVING
AREA
19'-9" X 17'-5"
KITCHEN
13'-4" X 11'-3"
DINING
8'-6" X 5'-2"
ADU
TOILET
UP
22'-0" X 13'-4"
GREAT ROOM
24'-11" X 4'-5"
HALLWAY
4'-7" X 3'-1"
ADU WC
OUTDOOR
KITCHEN
W01
W01
W04
W01
W01
W04
W02
W02
W01
W02
W01
W02
W02
W02
W02
W01
W02
W03
W01
W04
RISER -19 NOS
TRADE DEPTH -11"
RISER HEIGHT -7"
FLIGHT WIDTH -3'9"
W01
15'-7" X 8'-9"
ADU KITCHEN
43' - 10 1/4"63' - 2 3/4"56' - 9"
ENTRYD1
D2
D2
D2
D4
SLD1
SLD3
D7
SLD4
SLD4
SLD5
D7
GD
SLD7
W1 W1
SK7
SK7
A
A4.001
B
A4.001
W3
W4
ADU
4'-0" X 2'-3"
CLOSET
4'-11" X 3'-2"
ADU SHR
61' - 2 3/4"D2
EM GM
D6
W02 W02
W03
W7
W7
0' - 7"10' - 0"1' - 4 1/4"6' - 0"0' - 6"0' - 10 1/2"4' - 4 3/4"1' - 10 1/2"4' - 4 3/4"4' - 1 3/4"11' - 6"3' - 1"12' - 0"2' - 6"20' - 0"20' - 0"
0' - 6"13' - 6"29' - 4 1/4"0' - 6"
COVERED
PORCH
CONCRETE
OR TILES ON
CONCRETE PORCH
MICROWAVE AND OVEN COLUMN REFRIGERATOR COLUMN FREEZER UNIT WITH BUILT-INCOFFEE MACHINE CROKERY UNIT
DRYER
WASHER
FULL HEIGHTSTORAGEBENCH WITHDRAWERS BELOWAPPLIANCE GARAGEOVER COUNTERTOP
UNDER COUNTERREFRIGERATOR ICE DRAWERS CABINETS
3' - 0"3' - 0"
D8
SLD20' - 6"16' - 0"0' - 4"15' - 6 3/4"0' - 4"5' - 6"0' - 4"6' - 2 3/4"0' - 6"17' - 5 1/4"0' - 6"0' - 6"4' - 4"4' - 8"4' - 4"10' - 0 1/4"2' - 6"17' - 6"0' - 6"6' - 8"0' - 6"20' - 0"0' - 6"10' - 2 1/2"0' - 4"22' - 0 1/4"0' - 6"9' - 7"16' - 2"3' - 2 1/4"8' - 0"1' - 9 1/4"2' - 4 1/2"4' - 0 3/4"2' - 3"2' - 6 1/2"9' - 1"2' - 2 1/2"0' - 10"14' - 0"13' - 5"6' - 3"12' - 0"6' - 3"1' - 3"2' - 9"
0' - 6"53' - 0"0' - 6"2' - 3"0' - 6"
W2W2
W12
W01
W13
3' - 0"
TYPICAL 2X6 EXTEROIR WALL @ 16" O.C.
TYPICAL 2X4 INTERIOR WALL @ 16" O.C.
W01
W02
W03 TYPICAL 2X4 INTERIOR CONCRETE WALL @ 16" O.C.
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
As indicated
A2.001
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
1/4" = 1'-0"1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN
WALL LEGENDS
A. ALL PLANS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO ALL APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES, INCLUDING THE 2019
CBC AND THE CRC.
B. THE BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION R319 CRC.
C. WALL FRAMING SHALL BE 2x6 AT 16" O.C. WITH 1/2" EXTERIOR SHEATHING AT EXTERIOR WALLS
AND 2x4 AT 16" O.C. WITH 5/8" GYP. BOARD AT INTERIOR WALLS. SHEAR WALL PANELS AND
SPECIAL FRAMING CONDITIONS WILL BE NOTED IN THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS.
D. PROVIDE 1/2" GYP. BOARD AT WALLS AND CEILING UNDER STAIR USABLE ENCLOSED SPACES.
E. STANDARD DOOR FRAMING SHALL OCCUR 4" FROM RETURN WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED. HARDWARE PER OWNER.
F. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL HAVE A LANDING WITH A MAXIMUM 7.75" STEP.
G. ALL BEDROOMS SHALL HAVE A WINDOW THAT MEETS EGRESS REQUIREMENTS. THIS WINDOW
SHALL BE DESIGNATE BY AN (E) AFTER THE WINDOW SIZE AND STYLE. EGRESS WINDOWS
SHALL HAVE A NET CLEAR OPENING OF NOT LESS THAN 5.7 SQ FT. THE NET CLEAR HEIGHT
OPENING SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 24 INCHES AND THE NET CLEAR WIDTH SHALL NOT BE
LESS THAN 20 INCHES. GRADE FLOOR AND BELOW GRADE OPENINGS SHALL HAVE A NET
CLEAR OPENING OF NOT LESS THAN 5 SQ FT. EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE THE
BOTTOM OF THE CLEAR OPENING NOT GREATER THAN 44 INCHES MEASURED FROM THE
FLOOR. WINDOWS BELOW GRADE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A WINDOW WELL. CRC R310.2
H. ALL OTHER WINDOWS SHALL BE OPERABLE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.
I. ALL GLAZING IN SLIDING GLASS DOORS, SHOWER ENCLOSURES, AND OTHER REQUIRED
SAFETY LOCATIONS SHALL HAVE SAFETY TEMPERED GLASS. CRC R308.4
J. BALCONY FLOOR SHALL BE 2" BELOW FINISH FLOOR AND SLOPED 1/4" PER FOOT AWAY
FROM DOORS. DOOR OPENINGS SHALL BE PROPERLY FLASHED. DRAINAGE PIPE WILL GO
THROUGH FASCIA TO GUTTER.
K. EXTERIOR A/C UNITS ARE ANCHORED TO 3" CONCRETE SLABS SHOWN ON PLANS.
GENERAL NOTES
196
18'-5" X 12'-6"
MASTER
BEDROOM
10'-7" X 9'-6"
M. BATH
9'-6" X 7'-7"
M. WALKIN
WARDROBE
16'-2" X 10'-8"
GUEST
BEDROOM 2
20'-4" X 4'-4"
TERRACE
16'-4" X 8'-3"
HALLWAY BELOW
4'-0" X 4'-0"
ELE
16'-3" X 3'-7"
PASSAGE
9'-0" X 5'-0"
BATH 2
24'-2" X 3'-8"
TERRACE
6'-6" X 5'-0"
CLOSET
13'-0" X 12'-0"
GUEST
BEDROOM 1
6'-8" X 5'-7"
CLOSET 9'-0" X 5'-7"
BATH
DN
17'-10" X 7'-6"
FAMILY ROOM
W03
W03
W01
W01
W04
W02W02
W02
W01
W02
W02
W02
W02
W02
W02
W01
W01
W01
W02
W01
TPO ROOF
D2
D2
D2
D3
D3D3
D3
D5
D5 D5
D5
D6
SLD1
SLD1
SLD7
W4W6W6
A
A4.001
B
A4.001
RISER -19 NOS
TRADE DEPTH -11"
RISER HEIGHT -7"
FLIGHT WIDTH -3'9"
4' - 0"
W7
DOWN SPOUT
OVER FLOW
SLOPE1/4" PER FT.SLOPE1/4" PER FT.W02
24' - 2 1/4"OVERHANG SLOPE - 2" / 1'-0"1' - 6"2' - 0"
1' - 6"1' - 6"FIRST LEVEL
ROOF
W02
W03
W03
2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 8"
DOWN SPOUT
OVER FLOW
CRICKETCRICKET
DOWN SPOUT
OVER FLOW
CRICKETCRICKET36' - 7 1/2"0' - 6"5' - 0"0' - 4"11' - 0"0' - 4"12' - 10 1/4"0' - 6"5' - 7 1/4"0' - 6"7' - 4"8' - 0"4' - 1 1/4"8' - 0"9' - 2 1/2"0' - 6"21' - 10"0' - 6"3' - 4"0' - 4"35' - 11 3/4"0' - 6"6' - 0"3' - 6 1/2"5' - 11 1/2"2' - 1"10' - 6"7' - 5 1/4"10' - 6"0' - 6"20' - 0"0' - 4"9' - 0"0' - 4"6' - 8"0' - 6"
11' - 0 1/4"10' - 0"11' - 0 1/4"4' - 6"11' - 3 1/4"
5'-5" X 4'-0"
CLOSET 0' - 6"5' - 4 1/2"0' - 6"12' - 6 3/4"0' - 4"7' - 5 3/4"0' - 6"8' - 3 1/4"0' - 6"SLD3
SLD6
TYPICAL 2X6 EXTEROIR WALL @ 16" O.C.
TYPICAL 2X4 INTERIOR WALL @ 16" O.C.
W01
W02
W03 TYPICAL 2X4 INTERIOR CONCRETE WALL @ 16" O.C.
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
As indicated
A2.002
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU1/4" = 1'-0"1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN
WALL LEGENDS
A. ALL PLANS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO ALL APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES, INCLUDING THE 2019
CBC AND THE CRC.
B. THE BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION R319 CRC.
C. WALL FRAMING SHALL BE 2x6 AT 16" O.C. WITH 1/2" EXTERIOR SHEATHING AT EXTERIOR WALLS
AND 2x4 AT 16" O.C. WITH 5/8" GYP. BOARD AT INTERIOR WALLS. SHEAR WALL PANELS AND
SPECIAL FRAMING CONDITIONS WILL BE NOTED IN THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS.
D. PROVIDE 1/2" GYP. BOARD AT WALLS AND CEILING UNDER STAIR USABLE ENCLOSED SPACES.
E. STANDARD DOOR FRAMING SHALL OCCUR 4" FROM RETURN WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED. HARDWARE PER OWNER.
F. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL HAVE A LANDING WITH A MAXIMUM 7.75" STEP.
G. ALL BEDROOMS SHALL HAVE A WINDOW THAT MEETS EGRESS REQUIREMENTS. THIS WINDOW
SHALL BE DESIGNATE BY AN (E) AFTER THE WINDOW SIZE AND STYLE. EGRESS WINDOWS
SHALL HAVE A NET CLEAR OPENING OF NOT LESS THAN 5.7 SQ FT. THE NET CLEAR HEIGHT
OPENING SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 24 INCHES AND THE NET CLEAR WIDTH SHALL NOT BE
LESS THAN 20 INCHES. GRADE FLOOR AND BELOW GRADE OPENINGS SHALL HAVE A NET
CLEAR OPENING OF NOT LESS THAN 5 SQ FT. EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE THE
BOTTOM OF THE CLEAR OPENING NOT GREATER THAN 44 INCHES MEASURED FROM THE
FLOOR. WINDOWS BELOW GRADE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A WINDOW WELL. CRC R310.2
H. ALL OTHER WINDOWS SHALL BE OPERABLE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.
I. ALL GLAZING IN SLIDING GLASS DOORS, SHOWER ENCLOSURES, AND OTHER REQUIRED
SAFETY LOCATIONS SHALL HAVE SAFETY TEMPERED GLASS. CRC R308.4
J. BALCONY FLOOR SHALL BE 2" BELOW FINISH FLOOR AND SLOPED 1/4" PER FOOT AWAY
FROM DOORS. DOOR OPENINGS SHALL BE PROPERLY FLASHED. DRAINAGE PIPE WILL GO
THROUGH FASCIA TO GUTTER.
K. EXTERIOR A/C UNITS ARE ANCHORED TO 3" CONCRETE SLABS SHOWN ON PLANS.
GENERAL NOTES
197
A
A4.001
B
A4.001 SECOND LEVEL TERRACESECOND LEVELTERRACE BELOWOVERHANG
OVERHANG
BELOW ROOF
DOWN SPOUT
OVER FLOW
DOWN SPOUT
OVER FLOW
DOWN SPOUT
OVER FLOW SLOPE1/4" PER FT.SLOPE1/4" PER FT.SLOPE1/4" PER FT.SK2
SK3
SK2
OVERHANG
CRICKET CRICKETSLOPE - 2" / 1'-0"OVERHANGSLOPE - 2" / 1'-0"1' - 6"TPO
TPO
GUTTER
OVERHANG
GUTTER
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"1' - 6 1/4"1' - 6"FIRST LEVEL
ROOF
SECOND LEVEL
ROOF
FIRST LEVEL
ROOF
DOWN SPOUT
OVER FLOW
CRICKETCRICKET
DOWN SPOUT
OVER FLOW
CRICKETCRICKET1' - 6"
CRICKETCRICKET0' - 6"1' - 6"42' - 6"
28' - 1"18' - 6"21' - 0"10' - 6 1/2"24' - 0 1/4"22' - 3 1/2"17' - 4 1/4"57' - 0"
5' - 8"41' - 4"21' - 5 1/2"13' - 1 1/2"20' - 2 1/2"19' - 11"5' - 0"12' - 4 3/4"3' - 2"
9' - 0"
2' - 0"
2' - 0"1' - 6"2' - 1 1/4"2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 8" 1' - 6"NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
1/4" = 1'-0"
A2.003
ROOF PLAN
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
1/4" = 1'-0"1 ROOF LEVEL PLAN
198
LEVEL 1466' -2 1/2"
GRADE LEVEL465' -2 1/2"
LEVEL 2477' -2 1/2"
SLD4SLD5
SLD1 SLD1
SLD3
W4
METAL GUARD RAIL
SMOOTH STUCCO
WITH PAINT
SMOOTH STUCCO
WITH PAINT
SMOOTH STUCCO
WITH PAINT 1' - 0"10' - 0"1' - 0"464' - 6"464' - 3 3/4"464' - 1"
LOWEST
EX-GRADE
EX-GRADEHIGHEST
EX-GRADEEX-GRADE 463' - 8 1/2"
PROPOSED
GRADE
464' - 6"
PROPOSED
GRADE
464' - 7"
AVERAGE
EX-GRADE
ROOF LEVEL487' -8 1/2"
TOP OF THE ROOF490' -5 3/4"2' - 9 1/4"10' - 6"HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING25' - 10 3/4"1' - 6"
OVERHANG
SK2
SK3
1' - 6"
OVERHANG
1' - 6"
OVERHANG
W7 W7
SLOPE - 2" / 1'-0"
SLOPE - 2" / 1'-0"
477' - 0 1/2"
487' - 8 1/2"
SK2
WOOD FINISH SMOOTH STUCCO
WITH PAINT
SECOND
LEVEL ROOF
SECOND LEVEL
ROOF
FIRST LEVEL
ROOF
GUTTER
GUTTER
FIRST LEVEL
ROOF
W8
464' - 2"465' 2 1/2"
466' 2 1/2"
477' 2 1/2"
487' 8 1/2"
490' 5 3/4"
0' 0"
1' 0"
12' 0"
22' 6"
25' 4"
1' - 6"
LEVEL 1466' -2 1/2"
GRADE LEVEL465' -2 1/2"
LEVEL 2477' -2 1/2"
W3
W7
1' - 0"10' - 0"1' - 0"6' - 6"SMOOTH STUCCO
WITH PAINT
SMOOTH STUCCO
WITH PAINT
SMOOTH STUCCO
WITH PAINT
464' - 7 1/4"464' - 6 1/4"464' - 1"
EX-GRADE EX-GRADE
EX-GRADE EX-GRADE
464' - 8 1/2"
PROPOSED
GRADE
463' - 8 1/2"
PROPOSED
GRADE
464' - 7"
AVERAGE
EX-GRADE
477' - 2 1/2"
ROOF LEVEL487' -8 1/2"
TOP OF THE ROOF490' -5 3/4"2' - 9 1/4"10' - 6"HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING25' - 10 3/4"SK2
479' - 9"
487' - 8 1/2"
WOOD FINISH
SLOPE - 2" / 1'-0"SECOND LEVEL ROOF
490' - 5"490' - 0"
SECOND LEVEL ROOF
FIRST LEVEL ROOF
GUTTER
W2 W2
464' - 1 1/2"
465' 2 1/2"
466' 2 1/2"
477' 2 1/2"
487' 8 1/2"
490' 5 3/4"
0' 0"
1' 0"
12' 0"
22' 6"
25' 4"
1' - 6"
2' - 0"2' - 0"
OVERHANG
OVERHANG
W11
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
3/16" = 1'-0"
A3.001
REAR AND LEFT ELEVATION
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
3/16" = 1'-0"1 REAR ELEVATION
3/16" = 1'-0"2 LEFT ELEVATION
199
LEVEL 1466' -2 1/2"
GRADE LEVEL465' -2 1/2"
LEVEL 2477' -2 1/2"1' - 0"9' - 10"1' - 0"GDSK7SK7
D1
SLD1
GM
EM
SMOOTH STUCCO
WITH PAINT
WOOD FINISH SMOOTH STUCCO
WITH PAINT
464' - 2 1/2"
464' - 1 1/4"464' - 7 1/4"
464' - 7 1/4"
EX-GRADEEX-GRADE
EX-GRADE
EX-GRADE 464' - 6"464' - 8 1/2"
PROPOSED
GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
464' - 8 1/2"
PROPOSED
GRADE
464' - 8 1/2"
PROPOSED
GRADE
464' - 4"
PROPOSED
GRADE
464' - 7"
AVERAGE
EX-GRADE
477' - 2 1/2"
ROOF LEVEL487' -8 1/2"
SK3 SK2
25' - 10 3/4"2' - 9 1/4"10' - 6"TOP OF THE ROOF490' -5 3/4"
SK2
3' - 0"6' - 3"487' - 8 1/2"
SLOPE - 2" / 1'-0"
SLOPE - 2" / 1'-0"
1' - 6"
OVERHANG
OVERHANG
GUTTER
FIRST LEVEL
ROOF
GUTTER
SECOND
LEVEL ROOF SECOND
LEVEL ROOFW8
1' - 6"
OVERHANG
W9
W10
SLD2
465' 2 1/2"
466' 2 1/2"
477' 2 1/2"
487' 8 1/2"
490' 5 3/4"
0' 0"
1' 0"
12' 0"
22' 6"
25' 4"
1' - 6 1/4"
OVERHANG
2' - 0"
OVERHANGW12
SLD3
SLD6
SMOOTH
STUCCO
WITH PAINT
3' - 0"LEVEL 1466' -2 1/2"
GRADE LEVEL465' -2 1/2"
LEVEL 2477' -2 1/2"
W4 W6 W6
W1W1 SLD46' - 6"6' - 6"6' - 6"EM
GM
SMOOTH STUCCO
WITH PAINT
SMOOTH STUCCO
WITH PAINT
1' - 0"10' - 0"1' - 0"464' - 2 1/2"465' - 3"464' - 6"
463' - 9"
EX-GRADE
EX-GRADEEX-GRADEHEIGHEST
EX-GRADE
464' - 6"
PROPOSED
GRADE
464' - 8 1/2"
PROPOSED
GRADE
464' - 6"
PROPOSED
GRADE
464' - 2 1/2"
EX-GRADE
464' - 7"
AVERAGE
EX-GRADE3' - 0"6' - 3"3' - 2"
D4
480' - 9 1/2"
ROOF LEVEL487' -8 1/2"HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING25' - 10 3/4"TOP OF THE ROOF490' -5 3/4"
490' - 0"
SK3
SK2
490' - 5"
WOOD FINISH SLOPE - 2" / 1'-0"SECOND
LEVEL ROOF
1' - 6"
OVERHANG
FIRST LEVEL
ROOF 2' - 9 1/4"10' - 6"465' 2 1/2"
466' 2 1/2"
477' 2 1/2"
487' 8 1/2"
490' 5 3/4"
0' 0"
1' 0"
W13
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
3/16" = 1'-0"
A3.002
FRONT AND RIGHT ELEVATION
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
3/16" = 1'-0"1 FRONT ELEVATION
3/16" = 1'-0"2 RIGHT ELEVATION
200
LEVEL 1466' -2 1/2"
GRADE LEVEL465' -2 1/2"
LEVEL 2477' -2 1/2"
SLD4
D6D3
D1
PANTRY
GUEST
BEDROOM 1
TERRACE
PASSAGE
HALLWAY BELOW
OFFICE
METAL GUARD RAILMETAL GUARD RAIL
463' - 8 1/2"
PAD
W02
W02
W01
RISER -19 NOS
TRADE DEPTH -11"
RISER HEIGHT -7"
FLIGHT WIDTH -3'9"
464' - 4 1/2"
464' - 4 3/4"
464' - 2 1/2"464' - 2"
LOWEST
EX-GRADE EX-GRADE EX-GRADE
EX-GRADE
464' - 3 1/2"
GLASS
RAILING
466' - 2 1/2"
ROOF LEVEL487' -8 1/2"
SK2
W7
TOP OF THE ROOF490' -5 3/4"2' - 9 1/4"1' - 0"2' - 9 1/4"10' - 6"1' - 0"10' - 0"SECOND LEVEL ROOF
FIRST LEVEL
ROOF
FIRST LEVEL ROOF
SECOND LEVEL ROOF
1' - 6"
OVERHANG
W10
D8D7
465' 2 1/2"
466' 2 1/2"
477' 2 1/2"
487' 8 1/2"
490' 5 3/4"
0' 0"
1' 0"
12' 0"
22' 6"
25' 4"
W11
HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING25' - 10 3/4"464' - 7"
AVERAGE
EX-GRADE
LEVEL 1466' -2 1/2"
GRADE LEVEL465' -2 1/2"
LEVEL 2477' -2 1/2"
RISER -19 NOS
TRADE DEPTH -11"
RISER HEIGHT -7"
FLIGHT WIDTH -3'9"
GREAT ROOM HALLWAY MUD/LAUNDRY
ADU LIVING
AREA
ADU
WALK IN
CLOSET
ADU
TOILET
HALLWAY BELOW FAMILY ROOM
M. WALKIN
WARDROBE M. BATH
D2
D5
W02W02W02W01
W02
W02
W01
W01 2' - 9 1/4"10' - 6"1' - 0"10' - 0"1' - 0"463' - 8 1/2"464' - 5 1/4"464' - 4 3/4"464' - 4 3/4"
PAD
464' - 5 1/4"
LOWEST
EX-GRADE
LOWEST
EX-GRADE
EX-GRADEEX-GRADE
464' - 7"
ROOF LEVEL487' -8 1/2"
SK3
SECOND LEVEL ROOF
FIRST LEVEL
ROOF 2"
1'-0"
2"
1'-0"
FIRST LEVEL ROOF
SECOND LEVEL
ROOF
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
OVERHANG
OVERHANG
TOP OF THE ROOF490' -5 3/4"
1' - 6"
OVERHANG
D7
GUTTER
465' 2 1/2"
466' 2 1/2"
477' 2 1/2"
487' 8 1/2"
490' 5 3/4"
0' 0"
1' 0"
12' 0"
22' 6"
25' 4"
D6 HEIGHT OF THE BUILIDING25' - 10 3/4"AVERAGE
EX-GRADE
W02
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
1/4" = 1'-0"
A4.001
SECTION A-A & B-B
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
1/4" = 1'-0"A SECTION A-A
1/4" = 1'-0"B SECTION B-B
201
4' - 3"
D1 8' - 0"3' - 0"
D2 8' - 0"2' - 8"
D3 9' - 0"3' - 0"
D4 6' - 0"2' - 6"
D5 8' - 0"2' - 6"
D6
D88' - 0"3' - 8"
SLD1 8' - 0"9' - 1"
SLD2 8' - 0"6' - 0"
SLD3 SLD4
11' - 6"8' - 0"SLD58' - 0"12' - 0"
SLD6 8' - 0"3' - 0"
D7
SLD7 9' - 0"16' - 0"
GD8' - 0"2' - 6"8' - 0"10' - 6"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"2' - 8"
D9 6' - 6"3' - 3"
D10 8' - 0"3' - 0"
D11
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
3/8" = 1'-0"
A5.001
DOOR SCHEDULE
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
DOOR SCHEDULE
Mark Count Width Height Head Height
D1 1 4' - 3"8' - 0"8' - 0"
D2 7 3' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"
D3 4 2' - 8"8' - 0"8' - 0"
D4 1 3' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"
D5 5 2' - 6"6' - 0"6' - 0"
D6 3 2' - 6"8' - 0"8' - 0"
D7 2 3' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"
D8 1 3' - 8"8' - 0"8' - 0"
D9 1 2' - 8"8' - 0"8' - 0"
D10 1 3' - 3"6' - 6"
D11 1 3' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"
GD 1 16' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"
SLD1 3 8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"
SLD2 1 9' - 1"8' - 0"8' - 0"
SLD3 2 6' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"
SLD4 2 11' - 6"8' - 0"8' - 0"
SLD5 1 12' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"
SLD6 1 10' - 6"8' - 0"8' - 0"
SLD7 2 2' - 6"8' - 0"8' - 0"
6' -6"
202
W18' - 0"4' - 4"7' - 0"1' - 0"W2 5' - 4 1/2"14' - 0"1' - 9"3' - 7 1/2"W3 8' - 6"10' - 0"1' - 9"6' - 9"W4
W5 8' - 6"5' - 0"2' - 0"6' - 6"W6 W78' - 6"4' - 6"2' - 0"6' - 6"3' - 1"3' - 1"
SK2SK13' - 1"6' - 1"8' - 0"2' - 3"10' - 0"0' - 3 3/4"4' - 0"22' - 0 1/4"9' - 0 3/4"16' - 0"0' - 4 3/4"3' - 0"W8 W91' - 0"7' - 0"6' - 3"8' - 0"6' - 0"2' - 0"6' - 0"W10 6' - 6"2' - 0"10' - 0"8' - 6"W11
8' - 0"3' - 0"3' - 6"4' - 6"W12 3' - 0"5' - 0"8' - 0"4' - 0"
W13
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
3/8" = 1'-0"
A5.002
WINDOW SCHEDULE
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
WINDOW SCHEDULE
Mark Count Width Height
SK1 1 6' - 0"3' - 0"
SK2 2 3' - 0"3' - 0"
W1 3
W2 2 6' - 3"7' - 0"
W3 1 14' - 0"1' - 9"
W4 2 10' - 0"1' - 9"
W5 2 2' - 3"8' - 0"
W6 2 5' - 0"2' - 0"
W7 3 4' - 6"2' - 0"
W8 2 16' - 0"3' - 0"
W9 1 22' - 0 1/4"4' - 0"
W10 1 6' - 0"2' - 0"
W11 1 10' - 0"2' - 0"
W12 1 3' - 0"3' - 6"
W13 1 4' - 0"5' - 0"
203
167 SF
H
499 SF
I
431 SF
G1
283 SF
B
238 SF
A
138 SF
C
132 SF
D
47 SF
J
10 SF
K
239 SF
F
177 SF
P1
207 SF
P2
6' - 8 3/4"22' - 10 1/4"21' - 0"9' - 2"21' - 0"2' - 6 3/4"12' - 0 3/4"18' - 5 1/4"12' - 10 3/4"9' - 3 1/4"4' - 10"4' - 4"22' - 2"4' - 0"22' - 6 1/4"10' - 6 1/2"21' - 0"7' - 2"511 SF
E
29 SF
L
26 SF
A
470 SF
B
739 SF
C
168 SF
D
4' - 4"6' - 2"20' - 6"12' - 10"4' - 0"30' - 0 1/4"OPEN
THROUGHOUT
6' - 7 1/4"8' - 9 1/4"7' - 11 3/4"12' - 10 3/4"6' - 4 1/2"4' - 0"12' - 10"20' - 6"10' - 6"
28 SF
E
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
1/8" = 1'-0"
A6.001
AREA CALCULATION
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
1/8" = 1'-0"1 LEVEL 1
1/8" = 1'-0"2 LEVEL 2
FIRST LEVEL AREA + SECOND LEVEL AREA = TOTAL FLOOR AREA
FIRST LEVEL AREA + PORCH + ADU = TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AREA
1,972 + 1431 = 3,403 SF
1972 + 384 + 752 = 3,108 SF
AREA CALCULATION FOR SECOND FLOOR
MARK AREA LENGTH AREA WIDTH AREA
A 4' - 0"6' - 7 1/4"26 SF
B 12' - 10"36' - 7 3/4"470 SF
C 20' - 6"36' - 0 1/4"739 SF
D 6' - 2"27' - 3"168 SF
E 4' - 4"6' - 4 1/2"28 SF
Grand total: 5 1431 SF
AREA CALCULATION FOR PORCH
MARK AREA LENGTH AREA WIDTH AREA
P1 6' - 8 3/4"26' - 3 1/2"177 SF
P2 6' - 2 1/2"33' - 4 1/4"207 SF
Grand total: 2 384 SF
FLOOR AREA FOR ADU = 752 SF
AREA CALCULATION FOR FIRST FLOOR
MARK AREA LENGTH AREA WIDTH AREA
A 12' - 10 3/4"18' - 5 1/4"238 SF
B 9' - 3 1/4"30' - 6"283 SF
C 4' - 10"28' - 6"138 SF
D 4' - 4"30' - 6"132 SF
E 511 SF
F 10' - 6 1/2"22' - 8"239 SF
G1 20' - 6"21' - 0"431 SF
Grand total: 7 1971 SF
AREA CALCULATION FOR ADU
MARK AREA LENGTH AREA WIDTH AREA
H 7' - 2"23' - 4 1/4"167 SF
I 21' - 0"23' - 9 1/4"499 SF
J 2' - 6 3/4"18' - 5 1/4"47 SF
K 2' - 0"4' - 10"10 SF
L 2' - 0"14' - 6"29 SF
Grand total: 5 753 SF
1972
22' -2"22' -6"
752
204
EXTERIOR COLOR / MATERIAL SCHEDULE
MATERIAL / APPLICATION CODE COLOR MANUFACTURE
FLAT ROOF
METAL WINDOW FRAMES
WOODEN GARAGE DOOR
SLIDING GLASS DOOR
METAL GUARDRAIL
M1
M3
M4
M5ROOFWALL
MISC.* NOTES: EXACT COLORS TO BE VERIFIED WITH OWNER & ARCHITECT
M8
M6
WHITE
BLACK
BLACK
SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT WHITE
WOODEN SIDING M2
CONCRETE WALKWAY M7
C.H.I OR EQ
JELWEN OR EQ.
JELWEN OR EQ.
GAF OR EQ.
-
-
BLACK
GREY
-
-
WOODEN BROWN
WOODEN BROWN
ACCORDION GLASS DOOR M9 LA CANTINA OR EQ.BLACK
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
12" = 1'-0"
A7.001
MATERIAL BOARD
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
M1 M3 M4M2FLAT ROOF SMOOTH STUCCO WITH PAINT
SLIDING GLASS DOORMETAL WINDOW FRAME
WOODEN SIDING
CONCRETE WALKWAYM5M6 M7 M8METAL GUARDRAIL
WOODEN GARAGE DOOR
M9ACCORDION GLASS DOOR
205
SPECIAL GRADING NOTES:
STANDARD GRADING NOTES:
GENERAL NOTES:
FINAL INSPECTION:GRADING ANDDRAINAGE PLANC-1
DATE:
SHEET NO.
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:RW ENGINEERING, INC.DATEBYREVISIONNO.RWSANTA CLARA COUNTY20538 LYNDE COURTSARATOGA, CAAPN: 503-52-012BASIS OF BEARINGS:
SITE BENCHMARK:
LEGEND
ABBREVIATION
C-1
SWALE2
TYPICAL GRADING AROUND FOUNDATION
C-1
1
1
C-1
BUBBLER
GM
EM
LYNDE COURTNPervious PavingConc.
or Tiles on Conc.
Spa
Bench BenchFountain
Pervious P
a
v
i
n
g
Gravel
Conc.or Tiles on Conc.
Lawn
Concrete
Driveway
Conc.PathFountainSteps
Wo
o
d
B
e
n
c
h
206
(TO BE MAINTAINED)STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE FIBER ROLL EROSIONCONTROL PLANLEGEND
HYDROSEEDING:
GENERAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES:
ADDITONAL NOTES:
C-2
DATE:
SHEET NO.
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:RW ENGINEERING, INC.DATEBYREVISIONNO.RWSANTA CLARA COUNTY20538 LYNDE COURTSARATOGA, CAAPN: 503-52-012LYNDE COURTNINLET SEDIMENTATION BARRIER
207
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
C-3
BEST CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
208
OHOHOHOHOH25'-0"LOT 11TRACT 3259151 MAPS 27LOT 13TRACT 3259151 MAPS 27LYNDE COURTof#2176GREGORY LEWIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
736 Park Way Santa Cruz, CA 95065 (831) 359-0960 1Driveway - Concrete, color, pattern, and finish to be determined byowner2Front walkways -Concrete pads, color, pattern, and finishto be determined by owner - Install gray gravel in spaces betweenthem3Pondless Fountain with 3'x3' underground reservoir in front and4'x4' underground reservoir in rear and gravel on top of grill withadditional splash zone with pond liner sloped back to reservoir.Install GFIC outlet for pump that can be turned on inside houseand also with outside switch on house4Conc. paving - finish and color to be determined by owner5Portable spa to be selected by owner with custom concrete or wood skirt on 3 sides6Custom IPE bench - owner will provide photo7Conc. or non-slip Tile on Conc. base8Fountain - similar to #3 above9Tall narrow square ceramic planters - set on stable concrete orgravel base so they don't tip and lean over time10Pervious paving - Pervious paver system - pavers to be selectedby owners11IPE Bench - owner to provide photo12Lawn sprinklers are min. 24 inches from impervious paving133 foot tall horizontal wood fence146 foot tall horizontal wood fence153' wide x 6' tall horizontal wood gate16Motorized awning can be extended just when needed17Outdoor kitchen with grill, sink, burner, fridge, under counter storage, granite counter top, stainless steel storage doors18Tree protection fence as required in arborist report - 6' high chainlink with 2 inch dia. steel posts driven min. 24 inches into groundand spaced no more than 10 feet apart - see most recent versionof Arborist Report by Kielty Arborist Services LLC kkarbor0476@yahoo.comlewislandscape@sbcglobal.net"I have complied with the criteria of the Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance and appliedthem for the efficient use of water in the landscape design plan"Gregory Lewis - Landscape Architect Lic. #2176 6/24/22Hydrozone Table3/30/22Tree ProtectionFencing4/25/22Setbacks, housemoved on my planHydroz numbersfysb numbers6/24/22House plan, paving209
LYNDE COURT 20538 LYNDE COURT
SARATOGA, CA
TOPOGRAPHIC
& BOUNDARY
SURVEY
SANTA CLARA COUNTYDATE:SHEET NO.SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:RW ENGINEERING, INC.
DATE BYREVISIONNO.OF SHEETSRW
APN: 503-52-012SU-1BASIS OF BEARINGS:SITE BENCHMARK:NOTES:ABBREVIATIONLEGENDSITE DATA:N
210
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
T-1
TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
211
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500NREVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
T-2
TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
212
LOT 11
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
LOT 13
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
LYNDE
C
O
U
R
T
LOT 11
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
LOT 13
TRACT
3
2
5
9
151 MA
P
S
2
7
LYNDE
C
O
U
R
T
PROPERTY LINE
LEVEL 2 SETBACK LINE
9
3
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
SECOND LEVEL
BUILDING OUTLINE
CONCRE
T
E
DRIVEWA
Y
PROPERTY LINE
E
N
T
R
Y
CONCRETE
OR TILES ON
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
OR TILES ON
CONCRETE NTR-1
TR-3-R
TR-7-R
12"
TR-8-R
7.4"
TR-9-R
5.8"
TR-11
29"TR-12-R
23"
TR-13-R
16"
TR-14
19"
TR-16-R
5"
CHERRY
LAUREL
CHERRY
LAUREL
LIQUIDAMABAR
PEAR
PLUMOT
DEODAR
CEDAR MODESTO
ASH
MODESTO
ASH
MODESTO
ASH
2
5
'
-
0
"
GM
EM
SSSSSSW
W
W
W
CONCRETE WALK
WAY
8
3
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
PROPOSED MAIN HOUSE
7"
6.5"
BLACK
ACACIATR-4-R
6"
LEMON
TREE PROTECTION AREA
TREE
PROTECTION
AREA
COVERED
PATIO
OPEN PATIO
COVERED
PORCH
OPEN
PORCH
MODESTO
ASH
DOGWOODTR-2-R
3"
CHERRY
LAUREL
TR-6-R
5"
TR-5-R
6"
BLACK
ACACIA
TR-15
21"
AC / HEAT PUMP
AC / HEAT PUMP
OUTDOOR
KITCHEN
TABLE
TREE SIZE NOTE
TR1
TR2
TR3
TR4
TR5
TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES EXISTED
AT SITE -17 NOS
TR6
NAME OF TREE
CHERRY LAUREL
DOGWOOD
LIQUIDAMBAR
PEAR
PLUMOT
DEODAR CEDAR
SILVER MAPLE
TR7
TR8
TR9
TR10
TR11
TR12
HOLLY OAKS
TO BE REMOVED
BLACK ACACIA
TO BE REMOVED
TO BE REMOVED
TO BE REMOVED
TO BE REMOVED
PROTECTED
OUT OF THE LOT
PROTECTED
TREE PORTECTION NOTE:
TREE PROTECTION FENCING AROUND
TREE NOS. 1,2,11,12,13,14,15
CHERRY LAUREL
CHERRY LAUREL
BLACK ACACIA
MODESTO ASH
LEMON
PERSIMMON
TR13
TR14
TR15
TR16
TR17
PROTECTED
PROTECTED
MODESTO ASH
MODESTO ASH
TO BE REMOVED
TO BE REMOVED
OUT OF THE LOT
TO BE REMOVED
9.3"
3"
6.5"
5.8"
6"
5.1"
12.3"
7.4"
5.8"
14"
28.8"
23"
16.1"
18.8"
21.2"
4.2"
6"
TO BE REMOVED
TO BE REMOVED
TO BE REMOVED
SECOND STORY FOOTPRINT
SETBACK LINE
SITE LEGENDS :
TREE TO BE REMOVE
JOINT TRENCH
SANITORY SEWER
WATER LINE
JT JT JT
SS SS SS
W W W
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
As indicated
T-3
TREE PROTECTION PLAN
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU
1/8" = 1'-0"1 TREE PROTECTION PLAN
213
N 49°47'51" E 178.01'N 69°38'22" E 115.61'N0°24'00"W 121.80'
Δ=81
D
5
1'
0
4"
L=60.0
0'
R=42.0
0'
5' P.U.E.
5' W.C.E.464.33464.70464.86464.73SITE BENCHMARK465.46TC465.26TC464.51TC464.42464.91TC465.14465.00464.88464.84464.84464.60464.89464.53464.76464.17464.50464.24464.46464.90464.20464.27464.44464.16464.22464.20464.25464.12464.19464.77464.35464.30464.31464.31464.08464.27464.55464.40464.41464.65464.68464.49464.38464.40464.17464.50464.12464.21464.10464.12464.63464.55464.57464.48464.02464.27464.37464.39464.40464.37464.32464.25464.24464.22463.66463.13463.49463.74463.55463.28462.91463.13462.64462.41462.84463.83464.66464.48464.59464.61464.87464.32463.87463.82463.74463.98464.42464.37464.30464.05464.03464.26464.28LYNDE
C
O
U
R
T
PROPERTY
LINE
LEVEL 1 SETBACK LINE
LEVEL 2 SETBACK LINE
9
3
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
OH
OHOHOHOH
SECOND LEVEL
BUILDING OUTLINE
CONCRE
T
E
DRIVEWA
Y
PROPERTY LINE
E
N
T
R
Y
CONCRETE
OR TILES ON
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
OR TILES ON
CONCRETE
UPNGM
EM
JTJTJTJTJTJTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSCO (N)W
W
W
W
CONCRETE WALK
WAY
8
3
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"JTCOVERED
PATIO
OPEN PATIO
COVERED
PORCH
OPEN
PORCH
122' - 0 1/2"115'
-
7
1
/4
"
AC / HEAT PUMP
AC / HEAT PUMP
OUTDOOR
KITCHEN
SECOND STORY FOOTPRINT
SETBACK LINE
SITE LEGENDS :
TREE TO BE REMOVE
JOINT TRENCH
SANITORY SEWER
WATER LINE
JT JT JT
SS SS SS
W W W
NOTES:
NOTES:
• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.
• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF
COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE
CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE
MENTIONED.
• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS
AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO
ITS EXECUTION.
• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED
AFTER COMPLETION.
• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE
THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.
• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING
PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)
REVISIONS :
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REVISED BY
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET NO:
SCALE:
ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022
CONTACT :
EMAIL :team@golivio.com
PROJECT :
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED,
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING
SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA
650-209-6500
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR126-APR-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR229-JUNE-2022
REVISED AS PER COMMENTS SAGAR303-AUGUST-2022
As indicated
U-1
UTILITY PLAN
20538, Lynde ct
22-SEPT-2022
SAGAR
SUBHENDU1/8" = 1'-0"1 UTILITY PLAN
214
City of Saratoga Adoption date:
Revision date(s):
February 19, 2014
215
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the
following findings. These findings are in addition to, and not a substitute for, compliance with all
other Zoning Regulations (which constitute the minimum requirements as provided in City Code
Section 15-05.050.)
1. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is
appropriate given the property’s natural constraints.
2. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If
constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native
trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller
oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the
criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080.
3. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed
to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community
viewsheds.
4. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with
the structure itself and with the neighborhood.
5. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements
that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape.
6. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to
utilize solar energy.
7. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential
Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055.
8. On hillside lots the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to
ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with
Section 15-13.100.
Design Review Findings
In recognition of the city’s unique character and the desire to protect the residential characteristics of its neighborhoods, the City Council has
adopted the Residential Design Handbook. This Handbook serves to guide homeowners, architects, and builders in designing new single-family
homes or remodeling existing homes in a manner that is compatible with surrounding properties. The Residential Design Handbook embodies and
illustrates the intent of the Design Review Findings found in City Code Section 15-45.080 and serves as a guide to staff, the Planning Commission and
the City Council in the single-family design review process.
General Plan Goals
The General Plan represents the
community’s objectives for its future
and includes goals, policies, and
implementation measures upon
which the City Council and Planning
Commission base their decisions.
Goals include:
Maintaining the predominantly
small town residential character
of Saratoga which includes semi-
rural and open space areas
Using the design review process
to assure that new construction
and major additions thereto are
compatible with the site and the
adjacent surroundings
216
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
All Design Review projects shall be consistent with this Handbook. This Handbook may also be helpful for Technical Review projects.
Each section and corresponding guideline includes the following components:
• Applicable Findings - The first page of each section identifies relevant design review findings required for project approval
• Design Techniques - Each guideline includes design techniques that should be considered for meeting the findings
• Illustrations - Each guideline includes conceptual illustrations of design techniques
Refer to Appendix A for lots with an average slope of 10% or greater and for lots in the Hillside Residential District
Neighborhood Context
Mass
Height, Scale, and Proportion
Streetscape
Two-story Structure
3
4
5
6
7
Site Planning
Community Viewsheds
Setbacks
Privacy
Solar Access
8
9
10
11
12
Building Design
Porches and Entry Features
Garage
Roof, Eaves, and Wall Planes
Windows and Dormers
Exterior Materials and Details
13
14
15
16
17
18
Landscaping
Front Yard Landscaping
Pervious Materials and Hardscape
Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control
Water Efficient Landscaping
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
Hillside Guidelines
Hillside Viewsheds
Hillside Integration - Natural Topography
Hillside Integration - Site Planning
Hillside Integration - Building Design
217
Design
Techniques
The design should
incorporate one or more of
the following techniques:
• Increase the side yard
setbacks of a home that
is significantly taller than
adjacent homes
• Incorporate front and side
wall plane heights that
are in scale with adjacent
residences
• Incorporate eaves and roof
lines that are in scale with
adjacent residences
• Design appurtenances
in proportion to the
overall building form and
neighborhood
• Avoid flattening the
top of a sloped roof to
accommodate height
limitations
Page
1
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
People think of their “neighborhood” in different ways. When establishing the existing neighborhood design context, the boundaries of a
neighborhood could include an area with the following characteristics in common: Similar zoning, part of a sub-division, common access
routes, walkable radius (15 minutes, about quarter mile radius), similar architectural styles/tree or landscaping patterns, or main streets as a
boundary. This handbook is not intended to prevent change in a neighborhood, nor should it be construed as an obligation to adhere to an
existing style or prescriptive design. Modernization of the City’s aging housing can be done in a manner that recognizes and respects the
unique features and characteristics of each neighborhood.
Design Review
Findings
• The height of the structure,
its location on the site,
and its architectural
elements are designed
to avoid unreasonable
impacts to the privacy of
adjoining properties and
to community viewsheds.
• The overall mass and the
height of the structure,
and its architectural
elements are in scale with
the structure itself and
with the neighborhood.
• The landscape design
minimizes hardscape in
the front setback area and
contains elements that
are complementary to the
neighborhood streetscape.
• Development of the site
shall not unreasonably
impair the ability of
adjoining properties to
utilize solar energy.
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review HandbookStreetExamples of Neighborhoods
Some recently built homes are not well integrated into the
neighborhood or do not meet the intent of the Residential Design
Handbook. Applicants should design structures to meet these
guidelines rather than pointing to examples in the City that do not.
Page
3
218
Design
Techniques
The design should
incorporate one or more of
the following techniques:
• Increase the side yard
setbacks of a home that
is significantly taller than
adjacent homes
• Incorporate front and side
wall plane heights that
are in scale with adjacent
residences
• Incorporate eaves and roof
lines that are in scale with
adjacent residences
• Design appurtenances
in proportion to the
overall building form and
neighborhood
• Avoid flattening the
top of a sloped roof to
accommodate height
limitations
Page
3
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Mass
Mass is correlated with the physical size (i.e., bulk and volume) and configuration of a structure and the design of its architectural features.
The perception of mass is a reflection of how large a home appears in a neighborhood. The mass of a structure is controlled in part by height
limits, minimum setbacks and maximum floor area limits. However, a structure that maximizes the allowable floor area and minimizes
the required setbacks may appear bulky and out of context in the neighborhood. A structure that is thoughtfully designed and sited
appropriately on the lot will have less impact on the neighborhood.
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
The design should
incorporate one or more of
the following techniques:
• Manage mass in the initial
design stage, not after the
floor plan is developed
• Manage mass through
appropriate building
design rather than with
landscaping
• Design the structure
with simple and well-
proportioned massing
• Setback large structures
from the street and
adjacent residences
• Use simple roof forms and/
or wall planes
• Minimize the use of
excessive colors and
materials
• Minimize the mass on a
non-conforming lot
The new home to the right appears massive in comparison to the existing home to the left. Bringing the height of the entry down,
changing the roof design, and reducing the mass of the home facing the street would help bring it into scale with the adjacent
residence.
A non-traditional design can be integrated into a
neighborhood when mass is controlled with simple lines,
appropriate setbacks, and thoughtful material selection.
The massing on this home is minimized with simple
roof forms and a side entry garage.
26 feet
18 feet
10 feet
Page
4
219
Design
Techniques
The design should
incorporate one or more of
the following techniques:
• Increase the side yard
setbacks of a home that
is significantly taller than
adjacent homes
• Incorporate front and side
wall plane heights that
are in scale with adjacent
residences
• Incorporate eaves and roof
lines that are in scale with
adjacent residences
• Design appurtenances
in proportion to the
overall building form and
neighborhood
• Avoid flattening the
top of a sloped roof to
accommodate height
limitations
Page
5
Height, Scale, and Proportion
The height and size of a structure should be proportionate to the size and shape of the lot and in scale with the neighborhood. The setback
from the street and between the homes in a neighborhood will also affect the perception of height and size of a structure.
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
The design should
incorporate one or more of
the following techniques:
• Increase the side yard
setbacks of a home that
is significantly taller than
adjacent homes
• Incorporate front and side
wall plane heights that
are in scale with adjacent
residences
• Incorporate eaves and roof
lines that are in scale with
adjacent residences
• Design appurtenances
in proportion to the
overall building form and
neighborhood
• Avoid flattening the
top of a sloped roof to
accommodate height
limitations
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
Maximizing the height and floor
area of this home overwhelms the
adjacent residence.
Existing single story home Setting the second story back and
incorporating single-story elements
helps brings this home into scale with the
neighborhood.
A perspective drawing illustrates how single-story elements on the house to the right minimizes height impacts of the above homes as
seen from the street.
Page
5
220
Page
7
Streetscape
The Streetscape represents the visual elements of a street, including the roadway, driveways, walkways, fencing, trees, structures, and
landscaping that combine to form the street’s character. The streetscape is affected by the setbacks between individual properties and the
setback between each home and the street. The design of a structure and front yard landscape should complement the generally established
neighborhood character.
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
The design should incorporate
one or more of the following
techniques:
• Maintain the generally
established front yard
setbacks along the street
• Minimize the overall mass
of a structure on a non-
conforming lot, corner lot, or
at the end of the street
• Design both street facing
facades of a corner lot in a well
composed manner
• Use exterior materials that
complement the streetscape
• Minimize any large expanse of
roof seen from the street
• Deemphasize the garage
presence on the street
• Deemphasize tall features that
overwhelm the neighborhood
streetscape
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
The homes along this street share similar characteristics such as an L-shaped footprint, garage location, and roof
type, while maintaining personal design elements such as siding material, roof material, exterior colors and trim.
The building footprint on the right is compatible with the
predominant streetscape pattern while the building footprint
on the left will likely appear bulky and out of place.
Corner lots are a significant part of the streetscape.
This design is well composed on both sides facing the
street.
Design
Techniques
New House New HouseExisting House Existing House
similar similar similar
Page
6
221
Page
9
Two-Story Structure
With few exceptions, a two-story home is permitted and possible. If designed with consideration of the surroundings, a two-story design can
have benefits such as increased distance between structures on adjacent properties, reduced grading and lot coverage, and minimized impact
on trees, creeks, and other natural features and habitat. For neighborhoods primarily consisting of single-story homes, an effort should be
made to design a new two-story home or addition that blends in seamlessly with the neighborhood. The design should incorporate single-
story features which reduce the visual impact of the second story.
Design
Techniques
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
A new two-story home or
addition in a predominately
single-story neighborhood
should incorporate one or
more of the following design
techniques:
• Increase the side yard
setbacks of a home that
is significantly larger than
adjacent homes
• Incorporate single-story
elements in the front
• Minimize the height of
second story wall planes
and eave lines
• Incorporate the second
story within the roof form
• Align the first story eave
lines to be in scale with
adjacent structures
• Setback the second story
in proportion to the size
of the lot and proximity to
neighbors
This full height two-story home
with high eaves and wide roof
ridge is out of scale with the
adjacent single story home.
Existing single-story
home
Setting the second story
back and incorporating
similar roof lines as
the adjacent residence
helps brings this home
into scale with the
neighborhood.
By lowering the eave line
and containing the square
footage under the roof with
dormers, this two-story
home is more in scale with
the neighborhood than the
home to the far left.
A two-story home setback from
the street, and designed with
single-story elements, can be
integrated into a single-story
neighborhood with similar sized
lots.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
Page
7
222
Page
11
SITE PLANNING
Site Planning should take into account sun and wind orientation, site drainage, existing trees and landscaped areas, and proposed areas for
driveways, pathways, gardening and outdoor entertainment. The site assessment should also consider the location of existing structures
adjacent to the site and general similarities and differences in the size, dimensions, and topography of the site and of neighboring properties.
Areas with potential privacy impacts for both the owner and neighbors should be managed in the site design, rather than after the floor plan
is developed.
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Review Findings
• Site development follows
the natural contours of the
site, minimizes grading, and
is appropriate given the
property’s natural constraints.
• All protected trees shall be
preserved. If constraints exist
on the property, the number of
protected trees, heritage trees,
and native trees approved for
removal shall be reduced to an
absolute minimum. Removal of
any smaller oak trees deemed
to be in good health by the City
Arborist shall be minimized.
• The height of the structure,
its location on the site, and
its architectural elements
are designed to avoid
unreasonable impacts to the
privacy of adjoining properties
and to community viewsheds.
• Development of the site shall
not unreasonably impair the
ability of adjoining properties
to utilize solar energy.
This site plan acknowledges areas with potential privacy
impacts, site drainage patterns, the location of existing
trees, and sun and wind orientation.
When designing the site plan, consider neighborhood
patterns such as garage location, setbacks, and front
yard landscaping.
Page
8
223
SITE PLANNING Community Viewsheds
The Zoning Code defines community view sheds as “any views which are visible from an area which has scenic value for the community.”
The Hillside Specific Plan sets forth aesthetic and scenic quality policies to allow clear views from streets and roads and to establish scenic
easements that protect prominent ridgelines. The General Plan reinforces that the western hills and ridgelines are the predominant scenic
resource within the City. Design
Techniques
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
The design should
incorporate one or more of
the following techniques:
• Maintain a reasonable
amount of open area on a
property
• Design the site plan to
minimize view impacts
• Manage the bulk and mass
of a structure to minimize
interference of views from
streets and roads
• Design roof forms to
minimize obstruction of
views from streets and
roads
Page
9
Views of the hills from the roads leading into and out of the City’s
neighborhoods contribute to the small-town residential character.
The siting of this home creates impacts on the community viewshed.
It is reasonable to expect that redevelopment of this
older single-story home will have some impact on
neighbor views of the sky, trees, and natural landscape.
224
SITE PLANNING Setbacks
Setbacks provide openings for light and air, enhance privacy, and create boundaries between properties. The minimum requirements for the
front, side, and rear yard setbacks are based on the designated zoning district. However, many older neighborhoods were built with larger
setbacks. The design should consider established neighborhood setbacks, even when such setbacks may be more restrictive than the Zoning
Code.Design
Techniques
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
The design should
incorporate one or more of
the following techniques:
• Maintain the generally
established front yard
setbacks along the street
• Design side yard setbacks
to minimize impacts on
neighbor privacy
• Setback the structure in
proportion to the size and
shape of the lot
• Setback the structure from
adjacent properties in
proportion to its size and
height
• Increase the setbacks of a
large structure
• Increase the side yard
setbacks of a two-story
structure
Page
10
10 feet 20 feet
Property line
fence
The home on the right is
set back from the adjacent
property in proportion to its
size and height.
While this home
meets the required
front yard setback,
its placement on the
lot is out of character
with the other
homes, disrupting
the natural flow
along the street.
225
SITE PLANNING Privacy
Privacy, both within a home and in an enclosed yard, is important to residential quality of life in Saratoga. Engage neighbors for feedback
early in the design process. Privacy issues should be resolved in the initial design stage, not as an afterthought. Residential privacy should
not be achieved solely with fencing and landscaping between properties. The building’s design should be the primary means of addressing
privacy impacts. Privacy impacts should be minimized to the best extent possible through appropriate placement of buildings, windows,
doors, and balconies.
Design
Techniques
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
The design should incorporate
one or more of the following
techniques:
• Minimize windows and
balconies in direct view of
neighbor’s private indoor
and outdoor areas
• Minimize the size and
number of 1st and 2nd story
windows on side elevations
• Locate larger windows
in areas that do not have
privacy impacts
• Utilize clerestory windows
or windows with higher sills
where privacy is a concern
• Consider finished floor
height and window
placement impact on
adjoining neighbors
• Pay attention to privacy
concerns on sub-standard
and small lots
Page
11
The finished floor of the home on the left is higher than the
home on the right, creating privacy impacts due to window
placement.
This balcony has a direct view into the neighbor’s
private indoor and outdoor areas.
Offset the placement of windows and doors between
adjacent properties.
Use clerestory windows where light is desired but
privacy is a concern between neighbors.
226
SITE PLANNING Solar Access
Solar access is the ability of a property to collect active and passive solar energy directly from the sun. Solar panels are increasingly used as
a means of reducing energy use from industrial sources. Passive solar design takes advantage of a building’s site, climate, and materials to
minimize energy use. A passive solar home collects heat as the sun shines through south-facing windows and retains it in materials that store
heat, known as thermal mass.Design
Techniques
State Law sets forth minimum
requirements for non-interference
with neighboring properties’
solar access. Cal. Public Resources
Code Section 25982 forbids any
tree or shrub from being planted
so as to cast a shadow “greater
than 10 percent of the collector
absorption area upon [an existing
neighboring] solar collector surface
at any one time between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., local
standard time.” This standard is a
statutory minimum, in addition
to this Handbook’s guidelines
to minimize interference with a
neighbor’s solar access due to
landscaping and building design.
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Depending on sun angle, a structure’s mass can cast a substantial shadow
on adjacent properties and interfere with solar collectors or sunlight
exposure on a neighbor’s yard or pool.
Reversing the floor plan and adjusting the slope, eave line(s), and
orientation of this home’s roof planes reduces the shadowing effect.
Design
Techniques
The design should
incorporate one or more of
the following techniques:
• Locate and design a
structure to minimize
shadows on neighbors’
pool, yard areas, or solar
systems
• Design landscaping to
minimize interference with
a neighbor’s solar access
• Minimize the appearance
of roof mounted solar
panels
• Minimize energy usage
through careful selection
and placement of windows
• Landscape with deciduous
trees that increase sun
exposure in the winter and
block sun in the summer
Page
12
227
BUILDING DESIGN
Building Design is a reflection of individual taste, family needs, and the nature of a home’s living space. The design of a home and
its architectural style will continue to evolve over time. New and older structures need not look alike, but should exhibit threads of
commonality including building form, roof type and the relative size of windows, doors, entries, and other major building elements. Design
Techniques
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Review Findings
• The height of the structure,
its location on the site,
and its architectural
elements are designed
to avoid unreasonable
impacts to the privacy of
adjoining properties and
to community viewsheds.
• The overall mass and the
height of the structure,
and its architectural
elements are in scale with
the structure itself and
with the neighborhood.
Page
13
228
BUILDING DESIGN Porches and Entry Features
The front porch and entry are one of the most defining design components of a home and represent a transitional space between the external
and internal environments. Large new homes built in neighborhoods with smaller homes can create visual impacts through the use of tall,
formal entries that are in stark contrast to their more modest neighbors. Entries should be in scale with the existing neighborhood pattern
and integrated with the structure in composition, scale and design character. Balconies are also often a prominent element of a building’s
architecture and should be designed with attention to scale and privacy.
Design
Techniques
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
The design should
incorporate one or more of
the following techniques:
• Design the porch and
entry to be in scale with
other structures in the
neighborhood
• Design the entry height in
proportion to the structure
• Design entry eave lines
in proportion to adjacent
residences
• Design the height and
width of columns in
proportion to the structure
• Incorporate entry and
porch materials that are
architecturally appropriate
• Setback upper floor
balconies to minimize
privacy impacts
Page
14
This porch
deemphasizes the
second story.
The impact of this home’s taller entry is minimized given the large lot size and
additional setback from the street.
229
BUILDING DESIGN Garage
The location and size of the garage will influence the amount of hardscape in the front yard and the landscaped space between residences.
Designing a two-car garage on a narrow lot will require additional consideration to avoid overwhelming the façade of the home. Large homes
on large lots can accommodate a three-car garage, so long as it is done with consideration of impacts to the streetscape and neighborhood
character.
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
This garage is setback from the home, diminishing its
presence on the street.
This three-car garage is placed perpendicular to the lot
frontage, and is designed with windows facing the street,
giving it a more street friendly presence.
Design
Techniques
The design should
incorporate one or more of
the following techniques:
• Design a garage that is in
scale with the structure
• Deemphasize the presence
of the garage on the
facade
• Select garage door colors
and materials that are
compatible with the
architecture
• Face the garage doors
perpendicular to the street
if lot size allows
• Offset the wall planes of a
three car garage
Page
15
This three-car garage is the foremost feature on the
home and overwhelms the façade. The second story
element of this home also places emphasis on the
garage.
230
Roofs are a significant structural component of a building and largely responsible for defining the character of a home. The principle features of
a roof are the shape, pitch, and materials – all of which determine architectural style. An eave is the edge of a roof and typically projects beyond
the side of the building. The exterior wall plane and plate height form the vertical and horizontal massing of a structure. The roof pitch and
overall length and height of a structure’s walls are key considerations in maintaining a compatible scale in a neighborhood.Design
Techniques
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
The design should
incorporate one or more of
the following techniques:
• Incorporate wall planes
and plate heights that are
in scale with homes in the
neighborhood
• Incorporate roof and
eave lines that are in
scale with homes in the
neighborhood
• Select a roof design
and materials that are
architecturally appropriate
• Design primary and
secondary roof forms that
are compatible with each
other in terms of slope,
mass, and complexity
Page
16
BUILDING DESIGN Roofs, Eaves, and Wall Planes
Unless located on a large lot surrounded by similar sized
homes, the large exterior wall planes of this home will
emphasize its size.
The appearance of taller portions of a
structure can be minimized by providing
variations in wall plane setbacks.
This simple sketch illustrates
what happens when a home
is designed with a flat roof
in order to maximize both
height and floor area; it results
in a home that appears bulky.
Lowering the plate heights
of both the first and second
story and incorporating a
sloped roof helps reduce the
bulk.
The bulk can be further
reduced by lowering the
plate height at the edge of
the second story walls and
reducing the slope of the roof.
When located next to a
single-story home, it may
be necessary to incorporate
additional design strategies
to deemphasize the second
story.
231
Windows and Dormers
Windows are a defining characteristic of a home’s appearance from the street. Windows and dormers should be designed with
consideration of the impact they have on adjacent neighbors and the overall design of the structure. While complete privacy is not
guaranteed in an urban environment, the design should strive to protect the privacy of both the homeowner and the adjacent neighbors. Design
Techniques
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
The design should
incorporate one or more of
the following techniques:
• Maintain the general type
and shape of windows on
all sides of the structure
• Select windows and
dormers that are
architecturally appropriate
• Design dormers in
proportion to the roof
• Offset windows between
adjacent structures to
reduce privacy impacts
• Moderate the size and
quantity of bay windows
and/or dormers
• Minimize large wall
expanses without windows
• Incorporate energy
efficiency through window
design
Page
17
BUILDING DESIGN
The large bay
window and
divided lites
overwhelm the
façade.
Window placement on the side of this home has been
designed to minimize privacy impacts to the adjoining
residence without sacrificing architectural style.
Dormers provide light and air to upper floors while
reducing the perceived mass of second story floor space.
232
Exterior Materials and Details include but are not limited to siding materials, roof materials, chimneys, spires, columns, shutters, and exterior
colors and trim. The exterior presentation of a structure, in terms of color, texture, and use of materials greatly influences curb appeal as well
as compatibility with neighboring structures. Colors and materials found in the neighborhood can help tie the structure to its surroundings.
Materials should be consistent with the structure’s architectural style and massing. Accessory structures should complement materials,
finishes, and colors found on the primary structure.
Design
Techniques
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
The design should
incorporate one or more of
the following techniques:
• Select materials, colors,
and details that enhance
the architecture in a well-
composed, understated
manner
• Minimize excessive use of
colors and materials
• Select roof colors that are
inconspicuous from the
street
• Select materials and details
that are architecturally
appropriate
• Design shutters to be in
scale with the window
• Design the height, size,
and shape of the chimney
in proportion to the
structure
Page
18
Exterior Materials and DetailsBUILDING DESIGN
A large expanse of stone veneer can look heavy and
overwhelm the façade.
The siding materials and column design is
architecturally appropriate on this home.
The variegated roof
colors, tall columns,
and contrasting
exterior colors on this
home are distracting.
233
LANDSCAPING
Landscape design is an integral component of Site Planning and Building Design. The current pattern of walkways, driveways and
landscape elements such as fences, hedges, and retaining walls in the neighborhood should be considered when developing the
landscape design. Plant selection should recognize the importance of water conservation, fire resistance, and erosion control. The use of
impervious surfaces should be minimized. The preservation of trees is essential.Design
Techniques
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Review Findings
Page
19
• Site development follows
the natural contours of the
site, minimizes grading,
and is appropriate given
the property’s natural
constraints.
• All protected trees shall be
preserved. If constraints exist
on the property, the number
of protected trees, heritage
trees, and native trees
approved for removal shall
be reduced to an absolute
minimum. Removal of any
smaller oak trees deemed to
be in good health by the City
Arborist shall be minimized.
• The landscape design
minimizes hardscape in
the front setback area and
contains elements that
are complementary to the
neighborhood streetscape.
• Development of the site shall
not unreasonably impair the
ability of adjoining properties
to utilize solar energy.
234
LANDSCAPING Front Yard Landscaping
Front yard landscaping includes hardscape, greenscape, and accessory structures (e.g., fences, gates, pillars). A well designed landscape can
help connect the residence to the site and define the entry, pathways, and boundaries of a property. While landscape design is highly personal
and largely left to the discretion of the individual property owner, the design should reflect the constraints of the lot and character of the
neighborhood.Design
Techniques
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
The front yard landscape design
should incorporate one or more
of the following techniques:
• Incorporate landscape
elements that complement
the streetscape
• Select landscape elements
that are compatible with
other front yards found in the
neighborhood
• Incorporate landscape
elements that develop a sense
of connection between the
home and the neighborhood
• Design landscaping that is
compatible with the home’s
architecture
• Design walls, fences, gates,
pillars, and accessory
structures in proportion to the
home and the site
• Soften the appearance
of fences and walls with
landscaping
Page
20
Landscaping can be used to create an inviting entry.
Landscaping can be coordinated with
adjacent properties to create a lush yard for
both neighbors.
Well-designed front yard fencing and landscaping can maintain
privacy between properties while preserving a connection to the
street and neighborhood.
Landscaping can soften the appearance of
fencing.
235
LANDSCAPING
“Hardscape” includes impervious surfaces and other surfaces that may be permeable but are not otherwise considered natural landscaping
(e.g., trees, dirt, grass). Where hardscape may be necessary for driveways and walkways, pervious materials are encouraged. Pervious materials
allow infiltration of stormwater into the soil, thereby reducing runoff and the amount of pollutants that enter creeks, the Bay, and other water
bodies. This can improve water quality, help reduce creek erosion, and facilitate groundwater recharge.Design
Techniques
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
The landscape design should
incorporate one or more of the
following techniques:
• Minimize hardscape in the
front setback area
• Minimize impervious
surfaces, especially where
runoff may be a concern
• Minimize compacted
landscaped areas which can
inhibit site drainage
• Consider using pervious
materials for driveways,
walkways, and/or patios
Pervious pavement may be
suitable in locations that are:
• flat or nearly flat
(maximum 2% slope)
• not in a seasonally wet area
(e.g., creek bed)
• not close to a building
foundation (unless measures
are taken to prevent
infiltration under the
structure)
Page
21
Pervious Material and Hardscape
Pervious pavement systems are available in many different types
that offer environmentally-friendly and aesthetically pleasing
options for driveways, walkways, and patios.
Excessive hardscape and a lack of live landscaping in the front yard
can diminish the semi-rural character of neighborhoods.
Grasscrete and
other grass
paving systems
decrease the
amount of
impervious
surface on
a property
and can be
more visually
appealing than
traditional
hardscape
surfaces.
Pervious materials contain pores or separation
joints that allow water to flow through and seep
into a base material (typically gravel or drain
rock).
236
LANDSCAPING
Storm water must be retained on-site and directed away from adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, and drainageways.
Stormwater best management practices should be integrated into the landscape and grading design plans to minimize runoff and to increase
on-site retention and infiltration. Low Impact Development (LID) is an alternative site design strategy that uses natural and engineered
infiltration and storage techniques to control storm water runoff. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program for
information on applicable stormwater ordinances and stormwater management plans.
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
The grading and drainage
design should incorporate
one or more of the following
techniques:
• Minimize soil erosion,
runoff, and water waste
• Retain water from
irrigation and normal
rainfall within property
lines
• Minimize drainage onto
impervious surfaces
• Minimize the potential for
soil compaction
• Direct runoff from
driveways, walkways,
roofs, and/or patios onto
vegetated areas
• Avoid grading within the
driplines of protected trees
Page
22
Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control
Rain gardens and
bio-swales can filter,
direct, and retain
storm water.
Any proposed
construction or
grading within
50 feet from the
top of creek bank
shall comply with
Santa Clara Valley
Water District
Guidelines.
Splash
blocks or
rain chains
can prevent
erosion.
237
The City acknowledges the aesthetic benefit of landscapes while recognizing the need to invest water and other resources as efficiently
as possible. Water efficiency can be achieved without an overreliance on hardscape. Landscape design, installation, maintenance and
management can and should be water efficient. Simple changes in plant type and irrigation methods can greatly reduce the water required
for an attractive landscape. There are many plants that use surprisingly little water. New irrigation systems can increase irrigation efficiency and
result in water use reduction.
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
The landscape design should
incorporate one or more of
the following techniques:
• Group plants according to
their water needs
• Select native species that
are adapted to site soil
characteristics
• Protect and preserve
native species and natural
vegetation
• Select drought tolerant
and/or water-conserving
plants and turf species
• Select plants based on
disease and pest resistance
• Design irrigation that
is appropriate for soil
conditions, plant type, and
season
Page
23
LANDSCAPING Water Efficient Landscaping
A dry river rock bed can
reduce water use while
adding a natural-looking
element to the landscape.
It can also reduce topsoil
erosion in areas where
runoff is a problem.
Mulch can aid in greater water retention by
minimizing evaporation and reducing weed
growth. However, mulch should be used
sparingly in conjunction with an attractive water
efficient landscape.
Grass lawns can require a large amount
of water and maintenance. Consider
limiting turf to functional areas such
as play or recreation areas. Use turf
sparingly for aesthetic purposes.
238
This page intentionally left blank.
239
APPENDIX A HILLSIDE GUIDELINES
General Plan goals include preserving the natural beauty of the west valley hillsides and protecting existing view sheds, view corridors,
and scenic open spaces. The design review process was put in place to ensure that development would blend in with the hillside’s natural
environment by limiting the use of obtrusive colors and by reviewing the height, placement, and design of structures. Development proposals
shall minimize grading and minimize impacts to ridgelines and significant natural hillside features, including but not limited to steep
topography, native vegetation and trees, and watercourses. The design plan should also minimize both physical and aesthetic changes to a
site’s natural topography.
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Review Findings
• Site development follows
the natural contours of the
site, minimizes grading,
and is appropriate given
the property’s natural
constraints.
• The height of the structure,
its location on the site,
and its architectural
elements are designed
to avoid unreasonable
impacts to the privacy of
adjoining properties and
to community viewsheds.
• On hillside lots, in
addition to demonstrating
compliance with Section
15-13.100, the location and
the design of the structure
avoid unreasonable
impacts to ridgelines,
significant hillside
features, and community
viewsheds.
Page
25
The techniques on the following four pages apply to properties with
an average site slope of 10% or greater and to properties in the Hillside
Residential Zoning District
240
HILLSIDE GUIDELINES Hillside Viewsheds
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
• Avoid siting the structure on
the top of a hill
• Tuck the structure into the
hillside
• Locate the structure on lower
portions of a hillside lot
• Minimize impacts to
viewsheds when designing
the site plan and structure’s
location
• Limit the height and bulk of
the structure on hillside lots
• Design roof forms and roof
ridgelines that minimize
impacts to viewsheds
• Avoid light, bright, or
reflective colors and
materials
• Screen light sources
• Locate light sources at
ground level
• Avoid light sources that may
be seen at a distance
Page
26
This home has been tucked into the hillside,
minimizing its visual impact on the valley below.
This home has been sited on a lower portion of
the site to minimize impacts to the community
viewshed.
The placement and height of this home interferes
with the community viewshed.
This home has been sited at the top of the
hill, standing out against the landscape and
disrupting the viewshed from below.
241
HILLSIDE INTEGRATION
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
• Tuck the structure into the
hillside
• Minimize changes to the
natural topography
• Minimize changes to the
site’s natural countours
• Balance cut and fill and avoid
excessive grading
• Design roof slopes to
compliment topographic
contours
• Avoid downhill cantilevers,
exposed crawlspace areas,
exposed foundations, and
exposed tall support poles.
Page
27
The home and basement area is merged into the
hillside, reducing the perceived mass and height of
the structure.
This home is merged into the hillside, reducing its
visual impact on the valley below.
The downhill cantilevers and opposing roof slope
on this home are visually obtrusive to the natural
topography of the site.
The exposed crawlspace and tall support poles
of this home increase the height and mass of the
structure.
Natural Topography
242
Site Planning
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
• Build within the site’s natural
contours to minimize
grading
• Minimize the visual impact of
multiple structures on a site
• Minimize the number of
detached structures
• Minimize large, continuous
paved areas
• Blend parking areas with
environment
• Screen mechanical
equipment
• Minimize privacy impacts
when building on hillsides
• Integrate fences and walls
with structures and natural
setting
• Break retaining walls into a
few low height segments
• Limit the number and
intensity of light sources
Page
28
This home is integrated into the hillside, rather than
grading a flat building pad with excessive cut and
fill.
Although this property is located above the
neighbor’s property, the setback of the home and
the preservation of existing trees reduce privacy
impacts on the neighbor.
By minimizing the setback and placing the
balcony near the neighbor’s property, the
design of this structure creates privacy impacts
for the neighbor.
This structure has been sited perpendicular to the
site’s contours, requiring unnecessary grading.
HILLSIDE INTEGRATION
243
City of Saratoga · Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines · Design Review Handbook
Design
Techniques
• Do not design to attract
attention or stand out
• Select exterior colors and
siding materials that blend
with the natural terrain
• Select roof colors and
materials that blend with the
natural terrain
• Use earth tone colors on
foundation and lower
portions of the structure
• Avoid light, bright, or
reflective colors that contrast
with the natural terrain
• Design roof and building
lines that follow the natural
contours of the site
• Avoid large attic spaces
that increase the height of a
structure
• Minimize the height and
visual impact of crawl space
areas
Page
29
The rooflines of this structure follow the natural
contours of the site and the stone accents help blend
the home into the natural setting.
The siding materials of this home compliment the
natural setting and landscaping.
Maxmizing the height and floor area of this structure creates
a home that is out of scale with the natural hillside setting.
Although the basement garage is sunk into the hillside,
this home has the appearance of a three-story from the
street.
Building DesignHILLSIDE INTEGRATION
244
CITY OF SARATOGA
Memorandum
To: Mayor Fitzsimmons & Members of the Saratoga City Council
From: Britt Avrit, City Clerk
Meeting Date: January 18, 2023
Subject: Written Communications, Item 2.1
Following publication of the agenda packet for the January 18, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting,
written communications were submitted for Item 2.1. The communications are attached to this
memo.
245
From:Chris Chiang
To:Britt Avrit
Cc:Lynne Chiang; Chris Chiang
Subject:: Privacy Issues and Controvertible Approval of Project Application of 20538 Lynde Court
Date:Wednesday, January 11, 2023 1:29:29 PM
Attachments:2023 0111 Letter to Saratoga City Council.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
January 11, 2023
Saratoga City Council
Attn.: Britt Avrit
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Privacy Issues and Controvertible Approval of Project Application of 20538 LyndeCourt
Dear Mayor Fitzsimmons, Vice Mayor Zhao, and Council Members,
Our names are Koh-Shyan Chris Chiang and Ling-Ju Lynne Chiang. We are the owners ofour house at and have been living here peacefully and happily since 1988.
There are 29 houses in the Reid/Lynde/Deerpark (parcel # 503-52-xx) neighborhood, and11 houses are 2-story structures. All these 2-story houses have less than three thousand squarefootage living space and no balconies. They have 3-4 feet height front and back windows onthe second floor. Only two of them have side windows. Please see the attached “Neighborhood2-Story Houses Comparison” for more details.
So when the Lalwanis presented their more than four thousand square feet, 2-story megahouse plan in December 2021, we raised serious concerns about possible infringement on ourprivacy, because the proposed house design has side windows, front and back balconies, and 8feet tall sliding doors. The majority of our backyard will be visible from the above mentionedbalcony, window and door locations. Since we are retired seniors spending most of our time inour yard, with this new design we will be living under the constant pressure of worrying thatour neighbors will be looking into our backyard either intentionally or unintentionally.However, Mr. Lalwani insisted that they did enough privacy studies and refused to makechanges to mitigate our privacy concerns. Please see the attached text message from Mr.Lalwani to the neighbors on December 10, 2021.
Saratoga Planning Commission put this project on hold and suggested removal of the frontbalcony on September 14, 2022. However, the subsequent review of this project wassuspiciously delayed on the morning of October 12, 2022. Mr. Lalwani not only had nointention to accommodate neighbors’ privacy concerns, he also became agitated andaggressive and started to verbally degrade some neighbors in the neighborhood WhatsAppgroup. Please see the attached text message from Mr. Lalwani on October 21, 2022.
246
Even though the front balcony was still in the revised design and other privacy issues werenot resolved, this project was hastily approved on November 9, 2022 with 4-Yes and 3-Novotes and lots of controversy. The approval process basically lacked consistency andaccountability regarding the front balcony removal decision as agreed upon in the previousSeptember meeting.
We respect that our neighbors have the right to pursue and build their new dream house.However, if this project comes at the cost of our anxiety and impacts our existing dailyactivities in our home and backyard, someone’s new dream house then becomes a nightmarefor us living in our existing house. Furthermore we worry that the peace and harmony of thisneighborhood has already been broken even before this project breaks ground.
In our country, established with rules and laws, all citizens have the right to build, defend, andpreserve their dream homes, either new ones or existing ones.. So I am requesting yourassistance to resolve these unaddressed privacy issues and restore the peace, harmony, andmutual trust of this neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Koh-Shyan Chris Chiang & Ling-Ju Lynne Chiang
Enclosures: As stated
247
January 11, 2023
Saratoga City Council
Attn.: Britt Avrit
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Privacy Issues and Controvertible Approval of Project Application of 20538
Lynde Court
Dear Mayor Fitzsimmons, Vice Mayor Zhao, and Council Members,
Our names are Koh-Shyan Chris Chiang and Ling-Ju Lynne Chiang. We are the owners
of our house at and have been living here peacefully and happily since
1988.
There are 29 houses in the Reid/Lynde/Deerpark (parcel # 503-52-xx) neighborhood,
and 11 houses are 2-story structures. All these 2-story houses have less than three thousand
square footage living space and no balconies. They have 3-4 feet height front and back
windows on the second floor. Only two of them have side windows. Please see the attached
“Neighborhood 2-Story Houses Comparison” for more details.
So when the Lalwanis presented their more than four thousand square feet, 2-story
mega house plan in December 2021, we raised serious concerns about possible
infringement on our privacy, because the proposed house design has side windows, front
and back balconies, and 8 feet tall sliding doors. The majority of our backyard will be
visible from the above mentioned balcony, window and door locations. Since we are retired
seniors spending most of our time in our yard, with this new design we will be living under
the constant pressure of worrying that our neighbors will be looking into our backyard
either intentionally or unintentionally. However, Mr. Lalwani insisted that they did enough
privacy studies and refused to make changes to mitigate our privacy concerns. Please see
the attached text message from Mr. Lalwani to the neighbors on December 10, 2021.
Saratoga Planning Commission put this project on hold and suggested removal of the
front balcony on September 14, 2022. However, the subsequent review of this project was
suspiciously delayed on the morning of October 12, 2022. Mr. Lalwani not only had no
intention to accommodate neighbors’ privacy concerns, he also became agitated and
aggressive and started to verbally degrade some neighbors in the neighborhood WhatsApp
group. Please see the attached text message from Mr. Lalwani on October 21, 2022.
248
Even though the front balcony was still in the revised design and other privacy issues
were not resolved, this project was hastily approved on November 9, 2022 with 4-Yes and
3-No votes and lots of controversy. The approval process basically lacked consistency and
accountability regarding the front balcony removal decision as agreed upon in the previous
September meeting.
We respect that our neighbors have the right to pursue and build their new dream house.
However, if this project comes at the cost of our anxiety and impacts our existing daily
activities in our home and backyard, someone’s new dream house then becomes a
nightmare for us living in our existing house. Furthermore we worry that the peace and
harmony of this neighborhood has already been broken even before this project breaks
ground.
In our country, established with rules and laws, all citizens have the right to build, defend,
and preserve their dream homes, either new ones or existing ones. So I am requesting your
assistance to resolve these unaddressed privacy issues and restore the peace, harmony, and
mutual trust of this neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Koh-Shyan Chris Chiang & Ling-Ju Lynne Chiang
Enclosures: As stated
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
From:Kookie Fitzsimmons
To:
Cc:Yan Zhao; Chuck Page; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; James Lindsay; Crystal Bothelio; Britt Avrit
Subject:Fw: 1/18/2023 Saratoga City Council Appeal of Planning Commission Design Review Approval
Date:Monday, January 16, 2023 7:32:04 AM
Attachments:01132023 Letter for City Council member.pdf
Dear Henry and Lydia,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with the City Council. Your comments will be included in the
written record on this agenda item. You are also welcome to attend the meeting on January 18 in-
person or via Zoom to speak on the appeal. Additional information about options for attending the
meeting are below.
January 18, 2023 City Council Meeting
In-Person:
Saratoga Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga CA 95070
Zoom:
Webinar URL: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81627041223
Webinar ID: 816 2704 1223
Call In: 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833
Sincerely,
Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor
City of Saratoga
From: henry tan
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2023 7:21 PM
To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab
<baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia
<twalia@saratoga.ca.us>
Cc: henry tan ; Lydia Tan
Subject: 1/18/2023 Saratoga City Council Appeal of Planning Commission Design Review Approval
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Mayor Fitzsimmons, Vice Mayor Zhao, and Council Members,
Please find our privacy infringement letter in the attached.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Henry Tan & Lydia Tan
258
January 13, 2023
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Unresolved privacy issues of approval of project application of 20538 Lynde Ct
Dear Mayor Fitzsimmons, Vice Mayor Zhao, and Council Members,
Happy New Year!
Our names are Henry Tan and Lydia Tan, the owners of . We have been
living here since 1993. For the past 29 years, we have strongly supported the city’s mission and
values statement which are protecting the health, safety, of the community, thus satisfying the
community’s desires to maintain its quality of life which includes privacy concerns.
Application PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120; 20538 Lynde Court (503-52-012) has been a
controversial project from the beginning. However, this project was still hastily approved with
4-Yes and 3-No votes on November 9 2022 and lots of controversy.
We have only acknowledged and never agreed to this project from the beginning (see
Attachment_3_-_Neighborhood_Notification_Forms p35/83 ). Nevertheless, the applicant has
been misleading the planning commissioners and the public that we revised our decision from
agree to disagree two days before the first public hearing (see 11/09/22 video record 32.09 –
32.44 ).
There are several unresolved serious privacy concerns and a controversial approval process.
(1) The applicant’s front balcony faces directly into our backyard, giving them 24/7
exposure into our backyard with zero privacy. We live with a son with special needs who
spends a lot of time in the backyard. In the winter, he is often out there enjoying the fire
pit; in the summer, he is in the swimming pool almost every day. These activities allow
him to be out of the house and helps improve his sensory behavior issues.
(2) The applicant keeps arguing and denying that there is no visibility into our backyard from
his projected front balcony (see 11/09/22 video record 33.28 – 34.32 ). However, the
pictures taken from different angles disagree with what he said (see pictures below).
259
Picture taken from my backyard.
Picture taken from the applicant’s front balcony (provided by the applicant)
Picture taken from the cross street (13909 Lynde Ave) neighbor 2nd floor window
The third picture above proved that there is clear visibility into our backyard from the 2nd
floor window. Whoever on the applicant’s front balcony can intentionally or
unintentionally stare at our backyard and will create extreme stress for us, especially if
the applicant plans to use it frequently.
260
(3) The first public hearing was held on 09/14/2022. After a two-hour long discussion the
applicant agreed to remove the front balcony and would provide the new
revised proposal (see 09/14/22 video record 1:47:42 – 2:06:24 ). All 6 attendant
planning commissioners voted “Yes” to accept the motion.
(4) The second public hearing was held on 10/12/2022, we were told the meeting
was rescheduled and got pushed out at the last minute. The reason was given as
“unforeseen circumstances”. The intention is suspicious and investigation may be
required.
(5) The third public hearing was held on 11/09/2022, the applicant denied what he
had previously agreed to. (see 11/09/22 video record 20:25 – 21:50, 30:08 – 36:16 ) He
came with a new revised plan but refused to remove the front balcony which he agreed
to in the first public hearing meeting (see 11/09/22 video record 39:55 – 42:46, 44:52 –
46:40 ). Again, after two hours long discussion the project was rushed pushing to
approve 4-Yes and 3-No votes(see 11/09/22 video record 1:25:00 – 1:46:42 ).
Interesting observation I made was the commissioner who was absent from the first
meeting. He didn’t say a word or expressed his opinions, but voted “yes”.
Because of all these unresolved issues, our neighborhood’s peace and trust has already
been broken. Therefore, we’re sincerely requesting your assistance to resolve these
unaddressed issues and restore peace and harmony back to our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Henry Tan & Lydia Tan
261
From:Kookie Fitzsimmons
To:
Cc:Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Chuck Page; Tina Walia; Crystal Bothelio; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit
Subject:Re: Controvertible Approval and Privacy Issues of Project Application of 20538 Lynde Court
Date:Monday, January 16, 2023 5:26:46 PM
Attachments:14d60ee3-6072-4cfe-9724-a4ee2aab691d.png
Dear Bi and Yanping,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with the City Council. Your comments will be included in the
written record on this agenda item. You are also welcome to attend the meeting on January 18 in-
person or via Zoom to speak on the appeal. Additional information about options for attending the
meeting are below.
January 18, 2023 City Council Meeting
In-Person:
Saratoga Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga CA 95070
Zoom:
Webinar URL: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81627041223
Webinar ID: 816 2704 1223
Call In: 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833
Sincerely,
Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor
City of Saratoga
From: Jerry Han
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 12:14 PM
To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab
<baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia
<twalia@saratoga.ca.us>
Subject: Controvertible Approval and Privacy Issues of Project Application of 20538 Lynde Court
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Mayor Fitzsimmons, Vice Mayor Zhao, and Council Members,
Our names are Bi Jerry Han and Yanping Penny Li, the owners of the since 2021. We
moved to Saratoga June 2021 since we are attracted by the beautiful community with some core
values such as respect, safety and common good. Recently we started to doubt the values when we
saw some planning commissioners’ behavior and decisions on the project PDR21-0032/ARB21-0120
for 20538 Lynde Court.
We have two concerns regarding the project. First is the code of conduct of some commission
planners. The 2nd is our backyard privacy concern is not fully addressed. Here are the details
262
regarding the code of conduct.
In the hearing of 9/14/2022, video recording starting from 1:50:10 - video clip in the following
google drive link, the applicants already mentioned they are willing to eliminate the front balcony if
it can be used as a conditional approval for the project. At this point, the commissioners must fully
understand that the three neighbors’ demand is to remove the balcony and commissioners should
understand their responsibility is to reconcile the neighbors (including applicants) interests.
However, a planning commissioner still suggested the proposal to reduce the depth or width of the
balcony and keep the balcony, video record from 1:51:30 shows that. So we are not sure if this
planning commissioner’s goal is to reach common good for the community to get the compromised
results or to maximize the applicant’s benefits only.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ze7nJD7lrOy0hWdWQhSWuCj5uhJZtwZ7/view?usp=share link
Based on the video record starting from 1:58:40, two planning commissioners summarized that the
project will be moved forward by removing the front balcony and keeping as a nonfunctional
balcony, however in the hearing of 11/9/22, these two planning commissioners completely
neglected last summary about removing the front balcony – video starting from 1:23:00. So, we
really doubt those commissioners’ code of conduct. Should the planning commissioners be
consistent, just, and fair to help the neighborhood, or for the applicants’ good only? Are the
applicants encouraged by some commissioners, so they gave up their proposal back to September
about removing the balcony to get the project moving while keeping the balcony in November’s
hearing instead?
The second hearing was originally scheduled on 10/12/2022 but got pushed out by the applicant at
the last minute, the morning of 10/12. We asked the associate planner for the reason and were told
“unforeseen circumstances”. We attended the meeting on 10/12 and found out that the
commissioner, who didn’t reconcile in the beginning and was inconsistent from the 1st hearing
summary to the 2nd hearing, was absent. The applicant mentioned in the hearing that he wanted to
get the project moving as fast as possible, but he pushed out the hearing from Oct to Nov by himself.
So, we highly suspect the commissioner’s absence is related to the sudden push out and it could
have insider communication between the commissioner and the applicant. We urge the city council
to investigate the reason behind it.
In the last hearing in Nov there was one commissioner who didn’t ask any questions or add any
comments for the project. He didn’t even open the camera during the whole meeting. The only
voice he made is voting “YES” in the end. We cannot define whether the behavior is right or wrong
but strongly doubt if his job is only serving a certain special interest.
Besides the above code of conduct concern, there is some privacy- related information prepared by
some commissioners which is one-sided or mis-leading. More than that, they also neglect the
privacy concerns we raised in many emails and letters to the planning commission.
First, it listed 20 houses with balconies since 2020. Actually, most of the 20 houses are in the
mountain area of Saratoga, which have less impact on neighbors’ life due to the distance between
neighbors, and that’s why none of them got all nextdoor neighbors’ objection. Please find the
263
following picture showing that. So, the 20 houses case is not an apple-to-apple comparison vs. our
case since every property has its unique location and environment. We should not use it as the
supporting info for this project.
Secondly, in the presentation from the planning commission the distance between the rear balcony
and our backyard is shown as 55ft, but that’s the distance for the farthest side. Actually, the distance
from the closest side is only 20ft+. This info also misled the commissioner's judgment on the privacy
concern.
Last, regarding the trees planted to address the backyard privacy concern, it will take over 10 years
for the 8 feet tall trees to grow up to 20 feet to address the privacy concern and the trees are not
planned in the right position. All these are completely neglected by some planning commissioners,
which is very unfortunate. Please find the attachment for more details.
Saratoga is a community where the common good prevails and neighborhoods are peaceful. We
respect our neighbors’ right to build their new houses. However, the projects should not be built at
the expense of the other neighbors’ anxiety and privacy. Furthermore, we have concerns that it
might disrupt the peace and harmony of this neighborhood. So, we are requesting your assistance to
resolve these privacy issues and concerns so we can have win-win situations with our neighbors. We
also would like to invite all of the city council members to think about if the city can do anything
about the definition for project code on balconies related constructions. Planning commission
should have a reasonable criterion to help residents avoid conflict and live a harmonious life in
Saratoga.
264
From:noreply@civicplus.com
To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form
Date:Tuesday, January 17, 2023 11:08:53 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Council Comments Form
Your Name Saratoga Resident
Phone Number Field not completed.
Email Address
Subject 01-18-23 City Council Meeting: Agenda Item 2.1 Appeal of 20538
Lynde Court
Comments The Planning Commission made the incorrect decision to
approve the design of 20538 Lynde Court. The design of the
house with the function front balcony is a violation of the privacy
and will infringe upon the quiet enjoyment of 20579 Lynde Ct.
In Saratoga, privacy is highly valued and prioritized. In the design
review process and specifically in the SFR Design Review
Handbook, privacy is highlighted and singled out as its individual
element to be considered and evaluated. The Handbook states
that Privacy is "important to residential quality of life in Saratoga."
Moreover, I'd hazard a guess that our setbacks are greater than
most adjoining cities. As such, Saratoga Residents have a
heighten expectation of privacy.
Because of the unique layout of the cul-de-sac, from the
proposed front balcony the applicant (20538 Lynde Ct.) may look
directly into the backyard 20579 Lynde Ct. If the applicant's
proposed balcony faced the front of the house across the street,
then there wouldn't be an infringement of privacy issue because
residents don't have an expectation of privacy on people looking
head-on to the front of their house. However, because the front
balcony would have an unadulterated view into 20579 Lynde
Ct.'s backyard, the circumstances are unique and distinguished
from most other cases and should be considered in this unique
context.
On page 11 of the handbook, the picture in the lower right corner
depicts this exact situation with a red x indicating that this design
as is should not have been approved. The unapproved example
states "This balcony has a direct view into the neighbor's private
indoor and outdoor areas." Moreover, there's no distance
265
maximums where this doesn't apply anymore; only that there is a
direct view. Consequently, this balcony should not have been
approved.
The Applicant has argued that if the balcony were a window, then
the applicant would still have the same direct view into the
backyard. The Applicant conceded there is a functional
difference between a balcony and window. That the balcony
would be a place of gathering. Also, there's a difference between
talking to your neighbors through the window versus from your
balcony/porch without the window as a barrier.
The Applicant's proposed balcony is introducing this infringement
of privacy. At minimum, the existing neighbors should not bear
the burden of additional infringement of privacy. This front
balcony will (1) infringe the quiet enjoyment of the backyard and
(2) devalue the value of the home because the market will likely
value a home greater but for the proposed front balcony that is
infringing upon the privacy and quiet enjoyment of the private
backyard.
Furthermore, the Planning Commission got it wrong in terms of
what should be the presumption that needs to be overcome.
When choosing between similar (substitute) design elements that
weigh the benefit of the applicant (the balcony) versus the
burden of infringed privacy upon the neighbors (a window), the
presumption should be in favor of the existing neighbors and the
exiting status quo - especially in Saratoga where a right to
heightened privacy is expected, highly valued, and sought after.
The burden of mitigating the infringement of privacy should solely
be borne by the Applicant. It feel like an affront to common
sensibility that the Planning Commission would approve a design
that (1) places the burden of mitigating the infringement of
privacy on the person whose privacy is being infringed and (2)
not consider the economic impact or devaluation of the infringed
neighbor's home. Both from an objective and subjective
viewpoint, 20579 Lynde Ct.'s privacy is being infringed.
Objectively, there is a direct view into the backyard -
corroborated by the Planning Commission and the Applicant's
offer to pay for trees or shrubs or trellises to placed upon 20579
Lynde Ct.'s backyard/fence (without commenting on the
sun/shade impacts such mitigation methods might cause).
Subjectively, 20579 Lynde Ct. has been a part of the design
review process and has stated that their privacy will be infringed.
As such, whether their privacy is being infringed is not in
question.
Please remedy the incorrect decision by the Planning
Commission and reject the approval of 20538 Lynde Court's
plans because they violate the privacy and quiet enjoyment of
266
20579 Lynde Court's private backyard.
Email Subscription Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
267
From:noreply@civicplus.com
To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form
Date:Wednesday, January 18, 2023 9:04:53 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Council Comments Form
Your Name Kathy Liccardo
Phone Number
Email Address
Subject Project 20538 Lynde Court - Application APCC22-0004
Comments I live at , a few houses away from the
proposed. project. I also have concerns about the evasion of
privacy the front balcony will cause. At the first public meeting,
after much discussion, Mr. Lalwani (applicant) said he would
remove the front balcony from his plans to get the project
approved. He was asked to submit a revised plan. When the
matter came up again in a subsequent public meeting, the
balcony was still part of his design. It had already been agreed
he would not have the front balcony! The project should not have
been approved with the balcony.
Other issues I'm concerned about is the timeline of such a huge
project. Our neighborhood has no outlet for traffic. There is only
one way in and one way out. Parking is limited, especially in the
culdesac where the project is located. There will be a parade of
large trucks and vehicles causing chaos to our quiet
neighborhood. The project will create a risk to the Foothill School
and Saratoga High School neighborhood children who walk to
and from school. The City should consider guidelines to protect
all of us from the expected turmoil this project will surely cause.
Email Subscription Subscribe
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
268
City Council Meeting –January 18, 2023
20538 Lynde Court
Appeal Application APCC22-0004
269
Vicinity Map
Subject Site
270
Site Plan -Existing
Existing structures to be demolished
PROJECT DATA
Net Site Area: 11,066 sq.ft. (0.25 acres)
Average Slope: <10 %
General Plan Designation: M-10
Zoning: R-1-10,000
3 Protected Trees to be removed X
Existing trees
X
XX
271
Site Plan -Proposed
Floor Area
Residence 3,369 sq. ft.
ADU 752 sq. ft.
Total 4,121 sq. ft.
New 2 story home
Existing Trees
New Trees (7 proposed)
272
Floor Plans
Second FloorFirst Floor
273
Elevations
Max Ht. Allowed 26’Max Ht. Allowed 26’East Elevation (Rear)
West Elevation (Front)South Elevation (Right)
North Elevation (Left)
Closet
Closet
274
Revised design 11/9/22
Original design 9/14/22
275
Exterior Materials
276
Neighbor Comments
Subject Site
277
Neighbor Comments
~130’
278
Design Review Findings
a)Site development follows the natural contours of the site,minimizes grading,and is appropriate given the
property's natural constraints.
b)All protected trees shall be preserved,as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations).If constraints exist on the
property,the number of protected trees,heritage trees,and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to
an absolute minimum.Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be
minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080.
c)The height of the structure,its location on the site,and its architectural elements are designed to avoid
unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds.
d)The overall mass and the height of the structure,and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself
and with the neighborhood.
e)The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are
complementary to the neighborhood streetscape.
f)Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy.
g)The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook,
pursuant to Section 15-45.055.
h)On hillside lots,the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines,significant
hillside features,community viewsheds,and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100.
279
Recommendation
Adopt the resolution denying appeal APCC22-0004,approving the Design
Review and Arborist Review approvals (PDR21-0032/ARB 21-0120)
280
Appeal of Planning Commission
Design Review about Approval of
20538 Lynde Ct. Project
281
Opening Remark
282
●Project applicant has no intention to
reach a win-win solution for all
parties involved but his own greatest
benefits
●Project builder (Livio) keeps passing
misleading info about privacy analysis
●Planning commission failed to direct
both sides to reach a mutually agreeable
solution for all parties involved
●
Why Do We Appeal
283
284
Neighborhood (503-52-xx) 2-story Houses Comparison
P
#
Address Lot
SQFT
Fl area
SQFT
FA/Lot%Balcony Side Window
Height 2nd fl.
Front Window
Height 2nd fl.
Back Window Height
2nd fl.
12 20538 Lynde Ct.10,057 4,121 40.98 %F + B 2’8’8’
3 20575 Reid Lane 10,005 2,580 25.79 %No No 3’ Unknown
4 20587 Reid Lane 10,005 2,164 21.63 %No No 3’ Unknown
28 13909 Lynde Ave.10,200 2,506 24.57 %No No 3’ 3’
27 13901 Lynde Ave.10,200 2,504 24.55 %No No 3’ 3’
26 13893 Lynde Ave.10,200 2,614 25.63 %No No 3’ 3’
25 13885 Lynde Ave.10,200 2,614 25.63 %No No 3’ 4’
24 13877 Lynde Ave.10,200 2,524 24.75 %No No 3’ 3’ & 3.5’
23 13869 Lynde Ave.10,018 2,564 25.59 %No 3’ octagon 3’ 3’
22 20557 Deerpark Ct.12,632 2,164 17.13 %No No 3’ Unknown
21 20531 Deerpark Ct.12,196 2,164 17.74 %No No 3’ Unknown
8 20576 Lynde Ct.10,005 2,759 27.58 %No 2’ & 4’ 4’ Unknown
285
Responses from Mr. Lalwani and Livio
1. Denial of privacy concerns
2. Deceit with misinformation
3. Bargain for support
4. Anger & Attack
286
Denial Stage
WhatsApp
message from Mr.
Lalwani to the
neighborhood
group on
December 10,
2021
287
Deceit Stage
“The balcony in the front & back is
between two walls, so the view from
there is blocked into your property.
Refer to the image below, where it is
clear that the vision triangle does not
intrude at all into your backyard and
we can only see the trees & street as
shown in the next image.”
(Email from Livio)
288
A person’s Horizontal Field
of View when standing at 3
different locations (Right
Hand side , Left Hand side,
and through Extended Wall
Hole) of the back balcony.
View from Back Balcony
289
A person’s
Horizontal Field of
View when standing
at Right Hand Side
and Left Hand Side
of the front
balcony.
View from
Front Balcony
290
A person’s Horizontal
Field of View when
seeing through the
Master Bedroom,
Master Bath, Bath 2
side windows on the
2nd floor.
View from
Right Side Window
291
Hi Rajesh and Sunita,
Unfortunately none of your proposed design changes really help much to minimize our privacy concerns. Our
suggested changes were first listed in my email to you dated August 21, 2022.
1. No side windows on the 2nd floor facing our properties
2. No front and back balconies on the 2nd floor,
3. Keep your front and back windows on the 2nd floor no
more than 4 feet tall.
Chris:
I am sorry but we cannot agree to your unreasonable
requests.
Sep 21, 2022, 9:55 PM
Sep 21, 2022, 11:07 PM
Bargain Stage
292
Anger and
Attack Stage
WhatsApp
message from Mr.
Lalwani to the
neighborhood
group on October
21, 2022
293
Planning Commission Issues
●Incorrect Statement from Resolution No. 22-020
●Inconsistent Planning Commission Conclusion
●Suspicious Pushout of Planned 2nd Hearing
●Questionable Behavior During Hearing
294
Incorrect Statement from RESOLUTION NO: 22-020
The architectural elements are NOT in scale with the neighborhood. The 4100
square feet two story house is definitely NOT in scale with its neighborhood,
which are mostly 2000 square feet single story house.
https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/163
4644/Attachment_1_-_Resolution_22-020.pdf, page8
295
(503-52-xx)
296
Neighborhood (503-52-xx) 2-story Houses Comparison
P
#
Address Lot
SQFT
Fl area
SQFT
FA/Lot%Balcony Side Window
Height 2nd fl.
Front Window
Height 2nd fl.
Back Window Height
2nd fl.
12 20538 Lynde Ct.10,057 4,121 40.98 %F + B 2’8’8’
3 20575 Reid Lane 10,005 2,580 25.79 %No No 3’ Unknown
4 20587 Reid Lane 10,005 2,164 21.63 %No No 3’ Unknown
28 13909 Lynde Ave.10,200 2,506 24.57 %No No 3’ 3’
27 13901 Lynde Ave.10,200 2,504 24.55 %No No 3’ 3’
26 13893 Lynde Ave.10,200 2,614 25.63 %No No 3’ 3’
25 13885 Lynde Ave.10,200 2,614 25.63 %No No 3’ 4’
24 13877 Lynde Ave.10,200 2,524 24.75 %No No 3’ 3’ & 3.5’
23 13869 Lynde Ave.10,018 2,564 25.59 %No 3’ octagon 3’ 3’
22 20557 Deerpark Ct.12,632 2,164 17.13 %No No 3’ Unknown
21 20531 Deerpark Ct.12,196 2,164 17.74 %No No 3’ Unknown
8 20576 Lynde Ct.10,005 2,759 27.58 %No 2’ & 4’ 4’ Unknown
297
The architectural elements are NOT designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy
of adjoining properties. Please find next pages for the details.
https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/163464
4/Attachment_1_-_Resolution_22-020.pdf, page8
Incorrect Statement from RESOLUTION NO: 22-020
298
Planned six trees only cover partial area for the backyard
NOT Parallel !
BUT a Ct !
299
The 10 feet tree will take 10+ years to grow up to help on privacy
10 feet tall tree is ONLY as tall as 1st floor. Can’t
block the view at all.
Olive:
Grows 1 feet per year
Carolina cherry:
Grows 1-2 feet per year in ideal
conditions
300
No Privacy at all even with the “Wall”
301
Trees can bring more troubles than help!
●No sunshine
●Falling leaves
●Root damage on foundation
●Falling branches
●Pushing fence
●……..
Trees CANNOT always solve privacy concern!
No FORMALISM!
Not all mitigations are effective! Please think
twice when you see “mitigation”!
302
Inconsistent planning commission conclusion
In the hearing of 9/14/2022, video recording starting from 1:50:10, the applicants
already mentioned they are willing to eliminate the front balcony if it can be used as
a conditional approval for the project, and all planning commissioner recognized
that and will use that as conditional approval.
However in the hearing of 11/9/22, video starting from 1:23:00, two planning
commissioners completely neglected last consensus about removing the front
balcony. So, we really doubt those commissioners’ code of conduct.
Should the planning commissioners be
consistent, just, and fair to help the
neighborhood, or for the applicants’ good
only? 303
Inconsistent planning commission conclusion
https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1733460/Attachment_D_-_November_9__2022_Planni
ng_Commission_Staff_Report__without_attachments_.pdf
304
Suspicious push out of the 2nd hearing
11/9/2022
Actual 2nd hearing
Planning commission
approved the plan with 3 Nos
and 4 Yess..
12/20/2022
Appeal raised to City
Council
There nextdoor neighbors
raised the appeal for the
approval decision
9/14/2022
First hearing
Planning commission held on the
decision and suggested the builder to
remove front balcony.
10/12/2022
Planning 2nd hearing
In the morning city informed all
stakeholders that the hearing is
pushed out due to “unforeseen
circumstances”.
On that day there is one planning
commissioner, who neglects the
consensus, absent from the
meeting.
305
Questionable Behavior during hearing
There is one planning commissioner
●Absent from the first hearing
●In the 2nd hearing he didn’t ask any questions or add any comments in the
whole process.
●In the 2nd hearing he didn’t turn on camera
●Only voice from him is “YES” for the vote
What is guideline for planning
commissioner R&R during hearing?
306
Summary
●We are disappointed that
○The project applicants didn’t have intention to reach a win-win
solution for all parties involved
○The planning commission was lack of consistency and accountability
and failed to direct both sides to reach a mutually agreeable solution
●We are requesting:
○The design needs to be modified
○No side window on the 2nd floor or change them to picture windows
○No front and back balconies on the 2nd floor
○Keep the front and back windows on the 2nd floor no more than 4
feet tall.
307
Closing Remark
308
Front balcony creates huge privacy issue
Picture taken from Tan’s backyard.Picture taken from applicant’s front
balcony (provided by the applicant)
Picture taken from the cross street (13909
Lynde Ave) neighbor 2nd floor window
309
Some Quotes…
Our CommentsQuote from Mr Lawalni
●We wish back to Dec 2021 Mr. Lawalni could take
seriously on our comments and concerns to smooth the
process.
2
You are delaying the project and I spent
much money on this
●Who wants to buy a house next to a 2-story house with
balcony which can peek into your backyard?
●People don’t live by monetary increase only. It is also
important to have harmony with people surround.
1
●
3
310
What We Lose
●The property price will be significantly reduced because of the 2-story house
next to our property
●The privacy is already infringed no matter it is with balcony or without in
different level
●The sunshine is blocked by the 2-story house - NO more backyard fruits!
●The community harmony is broken
●Construction noise/chaos for at least one year
●But we want to get common good with
our neighbors for building the 2-story
house although we are victims.
311
What We Request
●Put yourself in neighbors’ shoes just as we do to
understand the intention of building 2-story house
●Do design changes to minimize privacy concern
○No side window or change to the picture windows for 2nd floor
○No front and back balconies on the 2nd floor
○Keep the front and back windows on the 2nd floor no more than 4 feet tall.
●Stop Egoism!
312
Good Example - 18660 Ralya Ct, Cupertino, CA
95014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgENfl8cBrE
313
We Believe
We believe that what comes first is family
We believe we should all live in harmony
We believe in making the most of a
beautiful day
And it's not the end until everything's
okay
314
City Council
Meeting
January 18, 2023
Lalwani Residence
20538 Lynde Ct
PDR21-0032 /ARB21-0120
315
OUR FAMILY & PROJECT INTENT
●Rajesh Lalwani and Dr. Sunita Lalwani, MD
●Lived in Bay Area for 30+ years and Saratoga for 20+
years.
●Growing family with 2 Kids and visiting parents.
●Problems with current house - built in 1962, only 2
bathrooms, need lights even during daytime.
●Searched for another house in Saratoga for 2 years.
Very low inventory.
●Love our current location and views of mountains.
●Worked with Livio and the city on four iterations.
PROJECT SNAPSHOT
●Zoning: R1-10
●Lot Size: 11,066 Sq Ft
●Allowed Floor Area: 3,540 Sq. ft.
●Built Up Area+ADU: 3,403 + 752 Sq Ft
●Building Ht: 25' 10.75"
316
13869 13877 13885 13901 1390913893
20557
20531 2057
6
2058
7
2057
5
Two-story development in the
neighborhood – 11 houses
317
Lev
el
2
Le
v
e
l
1
46’
Chris Chiang
Jerry Han
Henry Tan
Relatively
straight-
forward
situation
Dense
urban
setting
318
Chris Chiang’s Side
6’6”
Bathroom
Window
GENERALLY
ACCEPTED REMEDY
Master Bedroom
Window
Bathroom
Window
319
Jerry Han’s Side
6’6”
Staircase
WindowBathroom
Window
GENERALLY
ACCEPTED REMEDY
320
City of
Saratoga
Design Review
Handbook
321
REAR VIEW
EXTENDED WALLS
* By mistake we submitted solid wall for rear balcony
We plan to submit change request for railing as shown322
46’
View from rear balcony
towards 20540 (Chris
Chiang)
NO PRIVACY IMPACT
323
46’
25’
View from balcony
towards 20526 (Jerry
Han)
49’
Existing
New
New
New
New
New
324
●Olive (no-Fruit): At the time of
installation, we shall buy and install
already grown trees in 24" boxes
which will be at least 10’ or taller
●Grows 20-30’. At maturity
●Spaced 6’-10’
https://www.moonvalleynurseries.com/trees
Install evergreen already grown privacy screening trees
GENERALLY
ACCEPTED REMEDY
325
WALL
BALCONY 326
Henry Tan
Dec 5, 2021
The architectural design of
the house is beautiful,
however the style will be not
harmony in our community.
(No mention of Privacy Concern)
327
Good-Faith Changes
Before After
328
Henry and Lydia Tan
Sep 12, 2022
1.Our backyard is exposed
completely, no privacy, from its
front balcony of this project.
2.Son with special needs
3.Why are "protected trees"
removed since they're
protected?
2 days before the
public hearing!
NOT IN GOOD FAITH
329
FRONT VIEW
EXTENDED WALLS
STAIRCASE
WINDOW
SOLID PARAPET
WALL
330
46’
View from front balcony
towards cul-de-sac
331
Drone view from the front balcony
~130 Feet332
Reduced balcony
instead of eliminating it
●Views of mountains in the
front are the main reason
why we chose to rebuild
here
●No balconies =
suffocating, dark rooms
and no cross ventilation
1.5 ft.
Ventilator
1.5 ft.
Ventilator
Balcony
only source
of light to
bedroom &
family room
Balcony
only source
of light to
kids
bedrooms
1.5 ft.
Ventilator
1.5 ft.
Ventilator
333
Balcony vs. Windows
●Balcony vs. windows
does not change
privacy - same views
even if you have only
windows
●Last year Saratoga city
approved 25 two-story
houses – 19 houses
had balconies!
334
While complete privacy is not guaranteed in an urban
environment, the design should strive to protect the privacy
of both the homeowner and the adjacent neighbors.
335
1st Planning
Submittal
Project timeline – it’s been over 1 year
1st City Comments
Received
2nd Planning
Resubmittal
2nd City Comments
Received
3rd Planning
Submittal
(Dec - 2021)
(Jan - 2022)
(April - 2022)(June- 2022)
(July - 2022)(June - 2022)
Planning
Commission 1
(June - 2021)
Design
Phase
started
Planning
Approval
(Sept- 2022)
Story poles
Installed
Story Poles
Approved
3rd City
Comments
Received
(Aug- 2022)
(Aug- 2022)
4th Planning
Submittal
Planning
Commission 2
(Nov- 2022)
336
Good-faith changes made to front elevation over 4 iterations
Flat roof
After
Balcony Length 27’ → 20’Railing Converted to
Parapet WallSlanted roof
337
●>12 months, $100K, countless hours
●Staff recommended the project
●Planning commission approved the project
●All design guidelines have been met
●Request City Council to approve the project
Our Request
338
THANK YOU
339
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:January 18, 2023
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department
PREPARED BY:Kayla Nakamoto, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT:Youth Commission Fundraising Plan 2022/23
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the 2022/23 Youth Commission Fundraising Plan to collect donations and seek
sponsorship of various Youth Commission initiatives.
BACKGROUND:
On September 21, 2022, the City Council approved the Youth Commission’s work plan for the
2022/23 school year. The work plan includes two key focuses in which their efforts tie back to -
Build Connection and Sustainability. The Commission emphasized the importance of offering
opportunities for youth in Saratoga to build connection in the community. These work plan
efforts advocate for youth in Saratoga and the importance of youth mental and physical health.
The second key focus area intends to raise awareness about ways that the community can be
proactive in reducing pollution and protecting our environment through sustainable practices.
The Commission would like to reach out to local organizations for donations, sponsorships, and
partnerships for various Youth Commission activities, including the teen sports competition.
Potential sponsors include local stores, such as retail stores, coffee shops, and grocery stores. The
Youth Commission proposal also includes plans to collect monetary donations at community
events they attend.Additionally, the Youth Commission is seeking permission to charge a minimal
fee for participation in a teen sports competition this Spring. In the past, the Youth Commission
has collected monetary donations at each of their events and charged admission for the Color Dash,
Toga Trails and Make it to Muko.
Per the City of Saratoga Donation Policy, adopted via Resolution 15-017, Commissions must
submit a Fundraising Plan for City Council consideration before soliciting donations more than
$500. Since more than $500 in donations is expected, the Commission is seeking City Council
approval of the attached Fundraising Plan (Attachment A).
Donation receipts will be issued for any donations over $100. Upon request of the donor and as
appropriate based on donation amount, donors will be recognized through limited forms of
promotional activity, such as logo name on flyers or verbal recognition at the events.
340
In accordance with the City’s Fundraising policy, any restricted donation of more than $500 or
unrestricted donation of more than $5,000 will be brought to the City Council for consideration.
Restricted donations are defined as any donation where the donor has limited use of the donation
for a specific purpose. A donation is unrestricted if the donor has placed no limitations on the use
of the donation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Fundraising Plan
Attachment B – Donation Policy
341
City of Saratoga Fundraising Plan
Fundraising Plan Title & Purpose: Please provide a title and description for your fundraising
project.
Fundraising Participants: Please list the names for all groups and individuals that will be
conducting fundraising.
Donation Type/Amount: Please describe the types and amount of donations that will be
sought.
Anticipated Donors: Please describe who will be approached for donations.
Donor Recognition Plan: Please describe how donors will be recognized.
Fundraising Timeline:
Council Review of Fundraising Plan:
Fundraising Start:
Fundraising Completion:
Council Review of Donations:
Donor Recognition Complete:
Restrictions/Reporting: Please identify any restrictions or reporting requirements
associated with this fundraising plan.
342
Adopted Via City Council Resolution 15-017 (April 1, 2015)
Page 1 of 8
City of Saratoga
Donation Policy
I. Purpose
Members and supporters of the Saratoga community from time to time wish to support
the community by making donations to the City of Saratoga. The City Council
appreciates this generosity and has adopted this policy regarding donations to the City of
Saratoga, including City departments and City sponsored programs, activities, and events.
(This policy is distinct from the Employee Gifts Policy, which provides City of Saratoga
employees with a clear standard about when it is acceptable and prohibited to accept gifts
from a member of the public, a business, an organization, or other entity.)
II. Definitions
1. Donation: a contribution made to the City without expectation of goods, services, or
significant benefit or recognition in return. Donations may be in the form of money or
in-kind contributions of products, services, investment securities, real property (land),
or any combination thereof. A donation may be unrestricted, where the donor has
placed no limitation on its use, or restricted, where the donor has restricted its use to a
specified purpose. Donations that, if accepted, would obligate the City to enter into a
service, procurement, or other agreement shall not be considered a donation. Grants
to the City from a local, state, or federal agency are not subject to this policy.
2. Donor: Any organization or individual who provides the City with a donation.
3. Donation Agreement: An agreement between the City and the donor that details any
restrictions on a donation as well as the respective obligations of the donor and the
City.
4. Fundraising: Any activity conducted with the intent of generating donations to the
City. Fundraising activities may include, but are not limited to, promoting endowment
programs, program adoption or pledge drives, and contacting individuals, companies,
foundations, or other entities with a request for a donation to the City.
III. General Provisions
1. The City welcomes unrestricted donations as well as restricted donations that enhance
City services, reduce costs that the City would incur in the absence of the donation, or
that otherwise provide a benefit to the City. The City may decline any donation
without comment or cause.
343
Adopted Via City Council Resolution 15-017 (April 1, 2015)
Page 2 of 8
2. Donors shall not expect, nor shall the City grant, any extra consideration to the donor
in relation to City procurement, regulatory matters, or any other business, services, or
operations of the City. To avoid the possible appearance of extra considerations,
members of the Planning and Heritage Preservation Commissions and staff of the
Community Development Department are not authorized to solicit donations to the
City.
3. No City Council member, Commissioner, employee, or volunteer shall solicit
donations in excess of $500 in money or in-kind services for any City project,
program, activity, or event (“supported activity”) unless the City Council has
approved a fundraising plan for the supported activity. A recommended form for a
fundraising plan is attached as Exhibit A to be revised as appropriate for the
fundraising goal and type of supported activity in question.
4. Donations must be directly related to providing goods or services to the public or for
another valid public purpose. Donations may not be used for personal financial gain
of any City elected or appointed official or employee.
5. The net benefit of a donation should be considered when determining whether to
accept a donation. Net benefit includes all lifecycle costs of ownership, including
maintenance, repair, clean-up, administrative, and any potential liability or expenses
that may be associated with the donation.
a. Donations may not be used to implement new on-going programs or services
unless a permanent source of revenue is identified to support the program or
service.
b. Potential costs and liabilities should be considered if a donation of personal
property or of a service does not include the same indemnification, insurance,
bonding, or warranties that the City would normally receive through procurement
of personal property or services.
c. Real property may be donated to the City provided that it will not expose the City
to an unreasonable risk of litigation or liability, because of the physical condition
of the property or existence of claims, liens, and encumbrances against the
property.
6. Council members and other City officials are responsible for reporting fundraising
activities and donations as required by applicable laws and regulations.
IV. Procedures
1. Unrestricted donations of $5,000 or less may be accepted or declined by the City
Manager. Restricted donations of $500 or less may be accepted or declined by the
344
Adopted Via City Council Resolution 15-017 (April 1, 2015)
Page 3 of 8
City Manager. Unrestricted donations of more than $5,000 and restricted donations of
more than $500 must be brought to the City Council for consideration.
2. The City Manager may choose to request City Council consideration of any donation,
regardless of value.
3. The City Council shall consider proposed donations beyond the authority of the City
Manager set forth above and proposed donations referred to it by the City Manager.
The City Council may accept or decline any donation at its sole discretion.
4. All donations will receive appropriate recognition as determined by the City Manager
or City Council at the time the donation is accepted, taking into consideration the
nature and level of the donation. Upon request of the donor or if specified in a City-
initiated request for donors, limited forms of promotional activity (such as logo or
name placement on signs, flyers, and other materials related to a program or activity
supported by the donation) are permitted. The appearance of traditional commercial
advertising should be avoided and the size of donor recognition should be in keeping
with the size of non-recognition information used in the materials. The agreed upon
form of recognition should be identified in the donor receipt or a donation agreement.
Any naming of City parks, property, or facilities shall follow the guidelines set forth
in the City’s Policy Pertaining to Naming City-Owned Land and Facilities.
5. When donations with a value in excess of $100 are accepted or upon the request of
the donor, the City will issue the donor a receipt indicating the amount of the
donation or describing the goods or services donated within 30 days of receiving the
donation. (In accordance with the Internal Revenue Code the City does not provide
an estimated value of in-kind donations; donors may refer to IRS Publication 561 for
more information on valuing donated property.) The donation receipt shall also
include the date of the donation, the name of the donor, the purpose of the donation
(if a restricted donation), a brief description of any public recognition that will be
made by the City, and note that the donor received no goods or services in exchange.
The original receipt shall be submitted to the donor and the City shall retain a copy.
A sample donation receipt is attached as Exhibit B.
6. Before acceptance of a restricted donation valued at more than $500 or an
unrestricted donation valued at more than $5,000, the respective obligations of the
donor and the City shall be set forth in a donation agreement. A sample donation
agreement is attached as Exhibit C. The City Manager or City Council may require
donation agreements for donations valued at any amount.
345
Adopted Via City Council Resolution 15-017 (April 1, 2015)
Page 4 of 8
7. The City shall maintain records for the receipt of all donations and shall comply with
all reporting requirements and regulations including, but not limited to, FPPC
Regulation 18944.2 Gifts to an Agency. For donations that were made at the behest
of a City Council member that person shall determine whether a Form 803 (Behested
Payments Report) is required pursuant to the Political Reform Act.
346
Adopted Via City Council Resolution 15-017 (April 1, 2015)
Page 5 of 8
EXHIBIT A – FUNDRAISING PLAN FORM
City of Saratoga Fundraising Plan
Fundraising Plan Title & Purpose: Please provide a title and description for your fundraising
project.
Fundraising Participants: Please list the names for all groups and individuals that will be
conducting fundraising.
Donation Type/Amount: Please describe the types and amount of donations that will be
sought.
Anticipated Donors: Please describe who will be approached for donations.
Donor Recognition Plan: Please describe how donors will be recognized.
Fundraising Timeline:
Council Review of Fundraising Plan:
Fundraising Start:
Fundraising Completion:
Council Review of Donations:
Donor Recognition Complete:
Restrictions/Reporting: Please identify any restrictions or reporting requirements
associated with this fundraising plan.
347
Adopted Via City Council Resolution 15-017 (April 1, 2015)
Page 6 of 8
EXHIBIT B – SAMPLE DONATION RECEIPT
City of Saratoga Donation Receipt
This is to confirm that on __________________ [insert date] the City of Saratoga received from
__________________________________________________ [insert donor name and address]:
a monetary contribution of $_________________
a non‐monetary contribution consisting of [describe goods, services, property,
securities, etc.]:
No goods or services were provided by the City of Saratoga in return for the contribution.
The City sincerely appreciates your donation.
_______________________
Mary Furey
Administrative Services Director
City of Saratoga
348
Adopted Via City Council Resolution 15-017 (April 1, 2015)
Page 7 of 8
EXHIBIT C – SAMPLE DONATION AGREEMENT
City of Saratoga
Standard Donation Agreement
The undersigned Donor wishes to make a donation to the City of Saratoga as described in more
detail below.
Donor is (check and complete all that apply):
donating $_________________________ in a lump sum
donating $_________________________ in __________________ (monthly, quarterly,
etc.) payments of $_________________________ in __________________ installments.
donating the following (describe products, services, investment securities, real property,
etc.):
If this box is checked the City’s acceptance of the donation described above is subject to the
conditions specified on Attachment 1.
If this box is checked this donation is restricted to the following uses:
City will publicly recognize donor by (describe recognition):
If this box is checked this donation is being made at the behest of Council
Member/Commissioner/City Staff Member __________________________.
In connection with administering this agreement, Donor and City shall work through the
following primary representatives:
City of Saratoga Donor
Primary Representative:
Address:
Telephone:
Fax:
Cell Phone:
E-mail:
349
Adopted Via City Council Resolution 15-017 (April 1, 2015)
Page 8 of 8
In addition to the foregoing, Donor and City understand and agree that:
1. The City will provide Donor with a donation receipt indicating the amount of the
donation or estimated value of goods or services donated within 30 days of receiving the
donation.
2. Donor’s contribution to the City will be recognized publicly as described above.
3. Except as provided above, the City may use the donation in any manner at its sole
discretion and Donor has no right or obligation to control City’s use of the donation.
4. Donor has not and will not receive any goods or services in exchange for the donation
and the City will not grant any extra consideration to the donor in relation to City
procurement, regulatory matters, or any other business, services, or operations of the
City.
5. Donor confirms that unless indicated otherwise above this donation is not made at the
behest of a City Council Member or of any member of the Planning or Heritage
Preservation Commissions or staff of the Community Development Department.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement.
Donor City of Saratoga
James Lindsay, City Manager
Name Title
Date: Date:
ATTEST:
Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Date:
663906.5
350
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:January 18, 2023
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department
PREPARED BY:Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk
SUBJECT:Discussion and action regarding City Council Annual Summer Recess
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discuss the City Council’s annual Summer Recess, cancel certain meetings in July and/or August
2023 and authorize the City Manager, after consultation with the Mayor, to reinstate a cancelled
meeting if any urgent items arise.
BACKGROUND:
For more than 10 years, with the exception of 2012 and 2018, the City Council has taken action to
cancel two consecutive meetings in the summer known as the ‘Summer Recess.’ At the December,
21, 2022 Study Session, the City Council discussed cancelling meetings in July or August for this
recess in 2023. Direction was given to staff to bring the item to the Council for action in January.
According to Saratoga Municipal Code, “Any regular meeting may be rescheduled or cancelled
by action of the City Council at a regular or special meeting preceding the meeting to be
rescheduled or cancelled.”
351