HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-1999 Agenda 1,4B4, 5ACONFIDENTIAL MEMO
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ~ ~ ~ ~ AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: JULY 7, 1999 CITY MANAGEi
ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Agreement for Legal Services with Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Review the proposed agreement.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is the third iteration of an agreement for legal services that I have developed with
Richard Taylor of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger. As I believe the agreement is pretty much in its
final form, I am transmitting it to the entire City Council for you to review prior to Wednesday's
Closed Session. On Tuesday, I expect to receive an alternative compensation proposal from
Taylor that the City could consider. This would include having separate rates for the Tier 2 hours
(those in excess of the first 90 per month) for the associate attorneys and partners in the firm.
What this would mean is that the City would pay more than the $160 per hour blended rate for
work done by Taylor/Wittwer, but less for work performed by associates such as Perlmutter.
There are pros and cons I can see to both approaches, so it really depends on what the Council
feels more comfortable with.
I told Taylor that I would like to have a final agreement hammered out by the end of the day on
Tuesday so he can sign it and send it down to me by Wednesday's meeting. Assuming the
Council approves the agreement in Closed Session, it can be signed then and reported out in the
Open Session. Anticipating that this is what will occur, I will draft a statement for the Mayor to
read in Open Session.
Lastly, Taylor said he would be available to attend Wednesday's meeting to observe and, if
necessary, to be available for the Closed Session if the Council feels the need to discuss anything
with him relative to the agreement. I told him I would get back to him on this on Wednesday, so
if the Council has any strong preferences one way or the other, please let me know by noon
Wednesday. And if there are any questions or comments about the proposed agreement, please
get hold of me about these on Tuesday.
07/02/99 16:39 $ SHUTE,MIHALY 1002/010
DRAFT #3 FOR CITY REVIEW --July 2,1999
AGREEMENT FOR. LEGAL SERVICES
'T'his Agreement for Legal Services ("AGREEMENT") is made and entered into by
and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation in the State of
California ("CITY"), and SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP ("SMW").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties hereto to enter this AGREEMENT and
establish the terms and conditions for rendition of legal services to the CITY and the
compensation therefor; and
WHEREAS, RICHARD S. TAYLOR is a member of the law firm of SMW; and
WHEREAS, JONATHAN WITTWER and his law film, Wittwer 8t Parkin, LLP,
have associated with SMW for the purposes of the AGREEMENT;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED as follows:
1. .Appointment of City Attorney. CITY hereby retains RICHARD S. TAYLOR
("ATTORNEY"), as City Attorney for the CITY and ATTORNEY agrees to
faithfully represent the legal interests of CITY during the term of this
A.G~EMENT.
2. Attorney's Services and Scope of Work.
2.1 Commencing August 1, 1999, ATTORNEY shall be primarily responsible
for providing the services set forth below and, in the absence of extenuating
circumstances, shall personally attend all City Council meetings and
generally provide four (4) to six (6) hours of office hours per week at City
Hall at a mutually agreed upon schedule. ATTORNEY shall be assisted in
providing these services primarily by Jonathan Wittwer, who will attend
City Council meetings if ATTORNEY is unable to attend to due to
extenuating circumstances. Any alteration in this primary assignment shall
be made only after consulting with, and securing the approval of, CITY;
provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall preclude
07/02/99 16:39 $ sHLiTE,MIHALY l~1.1003/010
DRAFT #3 FOR CITY REVIEW -- July 2,1999
ATTORNEY from utilizing other partners, members, or employees of
SMW or W ittwer & Parkin to provide services in support of these primary
assignments. For the purposes of this AGREEMENT, all further references
to "SMW 'shall include Jonathan Wittwer and Wittwer & Parkin except as
context indicates otherwise.
2.2 Jonathan Wittwer will attend CITY Planning Commission meetings as
requested by the City Community Development Director. ATTORNEY
shall attend such meetings if Mr. Wittwer is unable to attend.
2.3 ATTORNEY shall provide, through his own services and those such other
attorneys of SMW as ATTORNEY shall determine, all legal services
usually and normally provided by City Attorneys, and specifically those
duties and services described in Government Code Sections 41801, 41802,
and 41803.5_ Such services shall include, but not be limited to:
2.3.1 Attendance at City Council and Planning Commission meetings;
2.3.2 Preparation of ordinances, resolutions, leases, contracts or other legal
documents;
2.3.3 Preparation of all findings, decisions or other documents pertaining
to legislative or quasi-judicial actions or decisions made by the City
Council, boards, commissions or offioers;
2.3.4 Rendering legal advice (both oral and written) to members of the
City Council, commissions, boards, and to the City Manager,
department heads and employees with respect to City matters;
2.3.5 Negotiating and/or rendering advice with respect to negotiations
pertaining to CITY's contracts, leases and memoranda of
understanding;
2.3.6 Representing CITY in litigation and/or arbitration or other judicial,
administrative or quasi judicial proceedings;
2.3.7 Furnishing legal services for assessment district or bond
proceedings; and
2.3.8 Furnishing legal services for the Public Finance Authority or other
2
07/02/99 16:39 $ SHUTE,MIHALY ~J004/010
D1tAFT #3 FOR CITY REVIEW -- July 2,1999
agencies or entities which aze not operated as an integral part of
CITY, but which are or may be created by CITY as independent
agencies.
2.4 ATTORNEY and SMW shall provide the services required with the level of
care, skill, and expertise customarily exercised by licensed attorneys
providing similar services in the San Francisco Bay Area. All persons
assigned by ATTORNEY to provide legal representation in court shall, at
all times during the term of this AGREEMENT, be members in good
standing of the State Baz of California.
2.5 If ATTORNEY determines that the best interests of CITY would be served
by retaining outside counsel ("COUNSEL") to represent CITY on a
particulaz matter, ATTORNEY shall so inform CITY and request
authorization to retain such COUNSEL. ATTORNEY shall only retain
COUNSEL with prior authorization from CITY. SMW will bill CITY for
the services provided by any COUNSEL without adding on any additional
markup. SMW may bill CITY for ATTORNEY'S time spent supervising
and coordinating with COUNSEL.
3. Transition.
3.1 During the month of July, 1999 ("TRANSITION"), ATTORNEY shall
meet, either in person or telephonically with each City Council member and
with key CITY staff, as designated by the City Manager, and shall conduct
a preliminary review of the City's municipal code and general plan to
become familiaz with these documents. SMW shall not bill, and CITY shall
not pay, for these tasks.
3.2 During the TRANSITION, ATTORNEY shall contact Liane Randolph at
Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver and Wilson ("MEYERS, NAVE"), to
coordinate ATTORNEY's assumption of the duties specified in this
AGREEMENT. By July 20, 1999, and to the extent that ATTORNEY
deems it necessary, ATTORNEY shall provide the City Manager with a
proposal for staffing any existing litigation involving the CITY.
ATTORNEY shall bill, and CITY shall pay, only for time spent by SM'W in
meeting with MEYERS, NAVE to become familiar with existing litigation
involving the CITY.
3.3 Commencing August 1, 1999, ATTORNEY shall assume the position of the
3
07/02/99 16:40 $ SHUTE,MIHALY
1Q 005/010
DRAFT #3 FOR CITY REVIEW -- July 2,1999
City Attorney of the City of Saratoga.
4. Independent Contractor.
ATTORNEY shall provide legal services to CITY as an independent contractor,
with control over his offices, hours, support staff, and other matters except as
provided herein.
5. Compensation.
5.1 CITY shall compensate SMW as follows:
5.1.1 One I-Iundred and Fifty dollars ($150) per hour for the first 90 hours
of legal services per month;
5.1.2 One Hundred and Sixty dollars ($160) per hour for all legal services
in excess of 90 hours per month;
5.1.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, One
Hundred and Seventy-five dollars ($175) per hour for all legal
services relating to litigation; and
5.1.4 Notwithstanding the foregoing sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2, and 5.1.3, Two
Hundred and Five dollazs ($205) per hour for all legal services
incurred on matters for which the City is fully reimbursed by City
applicants through the applicable fee schedule.
5.2 The rates set forth above include general photocopying, facsimile,
telephone costs, and travel expenses between the City of Saratoga and the
AT'TORNEY's o£Fxce in San Francisco and Yonathan Wittwer's office in
Santa Cruz and these costs will not be billed to CITY except that CITY
shall reimburse SMW for occasional costs, including court costs, deposition
and witness fees, large-scale copying, transcript preparation, travel to
meetings outside the City of Saratoga and similar expenses, which expenses
shall be itemized separately on bills submitted to CITY.
S.3 SMW shall provide CITY with detailed monthly billing statements, which
CITY shall pay within 30 days of billing_ The rates set forth herein shall be
guaranteed for twenty-four (24) months from the Effective Date of this
AGREEMENT. Thereafter, CITY and SMW shall mutually determine the
4
07/02/99 16:40 $ SHUTE,MIHALY ~)o0siolu
DRAFT #3 FOR CITY REYtEW -- July 2,1999
amount of any increase in rates.
5.4. CITY shall not pay SMW for the transition costs set forth in ¶ 3.1 above.
5.5 CITY shall not pay for more than one attorney to appear at any meeting
unless otherwise approved in advance by the City 11~anager. ATTORNEY
shall endeavor to avoid duplication of effort wherever possible and shall not
bill CITY for consultations between ATTORNEY and Jonathan Wittwer, or
for time spent by ATTORNEY that would have been unnecessary had
ATTORNEY been providing the services provided by Jonathan Wittwer.
Similarly, CITY shall not be billed fox time spent by Jonathan Wittwer that
would have been unnecessary had Jonathan Wittwer been providing the
services provided by ,ATTORNEY.
5.6 As set forth in section 2.1 of this Agreement, the references to SMW in this
section 5, and elsewhere in this Agreement include Jonathan Wittwer and
Wittwer & Pazkin, LLP. Accordingly, all compensation and
reimbursements to Jonathan Wittwer and Wittwer & Parkin, LLP shall be
in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Section 5 and CIT'Y'
shall be billed solely by SMW on behalf of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger
and Jonathan Wittwer and Wittwer & Pazkin, LLP.
b. PERS.
The parties recognize that ATTORNEY and Jonathan Wittwer may be eligible for
and may elect membership in the Public Employees' Retirement System,
hereinafter referred to as "PERS", as provided. in Government Code Section
20361. In the event that ATTORNEY notifies CITY of his and/or Jonathan
Wittwer's election of membership in PERS, CITY shall contribute the employer
share of required PERS contributions based on compensation for hours billed by
ATTORNEY. Total monthly contributions by the CITY to PER.S shall be shown
as a credit against billing by SMW on the bill issued in the month following the
contribution.
7. No Assiignment
This AGREEMENT is entered into by CITY and SMW and, except as set forth
herein, the rights and obligations of ATTORNEY may not be assigned or
delegated to any other attorney of SMW without the express written consent of the
City Council. This AG1EEMENT is not assignable.
S
07/0299 16:40 ~ SHUTE,MIHALY ~oo7iolo
DRAFT #3 FOR CITY REVIEW --July 2, X999
8. Municipal Professional Memberships, Meetings.
It is understood and agreed that CITY and ATTORNEY mutually benefit from
ATTORNEY'S participation in certain professional activities relating to municipal
lave. Therefore, ATTORNEY shall maintain active participation in the City
Attorney's Department and activities of the League of Califoxnia Cities. CITY
shall advance or reimburse to ATTORNEY his costs and expenses incurred in
attending the semi-annual City Attorney's Department meeting of said League. In
the event ATTORNEY shall represent other city or cities as City Attorney,
ATTORNEY shall be reimbursed for his costs and expenses (or registration fee
and lodging) for attending the annual City Attorneys' Department meeting of said
League only in proportion that the number of cities represented by ATTORNEY as
City Attorney bears to one.
Subject to prior authorization of City's City Council, and limited to the amount
budgeted for such activity in the CITY budget, ATTORNEY may enroll, attend,
participate in conferences, courses, seminars, committee work, or other activities
in addition to that hereinabove specified of the League of California Cities, or
other organizations related to the practice of Municipal Law. Upon such
authorization, ATTORNEY may incur costs and expenses in connection with the
particular event or activity so authorized, which shall be advanced or reimbursed
by CITY.
It is further understood and agreed that Jonathan VVittwer may participate in the
above referenced memberships and meetings provided, however, that CITY shall
advance costs and expenses for no more than one individual at any particular event
or activity.
9. Insurance.
SMW agrees to carry malpractice insurance in full force and effect during the term
of this AGREEMENT in an amount not less than One Million dollars ($1,000,000)
per claim and Two Million dollars ($2,000,000) in aggregate and to ensure that
Jonathan Wittwer carries malpractice insurance in full force and effect during the
term of this AGREEMENT in an amount not less than Five Hundred Thousand
dollars ($500,000) per claim and One Million dollars ($1,000,000) in aggregate.
10. Annual Review.
Annually, during the month of January, ATTORNEY and CITY's City Council
shall meet to review the performance of ATTORNEY, Jonathan Wittwer and
6
07/02/99 16:41 $ SHUTE,MI$ALY ~Q10oS/olu
DRAFT #3 FOR CITY REVIEW -- July 2,1999
members or associates of SMW ~ furnishing the services provided hereunder, and
to review the compensation provisions hereof. The parties may agree to changes
or amendments hereto, including, but not necessarily limited to changes in
compensation provisions, which changes or amendments shall be evidenced by
written amendment hereto.
11. Compliance with Federal, State and Local Laws.
SM'Vi/ shall comply with all Federal, State and Local laws, statutes, ordinances,
rules and regulations affecting the performance of this AGREEMENT, including
without limitation laws requiring licensing and nondiscrimination in employment
because of race, creed, color, sex, age, marital status, physical or mental disability,
national origin or other prohibited bases.
12. Ownership of Records; Retention of Records.
Upon termination of this AGREEMENT, ali reports, plans, documents, records,
and data or certified copies of same prepared by SMW pursuant to this
AGREEMENT shall become property of CITY. SMW shall deliver such reports,
plans, documents, records and data to CITY' upon CITY's written request.
SMW shall keep and maintain fiill and complete documentation and accounting
records, employees' time sheets, and correspondence pertaining to the services
performed hereunder, and SMW shall make such documents available for review
and/or audit by CITY and CITY's representatives at all reasonable times during
the AGREEMENT period and for at least four (4) years from the date of the
completion and or termination of this AGREEMENT.
1.3. Written Notification.
Except as otherwise specified in this AGREEMENT, any notice, demand, request,
consent, approval or communications that either party desires or is required to give
to the other party related to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in
writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first class mail. Any such
notice, demand, request, consent, approval or communication shall be addressed
to the other party at the address set forth herei,nbelow. Either party may change its
address by notifying the other party of the change of address. Notice shall be
deemed communicated within two business days from the time of mailing if
mailed within the State of California as provided in this section.
7
07/02/99 16:41 $
If to CITY:
If to SMW:
SHUTE,MIEALY
~ uuaiulu
DRAFT #3 FOR CYTY REVIEW--July 2,1999
Larry I. Perlin, City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Phone: (408) 868-1213
Fax: (408)868-1280
Richard S. Taylor
Shute, Mihaly & 't7Veinberger LLP
396 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 552-7272
Fax: (415) X52-5816
14. Conflict of Interest.
SMW and Jonathan Wittwer hereby covenant that they have no interest not
disclosed to CITY and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of its services or
confidentiality obligation hereunder, except as such as CITY may consent to in
writing prior to the acquisition by SMW or Jonathan Wittwer of such conflict.
15. Term.
This AGREEMENT shall be terminable by either party upon 60 days' written
notice. CITY shall pay SMW for any compensation owed hereunder up to the time
of any such termination.
16. Effective Date.
This AGREEMENT shall be effective on the date first written above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this AGREEMENT the day
and year last set forth below.
CITY OF SARATOGA
A Municipal Corporation
Dated: By;
JIM SLAW, MAYOR
8
07/02/99 16:41
Dated:
P:\SARATOGAUtSP001 V6.DOC
SHLiTE , MI HALY
@1010/010
DRAFT #3 FOR CITY REVIEW - Judy 2,1999
SHUTE, MIHALY ~ WEINBERGER LLP
By:
RTCIiARD S. TAYLOR
9
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
Y NO. C~ ~ AGENDA ITEM
EXECUTIVE SUMMAR
MEETING DATE: JULY 7,1998 CITY MGR.: !~~~~~! .
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: 1998 Pavement Management Program and Annual Concrete Repair Project -Final
Acceptance and Notices of Completion
Recommended Motion(sl:
1. Move to accept the 1998 Pavement Management Program as complete and authorize staff to
record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract.
2. Move to accept the Annual Concrete Repair Project as complete and authorize staff to
record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract.
Report SummarX:
1998 Pavement Management Program
All work on the 1998 Pavement Management Program has been completed by the City's
contractor, C.F. Archibald Paving, Inc., and inspected by Engineering staff. The final
construction contract amount was $1,199,990.85, which is 8.8% above the awarded contract
amount of $1,102,784.60. The additional work and associated costs are as follows:
• Additional labor and materials to the contract bid items = $42,407.36
• Pathway and bus stop improvements at Horseshoe Drive = $18,722.46
• Drainage improvements along Peach Hill Road = $10,505.51
• Miscellaneous asphalt repairs to City Hall and Community Library parking lots, Pierce Rd,
Aloha Ave., and Elva Ave. _ $25,570.92
Annual Concrete Repair Project
All work on the Annual Concrete Repair Project has been completed by the City's contractor,
Golden Bay Construction, Inc., and inspected by Engineering staff. The final construction
contract amount was $99,528.58, which is 22.9% above the awarded contract amount of
$80,953.50. The additional work and associated costs are as follows:
• Additional labor and materials to the contract bid items = $7,817.08
• Concrete swale and associated drainage improvements at City Ha11= $10,758
In order to close out the construction contracts and begin the one year maintenance/warranty
period, it is recommended that the Council accept the projects as complete. Further, it is
recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notices of Completion for
the construction contracts so that the requisite 30 day Stop Notice period for the filing of claims
by subcontractors or material providers may commence.
Fiscal Impacts•
The ten percent retention withheld from previous payments to the contractors will be released 30
days after recordation of the Notices of Completion assuming no Stop Notices are filed with the
City.
Follow Up Actions:
Staff will record the Notices of Completion for the construction contracts and release the
contract sureties and retentions thirty days thereafter.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The projects would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractors of any
additional work required by the City Council before the projects would be accepted as complete.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing Additional.
Attachments•
1. Notices of Completion.
Recording requested by,
and to be returned to:
City of Saratoga
Public Works Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed to be performed under the contract mentioned
below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale
Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and the Contractor mentioned
below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Owner on the 7th day of July,
1999.
Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: September 2, 1998
Contractor's Name: C.F. Archibald Paving, Inc.
Contractor's Address: P.O. Box 37, Redwood City, CA 94064-0037
Description of Work: 1998 Pavement Management Program
This notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State
of California.
The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing
Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of his
own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information or belief, and as
to those matters that he believes to be true.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the City of
Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on ,
19
CITY OF SARATOGA
BY:
Larry I. Perlin
City Manager
ATTEST:
Susan Ramos, City Clerk
Gov. Code 40814
r
Recording requested by,
and to be returned to:
City of Saratoga
Public Works Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed to be performed under the contract mentioned
below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale
Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and the Contractor mentioned
below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Owner on the 7th day of July,
1999.
Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: October 21, 1998
Contractor's Name: Golden Bay Construction, Inc.
Contractor's Address: 582 Bragato Road, San Carlos, CA 94070
Description of Work: Annual Concrete Repair Project
This notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State
of California.
The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing
Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of his
own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information or belief, and as
to those matters that he believes to be true.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the City of
Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on ,
19
CITY OF SARATOGA
BY:
Larry I. Perlin
City Manager
ATTEST:
Susan Ramos, City Clerk
Gov. Code 40814
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: ~' ~ ~ AGENDA ITE
MEETING DATE: July 7,1999 CITY MANA(
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development DEPT. HEAD
SUBJECT: SD-99-001, 20520 Verde Vista Lane -WANG
Appeal of a condition of Planning Commission approval to divide a 42,242 sq. ft. parcel,
with an existing single family residence, into two lots. The existing residence would be
demolished. The property is located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Deny the request for appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval as conditioned.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Background
At its April 14`x' regular public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the application of
Roger and Annie Wang to subdivide a 42,242 sq. ft. lot into two unequal parcels of 29,507 sq. ft.
and 12,735 sq. ft. The property is located in an R-1-12,500 zoning district, requiring a minimum
Iot size of 12,500 sq. ft. The applicants wished to make one parcel larger, in a sort of inverted L-
shape, so that they could construct a tennis court that would span the entire rear property line in
conjunction with a new home. As the minutes reflect, the Planning Commission found the
configuration of the two lots to be incompatible with the neighborhood and that the future tennis
court would negatively impact as many as six neighbors abutting the property. The Commission
voted to approved the subdivision with the condition that the lots be divided equally with a line
down the middle of the property. This configuration would make it difficult to construct a tennis
court on either Iot.
The Planning Commission visited the property, reviewed planning staff's analysis and
recommendation and heard testimony from interested parties present at the public hearing. Staff
recommended that the Commission could make all of the required findings required in City Code
Section 14-20 and that the configuration did conform to all General Plan, Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinance requirements. The Commission voted 4-2 (Commissioner Murakami and
SD-99-001; 20520 Verde Vista Lane -Wang
Chairman Pierce opposed and Commissioner Patrick absent) to approve the subdivision with the
condition that the lot be divided equally with the new property line running down the middle.
The applicants filed their appeal application on May 3, 1999, requesting that the City Council
overturn the Planning Commission's condition of subdivision approval. The appeal was
originally scheduled for the City Council meeting of June 2 but was continued at the request of
the applicants to the meeting of July 7. The applicants requested this continuance in order to
provide enough time to work with the neighbors to develop a landscape plan that would be
acceptable to them all, for purposes of screening the tennis court.
Issues
The applicants representatives have submitted two letters outlining their grounds for appeal. In
summary they note that the proposal meets or exceeds all City Code requirements; that the lots as
proposed would be consistent with other lots in the neighborhood -even larger than most; that
the division from the street would appear as two equal lots; and, that the Planning Commission's
condition would create more of an impact if a pool is constructed on one lot with a tennis court
on the other.
The applicants further refer to the possibility of dividing the lot into three parcels. The size alone
is sufficient to meet the minimum standards for the R-1-12,500 district, but the configuration of
the lots would not be able to satisfy minimum building setback and access requirements -staff
does not agree that it is technically possible for this property to be divided into three lots.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicants have expressed to staff that they have
been working extensively with their neighbors to develop a landscape plan that would be suitable
to everyone. The applicants' goal is to satisfy their neighbors so that they would be in support of
the proposed configuration of the subdivision. A final plan has not yet been submitted to staff,
but as a result of this appeal a condition of approval could be added to require landscape plans
with any future home construction applications.
Staff has scheduled a site visit for interested City Councilmembers for Tuesday, July 6, at 3:00
p.m. The site visit has been posted as a public meeting so all Councilmembers may attend. We
will meet at City Hall in the Planning Division offices.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject
property and published in the Saratoga News.
SD-99-001; 20520 Verde Vista Lane -Wang
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's decision and grants the appeal, the
project will be approved as presented.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
The City Attorney will prepare a Resolution for the next available meeting memorializing the
decision of the City Council on this matter.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 14, 1999
2. Staff Report dated April 14, 1999 (with attachments including Resolution SD-99-001)
3. Letter of Appeal from TS Civil Engineering dated April 27, 1999
4. Letter from Miller Starr & Regalia (applicants legal council) dated May 14, 1999
5. Exhibit "A", plans
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 14, 1999
PAGE - 5 -
COMMISSIONERS PAGEBERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. F-99-001. THE
MOTION CARRIED 4-2 WITH COMMISSIONERS ICAPLAN AND MARTLAGE VOTING NO AND
COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT.
4. SD-99-001 (503-20-061) -WANG, 20520 Verde Vista Lane; Request to subdivide a 41,793 sq.
ft. lot into two lots of 29,057 sq. ft. and 12,736 sq. ft. The property is located in an R-1-].2,500
zoning district.
-------------------------------------------
Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the commission that the lot split meets the
general plan, density, lot size, and zoning ordinance requirements for this zoning district. The city
arborist reviewed the proposal as the site is heavily wooded with pine trees and coast redwoods and cork
bark oaks. There are several trees that are located. within the proposed envelopes that have been
categorized as either fine to excellent specimens. While the trees would not be approved to be removed
as part of the map, it has to be noted that when home applications are developed for the site, several of
the trees would have to be removed to accommodate home construction. He stated that conditions in the
resolution require that the significant trees be retained on site, noting that it would be impossible to retain
all trees on site and still provide two building envelopes for the two parcels. Based on the parcel's
conformance with the general plan and zoning standards, staff is recommending approval of the parcel
map with the condition that the home applications, no matter what size homes are being proposed, return
to the Planning Commission as a regularly noticed public hearing and reviewed by the city arborist to
ensure that as many trees can be protected on site as possible.
Commissioner Bernald disclosed that she spoke with Eric Morley. She asked if staff was requesting that
the Commission make a subjective decision?
Director Walgren said that the application is subjective in the sense that the planning commission needs
to find that the proposed subdivision will ultimately be compatible with the overall makeup and character
of the neighborhood. He indicated that this application is not affected by Measure G.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she also received a phone call from Mr. Morley. Mr. Morley informed
her that he sent letters to the neighbors, that he negotiated with the neighbors to the rear (McMahans),
offering to install trees to mitigate what the McMahans feel are invasions of their privacy. She stated
that she received a notice for her property and that she is outside the statutory 300 feet and well beyond
the city's bonus notification area. As such, she does not have to nor will she refute herself on this item.
Commissioner Page stated that he was also contacted by Mr. Morley. Mr. Morley informed him that he
was working with the McMahans to come up with an agreement on the pine trees.
Chairman Pierce stated. that he also spoke with Mr. Morley and that his discussion was similar to those
mentioned by the other commissioners.
Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m.
Eric Morley, representing the property owners, requested approval of a two lot subdivision for the
ultimate purpose of building two single story homes. He indicated that one home is to be occupied by the
Wang family and the other home by their in-laws. He informed the Commission that the Wang family
requested that he send a letter to any neighbor who was adjacent to and may view the property. Said
letter was sent to 18 neighbors and that he has met with four of the six neighbors that abut the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 14, 1999
PAGE - 6 -
He spoke to the Lee family located to the east of the property who raised concern about drainage. He
informed Mrs. Lee that drainage has been addressed, that it will be discussed further at the design review
stage and that a solution would be presented at that time. The McMahans have raised concerns regarding
views, privacy and potential noise associated with the tennis court being proposed. He clarified that the
tennis court application and permit is an administrative review and approval. He indicated that the tennis
court would require an extensive landscape plan. He has committed to work with staff and the
McMahans on specific size, location and species of trees to be planted to ensure that the McMahans
retain their privacy. He said that the Wangs have expressed concern with the two story home behind
them and its interface with their single story home. He felt that there is mutual work being proposed at
the design review process. He stated his concurrence with staffs recommendation. He informed the
Commission that Mr. and Mrs. Wang have spent a great deal of time working on this plan and purchased
the property for themselves, their families and the proposed uses. He requested Planning Commission
approval of the two-lot subdivision.
Mary Lee, 20675 Verde Vista Lane, informed the Commission that she was contacted by Mr. Morley.
She said that she has more concerns than just the drainage on the lot. As an eleven year resident of
Saratoga, she expressed concern that the subdivision is being presented as a quarter acre lot and that it is
not consistent with the spirit of the neighborhood. The placement of a quarter acre lot does not consider
future living space and expansion possibilities for this particular piece of property which does not fit into
the complexion of the neighborhood. She said that there are several trees that exist on the site that leave
been designated for removal that provide privacy. She said that she has spent a lot of money taking
responsibility for drainage on her property. She has discovered that the majority of the water problem is
coming from the runoff from this particular piece of property. She requested that the property owners
take responsibility for correcting this problem. She also requested that she be provided with a copy of
the drainage plan before the work begins. She informed the Commission that the parcel is on septic. She
asked lZOw the two additional single family homes would impact the existing sewer system?
Jim Lee, 20675 Verde Vista Lane, stated that it was his belief that the quarter acre lot was designed to
share amenities with the other family, (i.e., pool and tennis court). He does not believe that this is in
keeping with the spirit of the neighborhood. He recommended that the acre lot be subdivided as half acre
lots. He informed the Commission that he has a .49 acre parcel.
Director Walgren said that both lots would be required to hook up to sanitary sewer. He said that the city
encourages property owners to hook up to the sewer system to get properties off of septic systems.
Bob McMahan, 13654 Verde Vista Court, informed the commission that he resides behind the subject
property. He said that he also spent a lot of time trying to find property before finding this property and
that he shares 170 feet of property line with the existing lot. He said that Mr. Morley also spoke with him
this afternoon. He felt that it would be in the spirit of the neighborhood to subdivide the property evenly
down the middle. He felt that a 30,000 square foot lot and a 12,000 square foot lot have a lot of issues. If
divided equally, similar sized structures can be built to blend in with the neighborhood. He felt that the
30,000 square foot lot would allow for a lot of accessory structures to be built on the property, including
a tennis court which he does not support.
Rebecca McMahan, 13654 Verde Vista Court, also recommended that the parcel be subdivided down the
middle. She felt that the large L-shaped lot lends itself to undesirable structures right next to her
property such as the tennis court. She also expressed concern that this section of the lot would not be
maintained because it is not visible from the owner's home. She said that she is very interested in
preserving the tall trees visible from her second story window and the trees behind her lot. She had been
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 14, 1999
PAGE - 7 -
searching for a home for three years until she found this dream home due to the existing trees. She read
into the record a letter that was sent to the Wangs offering to purchase the portion of the land
surrounding the trees. She stated that the arborist has indicated that the Monterey trees may not be in the
best condition. If the trees cannot be saved or if they are at the end of their life span, she requested that
similar tall trees be planted to restore her dream home. She stated that redwood trees would be an
acceptable replacement tree(s).
Mr. Morley addressed the drainage plan and stated that the he would take full responsibility for drainage
issues. He said that the future homes would connect to the sewer system. He indicated that the four trees
located to the rear of the property are proposed to be retained. The two trees behind these trees are
proposed to be removed. He said that six trees are in fair to marginal health. If the McMahans prefer, he
would propose to retain all four trees. If the McMahans prefer that they be removed and replaced with
redwood trees or any other species that meet their specific interest, he has agreed to work closely with
the McMahans on exactly what they would like to see in terms of size, height, species and location to
make sure that the interface works well. He said that the Wangs are requesting that the subdivision
before the commission be approved as opposed to the 50/50 lot split.
Commissioner Murakami asked Mr. Morley if the lots were split exactly in half, could the owner still put
the tennis court in between two properties? Mr. Morley stated that he did not know whether this would
be allowed as you would have a tennis court straddling two property lines.
Director Walgren responded that even though the two properties are owned by the same owner, you
could not straddle the tennis court between the two properties.
Commissioner Martlage asked if Parcel A remains at 29,000 square feet, could it be further subdivided at
some point because it would conform to the zoning district? Director Walgren stated that further
subdivision would conform in area but that physically, the lot could not meet the width, depth and
frontage standards for the remaining L-shape lot that would be created.
Mr. Morley informed the Commission that the applicant would agree to a condition that would preclude
further subdivision, if necessary. He agreed that given the configuration of the lot split, further
subdivision could. not occur. He clarified that the accessory structure is controlled by an impervious
coverage floor area ratio and that this would be calculated in the design review application.
Commissioner Martlage asked if the parcel could legally be divided into three parcels with the third
parcel running the length of the back. She also asked if the tennis court could be built if it were on a
separate parcel? She said that she wanted to make sure that the property could not be further subdivided
at a future date.
Director Walgren stated that he did not believe that the parcel would be able to meet the width and depth
standards even though it would meet the mathematical area requirements. He indicated that you could
not have accessory uses such as a tennis court on a parcel by itself. It would have to be an accessory
structure to a residence.
Mr. Morley said that the Wangs would be more than willing to do what is necessary to make sure that
more than adequate screening is provided.
COMMISSIONERS PAGE/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 14, 1999
PAGE - 8 -
Commissioner Kaplan said that a couple of issues have been raised. She said that she walks this
neighborhood frequently. She said that this is not a neighborhood that has large lots, swimming pools or
grandiose things. Once the Horticultural Foundation moved out and homes got built, any sense of open
space was eliminated. She expressed concern with the configuration of the two lots and knowing that it
was to be atwo-thirds/one-third lot split. She said that the trees were the most outstanding feature when
you walk past the property. She acknowledged that there were very good, exceptional specimen trees
located all over the property. It would be her first choice to build a nice home and retain the open space.
She did not feel that the lot split being proposed is compatible with the neighborhood. She said that it did
not matter who would reside in the homes as it is not known from one year to the next if the property
owner would sell the property. She felt that the tennis court in the back would impact six separate
properties that are clustered close together and would be an imposition to the neighbors. She stated that
she would not support the lot split as presented. If the lot is to be subdivided, she recommended that it be
split down the middle to make it a compatible and comparable in size to that of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Murakami felt that the neighbors have raised a lot of good points and felt that some of
these concerns have been addressed by staff. He felt that the property owners have the right to subdivide
their property even if the lots seem irregular. if you look at some of the flag lots that are located to the
right of property, there is not a uniform feel to this particular section of the neighborhood. He stated that
he understood the neighbors' concern of not seeing an evenly split lot but that he also understood the
legal part of this decision. With the lack of easements or covenants precluding any type of split of this
nature, he stated that he would approve the two-lot subdivision as presented.
Commissioner Bernald felt that this is a very subjective decision that has to be made. She felt that
ordinance-wise, this parcel can be split and that all laws support it. However, she felt that Measure G was
passed because individuals did not want to see carving out of pieces of areas. She felt that Area B
guidelines have stated that this area has to be conforming in terms of density consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood. She stated that she was very concerned with the beautiful specimen trees as
they are a special part of the neighborhood. She did not believe that splitting the lot down the middle
would protect the trees and therefore could not use the trees as an argument one way or the other. She felt
that the neighbors' desire to see the parcel split down the middle is the most reasonable request that she
has heard. She felt that it can be and should be supported. She expressed concern with carving out a
quarter acre and leaving another parcel where the city would have two homes that will exceed 8,000
square feet when combined together. For this reason, she could not support the lot split this evening.
Commissioner Martlage concurred with everything that has been stated. She felt that this was an
unfortunate situation. She felt t11at the best case scenario would be to split the lot down the middle and
move the homes out of the way of the trees. She noted that legally, the parcel can be subdivided. She
agreed that splitting the parcel down the midd a is the best use of the land.
Commissioner Page stated that he took a mathematical look at the trees that were slated for removal as
this was a concern to him based upon the initial pad definition. He calculated that 60% (20 of the 30
trees) of the exceptionally good trees are slated for removal. He expressed concern with what the end
result might be and felt that there was room to work with. Another concern was with the frontages.
Splitting the parcel in twa pieces, would result in having two homes with very short frontages. He
understood that the ordinance allows this lot split configuration. However, he felt that the property owner
would go through a lot of expense to make two homes fit that may not end up fitting in with the
neighborhood. He said that at this time, he could not support the subdivision as presented.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 14, 1999
PAGE - 9 -
Chairman Pierce disagreed with the comments expressed. He felt that the Lees' lot and the flag lot
behind them are similar to the lot being reviewed this evening. He stated that he does not support flag
lots. The Commission is faced with the fact that there will be a couple of lots with 90 foot frontages. The
way that the subdivision is proposed with the bigger lot encompassing the redwoods is an advantage as it
gives the property owners more space to work with. He felt that the redwoods were the trees most
valuable and. that they should be saved. Regarding the pine trees, he noted that they are in a terrible
condition. He felt that the proposed subdivision was the most efficient use of the space if two families
are to use a pool and tennis court without duplicating these accessory structures, one that he was
supportive of it. He did not believe that splitting the parcel down. the middle would accomplish anything
more than just making one lot bigger than the other and potentially allowing a bigger house on the other
lot. Therefore, he would support the application as presented. When it comes time to review the actual
design of the homes, the Commission can take a look at the tennis court or any other structures as part of
the design review process.
Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the Commission would not be able to prevent the installation of a
tennis court once the subdivision is approved.
Director Walgren informed the Commission that had the applicant come in a month ago prior to
submitting an application for a tentative parcel map, the tennis court would have been an administrative
approval. Its location would met the city's minimum standards and could have been approved subject to
an arborist review and evaluation of the two pine trees that would have to be removed. Now that the city
has the tentative parcel map before the Commission, the Commission can place a condition on the map
that stipulates that no tennis court shall be approved on Parcel A unless approved by the Planning
Commission.
Chairman Pierce stated his support of the review of a tennis court by the Planning Commission as part of
the design review process.
Commissioner Page asked if a condition could. be included that indicates that certain trees or a
percentage of the exceptional and very good trees have to be retained? Director Walgren informed the
Commission that a condition has been included in the resolution that states that the applicant shall prove
to the Planning Commission that they are retaining as many of the exceptional and good conditioned
trees as possible, subject to design review consideration.
Commissioner Page agreed with Chairman Pierce that it should be indicated that the redwood trees are to
be retained.
Chairman Pierce said that the proposed resolution has been conditioned to require that the applicant
make every effort to save the redwood trees.
Director Walgren noted that the suggestion of splitting the parcel down. the middle and moving the pads
towards the back of the parcel would work toward preserving more of the trees up front, including the
redwood trees.
Commissioner Kaplan felt that ultimately, the lots would fall into two separate families and that they
were not going to remain the same. She felt that this would create a conflict.
Commissioner Page recommended that this item be continued to a study session.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 14, 1999
PAGE - 10 -
Commissioners Kaplan, Bernald, Martlage and Page supported a lot split down the middle as it would
preserve the trees the best.
Commissioner Murakami and Chairman Pierce stated their support of the subdivision application as
presented.
Director Walgren stated that if a motion was made to approve the application as submitted, the motion
would fail on a 2-4 vote. A second motion would then be made to approve the map with a condition that
the dividing line go directly down the middle of the parcel and that all future homes and accessory uses
on the property shall be subject to planning commission review and approval. He informed the
Commission that should the Commission continue this item to a study session, the earliest date that it
could be scheduled would be May 12, 1999.
Commissioner noted that the Commission makeup may be different at that time.
COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD-99-001
WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: DIVISION OF THE LAND IS TO BE A 50/50 LOT
SPLIT; ALL FUTURE HOMES AND ACCESSORY USES ON THE PROPERTIES SHALL RETURN
AS A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION .FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW/APPROVAL;
AND WHEN DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS ARE SUBMITTED, DRAINAGE SHALL BE
COLLECTED AND BROUGHT TO THE STREET ON VERDE VISTA TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.
THE MOTION CARRIED 4-2 WITH COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI AND CHAIRMAN PIERCE
VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT.
5. DR-98-058 & V-98-020 (503-26-015) - HOYT, 14471 Springer Avenue; Request for Design
Review approval to remodel and add 422 sq. ft. to the existing first story and add a 695 sq. ft.
second story to an existing 1,218 sq. ft. residence. There is an existing detached 371 sq. ft.
garage on site. Total proposed floor area is 2,706 sq. ft. The site is a 7,500 sq. ft. (net) parcel
located in an R-1-]0,000 zoning district. Variance is required to allow an undersized garage,
when atwo-car garage is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that in order to maintain the
existing non conforming setback, a variance is necessary. Prior to this application be submitted, the
applicant received building permits to convert the accessory structure back into a two car garage, not
being aware that the city has minimum interior dimension requirements for a garage. Staff finds that the
special circumstance is the fact that the building exists, is bounded by an existing pool and patio and
bounded to the back by a deck and Jacuzzi structure. Staff feels that it would be considered a hardship to
break out a significant portion of the building to widen the garage by three fee which would also require
modifications to the pool. Regarding the design review application, he noted that the application is a
major renovation of a single story portion of a building and includes a second story addition. The
architectural style is changing significantly from the current building that exists to a more mission or
Mediterranean style building. Staff has reviewed the plan and finds that the necessary findings can be
made, for the most part, with regards to the building's height, protection of views and privacy on
adjoining properties. It also meets all minimum zoning ordinance standards. Regarding the architectural
style, one of the early concerns that staff discussed with. the applicant is the vertical appearance of the
right side elevation of the building. Working through plan revisions and understanding that the parcel is
only 50 feet in width, you are left with only a 30 foot wide envelope to work with, resulting in a fairly
vertical elevation along this side of the building. He said that the design can be supported as presented to
the Planning Commission, recommending that the roof the be modified to reflect a shake roof that is
ITEM 4
REPORT- ~'O THE PLANNING Ct~1VIMISSION
Applicant No./Location: SD-99-001; 20520 Verde Vista Lane
ApplicandOwner: WANG
Staff Planner: Heather Bradley, Associate Planner
Date: April 14, 1999
APN: 503-20-061 Department Head:~i~l ' .. .
~ ~ ` North
^~ ii
~ ` ~
_ z
~ _
i
L? f
/ -T' I
1
,I ~ I TIELW AVE
~ ~. I ~ I ~
~ ; ~ ~ FRANCE I N AVE
/ I 1 '
t W :.a p _
4i CW /
WQ < (~ 7~
' LN y' ~ I ~ I
. }~~ ' + a
~ ~
i
- R _ ~
Foothill Park `~
and School SARATOGA HIGH
20520 Verde Vista Lane
000001
File No. SD-99-001; 20520 Verde Vista Lane -Wang
EXECUTIVE SIJNIlVIARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed: 2/14/99
Application complete: 3/23/99
Notice published: 3/31/99
Mailing completed: 4/01 /99
Posting completed: 3/25/99
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request for Parcel Map approval to subdivide a parcel of land totaling 41,793 sq. ft. into two
single-family residential lots. Lot A would be 29,057 sq. ft. and Lot B would be 12,736 sq. ft.,
permitting home sizes of 5,220 sq. ft. and 3,710 sq. ft., including garages. The existing residence
and all appurtenant structures would be demolished. The property is surrounded by residential uses
to the north, south, east and west. The property is located in an R-1-12,500 zoning district.
An Environmental Initial Study was not required for this two-lot subdivision pursuant to the terms
and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Measure G is not applicable to this project and no public vote will be required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Parcel Map by adopting the attached Resolution SD-99-001.
ATTACIIMENTS
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution SD-99-001
3. Arborist Report dated 3/12/99
4. Area B-Guidelines for Development
5. Correspondence
6. Parcel Map, Exhibit "A"
000002
File No. SD-99-001; 20520 Verde Vista Lane -Wang
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R-1-12,500
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential- Medium Density
PARCEL SIZE: 41,793 sq. ft.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 4%
PROPOSED PARCEL STANDARDS CODE REQUIREMENTS/
ALLOWANCE
Parcel A Parcel B
Net Size: 29,057 sq. ft. 12,736 sq. ft. 12,500 sq. ft.
Frontage: 99 ft. 91 ft. 65 ft.
Depth: 225 ft. 140 ft. 120 ft.
Width: 102 ft. 91 ft. 90 ft.
Slope: 4% 4% <10%
PROJECT DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting Parcel Map approval to subdivide a parcel of land totaling 41,793 sq. ft.
into two single-family residential lots. Lot A would be 29,057 sq. ft. and Lot B would be 12,736
sq. ft., pernutting home sizes of 5,220 sq. ft. and 3,710 sq. ft., including the garages. The existing
residence and all appurtenant structures would be demolished.
The proposed Parcel Map shows a pool and tennis court which do not require Planning
Commission review. However, the applicant chose to show them to make the future plans for the
property clear. The tennis court will require a landscape screening plan before it is permitted and it
would not be permitted until a new residence has Design Review approval and is under
construction on Parcel A.
General Plan Conformance
The General Plan designation for this property calls for medium density single-family residential
development, which permits 3.48 dwelling units per net acre. At .96 acres, the proposed two
residential lots are under the maximum permitted density of three residential lots.
This part of Saratoga is also governed by the Area B-Guidelines for Area Development (attached).
These guidelines were developed in the 1980's by local neighborhood task force groups for each of
the 12 identified specific planning areas in Saratoga. The applicable Area B-Guidelines limit
development within this area to single-family residences in conformance with the densities of
surrounding residential developments. Staff fmds that the proposal complies with each of the
objectives of the Area B-Guidelines.
000003
File No. SD-99-001; 20520 Verde Vista Lane -Wang
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Compliance
The City's Subdivision and Zoning regulations are the implementation tools of Saratoga's General
Plan and the State Subdivision Map Act. The Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum standards
for lot sizes, depths, widths and frontages. It also regulates building placement, modifications to
natural topography and ordinance protected tree removal. The Parcel Map complies with all
minimum Zoning and Subdivision standards with regard to parcel size, frontage, width, depth and
roadway configuration.
Trees
There are 37 Ordinance protected trees on this site, 24 of which are Monterey Pines. There are also
5 Coast Redwoods, 3 Cork Bark Oaks, 2 London Planes, and 1 each of Camphor, Tulip and
Siberian Elm. The Parcel Map shows eleven trees proposed for removal within the building
envelope. However, a number of these trees are rated as exceptional or fine species by the City
Arborist and are encouraged to be saved in the design of the future residences. Replacement of all
other trees must be of equal value and be native species. All maintained trees will be protected with
chainlink tree protective fencing during construction. The Arborist's recommendations have been
incorporated as conditions in the attached Resolution.
Other Department/Agency Review
This Parcel Map was submitted for review to the following; the City Arborist, Cupertino Sanitation
District, San Jose Water Company, Saratoga Fire District, PG&E, Saratoga Union School District,
and the City Engineer. These agencies have not raised any concerns with the proposal and their
comments and standard conditions have been incorporated into the attached Resolution as
conditions of approval.
Correspondence
Staff has received a letter from the applicant's rear neighbor expressing concerns with the proposed
tennis court and tree removal and desiring that the property not be subdivided or be split into two
equal lots. Staff would like to clarify that tennis courts on flat lots do not require Planning
Commission approval, and landscape screening is required for aesthetic and noise reasons, and
lighting is not permitted for the reasons that the neighbor raised. Also, if this lot were not
subdivided a tennis court could still be permitted. Staff has added a condition in the attached
Resolution that the pool and tennis court as shown on the plan are not approved as part of this
subdivision application. If this subdivision is approved the site and residence plans will require
Design Review approval by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Parcel Map by adopting the attached Resolution SD-99-001.
®00~~4
RESOLUTION NO. SD-99-001
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
Wang; 20520 Verde Vista Lane
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision
Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for
Parcel Map approval of two (2) lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD-99-001 of this
City; and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together
with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan
and with all specific plans relating thereto; and the proposed subdivision and land use are
compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such
General Plan, reference to the staff report dated April 14, 1999 being hereby made for further
particulars; and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g} of Government
Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted
in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at
which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Parcel Map for the hereinafter
described subdivision, which map is dated March 1999 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the herein
above referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said
approval are as follows:
1. Prior to submittal of a Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner
(applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an
authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at
all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also
show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City
Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land
Surveyors Act.
2. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial
conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents
required in Section 1~4-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination.
The Final Map shall contain all of the information required by Section 14-40.030 of the
Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items:
a. One copy of map checking calculations.
b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of
submittal of the Final Map.
c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map.
d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map.
e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will
facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer.
®045
File No. SD-99-001; 20520 Verde Vista Lane -Wang
The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at
the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination.
4. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot comer either prior to recordation of a Final Map,
or some later date to be specified on a Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer
the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as
determined by the City Engineer shall be famished prior to Final Map approval, to
guarantee the setting of interior monuments.
5. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required
easements and/or rights of way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the
approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval.
6. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the City Engineer in
conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and
improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate officials from
other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility
providers, prior to approval of the Final Map.
7. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as
determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for
review.
8. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City in
accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval.
9. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14-
60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the City Engineer
prior to Final Map approval.
10. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance
coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.055 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map
approval.
11. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with
satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the
subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements.
12. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public
agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of
subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the
City shall be provided to the City Engineer.
13. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation in-lieu fees prior to
Final Map approval.
14. All public and private improvements required for the project shall be completed and
accepted for construction by the City Engineer, Planning Director, and/or the appropriate
officials from other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to
issuance of building permits for any of the lots.
15. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and
~Q0006
File No. SD-99-001; 20520 Verde Vista Lane -Wang
Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of
preventing storm water pollution.
16. Notice of construction shall be distributed to all residents within 500 ft. of the property at
least five calendar days prior to commencement of construction in such form as determined
by the City Engineer. The applicant (owner) shall reimburse the City the full cost of
providing such notice prior to receiving approval from the City Engineer to commence
work on the project.
17. All requirements of the Cupertino Sanitation District, San Jose Water Company shall be
met.
18. Future development of the lots shall require Design Review approval. The pool and tennis
court as shown on the subdivision plan are not approved. Building sites shall be consistent
with the approved building envelopes and based on current Zoning Ordinance regulations
and City policy. The location of any structures shall maximize tree preservation.
19. Design Review approvals shall only be granted upon finding that the proposed structure is
compatible in terms of scale and design with the existing adjacent residences, that it is in
conformance with the Cit}~s Residential Design Guidelines and that all of the necessary
Design Review findings can be made.
20. No grading or building pad improvement work shall take place on the individual lots until
Design Review applications have been reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission.
21. No ordinance protected trees shall be removed without a tree removal permit until Design
Review applications are approved.
22. Pursuant to the City Arborist's report dated March 12, 1999, all tree preservation
requirements shall be met, prior to Final Map approval, including but not limited to:
a. Tree protective fencing shall be installed to protect retained. Fencing must be located to
protect the entire root zone, a minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the canopies
unless otherwise noted. The fence must be chainlink, a minimum height of five feet,
mounted on steel posts driven two feet into the ground. The fence must be in place
prior to the arrival of demolition materials or equipment and must remain in place until
the completion of all construction.
b. Trees to be retained must not be subjected to ripped or torn roots, broken branches, or
bark injuries. Equipment must be positioned to reduce the risk of such injuries. Debris
must not be piled outside of the canopies of trees until removal. If demolition
equipment cannot access the existing driveway without breaking branches of trees (i.e.
#6, 7, 15, if retained or 33) another access must be made. In this event, I suggest that
trees which are to be removed for one of the new driveways be sacrificed to provide
access.
c. An ISA certified azborist shall be retained to consult with the planning and supervision
of demolition process that have the potential of putting the trees at risk. This azborist
must be onsite during demolition and must have the authority to direct demolition
operations where trees will be at "risk", defined as compaction of soil beneath the
canopy, or physical damage to limbs branches or trunk. The azborist will have to
responsibility of assuring that the retained trees will not be significantly damaged. For
some trees fencing must be expanded to protect the entire root zone immediately
Q®~Q!0"~
File No. SD-99-001; 20520 Verde Vista Lane -Wang
following demolition.
d. Immediately following (the same day), the demolition and removal of an existing
footing, and existing concrete slab, or an existing driveway the exposed soil must be
covered by 3 inches of coarse bark chips to prevent desiccation of the surface roots
directly beneath. This must be done for Trees #6, 7, 8, 15 (if retained), 26, 32, and 33 .
e. There must be no grading or surface scraping under the canopies of trees.
f. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, irrigation, etc.) must be outside the
canopies of retained trees.
g. Subject to Design Review approval future replacement trees shall be native species
23. The owner (applicant) shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Planning
Director, security in the amount of $13,145.00 (equivalent to 15% of total value of all trees
on site) pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the
installation, replacement, maintenance, and/or preservation of trees on the subject site. This
security deposit shall be released at the time of construction acceptance upon the City
Arborist's finding that all tree protection measures have been adequately followed.
24. Subdivision construction hours shall be restricted between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except in the event of an emergency which imperils the public safety. The
City Engineer may grant an exemption upon his/her determination of an emergency. No
construction work shall be permitted on legal holidays.
25. The owner (applicant) shall, upon the City's request, defend, indemnify and hold the City
and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees and volunteers harmless from
and against any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void or annul this approval,
or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to such
approval, which is brought within the time specified in Sec. 14-85.060 of the Municipal
Code. If a defense is requested, the City shall give prompt notice to the applicant of any
such claim, action or proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. Nothing
herein shall prevent the City from participating in the defense, but in such event, the City
shall pay its own attorney's fees and costs.
26. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the
permit. Because it is impossible to • estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the
violation.
Section 1. Conditions must be completed within twenty-four (24) months or approval will
expire.
Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental
entities must be met.
Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga
City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
®C10~U8
File No. SD-99-001; 20520 Verde Vista Lane -Wang
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of
California, this 14 day of April, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
~~-®~~9
BARRIE D. I.JATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
408-353-1052
Fax 408-354-3767
23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE PROPERTY OF MR. AND MRS. WANG
20520 VERDE VISTA LANE
SARATOGA
Prepared at the Request of:
Heather Bradley
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
Site Visit by:
Michael L. Bench
March 12, 1999
Job # 03-99-049
~()~®~~
r ~~
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOI\~NDATIONS
AT THE PROPERTY OF MR AND MRS. WANG 20520 VERDE VISTA LANE
SARATOGA
Assignment
At the request of Heather Bradley, Planner, City of Saratoga this report reviews the
proposal to subdivide an existing lot into two lots in the context of potential damage to
existing adjacent trees. This report further provides information about the health and
structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can
be minimized.
The plan reviewed for this report is the Tentative Parcel Map prepared by James C. Chen,
Engineer, San Jose, sheet 1 dated February 2, 1999
Summary
There are thirty-seven trees on site that are controlled by City of Saratoga ordinances.
Twenty-four of these are Monterey pines.
Removal of eleven trees inside the building envelope is proposed. The total value of these
eleven trees is $52,812.
Additional trees will be removed for a new driveway access to each parcel.
It is likely that additional trees will be removed depending on each parcel design.
The disposition of each specimen is recommended here based on its species and its
condition, and its value.
A 25% bond is suggested to assure tree protection during demolition.
Observations
There are approximately seventy trees on site. However, only thirty-seven of these trees
are covered by City of Saratoga ordinance. The attached map shows the location of these
trees and their .canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label
indicating its assigned number, which is referenced throughout this report.
The thirty-seven trees are classified as follows:
24 Monterey Pine (Pines radiata)
5 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
3 Cork Bark Oak (Quercus suber)
2 London Plane (Platanus acerifolia)
1 Camphor (Cinnamomum camphora)
1 Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera)
1 .Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila)
The overall condition of each specimen is rated as follows:
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench,
March 12, 1999
00011
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 2
AT THE PROPERTY OF MR AND MRS. WANG 20520 VERDE VISTA LANE
SARATOGA
Exce tional Fine Fair Mar 'nal Poor
S ecimens S ecimens S ecimens S ecimens S ecimens
6, 7, 26, 27, 30, 1, 9, 15, 20, Z, 4, 5, 8, 10, 3, 11, 19, 24, 14, 18, 29,
33, 37 22, 28, 32, 36 12, 13, 16, 17, 35 31, 34
21, 23, 25
To express the relative value of trees in these categories, I recommend that:
Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed
to retain them in their current condition must be used.
Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions.
Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted
horticultural standards in order to prevent decline.
Fair specimens are worth retaining but have either marginal health or potentially
hazardous structure. Many of these defects are repairable. Mitigation is intended to
prevent decline or to reasonably correct structural hazards. '
Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to
facilitate construction. These typically have reduced health, an actively hazardous
structure, or both. Where these specimens are retained mitigation is designed to prevent
decline and/or reasonably correct a structural hazard.
Poor specimens cannot significantly improve .regardless of care. For any considered
hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically
requested.
All existing structures and hardscape are to be removed. If this demolition is not carefully
planned, nearby trees may be damaged if not destroyed in the process. It will be essential
for the demolition plan to include a sequential order of removals and protections for
retained trees.
This plan proposes to remove all trees inside the building envelopes of the two parcels. A
list of these trees, their condition ratings, and their values are as follows:
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, March 12, 1999
000012
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMIvvIEENDATION5
AT THE PROPERTY OF MR. AND MRS. WANG 20520 VERDE VISTA LANE
SARATOGA
Pazcel 1 Value Pazce12 Value
Tree # Tree #
26 -Exceptional $ 4,294 13 -Fair ' $ 3 74
27 -Exceptional 16,568 14 -Poor 272
28 -Fine 2,439 15 -Fine 1,545
29 -Poor 1,654 34 -Poor 226
30 -Exceptional 14,911
31 -Poor 7,103
32 -Fine 3,456
Total $50,425 Total $2,387
3
There are additional trees inside these building envelopes but they aze not large enough to
be controlled by ordinances.
If revisions could be made to plans to preserve at least trees #26, 27 and 30 that would be
advised.
Although the plan does not indicate the location of new driveways, it is presumed that
new driveways to the building envelopes from Verde Vista Lane will be required since
the existing driveway will be removed during demolition. It appears that additional trees
along Verde Vista Lane will require removal for the new driveway. Trees #2, 3, 4, and 5
(all Monterey Pines) aze likely candidates for removal from Pazcel I their conditions are
either only fair or mazginal.
Those trees potentially affected by the new driveway to Pazce12 aze Trees #6-11. Tree #6
is exceptional. Although Tree #9, a Monterey pine, has a higher rating than Tree #8, a
cork bark oak, I believe Tree #8 has the ability to recover if given remedial caze and,
thus, has greater potential than Tree #9. The Monterey pine species (Pinus radiata) has
numerous problematic disease and insect pests that presently aze not easily controlled. In
our opinion their loss is not significant.
If a revised driveway location would preserve Tree #6, that revision is recommended.
Recommendations
I suggest that retained trees be protected by temporary protective fencing, which must
be located to protect the entve root zone (a minimum of 5 feet outside the perimeter
of the canopies) unless noted specifically otherwise. Fencing must be chainlink, a
minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18 inches in the ground.
Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any materials or equipment and must
remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. Fencing
must not be temporarily moved during demolition or construction.
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, March 12, 1999
0®001.3
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMIvlENDATIONS 4
AT THE PROPERTY OF MR AND MRS. WANG 20520 VERDE VISTA LANE
SARATOGA
2. Trees to be retained must not be subjected to ripped or tom roots, broken branches,
or bark injuries. Equipment must be positioned to reduce the risk of such injuries.
Debris must be piled utsi ethe-canopies of trees until removal. If demolition
equipment cannot access the existing driveway without breaking branches of trees
(i.e. #6, 7, 15 if retained, or 33) another access must be made. In this event, I suggest
that trees which are to be removed for one of the new driveways be sacrificed to
provide this access.
3. I suggest that an ISA certified arborist be retained to consult with the planning and
supervision of demolition process that have the potential of putting the trees at risk.
This arborist must be onsite during demolition and must have the authority to direct
demolition operations where trees will be at risk. The term "at risk" shall be defined
as compaction of soil beneath the canopy, or physical damage to limbs branches or
trunk. The arborist will have the responsibility of assuring that the retained trees will
not be significantly damaged. For some trees fencing must be expanded to protect the
entire root zone immediately following demolition.
4. Immediately following (the same day), the demolition and removal of an existing
footing, an existing concrete slab, or an existing driveway the exposed soil must be
covered by 3 inches of coarse bark chips to prevent desiccation of the surface roots
directly beneath. This must be done for Trees # 6, 7, 8, 32, 33, 26 and 15 if retained.
5. There must be no grading or surface scraping under the canopies of trees.
6. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, irrigation, etc.) must be outside the
canopies of retained trees.
Value Assessment
The values of the trees is addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition.
The total value of the eleven trees inside the construction envelope is $52,812.
Additional trees will be removed for driveway access but this value loss cannot be
determined with the present information.
Further trees will likely be lost to construction depending on the design of each parcel.
The total value of all trees is $87,638.
After it is determined which trees will be retained, I suggest that a 25% bond based on the
total value of retained trees be required to assure tree protection during demolition.
Respectfully submitted,
-~..:.:~
Michael L. Bench, sociate
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench,
March 12, 1999
000014
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOM1vIENDATIONS 5
AT THE PROPERTY OF MR AND MRS. WANG 20520 VERDE VISTA LANE
SARATOGA /'uC$
~ ~- ~ ~
Barrie D. Coate, Principal
MLBlsh
Enclosures: Map
Tree Data Charts
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench,
March 12, 1999
000015
V A N ,~
rl a m
qyS~, v
3i # x n
~il-rnr~m
~~~ i
^Nt`3t'~m
m
g o y~y
11 p p h
V ~+ N m
~W~N
0
'O
ro
m
V OI 41 A W N
~ ~
~' ~
s
~ 5 a
a
~ ~ a ~ ~ ~
~
R "'
~ ~ >
3 ~~' ~ ~' ~
Q
~ ~~"'a0
T
H T
> 3' S > >
rn o ~~++
g o ~ o w o p
p ~
O N
• A
O r
V N
O DBH
x x MULTISYSTEM
x
N
p x
N x
N x
N x
N
O x
N x
N
DBH
3
`
_
~
~
_ DBH ~
~
------- .
' --° o _ ~ S - ~ .
~ 3
-- ------ -----------------------°----- n
n N n ~ n N a a a a n N a ~ DWNETER ®2 FEET a
•" Yn' Si, ~" ~n Oi ~ ~ ~ L; N $; HEIGHT
.----- ° ---~ N _~ w ~~_ N ---- A -_- A ---- ----------------------------------
b^ ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ N SPREAD
N N w N .+ HEALTH (1-5)
r
«
«
N
«
N
w
w
«
w
«
w
STRUCTURE (1-5) n
p
-°
n
p
N n
p
N n
w
A n
N
A
~
OI ~
~p
{n n
N
A
CONDRKNJ RATING (2-10) ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' HAZARD RATING (3-9)
u n n x n n u CROWN CLEANING
N
0
' -------
N
IO
~y -----
~ ---
M
m
~ ------ -----
A ------
M
~ ------ -----------------------------------
CROWN THINNING
v
1
~
~ ----- 1.1 ---- O~
'
-----
-----
------
----
-
--
------- CROWN RESTORATION
---------------------------------- e~e
c~
CROWN RAISING v
o
g
g ___
x
~ __
g
g ___
~
REMOVE END-WEIGHT
Z
a -~-° a ~°-- ~ - --- ~ --~~ ~ .~r ~ r~-- ~°~.-----------°-------------
CABLES NEEDED ~ w
~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5)
~
n n n II a n n INSECTS (1-5)
M M N M N ~" "' TREE CROWN DISEASE (1-5)
0 -r--- b -- ---~-- --- ----- J --
M ~-
--
----
--~
~--~--~---
-
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ -- -
-
--
-
-
-
DEAD WOOD (1-5)
TRUNK DECAY(1-5) v
x
----'--
--- -
x ------
N
x
---
--
x -----
______
x
"~'"
x -----
x ---
- ---------------------------------
ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5) c
_
3
a
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ »---
- - -- - ----------------------
ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1-5)
II a n a x p N NEEDS WATER (1S)
~" ------
~
~" ---
~
~" ------
~
~" --
~
~" --
~
~ ----
~
« ---°-- ---------------------------------
NEEDS FERTIL¢ER
~
c
n ~°
~ -------
n o
~
-----
n
~'
-------
o
N
--
L
~
~ -----
~
~
--
o ------- -----------------------------------
RECOMMEND REMOVAL 3
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a
REMOVAL PRIORITY (13)
LI
O
C'
A
D
v
O
eT
a
a
w
N
0
U
N
O
C
fD
c
t9
C
>n
r
>v
D
C.1
O
ZS
W
~O
b
i.
000016
V a N (n A
N e t8 111
ScSdv
x x u S
u u u N n
N ~ ~ ~ ~
Q~ m
25 ~
Nk,'y,~
m
SSd~
~~~.1~
~~~m
~~~rn
y N
~ II
~ C
N <
~ A
~ ~
a
w
n/
0
1o
a x
~°c
>k
~ ~
g
S 3
3
S 3
3
S
a a a a a a ~ °D
O 3 3 ~ 3
y
a~ y o
4
~ y ~„1„~
Z ~~ w O G
n
o
~
~ ~
~ 0
T ~
H T
3'
o
~'
o
~
o
tii
o
~
o
~
o ^~
$'i
o DBH
x x x MULTISYSTEM
N O
O N N N O
O N O N N DBH
N N N N N p N N
DBH C
n
------ ' ------- ' ------- _
° ----- ~ --- ' ------- ' ------ ------------------------------------ 3
.11
~
~u
~
~u
~
~N
w
~n
~
~u
~
~u
c
DIAMETER ®2 FEET n
~
N
"' ~ ~" N N ~ ~" ~ „' g ~'' $ N Ur HEIGHT
N
1i
S ------
~ A
~ ~_____
~ A
~ -_
~ w
N _-
c W
~ --
No a
~ -------
N ~
~++ ------
~' ---------°----------------------
SPREAD
r
N N N W N N w HEALTH (1-5)
x
w ------
A
x
w -------
w
x
w
w
x
a
w
x
w
w
x
w
x
w
N
STRUCTURE (1-5)
~
------ -------____---------------------
-----
m
~ ------
to
~ _
~ w
~
w
4.
~
N
~
w
~
~
CONDITION RATING (2-10) a
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ HAZARD RATING 3.9
n u u x u n n CROWN CLEANING
~ J
... ~
> aj
a CROWN THINNING
~
------ ~ ----'- J ------- NI ----- ~ --~ J ------- ~ ------ ------------------------------------ ?
CROWN RESTORATION ~
------ ------- ------ ------ ----- ------- ------ ----------------------°--'--------- n
CROWN RAISING c
x $X Qx x
~ $x x
s x
g REMOVE END-WEIGHT
--------------
- Z
a ----- a ---°° n -~~-- ---- a ---- ------- --- -- -----°--------
--
CABLES NEEDED # w
~ ------
~ -------
~ -------
~
~
~
~
PRUNING PRIORR'Y (1.5)
n u u n u n u INSECTS (1-5)
N N N N N N N N TREE CROWN DISEASE (1-5)
------
~ ~ V'1 e ~ &. N DEAD WOOD (1-S) d
--°-- °°°- ------- ----~ _-°-° ------ --°-- ----------------------------------°
TRUNK DECAY(1-5) n
v
'
~-
~
--~~-
------ ------------------------------------
o
x ~--- X -°~- x x x x x ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5) n
a
- --
- ---
-- -- ---
- - ------_°~------°------_.°--..~
-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1-5)
u u N M r u 11 NEEDS WATER (1~fi)
N ~ N $ N ~ ~^ ~ "' $ "' $ '^ NEEDS FERTIL¢ER c
~
o
a
°'
------ -
~
`o
v
a
------- -
~
o
nai
1O
------- -
o
s
~
~ ------ -
°
o
~ ------- -
°
~
v
W ------- -
°
o W
~
1O ------ ------------------------------------
RECOMMEND REMOVAL 3
REMOVAL PRIORITY (1J)
LI
O
Q
f9
0
C.
0
Q
a
a
a
N
0
N
O
C
f9
a
u~
L
r
0
es
v
0
Q
W
~D
00001'7
vale YlA
sso"s
II
u n u w T
~U~~s
!r Q m
25 -a
5e~ ~
N W N m
m
SSdy~
II 11 F
v N ~ m
$"~N
0
d N
~ 11
m <
W O<
~ ~
~ ~
o
n
a
~
a
~ x
0
`~
i!
~ ~ n
~ a 5 a
_
S ~ ~ ~ ~
8 H
a ~~W~v
3 ~~ ~ ~ O
T ~
N T
J~ 7 7 7 7
r
j
IJ r
N
~_ ~ Nb
W r
10
_ O N
O r
N
O- {~W~1
W r
W
--- O ~"~yy~
W r
W
O -~ r
A
-"-O- ~
p N
--~ O DBH
------------------------------------
x x MULTISYSTEM
X
N X
N X
N
O X
N X
N X
N X
N
p 3
DBH y
------ ~ ------- ~ ------ ----'- ---- ~ --- -"--- ------------------------------------ a
DBM
~
n ~ u N
o n
a w
a n
a n
to n
o DIAMETER ~2 FEET ~
w
N 41 N A N y~ M N N {~1 M N N ~ HEIGHT
W ---- -
c v
N -------
w w
$ ----'_-
o W
~'
~
$
,'
uNi
~
No
~'
N
SPREAD
u
i N
N W N N N N HEALTH (1-5)
p N q y~ X W M A M N M W N N STRUCTURE (1-5) p
~ a ~ a g a ~ a~ ~ y p to ~ A CONDITION RATING /2-10
~ - ~ HAZARD RATING (3-9)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
u u n N ~~ „ n CROWN CLEANING
~ nNi e ~ N N N CROWN THINNING ~ o
rn
J ---° ~
-'-- ~ ---- o
uVi
--- O
t~ii
---- ~
------
w
~
------
--^---~--------------------------- ~
1
CROWN RESTORATION
CROWN RAISING v
X
x
~
s
~
c
c n
REMOVE END-WEIGHT A
ES NEEDED it a
B '
CA
L
------ -------
~ -------
~ ------
V
~ -------
~ -------
N
~ ------ ------------------------------------
PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5)
~~ a ~~ „ ~~ n u INSECTS (1-5)
~„ ------
---
-
M
r ----°-
.- W
--
M -------
_-w
--
« ------
-
----
N ------
-"----
M -----°
__'--
--
"'
N -----
------ -------------°---------------------
TREE CROWN DISEASE (1-5)
---------------------"------------- v
-
- N ~ $ ~' ~ o DEAD WOOD (t-5) m
---- ----- -----_ --- - ----- ---- ----..»------••-------_-•-------- N
TRUNK DECAY(1-5) ~
R ~ ~ ~ ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5) 3
------
- -
~
--
~
~
~
~ $'
ac o
aR ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1-5)
„ n n n NEEDS WATER (1-5)
n n „
M ~ h $ ~+ ~ +~ "' ~ '~' ~ '^ NEEDS FERTILIZER ' ~
- - - - .
- ------------------------------------ 3
n {t+ ------ -
n ~° ------- u ~ ------ e N ---° ~ ------ ~ ~ -----_ ~ .
~ ------ RECOMMEND REMOVAL
u Zi o ~ o ~° ~ N ~ ~° ~ n
REMOVAL PRIORITY (1~)
v
0
D
o~
Cr
0
Q
a
a
h
N
O
C/~
N
O
C
c
eo
y
r
a
0
e~
O
0
W
~D
000018
i~"'~A
S88'" S
M 11 11 M C1
~~x~;
Qo m
25 ~
1
~~`rm
ggd~
~'1'j m
~"~N
0
v
iti
m ~~
o ~
A
~ ~
~ y
a
v
a
INiI
sN.
INr
N x
roc
sx
r
~ ~ ~ ~
a ~ a
O
7O
N O ~ ~
~ ~ _
_
.
O a~~
$ ~ T
Z ~~ ~ O ~
~~~a0
T T
7
7
7
7
7
7
7 Gn T
N
w to
O ~
V OI
O pNp
W 10
O 1p
O (J
O ~
W N
O ~
N W
O
V 111
O DBH
x x MULTI-SYSTEM
N
N
O N N N N N M « M DBH
V '_ N
V
«_«__ N
V
_«_-__ N
~ p N
~ N
~ N
M
c -«_«_ ~ --____ ««__.___«-.____-«__-««--_...__
DBH o
.
11 O OI 11 ~ .~ ~ .q N
A .~
w .11 N
A .11
~
DIAMETER ®2 FEET A
~
N
N N M O N ~ N a
O N N H
r (11
U1 N N HEIGHT
N
N a ~ N P+1+ ~ ~ ~' ~ N N ~ ~ ~' SPREAD
HEALTH (1-5)
a
w
a
Nx
N
A
N
A
a
A
a -----
w -------------- (---) -------------
STRUCTURE 1-5
n
c
• _w - --
_'
~ --
A
-----
='
~ w-
N
-------
S
~
N
-----
S
~ -
---
N
---
~
~ --
N
---
~
~ ------
N
-----
°
~ -----
a
------ --«---«--------------------
CONDRION RATING (2.10)
----------------------------------- a
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ HAZARD RATING (3-9)
u u u u a u n CROWN CLEANING
ril
A
r o r" N ~°
~
OI r'' N CROWN THINNING ~
~' CROWN RESTORATION
2
------ ------- -«-« __«-- ------ ----- ----------------------------------- n
CROWN RAISING v
x x
8 $X x
a x
' x
~ x
~ REMOVE END-WEIGHT Z
----- ------ a «_____ «~- a ------ ------ ------ - ---------------------------------
CABLES NEEDED # N
~ ------
$ ------
$ --
~ --
~ ------
~ -----
~ ----- ------------------------------------
PRUNING PRIORTY (1-5)
~ ~
u u n u n u n INSECTS (1-5)
N ------
N -----
N ------ ------
N ------
~" -------
~^ ------ ------------------------------------
TREE CROWN DISEASE (1-5) y
a -___« d
N _.«-__ UI
~
' _«__«
w ____«
g «-__« N
a «_«« r
w «____ --~~________________________________
DEAD WOOD (1-5)
m
n
i - I
o
____« -«____ .__«« _.___ -«_ «____________________«-._.-------_
TRUNK DECAY(1-5) N
~
~
~ s
b S
b
_
_____ s
2S
_
___
~i
_ _
~_ ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5)
_
___«_«__«_--._-_--«_«___«_« ~
N
~ -_-°- ~ -«---- $ ~ «_ ~ ~ ~ ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1-5)
~
u n M Y n u u NEEDS WATER (1-5)
Q N --_«- Q N -_-« '_I
C
S N _____ ~ N «____ ~ _-~« ~ N ______- ~ N _~_
__ __~__
__________________~_________
NEEDS FERTILIZER
c
iT
c w LT
c f
i
c ' n ~ c c c ~ RECOMMEND REMOVAL
I
o t7i Pn ~ o ~
0 0 0 0 0 o n
REMOVAL PRIORITY (13)
s~
O
70
r,
0
Q
a
a
G
A
N
0
N
O
C
Z
a
I~
C
w~
r
>y
0
A
~r
0
Q
w
~D
b
~O
Q~00~9
Sea p
^t m
_s
~$~n~
~~ ~~ ~ ~
~-~r~m
~~~ ?
'~i' `6¢' m
m
g~
n „ n
ma`r'='m
~~~ur
« ~
co u
m ~
.~i. A
Of N~1
~1
f/l {y.~
a (~
W
N
w WW
O
O x
~
~ ~ r $
a
a
~ !!
~ !t
~
~
°°
5
« ~ s
~~ w O -
3
o ~~ ~
~
~
T ~
Gn T
7 7 ~ 7 7
r
{y N
O .a
yy~~
W w
O O
+ O
O_ N
~ O
O
imp
N ~
O ~
~i ~
O N
V
+v
O
DBH
MULTISYSTEM
X X X X
N X
N X
N X
M
DBH ;
N N
' N ~ n
i
~ -- --------------------------- m
---- ~ - ~ ~
DBN 'o
n
a n
> n
+m a N
o a
$$ n
$ n
a
DIAMETER ®2 FEET
p
M ----~ M ~ M ~ ~ "' e
~
N M »--01 HEIGHT
a N
ui N
v w ------ --»«---°------------------------
w
~, --»--
~ w
~' »»--
~' m
w ~°
$ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ $ ~ a SPREAD
p N N a HEALTH (1-5)
x
«
A X
« ~
w X »
N X
« X
A x
N x
+
STRUCTURE (1-5)
~ u+ ~ v ~ w ~ w ~ ~ ~ w ~ m CONDRION RATING (2-10)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ HAZARD RATING (3-9)
~~ „ n u n n n CROWN CLEANING
b ------
~' --»
~
N --.»» ~ -----
~ -----~- M
A ------- y~
{71 ------ -----------------------~__-_------__
CROWN THINNING
~
+
o. $ ~
-----
--»--- +
-»--
---»------»---»----------»------
---- ~ --».-- w v N w ~
~
- ----» CROWN RESTORATION
---------------------------------- ~
n
»
CROWN RAISING c
- -- ------------------------------- c
x
s - x
QQ - X
QQ
a -~ X
~ X
$
a
-» X
~
----» X
~
-°»- REMOVE END-WEIGhIT
---°------°------------°-----
Z
a --- a »_ ______ CABLES NEEDED 0 «
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PRUNING PRIORTY 1-5
n n n u n n n INSECTS (1-5)
« ----
«
N
»____
»
---
N
»-»-
N -
» ~
M ---- --------------------------------
TREC CROWN DISEASE (1-5) 'O
+ N
~ N i ~ N ~ ~ ~ DEAD wooD (~-s> ~
------ TRUNK DECAY(1~) ~
-----
-- ---------------- 0
--°-
~
~
~
------
~
~
~
ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5) c
3
~ -»-
o
$
~
o
o ~i' ROOT COLLAR DISEASE 15
( )
R
a R
a R
a R
a R
a aR
u n n u u n n NEEDS WATER (1-5)
-
N ~
~ -1
Q
4 --w- i
QQ
6
N -1
~ -~1
Q4
6
+ i
QQ
a NEEDS FERTILIZER c
a ------
c
m ---~ -
c +
~ _______
c w
~ --
~ ~
~ ----
c °f
o -----
~ +
~' ------ ----------------------------------
RECOMMEND REMOVAL 3
i 0 o w e ~ o f a
REMOVAL PRIORITY (1~)
C.i
O
c
A
f
D
Qo
v
0
eS
a
a
a
ems
N
0
U
N
O
C
A
c
f9
C
.~'.
ay
r
a
0
A
v
0
Q
0
W
~O
b
A
b
O ®oO~O
H~~~m
SSBN~
~ N N ~i (1
~~~ ~
~ d~~ m
X r ~
n x n
V ~+ ~+ T
~W~y
0
v
d
m ..
m ~
T
~ ~
V x
R
C y
a ~
v
0
T
~ ~
T
7 7
c~i
o
~
o DBH
x MULTI-SYSTEM
N ____.~
N _-___.
o __---__w-------------------------
DBH
3
e
V
` ~ ` _~-
_- ___________________________________
DDH N
~
n
- - --- -------------------------------
- - 3
N
N
N
w
DIMAEfER ®2 FEET ~
a
- ~ ~" ---~ HEIGHT
N -____ N --___ ___________~_»____________________
~i ~ -N+ ^+ SPREAD
HEALTH (1-5)
x ~ w w STRUCTURE (1-5)
a
__w__ ~ A
___~_ C~WDRION RATING (2-10)
____________________________________
~ HAZARD RATING (3-9)
n n CROWN CLEANING
-~-- ~ -__W_ CROWN THINNING--__Y___-_-_ y
w ~-
_
-------------°-------------~ e
~
CROWN RESTORATION ~
CROWN RAISING g
X µ X N--- REMOVE END-WEIGHT 2=q
CAELES NEEDED 0 w
~ ~ PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5)
u n INSECTS (15)
M ---
~
~ ---- °-----------------°---...--"--
TREE CROWN DISEASE (1-5) y
~ -------
~i' -
- ----------------------
DEAD WOOD (1-5)
r
TRUNK DECAY(1.5) v
X ------- x ------ ----•---~-------------------------
ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5) °c
3
ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1-5)
N N NEEDS WATER (1.5)
Q N ~ M NEEDS FERTILIZER n
^
g
----
-
~
N _-____
----------------------------------
RECOMMEND REMOVAL c
33
;
a
REMOVAL PRIORITY (13)
Q~p~~1
w
0
Q
R
D
QO
Cr
O
c
a
a
a
h
N
O
U
N
O
C
e~
d
es
C
::
m
r
>n
C.
O
Q
c
w
~o
~o
b
A
~d~
~. ~ o 0
~ ~
~: .
~
a ~ ~
~
~ ~
o d
~ ~
r.~
ri. ~ 'h
Q ~
~ r+ A
•
O~ _
~
Tax Survey and preservation Reeammeadatioas nthe
BARRIE D. COATS
and ASSOCIATES w,~ ~y
~-~~
aOrrrtad 20520 Verde Ynaa lace, Sawwp
-.
W OY,G f/a0
HORTICULTURAL ppNSULTANT DATE: Marrh 12 1999
ODNSULTIDiG AR80[tLST '
i J~
~_ F m
-. ~ r
. '~ - ~ o, ~
.`
AREA B - CONGRESS SPRINGS/PIERCE ROAD
Area B is bounded by Pierce Road on the north, Saratoga Creek
and Congress Springs Road on the south and is to the west of
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Most of the area is occupied by low
density residential development, or mountainous and orchard
open space, similar to Area A. There are, however, some differ-
ences between the two areas. Area B contains one Williamson Act
orchard. Foothill Elementary School, the only school within the
area, is in the R-1-15,000 area paralleling Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road. Wildwood City Park is located near the Village Business
District, which is just across Saratoga Creek. Adjacent to the
Park, separated by Fourth Street, is an area of former apartments
which have been converted to condominiums. An area of more spacious
clustered condominiums materially increased in size since the last
plan review is to the southwest. Lying at one end of the area and
close to the village, this region is somewhat separated from the
rest of the area and has minimal impact on the overall predominance
of single family lower density homes in Area B.
Except for the hillside area, the majority of Area B is already
developed. There remains a parcel known as the "Horticultural
Foundation" and a nearby orchard area, designated "Spaich Orchard"
both with potential for significant development. The Foothill
School site would also be a candidate for development if it were
closed by the school district.
The area is unanimous in the desire to assure that any development
or redevelopment of sites wihin the area be only single family
detached residential with a density consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood.
A major concern of the area is the development of the West Valley
Corridor as a full freeway. The area unanimously indicated a
high priority on immediate development of the corridor, in the
belief that its completion would greatly decrease the present
intolerable traffic on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The residents
are concerned with the noise, pollution and safety hazards presented
by the ever-increasing traffic on that road. In the absence of
the promised development of the corridor, the area would like other
remedies for relief from the adverse impact of the traffic. These
might include sound walls, dense plantings or other means of
decreasing through traffic on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.
Another concern is the through traffic in neighborhoods which
seem to be a result of extensive hillside development. It is
felt that this traffic is using residential streets for access to
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and that the roads designated as collectors
are not adequate to handle the traffic that is being generated.
For this reason, there is opposition to development that will
create more trips to and from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.
4-4 000023
AREA B - CONGRESS SPRINGS/PIERCE ROAD
Among other traffic related concerns is the safe pedestrian
passage between the west side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and
the shopping and school areas in the Argonaut area. It is felt
that a pedestrian signal at Blauer Drive would help provide safe
access to shopping and school. In conjunction with any develop-
ment between the existing Argonaut Center and Cox~Avenue, it is felt
that a thorough plan for handling any increase in traffic in and
out of the shopping area should be developed, possibly to include
an access road which could also provide access to Cox Avenue.
Residents of this planning area who reside in the Fourth Street
vicinity find it difficult to get from Fourth Street to Big Basin
Way during peak traffic hours. This situation is especially
severe during commute hours and holiday weekends and during the
Christmas period when the tree sales are taking place in the
county area of the hillsides. For this reason, a safe way of
turning from Fourth Street onto Big Basin Way is felt to be a
necessity. This would also help decrease some of the through traffic
in other neighborhoods which is generated by those people trying to
bypass this traffic bottleneck.
4-5
~~10024
AREA B - GUIDELINES FOR AREA DEVELOPMENT
1. All development of vacant sites within this area shall be
limited to single family detached residential and conform
to the density of the surrounding residential area.
2. A traffic signal should be installed in the vicinity of
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Blauer to provide safe pedestrian
passage between homes on the west of Saratoga-Sunnyvale and
shopping and schools on the east side of the road.
3. Traffic should be reviewed to enable those living in the area
of Fourth Street to safely enter Big Basin Way during peak
traffic and holiday times when traffic is heavy.
4. In the absence of completion of a freeway in the West Valley
Corridor, the City shall work with the appropriate agencies to
develop and implement a plan to increase the protection of
neighborhoods bordering Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road from the noise
and pollution which is a result of heavy traffic. This effort
will include the consideration of installation of whatever
sound barriers or dense landscaping that may be appropriate
to help the impacted neighborhoods regain the use and enjoy-
ment of their property.
5. The City should study how traffic from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
impacts the circulation of nearby local residential streets to
determine feasible traffic control methods by which to minimize
those impacts.
6. As a condition of City permit approval, if any further develop-
ment of the area in the vicinity of the Argonaut Shopping Center
takes place, the impact of increased traffic on Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road shall be studied and a plan for minimizing the traffic impact
shall be developed. This might involve an access road paralleling
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and providing access to Cox Avenue.
7. Pedestrian crosswalks and islands should be considered for Pierce,
Brandywine and Blauer.
8. Bike paths should be placed on both sides of Saratoga=Sunnyvale
Road.
4-6 ~~OQ,:s
The McMahon's
13654 Verde Vista Ct.
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 867 2252
April 6, 1999
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Proposed subdivision of A.P.N. 503-20-061
Dear Planning Commission,
We are the owners of A.P.N. 503-20-065 which shares a 190' property line with A.P.N.
503-20-061. The proposal to subdivide A.P.N. 503-20-061 into two unequal lots may have
a negative impact on our property value, as well as our quality of life. We would prefer
the property not to be subdivided, but remain intact. If the property is approved for
subdivision, we prefer a division down the middle creating two equal sized lots.
We understand the proposal being presented to the Planning Commission divides the
property into two unequally sized lots. The proposed larger lot is L-shaped and shares a
190' border with our property. We are concerned that either undesirable structures will
be built along this border or areas of this property will fall into neglect.
We have heard that a tennis court is proposed to be built in the area which runs the entire
distance of our property line. Talking with other residents who live next to a tennis court
convinced us this will impact our quality of life. The many complaints we heard include:
o excessive ball noise
o excessive noise from ball machines
o loud voices and profanity arising from play and disputes
o light pollution from overhead lighting installed for night time play
o unsightly, tall fences
o courts falling into ill repair
Even if an undesirable structure is not built, we believe a lot of this shape lends itself to
areas of neglect since much of the property will be out of sight from the residence.
We are also concerned about preserving the many trees on this property. In particular,
six large Pine trees provide beautiful views from our home, as well as provide for a
natural privacy screen. We understand that two large Pines are to be removed for a
tennis court. We would like the property plans, including its proposed subdivision, to
provide for preserving these six Pine trees.
Thank you fo addressing our concerns in your deliberations.
~~~~ ~ ~~
r~l ( A
Robert J. McMahon
Rebecca S. McMahon
~~0~~6
~ ~} '. ~"
~~h t,5p~ _ ~y. csl 1 ARp~c
s
,.~
~,~ .1~ RUF
w
~~ 1 5
Iv 'tHE BAS--
~,7 a ~tE~ 6 OF TRpC~
~~ 1 `,1 PA~EG431
E ~ „ ~ ~ ° ~ ~o , MONK
LET l o ~ ~,` ~`~, ~ 1 ~ ~ t'"~ ~ INTER
..~
. ~. ~.
`, If ~, ..; `. MED t
\ ,~ li` ~~;__. ~ . ~ .' ,• ASSN R
``{tt} \ l' ~~ . ,.~io ~ ,\ tic '. -; _~1qd` pF VE
fit. .. • ; ~\~ K k".~`r \ ~tsu~p"o"sEp lji + it ,~
~-
,~ ~ ;: ~ ~
~ ~ /• ` x.50_. ~_. t `' ,~~' `. SUBS)V\
~ - - O L ~ ~O
\\\ O, .f i 1 s 4 . OQ
1 ' ~
// 1 ~ ~ ~ ~. 74l \` / S
/~ { yK.~ ! -~ `1 ~ , fir` ,~t~, Q ,`~ +
ti ~ t `~ i ;,~i~5 `{wry •fi ~ ~ ENCy~~
`~ ` ~ ~ \ `\
~ I ~ ~ ~" . ns j~y+
Inz ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~. 1 EXI..
. ` / ~ ~ ,~ ~
\ ; y ~;~+ `. PRA
\ ~ ,Q~ .s
~ . ~
i
i ~. gq.0o' ' ~Sp ' ~ ~ ~ O
~~ ~ ~ _ A .'
i ~ ~\
~'.. ~
. ~--`~"
' a
,~ ,
v ~ -_,_.
1 ~. __-y-.-__~--
t ~ --
J -L•
lZ'~ ~~~r
RESOLUTION NO. SD-99-001
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP OF
Wang; 20520 Verde Vista Lane
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision
Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for
Parcel Map approval of two (2) lots, all as more particulazly set forth in File No. SD-99-001 of this
City; and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together
with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Sazatoga General Plan
and with all specific plans relating thereto; and the proposed subdivision and land use are
compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such
General Plan, reference to the staff report dated April 14, 1999 being hereby made for further
particulars; and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government
Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted
in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at
which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and to present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tentative Pazcel Map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated Mazch 1999 and is mazked Exhibit "A" in the
herein above referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said
approval are as follows:
1. The Tentative Pazcel Map shall be revised so that the property is divided down the center of
the property with both lots being equal in size.
2. Upon subsequent submittal of Design Review applications a drainage plan shall be
developed that, to the extent feasible, causes the property to drain towazd Verde Vista while
minimally raising the building pads.
Prior to submittal of a Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner
(applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an
authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at
all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also
show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City
Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land
Surveyors Act.
4. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial
conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents
required in Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination.
The Final Map shall contain all of the information required by Section 14-40.030 of the
Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items:
a. One copy of map checking calculations.
b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of
submittal of the Final Map.
File No. SD-99-001; 20520 Verde Vista Lane -Wang
c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map.
d. One copy of each documenbdeed referenced on the Final Map.
e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will
facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer.
5. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at
the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination.
6. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of a Final Map
or some later date to be specified on a Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer
the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as
determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to
guarantee the setting of interior monuments.
7. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required
easements and/or rights of way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the
approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval.
8. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the City Engineer in
conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and
improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate officials from
other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility
providers, prior to approval of the Final Map.
9. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as
determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for
review.
10. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City in
accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval.
11. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14-
60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the City Engineer
prior to Final Map approval.
12. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance
coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.055 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map
approval.
13. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with
satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the
subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements.
14. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public
agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of
subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the
City shall be provided to the City Engineer.
15. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation in-lieu fees prior to
Final Map approval.
File No. SD-99-001; 20520 Verde Vista Lane -Wang
16. All public and private improvements required for the project shall be completed and
accepted for construction by the City Engineer, Planning Director, and/or the appropriate
officials from other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to
issuance of building permits for any of the lots.
17. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and
Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of
preventing storm water pollution.
18. Notice of construction shall be distributed to all residents within 500 ft. of the property at
least five calendar days prior to commencement of construction in such form as determined
by the City Engineer. The applicant (owner) shall reimburse the City the full cost of
providing such notice prior to receiving approval from the City Engineer to commence
work on the project.
19. All requirements of the Cupertino Sanitation District, San Jose Water Company shall be
met.
20. ~ Future development of the lots shall require Design Review approval. The pool and tennis
court as shown on the subdivision plan are not approved. Building sites shall be consistent
with the approved building envelopes and based on current Zoning Ordinance regulations
and City policy. The location of any structures shall maximize tree preservation.
21. Design Review approvals shall only be granted upon finding that the proposed structure is
compatible in terms of scale and design with the existing adjacent residences, that it is in
conformance with the City's Residential Design Guidelines and that all of the necessary
Design Review findings can be made.
22. No grading or building pad improvement work shall take place on the individual lots until
Design Review applications have been reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission.
23. No ordinance protected trees shall be removed without a tree removal permit until Design
Review applications are approved.
24. Pursuant to the City Arborist's report dated March 12, 1999, all tree preservation
requirements shall be met, prior to Final Map approval, including but not limited to:
a. Tree protective fencing shall be installed to protect retained. Fencing must be located to
protect the entire root zone, a minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the canopies
unless otherwise noted. The fence must be chainlink, a minimum height of five feet,
mounted on steel posts driven two feet into the ground. The fence must be in place
prior to the arrival of demolition materials or equipment and must remain in place until
the completion of all construction.
b. Trees to be retained must not be subjected to ripped or torn roots, broken branches, or
bark injuries. Equipment must be positioned to reduce the risk of such injuries. Debris
must not be piled outside of the canopies of trees until removal. If demolition
equipment cannot access the existing driveway without breaking branches of trees (i.e.
#6, 7, 15, if retained or 33) another access must be made. In this event, I suggest that
trees which are to be removed for one of the new driveways be sacrificed to provide
access.
c. An ISA certified arborist shall be retained to consult with the planning and supervision
File No. SD-99-001; 20520 Verde Vista Lane -Wang
of demolition process that have the potential of putting the trees at risk. This arborist
must be onsite during demolition and must have the authority to direct demolition
operations where trees will be at "risk", defined as compaction of soil beneath the
canopy, or physical damage to limbs branches or trunk. The arborist will have to
responsibility of assuring that the retained trees will not be significantly damaged. For
some trees fencing must be expanded to protect the entire root zone immediately
following demolition.
d. Irrunediately following (the same day), the demolition and removal of an existing
footing, and existing concrete slab, or an existing driveway the exposed soil must be
covered by 3 inches of coarse bark chips to prevent desiccation of the surface roots
directly beneath. This must be done for Trees #6, 7, 8, 15 (if retained), 26, 32, and 33 .
e. There must be no grading or surface scraping under the canopies of trees.
f. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, irrigation, etc.) must be outside the
canopies of retained trees.
g. Subject to Design Review approval future replacement trees shall be native species
25. The owner (applicant) shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Planning
Director, security in the amount of $13,145.00 (equivalent to 15% of total value of all trees
on site) pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the
installation, replacement, maintenance, and/or preservation of trees on the subject site. This
security deposit shall be released at the time of construction acceptance upon the City
Arborist's finding that all tree protection measures have been adequately followed.
26. Subdivision construction hours shall be restricted between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except in the event of an emergency which imperils the public safety. The
City Engineer may grant an exemption upon his/her determination of an emergency. No
construction work shall be permitted on legal holidays.
27. The owner (applicant) shall, upon the City's request, defend, indemnify and hold the City
and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees and volunteers harmless from
and against any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void or annul this approval,
or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to such
approval, which is brought within the time specified in Sec. 14-85.060 of the Municipal
Code. If a defense is requested, the City shall give prompt notice to the applicant of any
such claim, action or proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. Nothing
herein shall prevent the City from participating in the defense, but in such event, the City
shall pay its own attorney's fees and costs.
28. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the
permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the
violation.
Section 1. Conditions must be completed within twenty-four (24) months or approval will
expire.
Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental
entities must be met.
Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga
City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
File No. SD-99-001; 20520 Verde Vista Lane -Wang
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of
California, this 14 day of April, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES: Coranissioners Bernald, Kaplan, Martlage and Page
NOES: Commissioner Murakami and Chairman Pierce
ABSENT: Commissioner Patrick
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
x/1/1
Se ret , Plannin mmission
J~~-CIVII. ~NGIN~~~ING
April 27, 1999
Job No. 99-239.03.02
The Honorable Jim Shaw, Mayor of Saratoga,
& Councilmembers
City of Saratoga
City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Appeal of Tentative Parcel Map Approval
Application No. SD-99-001
20520 Verde Vista Lane
Dear Mayor Shaw & Concilmembers:
On behalf of the applicants and property owners, Roger & Annie Wang, we are
submitting an appeal of the approval of the subject 2-lot tentative parcel map. Although
the Planning Commission approved the application at their meeting of April 14, 1999,
they did so with a condition that materially altered the design of the subdivision.
Condition 1 of the Resolution requires that the property be divided evenly down the
middle as opposed to the applicants' desire to create 2 unequal lots sized at 29,507 and
12,735 square feet.
The basis of the appeal is as follows:
1. Meets and Exceeds All Requirements
The applicants' original proposal met and exceeded all requirements for lot
size, width and depth. The site is potentially capable of being divided into 3
lots, however, the applicant chose to oversize the "L" shaped lot to 29,507
square feet and pursue only two lots.
2. Tree Preservation Intent Not Met
The intent of the Planning Commission addition of Condition No. 1 was to
preserve certain redwood trees. With the division "down the center of the
TS Civil Engineering, Inc.
90 North First Street, Suite 101, San Jose. CA 95113
Telephone. 408.993 1800
Toll Free. 888.327.7070
Fax: 408.993.0662
www.tscivileng.com
The Honorable Jim Shaw & Councihnembers
Job No. 99-239.03.02
Page 2 of 2
Apri127, 1999
property," the goal of preserving these trees is not met in any fashion different
than the applicants' proposal. In fact, the superior proposal in terms of tree
preservation is, oddly enough, the 3-lot subdivision.
Please schedule the appeal for the next available council agenda. We look forward to
your consideration at that hearing.
Sincerely,
TS/CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
/~
Terence J. Szewczyk, P.E.
Principal Engineer
TJS/tk
cc: Roger & Annie Wang
Eric Morley, Morley Hunter Group
Norm Matteoni, Matteoni, Saxe and O'Laughlin
(1999 99-239 Roger & Annie Wan~Appeal Ltr)
~v
35' REAR BSL ~~?• ~ 35' REAR BSL
\ ~~ \ I
PARCEL 2
12,946. aq.ft. \ PARCEL 3 I
0.29 acres , 12,505. sq.ft.
~ I 0.28 ocrea
., > 9~ ~
~ /, ~ m
N W
~`~. W
/ fN
~- a \ \
JI
ml
W
0
N
O
I
~~\
Z ~ \ 'o.
\~ \° ~
a ~ ~
o• \~ ~ ~\
~~ \ ~ 25' FRONT BSL
F \ /
\~ \ ~ V
0~ ~ ~
R~P~
N.
PARCEL 1
12,505. aq.ft.
0.28 ocres
25' FRONT BSL\
m~ \ ~ ~
~~~ boa
\~o.
ti
\c^
I
\ •~ ~_
~ 30'
,av
V E R D E V I S T A L N
18'
~~~ eS ~~,
MILLER
STARR
REGALIA&
A PROFESSIONAL
LAW CORPORATION
CHRISTIAN M. CARRIGAN
May 14, 1999
The Honorable Mayor James Shaw and Members of The City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
CMC@MSANDR.coM
(925)941-3251
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No.SD-99-001;
Conditional Approval of Subdivision of 20520 Verde Vista Lane.
Dear Mayor Shaw and Councilpersons:
Our office represents the applicants, Roger and Annie Wang, who have appealed
the above-referenced conditional approval of their subdivision application to the City Council.
The Wangs, who plan to develop this parcel so that they can make it their family home, were
surprised and disappointed to receive the Planning Commission's letter of April 16, 1999, and
the accompanying copy of Planning Commission Resolution Number SD-99-001. Specifically,
Condition Number One, which requires that the proposed subdivision be changed so that the
parcel is divided directly down the middle forming two lots of equal size, thwarts the purpose of
the application and intended use of the property as the Wang family home. Additionally, the
imposition of Condition One makes no ascertainable positive contribution to the community or
the environment. We ask that you take into account the following comments when you consider
this appeal, as well as the comments that will be forthcoming from the Wang's engineering
consultants, T.S. Civil Engineering.
1. The surrounding neighborhoods are characterized by lots of unique size
and shape. Almost nowhere were we able to find two properties of equal lot size and/or width.
Even if the subject property is divided as proposed rather than into two lots of equal size, each
lot will still be considerably larger than nearly all of the other lots in the surrounding
neighborhoods. Given the wide variety of the size and configuration of lots in the surrounding
neighborhoods, and that the two lots will each be considerably larger than most of the existing
lots in the surrounding neighborhoods, the rational basis for Condition One's requirement that
the parcel be subdivided evenly down the center escapes us.
2. From the vantage point of Verde Vista Street, the proposed subdivision is
actually consistent with Condition One. The line-of--sight from Verde Vista Street shows that the
proposed subdivision divides the frontage of the parcel along Verde Vista equally, give or take a
1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD.
FIFTH FLOOR
P.o. BOX a177
WALNUT CAEEK~ CALIFORNIA 94596
FACSIMILE (925) 933-4126
TELEPHONE (925) 935-9400
W A L N U T C R E E K • M E N L O P A R K • S A C R A M E N T O
The Honorable Mayor James Shaw and Members of The City Council
May 14, 1999
Page 2
few feet. This nearly equal division of the parcel continues 140 feet deep into the parcel to
where the proposed northern property line of the east lot (Parcel 2) is located. The proposed
north property line of Parcel 2 would not even be visible from Verde Vista Street. As a result,
there is no difference in the visual impact of the subdivision from Verde Vista Street with or
without Condition One. From the start, we have been honest and forthcoming that the purpose of
the proposed "L" shape of the subdivision was to provide for a tennis court and swimming pool
on the rear portion of Parcel 1. This plan provides for an unbroken viewscape at the north
property line of Parcel 1, which we feel is more in keeping with the elegant landscaping design
and .aesthetic appeal of the surrounding neighborhoods than would be a "divided" viewscape. In
essence, the visual impact from the back of the parcel is less under the proposed subdivision than
it would be if Condition One is allowed to stand. This softer visual impact will, of course,
enhance the aesthetic appeal of the parcel and provide a positive contribution to property values
in the neighborhood.
3. Condition One does little if anything to enhance the appeal of the project
from a development point of view. With or without Condition One, there will be two
comparatively large lots for this neighborhood, each with new homes and big back yards. The
only real difference from alot-layout standpoint is that Condition One would require that the
pool be in one back yard and the tennis court be rotated by 90 degrees and placed in the other
back yard. As already detailed, this plan is less aesthetically pleasing and has a greater visual
impact than the proposed subdivision would without Condition One. We do want to note that
whatever is decided by the Council, we will strictly comply with City Code section 15-80.030.
4. While we fully understand and respect that the Planning Commission has
a duty to protect the environment and the rights of property owners in the community, we can see
no rational basis for Condition One. In fact, Condition One appears to degrade the project rather
than enhance it. As the owners of this parcel, the Wang's are also members of the community of
Saratoga and feel that they deserve the equal protection of its City officials when it comes to
their property rights. We respectfully request that if there is some rational basis for Condition
One of which we are unaware, that someone from the City state what that is.
5. We are concerned that the unstated motivation for imposing Condition
One is the desire to altogether prevent the construction of the tennis court. As we have already
stated, the Wang's intend to develop this property as their family home. Their lifestyle
necessarily includes a tennis court. Without the tennis court, the property will be unsuited for the
Wang's plans. They have already been approached by developers who have expressed interest in
acquiring the subject parcel in order to subdivide it into three lots and construct three new homes
thereon. This appears to comport with the maximum density requirements provided for by the
City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Certainly, the aesthetic appeal will be lessened and
the impact on the surrounding viewsheds increased if a third home is built on the subject parcel
rather than a tennis court.
WNR0~37804~330074.1
05/14/99
The Honorable Mayor James Shaw and Members of The City Council
May 14, 1999
Page 3
Based on the information submitted herein and the forthcoming information from
T.S. Civil Engineering, we are respectfully appealing the application of Condition One to the
approval of our subdivision. We will willingly comply with the remaining 27 conditions listed in
the Planning Commission's Resolution.
Please note per Mr. Wang's letter to the City dated March 31, 1999, James C.
Chen is no longer the Wang's agent. Please do not send any correspondence relating to this
matter to Mr. Chen. Our new agent is Mr. Terence J. Szewczyk of T.S. Civil Engineering, Inc.,
90 North First Street, Suite 101, San Jose, CA 95113.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you very much in advance for your anticipated thoughtful consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
MI 1Z, STA REGALIA
1
1 ~~~ ~..
/r
christial~. c ~ an
CMC ams
cc: Roger Wang
Eric Morley
Diana Hu
Councilperson Evan Baker
Councilperson Stan Bogosian
Councilperson John Mehaffey
Councilperson Nick Streit
Planning Commissioner Bernald
Planning Commissioner Kaplan
Planning Commissioner Martlage
Planning Commissioner Page
Planning Commissioner Murakami
Planning Commission Chairman Pierce
WNR0~37804~330074.1
05/14/99
+ VINNOdI1119 'VJO1tli1VS ~ „
aY-rY tNw
«.N •.. •.« ... w
~~
aw+n rtsu 3aaan ozsoz J
~
~
i N,Y~ ,N '1 Y
~slnwssw ~
Y.oy.."'r
~,,,M,p~
dtlN 13~1lYd 3/U1V1N31 \
f~
s
~
~ a'
f
L
~
LL¢
0~ _
N
~~ rn
ar-m
¢~¢zW w
z
~~
C
G
~U
- VaQ~=Z
~wu~i~~
4 WW
w0
U
Q _ y
f-ILpO¢~
~ ~
O z U~
a
L =zZ
~ Q ~ ~
Q z~Nz°ga ~~w
Q
? LL Y W Z¢~ j
W Y w W LL
~
Q
Y ly ~ N~w
QxOy O
S
1 ~-~V ~oamoWF =arOn
~ZLL
~- ~ O O(9~mW>LLO ZQZO
~o
W ~
~2~
~~Q
W
= ma¢~
F
~-
~ Q~ ~
~ -u
i
~y7
F
Q~ N Q~ z O~ ~ N W
~ m
~ w>
W
~~ m
W ~WW
i
iLLc9o ~ LL
~O
LL 1-O~
Q
i
~; i
i ~
Z~£ 179'.11
--~-~-
y~
II
I~1~ ~
1 1
i(
~ I~i~~ ~
Y~~i~!
~Y~
~~~La
r:
°prn m ui $
¢ ~ ¢ ~ rn r TT
O U
C7 U
O
U ~
~
~ ..L.
\/
QZUY ¢
UY
~ Zoe H Q ~ 1-
LL F-
LL H /~
LL ' ' I
fD U~ QC
i ' O K
U V N ~"~ ¢ Q ~ O ~ O O O O W
O
o UU
U ci=UU xui ~ f- wr zF ~
LL v?
~ w
~ v
i~ r
n~
`
° r
ns
`~'
~ WwW2
J
U' Z wwWZ
(72
--1 Wm~
~OZ p
fn p
y Oa
Z'1 Wa
df" O
>
•-
•- ~¢
m~ ^
.¢
»m ~a
~W
p
.n ~
O Z r¢
¢¢n3 ~
O Z r¢
~¢
n3 ¢ Q
am W
~ W
~ ¢ O
U ~ y
q ~
U ~
~ ~
¢ .~~
o Q j t 0 N N
r y . tn U c No ~o
W ~ ~ C1 Z
~ LL y Z ON 2 Z
' R
~ ..
~ N
~ ~ O O ~ O
N ~ w ~ N
w
z
~
a
~
a
~
z-
W
a
W
C7
~
z J
w J
w
a Z
3 o
~
i
~
O
w
~ r
-
~
v ¢
O U
¢ U
a
¢ O m w x
w a rn m ~ x
w a ¢ H a a
~+' "e
I`bw t
II
A.
1`
~ `.
~ ~~~
~ ~`:
I. ~z
J~ }
1N4~
~~~I ~
H `i
> l
~` `~~
i
~.c`
J
I\ `~~ .
'~=
Z'-+_
w
w
x
.g
a
ai
[~
ffi
y~
Y
Z
Z
1711
6
~6
C
a
N
=Z -
rW
3~r
~~U
~-a
~ OCN
ono
V ~
YO W Z
O Q ~
OF~ ~
a ~' o
=FN J
F7.
In~~ Q
F-Z~ J
OJ EOLL LL
0
=i
W
W
J
5
0
U
~z°O~
aa`-~°
0 0 ~
~r~
~~
m
yam
LL ~
$aa
S
a`
~ ~
V
Z'
0L y
0
v
ti
z
i'
~t
o~
w~
~g
U~
:s
0
0
i
z
0
i
n I
s~
z
i~
IYr
al I
`~
Si ~i
~w
C~B~4 04 ~`~° BOO C~L~
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200
Incorporated October 22, 1956
May 27, 1999
Terence J. Szewczyk, P.E.
Principal Engineer
TS Civil Engineering
90 North First Street, Ste. 101
San Jose, CA 95113
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Evan Baker
Stan Bogosran
John Mehaffey
Jim Shaw
Nrck Strert
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCE OF APPEAL/SD 99-001
Dear Mr. Szewczyk:
This will confirm acceptance of your request to continue the public hearing scheduled for
June 2, 1999 to Julp 7.1999 regarding the above-subject appeal. Please be reminded that
if you wish to submit any materials to the City Council for this agenda item, you will
need to submit them to me no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 1, 1999.
Sincerely,
~.
.Ramos, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Planning Department
Printed on recycled paper
/'~
'ZCIVII. ~NGIN~~~ING
May 24, 1999
Job No. 99-239.03.02
Susan Ramos
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Request for Continuance
Application No. SD-99-001
20520 Verde Vista Lane, Saratoga
Dear City Clerk:
Please continue the scheduled City Council appeal on this 2 lot subdivision from June 2,
1999 to July 7, 1999. The owner, Mr. Wang will be out of town on June 2 and we are
making progress in collaborating with the neighbors toward a mutually acceptable
compromise.
Sincerely,
TS/CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
Terence J. Szewczyk, P.E.
Principal Engineer
TJS/tk
cc: Roger & Annie Wang
Eric Morley, Morley Hunter Group
Diana Hsu
TS Civil Engineering, Inc.
90 North First Street, Suite 101, San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: 408.993.1800
Toll Free: 888.327.7070
Fax: 408.993.0662
www.tscivileng.com
' n~
~` GB~~ 04 ~~~OO CL~
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Incorporated October 22, 1956 Evan Baker
May 3, 1999 Stan Bogosian
John Mehaffey
Jim Shaw
Roger and Annie Wang and Nick Streit
20520 Verde Vista Lane; and
Terence J. Szewczyk, TS/Civil Engineering Inc.
90 North First Street, Suite 101
San Jose, CA 95113-1223
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SD 99-001; 20520
VERDE VISTA LANE
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Wang and Mr. Szewczyk:
This letter will confirm receipt of your appeal of a condition placed upon the approval of the subject
two-lot Tentative Parcel Map that requires the property to be divided evenly down the middle as opposed
to the applicants' desire to create two unequal lots sized 29,507 and 12,735 square feet, along with your
check in the amount of $200.00 covering the appeal fee, on Apri128, 1999. To confirm our telephone
conversation today regarding the discrepancy in the check amount due to an oversight, it is my
understanding that you will mail us another check in the amount of $50.00 to complete full remittance of
$250.00.
According to Section 15-90-070 of the Municipal Code, the City Clerk shall schedule the matter for
hearing within thirty days after the date on which the notice of appeal is filed or at the next available
regular meeting of the City Council which would be the regular meeting of June 2. 1999 at 7:30 n.m. in
the Council Chambers/Civic Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, to allow public hearing
notification and notification to affected property owners, as required by law. If you wish to request a
continuance, you may do so without charge. Any subsequent requests for continuance must be
accompanied by a fee of $250.00.
The deadline for submitting any additional materials for the Council agenda packet on your appeal is
Thursday, May 27, 1999. If you wish to submit written documents after that day, please provide ten
copies of each document to the City Clerk no later than noon the following day.
Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten (10) minutes for your presentation on this appeal.
The hearing is "de novo", which means that any relevant issue for or against your appeal may be
considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission and regardless of whether the
Planning Commission approved the application.
If you have technical questions about your project, please contact the Planning Department at 868-1222.
If you have questions about the process, you may contact me at 868-1269.
Sincerely,
san Ramos
City Clerk `
cc: Planning Department
Printed on recycled paper.
APR.29.1999 2~51PM
Date Received: ! ~"~ /~
Hearing Date: ~ L
Fee : `n ~-~ !~ -
Receipt No. • y~~°
APPEAL APPLICATION
N0.362 P.2/6
Name of Appellant: Terence J. Szewczyk, TS/Civil En sneering, Inc.
representing oger and nn a ang
Address : 90 North First Street, Suite 101, San Jose, CA 95113-1223
Telephone:
-108-993-1800
Name of Applicant (if
different from Appellant):
Project File Number and Address; S D-99-001
Decision Being Appealed: Tentative Parcel Map Approval
Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached):
See attached letter.
~~~~`-~
s s ' at re ~ ~' ~/`G L~~~
*Please do not sign until appXication is presented at City offices. If you
wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please 1'st them on a
separate sheet . /~/ ~r_ ~ /~l~ ~y.~p ~~eG
TFi2S APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 F UTTVALE`-AVrENUE,
SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. @d2TIi2N FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE
OF THE DIICISION.
HrK.z9.1999 2~52PM
File No.
AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING
N0.362 P.3/6
I, Terence J. S2ewCZyk as appellant on the above file, hereby
authorize Bngin~eering Data Services to perform the legal noticing on the above
file.
Date : '7 ` /i~ r' 6 / Signatures
~/Zc-acG~v _ sz~z
k~~. ~rr9u~ .
Apri127, 1999
Job No. 99-239.03.02
The Honorable Jim Shaw, Mayor of Saratoga,
& Councilmembers
City of Saratoga
City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Appeal of Tentative Parcel Map Approval
Application No. SD-99-001
20520 Verde Vista Lane
Dear Mayor Shaw & Concilmembers:
~ ,:
On behalf of the applicants and property owners, Roger & Annie Wang, we are
submitting an appeal of the approval of the subject 2-lot tentative parcel map. Although
the Planning Commission approved the application at their meeting of April 14, 1999,
they did so with a condition that materially altered the design of the subdivision.
Condition 1 of the Resolution requires that the property be divided evenly down the
middle as opposed to the applicants' desire to create 2 unequal lots sized at 29,507 and
12,735 square feet.
The basis of the appeal is as follows:
1. Meets and Exceeds All Requirements
The applicants' original proposal met and exceeded all requirements for lot
size, width and depth. The site is potentially capable of being divided into 3
lots, however, the applicant chose to oversize the "L" shaped lot to 29,507
square feet and pursue only two lots.
2. Tree Preservation Intent Not Met
The intent of the Planning Commission addition of Condition No. 1 was to
preserve certain redwood trees. With the division "down the center of the
TS Civil Engineering, Inc.
90 North First Street, Suite 101, San Jose, CA 951 13
Telephone: 408.993 1800
Toll Free: 888.327.7070
Fax. 408.993.0662
www.tscivileng.com
The Honorable Jim Shaw & Councilmembers
Job No. 99-239.03.02
Page 2 of 2
April 27, 1999
property," the goal of preserving these trees is not met in any fashion different
than the applicants' proposal. In fact, the superior proposal in terms of tree
preservation is, oddly enough, the 3-lot subdivision.
Please schedule the appeal for the next available council agenda. We look forward to
your consideration at that hearing.
Sincerely,
TS/CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
~Q~GGu.~
Terence J. Szewczyk, P.E.
Principal Engineer
TJS/tk
cc: Roger & Annie Wang
Eric Morley, Morley Hunter Group
Norm Matteoni, Matteoni, Saxe and O'Laughlin
(1999 99-239 Roger & Annie Wang_Appeal Ltr)
\
~ \
35' REAR BSL \~?- ~ 35' REAR BSL
\ \
\
PARCEL 2 \
12,946. sq.ft. \ PARCEL 3
\ I 0.29 ocres /) 12,505. sq.ft.
\ 0.28 ocres
/ ~' go m ~
\~ n'- w
\~• / o
\/ v~
go \\ Io
\ \ 1~
\ ~ ate.
ti~ ~ \ °- o
N \\ \O. \ p\ I N
\ ~ \ ~
\ < -.1
o \~ ~\
p ~~ \' ~ 2 F5 RONT BSL
F
`\ \ \ \ V
~ ~~ \
R~PR
m ~y/ \ \ ~v \ ~ 0~ ..
\ \ 0 \ i
wl
_o ~ _~ \ ~
N g 4 w \l ` ~~O
O N,
O,
PARCEL 1 J, \ `~' Ry,
12,505. sq.ft. \F \ ¢?•
1 0.28 acres m /
\ ~
25' FRONT BSL ~
\ 30'
\ ` ,
1
18'
V E R D E V I S T A L N
APR.29.1999 2~51PM
. ~ ~ TS CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
90 N. FIRST ST., STE.101
3AN J03E, CA 86118
J~CIVII ~ f;NGIN[;~~ING
N0.362 P. 1/6
1 ' F y . f .,~ : -:3
,ems ~^[.~ t' 7 ~ '~
PM: 408.883.1800 TOLL FREE: 888.327.7070 FAX: ~09.899.0~2 l(-~ '" ~~°- i ~~,~
~h ~~
M.....o.
R
FACSINIILE COVER SHEET ~~~, ~
~~~
DATE: Apni129, 1999 JOB N0.99-239.03,02
SUBJECT: Appeal of Council Decision ~~' '~`' 1 ~ a
~... .
~_~ ~b ~.-
~!,4%Y~
TO: City of Sazatoga ATTENTION: Susan
FAX #: 868-1280 PSONE #: 868-1200
FROM: Mike Keaney 6 (~ PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET
WE ARE SENDING THE FOLLOWING:
- Appeal Application
- Letter to Mayor and Councilmembers in support of appeal
- Copy of receipt of $200 appeal fee
COMMENTS:
Here is the appeal application and supporiiug documents associated with it. I will have
the property owners write a letter that authorizes us as representatives of them and get it
to you as soon as possible. I will also mail the original application to you today. If there
are any other problems please let me know. I can be reached at 993-1800. Thank you for
your assistance.
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS,
PLEASE CALL US AT (408) 993-1500
^ Original will not follow
^ Original will follow via:
^ U.S. Mail ^ Sand-Delivery
^ p'ederal Express ^ Other
By: GZ /~~!
Michael Keaney
TS/CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
HrK.~9.1999 z~SZPM
I~r~-~~~~~~N~~~~~
Apri127, 1999
Job No, 99-239.03.02
The Honorable Jim Shaw, Mayor of Sazatoga,
& Councihnembers
City of Saratoga
City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Appeal of Tentative Parcel Map Approval
Application No. SD-99-001
20520 Verde Vista Lane
Dear Mayor Shaw 8t Councihnembers:
N0.36z P.4/6
On behalf of the applicants and property owners, Roger & Annie Wang, we are
submitting an appeal of the approval of the subject 2-lot tentative pazcel ixaap, Although
the Planning Commission approved the application at their meeting of April 14, 1999,
they did so with a condition that materially altered the design of the subdivision.
Condition 1 of the Resolution requires that the property be divided evenly down the
middle as opposed to the applicants' desire to create 2 unequal lots sized at 29,507 and
12,735 square feet.
The basis of the appeal is as follows:
1. Meets and Exceeds All Requirements
The applicants' original proposal met and exceeded all requirements for lot
size, width acid depth. The site is potentially capable of being divided into 3
lots, however, the applicant chose to oversize the "L" shapod lot to 29,507
squaze feet and pursue only two lots.
2. Tree Preservation Intent Not Met
The intent of the Planning Commission addition of Condition No. 1 was to
preserve certain redwood trees, With the division "down the center of the
T5 Civd Engineenng, Inc.
40 North First Slreet, Sujto 101, San Jose, CA 95113
Tolephone~ 408.993 1800
Toll Free 88B 327.7070
Fax. 408.993.0662
www.tscwdeng,oom
APR.29.1999 2~52PM N0.36z P.5i6
. The Honorable Jim Shaw & Councihn,embers
Job No. 99-239.03.02
' Page 2 of 2
Apri,127, 1999
property," the goal of preserving these trees is not met in any fashion different
than the applicants' proposal. In fact, the superior proposal in terms of tree
preservation is, oddly enough, the 3-lot subdivision.
PIease schedule the appeal for the next available council agenda. We look forwazd tv
your consideration at that hearing.
Sincerely,
TS/CIVIL ENGIlVEERING, INC.
~~
Terence J. Szewczyk, P.E.
Principal Engineer
TJS/tlc
cc; Roger & Annie 'Wang
Eric Morley, Morley Hunter Group
Norm Matteoni, Matteoni,, Saxe and O'Laugl~],in
(1999 99-239 Roger ~ Am»e Wang_Appcal Ltr)
FiI~K. C7. 1y7J ~~ 5~F''I`1
~~
`~.~~
RlCEfl-60 BY/DEPT.:
IYV.~bG r.o~o
OFFICIAL RECEIPT DATE: (~/ a ~ 19 ~
CITY OF SARATOGA
18777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
sARATO~A, cA sso7o
PHONE: (409) 868-1200
FAX; (408) 869.1280 T[ II
RECEIVED FROM= ~s`
C~~'I~L
R~ _ f ~ ~`~ S~ . ~~ !b ! /~
lV ~ ~ 7~~'
ANIMAL UCENSE9 001.2025-q21-01.00 $ MAP6/1(EROX 001.106a473.Ot•a0 $
ng6oRISrFEE 250.4010.444.02.00 PAFIKgENTnt 2De-5o2o•aee•os-o2
Bu1~DINliPERMITS •4o1sa22-o1•DD pgOPERTvTAXE9ISECURED 1•toga411•o1.0Q
BUIU)ING RFNTA~ E92-6020-482.03.01 PVWNINO FEES 250.4010.4 •Oa
8u6 TICKETS 001.0000•P02.10.01 REFUNDABLE DEPT 80ND6 -0OOa2ea 10.00
BUSINESS LICENSE T~IX 001.1040•g13.05.00 R6NTAl DEPOSIT 2D2-0000-28x00.00
DOCUMENT STORAGE FEES 260.4010.444.06-00 SALES TAX 001.1040.412.01.00
DOCUMENT TRANSFER TAX 001.1040-`13-flt-00 R suRONAROE 09-8005.4B2.03•D9
DONATIONS-RECREATION •6010.471.01.00 NSIENTOCCUpANCY 1.1040.418.06.0D
ENCROAGMNIENT PERMITS 001.9085-422.03.00 RECESS COMM• (EASE 001.104x462.01•a0
ENGINEERING FECS 250-9095~g9.02-00
ENVIRONMENTAL FEES 260.6006.444.09.00
FALSE ALARM FEES OD1.1040.4 1.00
FINES 8 FORFEITS 00 040-452-01.00
FOOD SALE/RECREA710N 28x600S•MS•09.00
FOODSALCREEN ICES eo.eDtam9•oe.DD
FRANCNI S 1•~040.413.04.OD
GFOI Y FEE R60.809b•449.Ot-00
ORAOING PERMlr6 250.4016.422.0? 00
INTEREST 001.1040-dBt•01A0 OTHER
APPL/PERMIr NO T TAL
FORM OF PAYMENT: Cp6H
CHECK NO.
EP04tT N
. a .~
:~ ai,~
~~
RECEIPT # 4 5 5 6 9
/'~
I ~~'-z-CIVIL ~NGIN~~KING
TRANSMITTAL
DATE: Apri130, 1999 JOB NO. 99-239.03.02
SUBJECT: Appeal Application
TO: Susan Ramos
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
WE ARE ENCLOSING THE FOLLOWING:
Appeal Application
COMMENTS:
Here is the original of the application I faxed to you on April, 29`t' . If you have any other
question please call me.
1
$y; u cam,. /(j l ~`
Michael Keaney ~
TS/CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
TS Civil Engineering, Inc.
90 North First Street, Suite 101, San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone 408.993 1800
Toll Free 888 327 7070
Fax: 408.993.0662
www.tscivileng.com
Date Received:
Hearing Date:
Fee:
Receipt No.:
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: Terence J. Szewczyk, TS/Civil Engineering, Inc.
representing Roger and Annie Wang
Address: 90 North First Street, Suite 101, San Jose, CA 95113-1223
Telephone:
408-993-1800
Name of Applicant (if
different from Appellant):
Project File Number and Address: S D-99-001
Decision Being Appealed:__Tentative Parcel Map Approval
Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached):
See attached letter.
el l ' s 8 ' at re ~ `~ '"~~~~i~'~-,
~'~~G'l ~- ~,~.~C"~i~
*Please do not sign until app'~ication is presented at City offices. If you
wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please 1'•st them on a
separate sheet . ~! ~ f~~1~~1`1` "~ ,~j(~Nf~ ~/~'"E-C^Z~
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE,
SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE
OF THE DECISION.
File No.
AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING
I, Terence J. SzewCZy k as appellant on the above file, hereby
authorize Engineering Data Services to perform the legal noticing on the above
file.
Date: ~ - ~ ~ , Signature:
~~-°~1 ~~
7~- %~~1./.(~ if Jj~ j ~L1~~-~'~-
TS CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
90 N. FIRST ST., STE. 101
3AN J03E, CA 96113
~~CIVII. ~NGIN~~~ING
PH: 408.983.1800 TOLL FREE: 888.3?7.7070 FAX: 408.993.0882
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
DATE: Apri129, 1999
JOB N0.99-239.03.02
SUBJECT: Appeal of Council Decision
TO: City of Saratoga
FAX #: 868-1280
ATTENTION: Susan
PHONE #: 868-1200
FROM: Mike Keaney 6 (~) PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET
WE ARE SENDING THE FOLLOWING:
- Appeal Application
- Letter to Mayor and Councilmembers in support of appeal
- Copy of receipt of $200 appeal fee
COMMENTS:
Here is the appeal application and supporting documents associated with it. I will have
the property owners write a letter that authorizes us as representatives of them and get it
to you as soon as possible. I will also mail the original application to you today. If there
are any other problems please let me know. I can be reached at 993-1800. Thank you for
your assistance.
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS,
PLEASE CALL US AT (408) 993-1800
^ Original will not follow
^ Original will follow via:
^ U.S. Mail ^ Hand-Delivery
^ Federal Ezpress ^ Other
Michael Keaney
TS/CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
~ ~:: ~~ ~~a ~ ~
a~~ -f9~~
/'~
/'~~IVII.~NGIN~~~ING
Apri127, 1999
Job No. 99-239.03.02
The Honorable Jim Shaw, Mayor of Saratoga,
& Councilmembers
City of Saratoga
City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Appeal of Tentative Parcel Map Approval
Application No. SD-99-001
20520 Verde Vista Lane
Dear Mayor Shaw & Councilmembers:
On behalf of the applicants and property owners, Roger & Annie Wang, we are
submitting an appeal of the approval of the subject 2-lot tentative parcel map. Although
the Planning Commission approved the application at their meeting of April 14, 1999,
they did so with a condition that materially altered the design of the subdivision.
Condition 1 of the Resolution requires that the property be divided evenly down the
middle as opposed to the applicants' desire to create 2 unequal lots sized at 29,507 and
12,735 square feet.
The basis of the appeal is as follows:
1. Meets and Exceeds All Requirements
The applicants' original proposal met and exceeded all requirements for lot
size, width and depth. The site is potentially capable of being divided into 3
lots, however, the applicant chose to oversize the "L" shaped lot to 29,507
square feet and pursue only two lots.
2. Tree Preservation Intent Not Met
The intent of the Planning Commission addition of Condition No. 1 was to
preserve certain redwood trees. With the division "down the center of the
TS Civil Engineering, Inc.
90 North First Street, Suite 101, San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: 408.993.1800
Toll Free: 888.327.7070
Fax: 408.993.0662
www.tscivileng.com
The Honorable Jim Shaw & Councilmembers
Job No. 99-239.03.02
Page 2 of 2
Apri127, 1999
property," the goal of preserving these trees is not met in any fashion different
than the applicants' proposal. In fact, the superior proposal in terms of tree
preservation is, oddly enough, the 3-lot subdivision.
Please schedule the appeal for the next available council agenda. We look forward to
your consideration at that hearing.
Sincerely,
TS/CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
/~ ~'`~~
Terence J. Szewczyk, P.E.
Principal Engineer
TJS/tk
cc: Roger & Annie Wang
Eric Morley, Morley Hunter Group
Norm Matteoni, Matteoni, Saxe and O'Laughlin
(1999 99-239 Roger & Annie Wan~Appea] Ltr)
OFFICIAL RECEIPT DATE:
~
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
PHONE: (408) 868-1200
FAX: (408) 868-1280 ~
~
RECEIVED FROM: Jr (~
r J ~/`
C~
Ro ~ j ~~~1 ~~ , ~~ ~O /
/ 3"'~
IMAL LICENSES 001.2025-421-01-00 $ MAPS/XEROX 001-1040-473-01-00 $
BORIST FEE 250-4010.44402-00 PARK RENTAL 292-6020.462-03-02
BUILDING PERMITS 250.4015-422-01.00 PROPERTY TAXES/SECURED 001-1040-411-Ot-00
BUILDING RENTAL 292.6020.462.03.01 PLANNING FEES 250-4010. -00
BUS TICKETS 001-0000.202-10.01 REFUNDABLE DEP/BONDS -0000-260.10-00
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
001.1040.413-OS-00 f
RENTAL DEPOSIT •,,.^'~
292-0000-260-00-00
DOCUMENT STORAGE FEES 250.4010-44405-00 SALES TAX 001-1040-412-Ot-00
DOCUMENT TRANSFER TAX 001.1040.413.01-00 TH ATER SURCHARGE 293-6005-462-03-03
DONATIONS•RECREATION 290.6010.471.01-00 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY 001-1040-413-03-00
ENCROACHMENT PERMITS 001-3035-422-03-00 WIRELESS COMM. LEASE 001-1040.462-01-00
ENGINEERING FEES 250.3035-443-02-00
ENVIRONMENTAL FEES 260-5005-444-03.00
FALSE ALARM FEES 001-1040• t-00
FlNES & FORFEITS 00 40.452-01-00
FOOD SALE/RECREATION 90.8005-445-06-00
FOOD SALE<TEEN VICES 290.6010.445.06.00
FRANCHIS ES 001-1040.413-0400
EOL Y FEE 250-3035-443.07-00
RADING PERMITS 250-4015.422-02-00
INTEREST 001.1040-461.07-00 OTHER
APPLJPERMIT NO. T TAL ~ ®~
i-
RECEVED BYIDEPT.:
FORM OF PAYMENT: CASH
CHECK NO.
EPOS(T k
~ ~i S'
~~
RECEIPT # 4.
To: City of Saratoga March 31, 1999
Planning Department
Attn: Heather Gregg Bradley, Associate Planner
Re: Application #SD-99001
Dear Miss Bradley:
I would like to inform you that we have replaced Mr. James Chen
by Mr. Terence J. Szewczyk of TS Civil Engineering, Inc. as
our Civil Engineer for this case. Mr. Szewczyk will resume
the full responsibility and continue all engineering and
coordination of this case as required by the City. Mr. Chen
has been informed that, effective today, he is not to be further
involved with this case in any fashion permanently.
In addition, as you may already know that Mr. Eric Morley is
now our Project Manager. I am sure that you will find our team
stronger and more professional. We are all willing to cooperate
and to work closely with the City and the Community, in order
to have the project move on smoothly.
Mrs. Diana Hu remain as my sole Power of Attorney. Should you
have any question or valuable suggestion, please feel free to
contact us at anytime.
Sincerely,
~~~~~
Roger Wang
c.c. Diana Hu
Eric Morley
Terence Szewczyk
Dick Fang
•
•
•
OFFICIAL RECEIPT DATE: ~_^i
~
~ ~
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
PHONE: (408) 868-1200
FAX: (408) 868-1280 ' / l.~i-" `
/ /
7
RECEIVED FROM: ~~ '
~y ~'~ ~ ~ --t ' ~ h,z,
f
~o ~; ~s~t S~f- ~S~ /~~ ~
~ ry,l ~ ~ CJ -~ /
l
ANIMAL LICENSES 001-2025.421.01.00 $ MAPS/XEROX 0 1-1040-473-01-00 $
ARBORIST FEE 250-4010-444-02-00 PARK RENTAL 29 6020-462.03-02
BUILDING PERMITS 250-4015.422-01-00 PROPERTY TAXES/SECURED 001 1040-411-01-00
BUILDING RENTAL 292-6020-462-03-01 PLANNING FEES 250- 010-444-01-00
BUS TICKETS 001.0000-202-10-01 REFUNDABLE DEP/ BONDS 800- 000-260-10-00
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX 001.1040-413-OS-00 ~ RENTAL DEPOSIT 292- 000-260-00-00
DOCUMENT STORAGE FEES 250.4010-444-OS-00 SALES TAX 001 1040-412-01-00
DOCUMENT TRANSFER TAX 001.1040-413-Ot-00 THEATER SURCHARGE 29 -6005-462-03-03
DONATIONS-RECREATION 290-6010-471-Ot-00 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY 00 -1040-413-03-00
ENCROACHMENT PERMITS 001-3035-422-03-00 WIRELESS COMM. LEASE 00 1040.462-01-00
EjVGINEERING FEES 250-3035-443-02-00
ENVIRONMENTAL FEES 260-5005-444-03.00
FALSE ALARM FEES 001-1040-451-Ot-00
FINES & FORFEITS 001-1040-452-01-00
FOOD SALE/RECREATION 290-6005-445-06-00
FOOD SALE/TEEN SERVICES 290-6010-445-06-00
FRANCHISE FEES 001-1040-413-04-00
GEOLOGY FEE 250-3035.443-01-00
GRADING PERMITS 250-4015-422-02-00
INTEREST 001-1040.461-01.00 OTHER ~ ~ ~ L
APPL./PERMIT NO. TOTAL
,s-~~.
R
RECEIVED BY/DEPT.: ~"G~'~
FORM OF PAYMENT: CASH
CHECK NO.
DEPOSR p
RECEIPT #
. ~~
~C
45614
I ~~z-CIVII.~NGIN~~~ING
-TRANSMITTAL
DATE: May 4, 1999
JOB N0.99-239.03.02
SUBJECT: Appeal of Council Decision
TO: Susan Ramos
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
WE ARE ENCLOSING THE FOLLOWING:
-Check #2219 in the amount of $50.00
COMMENTS:
'~~~ ~ ~
~,>~ -~,
~~
~~ ` ~_ ~ ~
Dear Susan,
This check should complete our application for the appeal of application # SD-99-001.
We had previously paid $200 when we applied because we thought that was the correct
fee. We are the appellants on the application and there is a letter in the application file
with Heather Bradley of the planning department which authorizes us as their
representatives. If you have any other questions please call me. Thank you for your help
and sorry for any confusion.
By: ,~~~- `~'~' ~~~
Michael Keaney
Junior Planner
TS/CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
TS Civil Engineering, Inc.
90 North First Street, Suite 101, San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: 408.993.1800
Toll Free. 888 327.7070
Fax: 408 993.0662
www.tscivileng com