HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-1986 City Council Agenda packetAGENDA BILL NO. /0
DATE: 7 -1 86 (7- 16 -86)
DEPT.: Engineering
SUBJECT: FINAL MAP APPROVAL. SDR- 156 JAMES HOPKINS
LOMITA AVENUE (1 LOT)
Suimary
1. SDR 1565 is ready. for. Final Map Approval,. This is an.
over. 50%• expansion. to. an existing. single. family,
2. All conditions for the City and other departments have
been met.
3. All bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted, to the
City.
Fiscal Impacts:
None
Exhibits /Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 1565 -02
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Location Map
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA ITEM e
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
Ar,e
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 1565 -02 attached, approving. Final Parcel
Map for James Hopkins. Authorize execution, of Building Site
Agreement.
Council Action
Approved.
SECTION 1:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO.
1565 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF JAMES HOPKINS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
The 23,040.0 S.F. parcel shown as Parcel A on the
Final Map prepared by Lance D. Geselbracht and
submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga,
be approved as one (1) individual building site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
meeting held on the day of 19
by the following vote:
MAYOR
RF OM: Kathryn Caldwell, Planner
DATE: 5/28/86
ISSUES:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION;
ATTACHMENTS:
1 1/ /1
1. Resolution SDR 1565 -2, A -954.1
2. Exhibit A -1: Findings
3. Letter of request dated April 16, 1986
4. Staff report to the Planning Commission dated 4/25/84.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR -1565, A- 954;_20650 Lomita Ave.
APPLICANT: James and Jane Hopkins
APN: 517 -12 -09
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extension of time to complete conditions of tentative
map for 507. expansion of an existing single family home and design review
for a two -story addition.
None. Tentative approval given 4/25/84 expires May 14, 1986, unless
extended by the Planning Commission.
Approve the request by approving attached resolution and findings of
Exhibit A -1.
SDR -1565
A -954
EXHBIT A -1
EXHIBIT "A -1"
1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy
The windows in the rear elevation, and to lesser extent those in the
right elevation, could have an adverse impact on the privacy of the
adjacent property to the northwest. The potential for this is limited
and will be effectively mitigated by additional landscaping.
2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape
No grading is proposed and not major trees will be removed so the
natural landscape will be preserved.
3. Perception of Excessive Bulk
Although the proposed structure would be higher than other two stories
in the neighborhood, the second story portion of the structure would be
relatively small and would be screened by existing vegetation. Thus,
the perception of bulk will be minimized.
4. Compatible Bulk and Height
As indicated in Finding No. 3, the structure will be compatible in
terms of bulk and height. Also, the structure will not interfere with
the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties due to the
setbacks maintained by the structure, the structure's orientation, and
the shading already provided by existing vegetation.
April 16, 1986
James H. and Jane Francis Hopkins
20650 Lomita Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Application for One (1) year extension on
SDR -1565 and A -954; Street Address: 20650
Lomita Avenue, Saratoga;
Dear Planning Commission:
We are requesting a one (1) year extension on
design review approval and subdivision approval
(SDR -1565 and A -954) for the following reasons:
After we received the approvals, James Hopkins
accepted a temporary work assignment in Southern
California. We decided not to build during this
period. He is now back in Santa Clara County
and will remain here. We plan to submit our
working drawings for review within 30 days
and plan to obtain financing within 30 days.
Very truly yours,
A nan &Z
James H. and Jane Francis Hopkins
City cf Sarafega
APPROVED BY:
SUBJECT
01MT cDO
L -g
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of: 1)
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED:
2) Building Permit
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION:
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
*(amended 4/25/84)
DATE: 4/17/84
Commission Meeting: 4/25/84
SDR -1565 and A -954, James and Jane Hopkins, 20650 Lomita Ave.
An over 50% expansion to an existing
single family dwelling; and
2) Design Review for a two -story addition
1) Final Building Site Approval; and
ZONING: R -1- 10,000
GENERAL PLAN: Residential Medium Density Single Family (M -10). The
project conforms with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
SITE DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 24,840 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: There is a large oak tree in the front
of the site and mature trees and heavy vegetation (primarily redwoods)
along the southeastern property line. None of these major trees will be
removed.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 6.5% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 6.5%
t to Planning Commi. —.on. 4/17/84
1565 A -954, HopkC Lomita Ave. c IV Page 2
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of
the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have
been balanced against the public service needs of its residents
and available fiscal and environmental resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the
County of Santa Clara Recorders' Office relative to the
environmental impact of this project, if approved under this
application. Said determination date: April 13, 1984
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for
SDR -1565 (Exhibit "B" filed February 27, 1984) subject to the
following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of
Ordiance No. 60, including without limitation, the
submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of
storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as
established by Ordinance in effect the time of final
approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and compliance with applicable Health
Department regulations and applicable Flood Control
regulations and requirements of the Fire Department.
Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further
particulars. Site Approval in no way excuses compliance
with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with
any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto,
applicant shall comply with the following Specific
Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord
with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. 1
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining
Final Approval.
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation
(Pay required checking recordation fees). (If parcel
is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to-
scale prints).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a
20 ft. 'Half- Street on Lomita Avenue.
D. Improve Lomita Avenue to City Standards, including the
following: D.I.A.
1. Designed Structural Section 13 ft. between
centerline and flowline. D.I.A.
rt to Planning Comm _on
-1565 A -954, Hopki, y Lomita Ave.
4/17/84
Page 3
2. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (V -24). D.I.A.
3. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities. D.I.A.
Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master
Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as
needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or
Watercourse. D.I.A.
F. Construct Lomita Ave... to 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders
using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on
6" aggregate base from existing similar improvements to
the east (property of Lawrence) to the westerly property
line of this property.
G. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property
line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double
seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate
base.
H. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe
culvert under driveway as approved by the Director of
Community Development.
I. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions
of view as required at driveway and access road inter-
sections.
J. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will
change,' retard or prevent flow.
K. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements.
2. Storm Drain Construction.
L. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from
Improvement Plans.
M. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improve-
ments to be completed within one (1) year of receiving
Final Approval.
N. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the re-
quired improvements marked "D.I.A."
0. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required im-
provements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
1) Foundation
,ort to Planning Co ±on 4/17/84
JR 1565 A 954, Hopki Lomita Ave. Page 4
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATION DIST. NO. 4
A. No conditions
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPT.
A. Domestic water to be by San Jose Water Works.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans show-
ing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the
SCVWD for review and certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance
of permits.
B. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures
shall be reviewed by the Permit Review Division to evaluate
the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall
provide, to the extent feasible,, for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building
site.
Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
Prior to final inspection /occupancy, the existing accessory
structure shall be removed or relocated in conformance with
the Zoning Ordinance.
rt to Planning Co _on
R -1565 A -954, Hop __As, Lomita Ave.
DESIGN REVIEW A -954
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE:
COMPLIANCE:
Existing First Floor: 1,200
Proposed First Floor: 798
Proposed Second Floor: 618
Existing Accessory
Structure
TOTAL
2,616
4/17/84
Page 5
SETBACKS: Front: 65 ft. (from centerline of Lomita) Rear: 163 ft.
Left Side: 10 ft. Right Side: 10 ft.
HEIGHT: 29'
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 17%
SIZE OF STRUCTURE (Including Garage):
Per Per
Applicant Staff
1,200 sq. ft.
1,015 sq. ft.
654 sq. ft.
2,869 sq. ft.
240 240 sq. ft.
2,856 3,109 sq. ft.
The proposed additions, combined with the existing structures, are below
the 3,500 sq. ft. allowable floor area using the applicant's or staff's
calcuations. The only ordinance violation problem is the existing acces-
sory structure (garage) which maintains a 2 ft. side yard where 10' is
required. This structure should be removed or relocated in compliance
with the ordinance.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
Impact on Privacy and Views: Staff noted a potential privacy impact
associated with the addition due to the windows in the rear elevation_
which look down into the rear yard of the adjacent property to the
northwest. This view is partially screened by the existing garage on
the adjacent property and can be further mitigated by additional land-
scaping.
Exterior Materials: Wood siding Gray; Wood window trim light blue.
Roof Materials: Wood shingles natural color
Compatibility: There is a two -story structure across the street from
the subject property which steps down from Lomita Ave. There are other
two -story structures two lots to the north and south of the site. At
its highest point, the proposed structure is taller than these structures.
However, the bulk of the structure is basically single -story in height
and the existing oak provides some screening of the second level so the
proposed structure will be compatible.
port to Planning Co .Lon
DR -1565 A -954, Hopkins, Lomita Ave.
DESIGN REVIEW A -954, cont'd.
Other: The applicant proposes to move the driveway from the right
hand side of the lot to the left hand side.
FINDINGS:
1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy
The windows in the rear elevation, and to lesser extent those in the
right elevation, could have an adverse impact on the privacy of the
adjacent property to the northwest. The potential for this is limited
and can be effectively mitigated by additional landscaping.
2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape: No grading is proposed and no
major trees will be removed so the natural landscape will be preserved.
3. Perception of Excessive Bulk:
Although the proposed structure would be higher than other two stories
in the neighborhood, the second story portion of the structure would be
relatively small and would be screened by existing vegetation. Thus,
the perception of bulk will be minimized.
4. Compatible Bulk and Height
As indicated in Finding No. 3, the structure will be compatible in
terms of bulk and height. Also, the structure will not interfere with
the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties due to the set
backs maintained by the structure, the structure's orientation, and the
shading already provided by existing vegetation.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated
4/17/84, Exhibits "B and C and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of building permits, submit for staff review and
approval the following:
A. A landscaping plan for the southeastern side of the site showing
how the privacy of the adjacent property owner will be preserved.
B. Any modifications to the site development plan or structure
elevations.
Approved:
MF /dsc
P. C. Agenda: 4/25/84
41 4:(4. 4 Ja10
Michael Flores
Planner
4/17/84
Page 6
517
1. 9sy
J
VII.t A
AGENDA BILL NO. l o ge-I-
DATE: 7 -1 =86 (.7- 1.6 -86)
DEPT.: Engineering
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: FINAL MAP APPROVAL. SDR 1621, GRANT ADORADOR
MENDELSOHN LANE (1 LOT)
Summary:
1. SDR-1621 is ready for Final Map Approval.
2. All the conditions for the City and other agencies have
been met.
3. All bonds and agreements have been submitted to the City.
Fiscal Impacts:
None
Exhibits /Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 1621 -02
2. Report to the Planning Commission
3. Location Map
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No.. 1621 -02 attached, approving. Final Map
for SDR -1621. Authorize execution of Exhibit "B" Agreement.
Council Action
Approved.
SECTION 1:
RESOLUTION NO.
1621 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF GRANT ADOKADOR
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
The 0,768 acre parcel shown- on Record of Survey
prepared by Mark Thomas and Company and submitted
to City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved
as one (1) individual building site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
meeting held on the day of 19
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
DATE: 5/5/86
COMMISSION MEETING: 9/14/86
APN: 517 -21 -07
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR -1821, A -1181; North side
Mendelsohn Lane east of Piedmont Road.
ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative building site approval and design review
approval to construct a two story residence which exceeds the allowable
floor area on a vacant lot.
APPLICANT: Joe Waller PROPERTY OWNER: Grant Adorador
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Final building site approval, building permit
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the
project.
ZONING: R -1- 20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential
Low Density Single Family
EXISTING LAND USE: vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential
PARCEL SIZE: Net: 31,540 sq. ft. (.724 acre) Gross: :33.454.08 sq. ft.
(.768 acre)
NATURAL. FEATURES VEGETATION: Wildcat-Creek runs along the northern
portion of the site: Mature trees are scattered along the. perimeters of
the site. The site is at a lower elevation than Mendelsohn Lane.
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 12.42X
GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading is required.
PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 45 Ft. Rear: 54 Ft.
Left Side: 52 Ft. Right Site: 55 Ft.
HEIGHT: 30 ft.
TECHNICAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 28 (without pool)
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor (including garage): 2750.5 sq. ft.
Second Floor: 2250.0 -sq. ft.
TOTAL: 5000.5 sq. ft.
OROINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet al.l the requirements
and standards of the zoning ordinance.
MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior Medium stucco finish painted light
grey
Roof Natural color wood shakes
ANALYSIS: A three lot subdivision (Liccardo, SDR -1590) was approved to the
north of the site by the City Council on appeal in April 1985.
Wildcat Creek runs along the northern portion of the site. The 1% flood
level is at 493 ft. elevation. The first floor elevation of the ,living area
is raised above the 100 year flood plain.
The entrance to the garage is at the rear of the residence. The proposed
layout creates a long driveway which increases the impervious coverage.
The driveway is located within the SCUWD easement. The .district has
approved the layout. However, alternatives exist to reduce the driveway
length and keep the driveway from running parallel to the creek.
SDR -1621
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS:
EXHIBIT "A"
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 14 of
the City Code, including without limitation, the submission of a record
of survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and
recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of
final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and compliance with applicable Health. Department
regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements
of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to'said Chapters for
further particulars. Site approval in no way.excuses compliance with
Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance
of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the
following specific conditions:
II. PUBLIC WORKS
A. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final
approval.
B. Submit parcel map to City for checking and recordation.. Pay
required checking and recordation fees. (If parcel is' shown on
existing map of record, submit three to scale prints.)
C. Submit ".irrevocable offer of dedication" to provide for a 30 ft.
half street on Mendelsohn.
Submit "irrevocable offer of dedication" to provide easements, as
required.
E. Improve Mendelsohn to City standards, including the following:
1. Designed structural section 18 ft.. between centerline and
flowline.
2. P.C. concrete curb and gutter-(R-36).
3. Pedestrian walkway (6 ft. A.C.).
4. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities.
F. Construct storm-drainage system as shown on the "Master Drainage
Plan and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey
storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the
following:
1. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes.
2. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes.
3. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc.
G. Construct standard driveway approaches
H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as
required at driveway and access road intersections.
I, Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
J. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
I<. Engineered improvement plans required for:
1. Street improvements.
Storm drain construction.
L. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement
plans.
M. Enter into improvement agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one year of receiving final, approval.
N.. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
0. Obtain encroachment permit for driveway approaches or pipe
crossings to city street.
III.DEPARTt1ENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. •Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
for:
1.. Geology
Soi
3: Foundation
B. Detailed on site improvement plans showing:
1. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location,
etc.)
2. Erosion-control measures
3. Standard information to include titleblock; plot plan using
record data, location map, .north'arrow, sheet nos.,•
owners's name, etc.)
IV. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewer connection is required. Hook —up to sewer is
required when the new line (Wildcat Creek. Trunk) has been accepted
B. Applicant shall pay hook up fees as required by District No. 4.
V. SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Construct driveway 14 ft. minimum width, plus one foot shoulders
using double seal coat 0 and S or better on 6 in. aggregate base
from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope of
driveway shall not exceed 12 1/2% without adhering to the
following:
B.
by the County Sanitation District No. 4.
1. Driveways having slopes between 12 1/2% to 15% shall be
surfaced using 2 1/2 in. of H.C. or 6 in. of A.B.
2. Driveways having slopes between 15% and 17 1/2% shall be
surfaced using 4 in. of PCC concrete rough surfaced on 4 in.
aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 ft. in length.
3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not
accepted.
B. The developer shall install one hydrant that meets Saratoga
Fire District's specifications. Hydrant shall be installed
and accepted prior to construction of any building.
C. Provide 15 ft. vertical clearance over the road or driveway
to building site and remove all limbs, wires or other
obstacles.
VI. SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. H sanitary sewer connection will be required.
B. •Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Company,
VII:SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. The proposed pad elevation shall extend. at 5 ft. from the
building but not into the District easement.
There shall be no fill in the District easement.
C. Outfall details shall-be shown on the improvement plans. There
shall be no overbank drainage into the creek from the building or
driveway.
D. Prior to final map approval the applicant shall submit plans
showing the location and intended use.of any existing wells to the
SCVWD for review and certification.
E.. Any improvement plans shall be submitted for district review and
permit approval.
SDR -1621
VIII. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. Design review approval required prior to issuance of permits.
A -1181
B. Prior to issuance of building permit individual structures shall
be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential
for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the
extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities on the building site.
C. The elevations indicated on the southwest corner of the site (594-
598) should be corrected prior to final map.
D. Tree removal is prohibited unless in accordance with City
regulations.
E. Applicant shall comply with City Geologist's letter dated May 2
1986.
S. The residence shall not.exceed 30 ft. measured in accordance with the
City's definition.
3'. Paved areas shall be no closer than 10 ft. from existing trees.
4. Existing trees shall be protected during construction. Protective
fencing shall be installed around the trees prior to issuance of a
building permit.
6. Early warning fire system shall be installed if the home exceeds
5,000 sq. ft.
1. The residence shall not exceed 5,000.5 sq. ft. measured in
accordance with City definitions.
2. Fences and walls in the setback area shall not exceed 6 ft. in height
measured on either side of the fence from the.top to 'the finish or
natural grade whichever is lower.
SOR-1621
A -1181
Exhibit A -1
FINDINGS:
2.. Preservation of the natural landscape
3. Perception of excessive bulk.
R. Compatible bulk and height
Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan and .all
requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of
Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
Unreasonable interference with views or privacy (and compatible infill
project
-The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site
does not unreasonably interfere with views of•the surrounding
residences in that the site is about 6. ft. below Mendelsohn Lane and
:is at the :game or lower elevation than surrounding properties.
-The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of
the surrounding residences because of the topography of the area, the
mature vegetation and the distance across the creek to the future
residences.
The natural landscape is being preserved since the building site is
level. and. the pad of the residence will be located on the existing
grade. No ordinance size trines will be removed..
With the condition to reduce the size of the residence-, the project
will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the
immediate neighborhood because the site is at a'lower elevation than
the street and the mature trees which screen the property. The
residence .complies with the.aiiowa.bl.e floor area standard.
-The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with
'recently constructed homes within 500 Ft. of the site and in the same
zoning district.
-The• project will not interfere. with the light, air, and solar
access of ,adjacent properties because of the distance to the other
residences.
5. Grading and erosion control standards
Minimal grading is required for the residence since the building 'site
is fairly level and. the pad will be located on the existing. grade.
AGENDA BILL NO. 072
DATE: 7 -9 =86 (7-16-86)
DEPT.: Engineering CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: FINAL MAP APPROVAL FOR TRACT 7763
DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PROSPECT RD.
Surmary:
1. Tract 7763 is ready for Final Map Approval.
2. All bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to
the City.
3. Requirements for City and other agencies have been met.
Fiscal Impacts:
None
Council Action
Approved.
Exhibits /Attachments:
CITY OF SARATOGA
1. Resolution No. 1567 -02
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Location Map'
AGENDA ITEM
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No.. 1567-02 attached, approving Final Map.
for Tract 7763. Authorize execution of Contract for Improve-
ment Agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 1567 -02
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF
TRACT 7763
WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of TRACT 7763
having heretofore been filed with this City
Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and
easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completed,
and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require-
ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of
California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of
approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save
and except as follows:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
(1) The aforesaid final map is hereby conditionally approved. Said
approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final
upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth
immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance
with Section (3) hereof.
(2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said
final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by
the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected
pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the
State of California.
(3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept-
ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted,
and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and
releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter
into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and
sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of the
-1-
estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public
ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS-60
as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently
on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form
and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be
as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City
Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe-
cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city.
(4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require-
ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and
with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized
and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map
and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced
and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day
of 19 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
4
Q
Mr= off 0 oC
REPORT TO PLAN `STN COMMISSION
APPROVED 3Y: CPC
C f *Revised 4/17/85
DA E: *Revised: 3/13/85
INL i ALS: DATE: 1/17/85
Commission Meeting: 1 /23/85
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SD 1567, South of Prospect Road and the
S.P.R.R. tracks
APN: 366 -5 -5
APPLICANT: Fremont Union High School District
ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative Map Approval for a 55 lot subdivision.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final Map Approval, Design Review Approva
and Building Permits.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An EIR for this project has been prepared and
must be certified as complete prior to project approval.
ZONING: NHR (using R 1- 20,000 standards per the stipulated settlement)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Hillside Conservation Single Family
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential
PARCEL SIZE: 47.5 Acres
NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Riparian grassland vegetation. Prospect
Creek runs along the northeastern edge of the site.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9%
GRADING REQUIRED: Total soil movement is estimated at about 85,000 cubic
yards.
LOT SITES: Range from .46 acres to 1.3 acres
LOT SLOPES: Range from under 9% to 19%
(Note All lots with slopes of 10% or more must be a minimum of 40,000 sq.
ft. (0.92 acre) in size. This can be varied via the exceptions
provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance).
Report to the Planninr ommission
SD -1567, Fremont Unict` nigh School District
ce
1/17/85
Page 2
PROJECT HISTORY: -After preliminary geologic work in 1979 Fremont Union
High School District (F.U.H.S.D.) formally applied for Tentative Map
Approval for a 73 lot subdivision on the subject property in March, 1980.
At that time the existing zoning of the property was R -1- 15,000 for the
western two thirds and R -1- 12,500 for the eastern third. However, in
June 1976 the City Council had introduced an ordinance which would have
amended the zoning of the site to R -1- 20,000 PC pending submission of
plans. The project was thus designed with R 1 20,000 PC standards i.n
mind. The initial steps for preparation of an EIR including an early
public consultation meeting were being taken in April, 1980.
On April 8, 1980 Measure A was adopted by the City of Saratoga which
created a moratorium on development prejects in the City's northwestern
hillsides, including the subject site, until a Specific Plan was adopted.
In June 1980 F.U.H.S.D. sued to remove the subject property from the effect
of Measure A and to allow the Tentative Map application to proceed. In
1981 the City and F.U.H.S.D. entered into a "Stipulation for Settlement
which created a compromise to end the suit. This settlement allowed
F.U.H.S.D. to develop no more than 55 single family dwelling units on the
subject property consistent with the City's R -1- 20,000 or P -C standards.
The City was also given the option to require the dedication of 2.3 acres
of the site for a park with the City selecting the park location.
PROJECT ISSUES
OPEN_SPACE:.- -The subdivision map submitted by the applicant (Exhibit "B
does not show a park site or any other public open space. The existing
general plan shows the southern 8 acres of the site designated as Open
Space- Outdoor Recreation. The adopted Specific Plan indicates that the
Parks and Recreation Commission should review the park site on the subject
property. In May 1984 the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended
that the City require a 2.3 acre park, as permitted under the settlement,
on this site. The Commission did not specify a location for this park.
Staff informed the applicant of these issues and he prepared two subdivision design
options which inglude parks a minimum of 2.3 acres in size located beneath
the P.G. E. powerlines which traverse the site. This location is not
consistent with the park location shown in the General Plan. However,
the City may not wish a park of that size in that location since such a
park could impact existing residences to the east and would be expensive
for the City to maintain. The City would have to purchase 5.7 acres from F.U.H.S.D. to
create the park in that location and the applicant would still be allowed a minimum of
55 units. This would required smaller lot sizes thus giving the appearance of higher density
Considering these factors, the park proposed by the applicant may be a
better open space solution for this project since it also could act as
a connector between the Parker Ranch trail system and pedestrian accessways
to the east.
However, the auestion of whether or not there should be a park on the site
must be resolved by the City Council.
Report to the Plannin( omission
SD': -1567, Fremont Union High School District
1/17/85
Page 3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: The stipulated settlement allows the project to
be designed using PC (Planned Community) or R -1- 20,000 zoning standards.
The project must also conform to Subdivision Ordinance Standards. The
subdivision maps submitted by the applicant comply with R -1- 20,000 zoning
standards with those over 10% in slope being at least 40,000 sq. ft. in
size.
If a cluster development were to be used, which is one of the alternatives
examined in the EIR, PC standards would have to be utilitzed to allow
design flexibility. PC standards would allow a large portion of the site
to be preserved in open space which could then be maintained by the home-
owners association. However, new standards for setbacks, coverage, lot
dimensions, and other development criteria would have to be created and
established for the project.
R -1- 20,000 standards are already established and well understood as part
of the Zoning Ordinance. This familiarity makes these standards easier
to understand and apply for both staff and any future developers. The
R -1- 20,000 development pattern would also be consistent with existing
single family development in the area. Therefore, staff recommends that
R -1- 20,000 standards be used in developing the site.
CIRCULATION /TRAFFIC:
The circulation system shown on Exhibit B has ,two main entry and exit points
to the subdivision: Prospect Road and Burnett Drive. Both of these
points are located at or near the northern end of the subdivision. The
Prospect Road and Street "A" intersection would be the major entrance to
the subdivison. The southern end of the subdivision proposes an emergency/
secondary access between Kreisler Court and Court "D" of the subdivision.
The plan also shows a potential future road connecting Farr Ranch Road
with Street "B" to provide a southern access to the site. This street
would not be built until the Moore property to the south of the site is
developed.
The northwestern Hillside Specific Plan shows a Hillmoor Drive extension
providing an emergency /secondary access road to the southern end of the
of the site. The proposed subdivision does not follow this plan but it
does not prevent the plan from being followed. Considering the location
of Kreisler Court relative to Hillmoore Drive, and the nature of emergency/
secondary access roads, the proposed sudivision could be considered
generally in compliance with the intent of the Specific Plan.
Internal circulation can be designed as a closed loop as shown in Exhibit
"B" or by one major road with a series of cul -de -sacs running uphill from
this road. Both of these systems would provide adequate internal circulatior
but there may be slightly different visual impacts. The EIR has noted
several potentially hazardous internal circulation problems and recommends
mitigations which will be conditions of approval for this project.
Report to the Plannin
SD -1567, Fremont Uni
^ommission
High School District
1/17/85
Page 4
The EIR for the project indicates that traffic impacts from the project
alone are minor. However, these impacts in conjunction with the existing
traffic situation and the cumulative impacts associated with future
development would significantly impact the Prospect Road and South Stelling
Road intersection particularly during the P.M. peak hour. The existing
level of service (L.O.S.) would be reduced from C (stable flow or operation)
to D/E (borderline unstable flow or operation). The L.O.S. at Prospect Road
and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, which is already very poor, would not be
significantly impacted by this project or other future projects.
The EIR has identified several mitigation measures to reduce these impacts
such as improving the southern side of Prospect Road to provide better
access to the through and turning lane at its intersection with Saratoga
Sunnyvale Road and signalization improvements at this intersection.
The developer of the project may be assessed a proportional to full share
of the cost of the improvements. It should be noted that coordination
and cooperation between the cities of Saratoga, Cupertino, San Jose and
the State of California (CAL Trans) would be necessary to effect these
improvements.
Saratoga would also have to work with the City of Cupertino to determine
how to improve the Prospect Road and Stelling Road intersection. The
developer would also be required to pay a pro rata share for those
improvements.
NOTE: Access to lots 17 18 can be provided by Farr Ranch Road which
could reduce the amount of grading required.
GRADING /DRAINAGE: The applicants's engineer has prepared a slope study
(Exhibit "C showing three grading alternatives for the project. The
first proposal would create a large, contoured 3:1 uphill fill slope.
Smaller amounts of cut and fill would be required downslope. The second
proposal is an 8' down split which requires a smaller 3:1 uphill fill
slope by using a stepped two -story foundation. Somewhat more cut would
be required downslope. The third proposal would leave more of the
natural 6:1 slope intact with minimal cut and fill.
Proposal l could allow the construction of some dwellings with less of the
building exposed to view. The applicant's engineer indicates that the fill
necessary to accomplish this would be contoured to match the existing terrain
Staff would favor the natural slope proposal to minimize grading but this
could create buildings with a greater visual impact. However, some of
these impacts can be reduced by creating design standards regarding
structure bulk and height.
The projects' drainage system will tie into Prospect Creek and the
City's existing storm drainage system. The EIR indicates that further
study may be necessary to determine the flooding potential of cumulative
development in the area. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has
requested in its letter dated December 11, 1984 that such a study be
done by the developer. Some further improvements to the Prospect Creek
drainage channel might also be required. Adequate drainage for the
project should be provided to ensure no adverse impacts on adjacent
properties.
Report to the Plannin
SD -1567, Fremont Uni
FINDINGS
'ommission
.-sigh School Dist.
1/17/85
Page 5
The Commission expressed concern about cumulative drainage impacts on
Prospect Creek at its study session on December 18, 1984. The applicant
has submitted a letter dated January 3,. 1985 outlining the hydrologic
studies done and their results. There appears to be no significant
hydrologic impact from the project either by itself or with Seven Springs
Ranch.
DESIGN IMPACTS:
At its study session of December 18, 1984 the Commission discussed con-
cerns about structure sizes and structure heights. The applicant's
engineer indicated that building pads nearest the eastern edge of the
property would be kept as low as possible to minimize impacts on adjacent
property owners.. Staff would recommend that structures on lots 36 -48
be limited to single story structure no _greater than 18' in height to
further protect the privacy of adjacent properties which can be as much
as 3' 4' lower than the site.
Some commissioners were concerned about large house sizes dominating the
lots. After some discussion the Commission suggested to the applicant
that house sizes be no greater than 4000 -4800 sq. ft. range and the
smaller houses be located along the eastern perimeter of the site adjacent
to existing residential development.
The Commission should also consider if structure heights should be
limited on the higher elevations of the site since they could interfere
with the views of some property owners.
GEOLOGY: The City Geologist has indicated that the geologic element of
the EIR-is adequate subject to standard soil and geotechnical review
conditions.- Staff had indicated that the site might contain the Shannon
or Monte Vista Fault but no evidence of this fault was found in a previous
study which utilized trenching. Therefore, it is not considered a factor
in the design of the project.
VEGETATION: The major vegetative features of the site are the strips of
riparian vegetation along Prospect Creek and a drainage swale which
bisects the site. The vegetation in Prospect Creek will be protected
by S.C.V.W.D. easements and an open space buffer zone suggested as a
mitigation in the EIR. Much of the scrub and other vegetation in the
drainage swale will be removed. However, staff has noted 3 large oak
trees in this swale area which should be preserved. This is also a
mitigation measure in the EIR. It should be noted that since the drainage
improvements in Parker Ranch have been installed, this swale has carried
considerably less drainage water.
Prior to approval of this project the Planning Commission must make one
of the three findings below to comply with CEQA:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the final EIR.
Report to the Plannin
SD -1567, Fremont Uni
`ommission 1/17/85
High School District Page 6
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdictio
of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
final EIR.
Staff recommends that Findings 1 and 2 be made. Finding 1 can be made
due to the mitigation measures that, will be required as conditions
of approval listed on pages 2 -2 to 2 -12 of the FEIR. These mitigation
measures address all identified environmental effects associated with
the project which are also listed on_pages 2 -2 to 2 -12 of the FEIR.
Finding 2 should also be made since the Prospect Road and Stelling Road
intersection will be impacted by the project. However, the bulk of this
intersection is within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino. Four
different public agencies have jurisdiction over the Prospect Road and
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road intersection. These intersections can only be
improved if the changes required are adopted by these agencies.
Report to the PlanninC ommission
SD -1567, Fremont Unio High School Dist.
1/17/85
page 7
PROJECT STATUS: Said project is in accordance with the "Stipulation
for Settlement" entered into by the City of Saratoga
and the Fremont Union High School District. The project is designed in
conformance with the standards of the zoning and subdivision ordinances
of the City pertinent to an R -1- 20,000 single family development.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal
and environmental resources.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SD -1567
(Exhibit B- 6 filed January 18, 1985) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Comply with standard engineering conditions dated April 11, 1977.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
B. Submit "Tract Map" to City for checking and recordation. (Pay
required checking recordation fees).
C. Include "Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 30 ft. Half- Street
on Prospect Road.
D. Include "Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required.
E. Improve Prospect Road to City Standards, including the following:
1. Designed Structural Section 20 ft. between centerline and
flowline.
2. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (V -24).
3. Pedestrian Walkway (5 ft. A.C.)
4. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities. (Excluding Tower
Line)
F. Include "Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft. Half Street
on all interior streets.
G. Improve all interior street to City Standards, including the
following:
1. Designed Structural Section 16.5 ft. between centerline
and flowline.
2. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (V -24).
*H. Rac st-r- ian-.Wa-lk 4b--ft -.C- batwean- 1.ats -4A- .and
Report to the Planning ommission
SD 1567, Fremont Unior igh School District
I. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage
Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey
storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including
the following:
1. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes.
2. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes.
3. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc.
J. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches.
K. Provide adequate Sight distance and remove obstructions of view
as required at driveway and access road intersections.
L. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
M. No direct access allowed on Prospect Road from lots.
N. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
O. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements
2. Storm Drain Construction.
1/17/85
page 8
P. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement
Plans.
Q. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
R. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
S. Obtain approval from City of Cupertino to complete improvements
easterly to Stelling Road.
T. Pay Traffic Impact Fee_per lot_in affect at the time of obtaining
building permits.
Report to the Plannin .ommission
SDR -1567, Fremont Uni School Dist
1/17/85
page 9
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional;
1. Geology
2. Soils for total site as well as each lot prior to Building
Permit issuance.
3 Foundation study for each lot based on information gained in
soils studies.
B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building
permit being issued.
C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections, existing
and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.)
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for
walls 3 feet or higher-
4. Erosion control measures
5. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
D. Bonds required for: Grading /Erosion Control
E. Other requirements: P. G. E. facilities shall be protected from
access.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT
A. Sanitary sewer service can be provided for the subject development.
B. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with
requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT
A. The existing water systems shall be extended to the site; contact
San Jose Water Company.
B. The developer shall install ten (10) hydrants to meet Central Fire
Protection District's specifications.
C. All fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted prior to issuance
of any building permits. Contact should be made with the water
company as soon as possible to eliminate engineering delays.
D. Emergency access gate shall be equipped with a fire department
"MEDECO" locking device.
E. Strtr-er t-o- thy-- epFrovzri- erne- d-i scT•et- rv rr- trf -t trey- t 7 Czttin i I" Fie
ele-v-e4 4 -1-1 e}f --e- area- oprre -rt- fee--of 6- t 5-- p-er- Ttrt t5
Ge, rrt fe4--- F-ire-- Eh -541-i-c-t- at t•tm ti n Tflap ftMITTNZr fo PaY
this- pr 4.,}.a-C S- aor_ti.onal. ace_ .a.f_ the_ .c .o st..n.f -tiui -1 ag`-a- fl ees.
f- i r t c,s fi'rrrtr- Fr-
Report to the Planni
SDR -1567, Fremont Un
Commission
High School District
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
1/17/85
page 10
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. A Sanitary sewer connection will be required.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. If any wells are present they must be sealed to health department
standards and water district standards.
A. Dedicate the right of way needed for Prospect Creek as shown on
the map attached to the letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water
District dated November 16, 1984.
B. The site's drainage shall be incorporated into the existing storm
drainage system. If a storm drain outfall into the creek is
necessary, it should be designed to serve the general area to
minimize the number of future outfalls needed and in accordance
with SCVWD Sheets 8 -12.
C. In accordance with District Ordinance 75 -6, the owner shall show
any existing well(s) on the plans. The well(s) shall be properly
registered with the District and either maintained or abandoned in
accordance with District standards. Wells shall be sealed in
accordance with District standards unless they are to be used for
the proposed developement. In this case, they should only be used
after proper testing and inspection. Please call Mr. Nicholas Lyn
at 265 -2600, extension 382, for information regarding permits and
the registering of or abandonment of any wells. Written confirmatior
from the developer or his engineer regarding the existence of any
wells and their proposed disposition is required.
D. Because it can affect the operation and maintenance of the channel,
grading adjacent to 'the right of way should be done in accordance
with District Detail Sheets 20 -20B. The details of the grading
should include the cross- sectional view at the right of way and be
shown on the improvement plans.
E. Improvement plans shall be sent to the Santa Clara Valley Water
District prior to start of site construction.
F. The developer shall initiate a study of the impact of increased
runoff on downstream flooding. The development should not cause
any additional areas to floor or increase flood elevations on any
other property. It is the responsibility of the developer to
provide this information, although the work shall be coordinanted
with the District.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
Building Permits.
B. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures shall
be reviewed by Planning Division to evaluate the potential for
solar accessibility. Applicant shall provide a solar shade study
Report to the Plannin mmission
SD -1567, Fremont Um_ _High School Dist.
to assist staff in this review. The developer shall provide, to
the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site.
C. Prior to Final Map,Approval, submit CC R's for City review and
approval which state:
1. All main dwellings, individually or combined with accessory
_structures, shall be no larger than 4800 sq. ft. consistent
with R- 1- 20,000 standards with the exception of lots 36 -48
which shall use a 4,000 sq. ft.limit consistent with adjacent
R- 1- 12,500 standards.
2. Height limits for each lot shall be as follows:
Building Height Limitations:
Lots No. 1 -4: 28'
Lots No. 8 -9: 28'
Lots No. 13 -14: 28'
Lots No. 15 -16: 22
Lots No. 17 -18: 28'
Lot No. 36: 22'
Lot No. 37: 18'
Lot No. 38: 22
Lot No 39• 18'
Lot No. 40: 18'
Lot No. 41: 22'
Lot No. 42: 22'
Lot No. 43: 22'
Lot No. 44: 18'
Lot No. 45: 18'
Lot No. 46: 18'
Lots No. 47 48: .22'
Lots .No. .49 -54: 25'
1/17/85
page 11
All structures on Lots 15 16, and 36 through 48 shall be
single -story structures.
Residences shall be located on the lots in accordance with
'the approved site development plan.
Fences on lots -3 (rear lot line only), 4, 8, 9, and 12 -34
shall utilise an open, heavy guage wire grid to preserve, a
much as possible, the openness of the site.
6. These CC R'5 cannot be amended without prior City- approval
in writing and are enforceable by the City.
7. All cut and fill slope landscaping shall be maintained
through private maintenance agreement with the City.
8. These CC R's shall be recorded on the Final Map.
9. No structures are permitted in any open space easement.
Fences for security may be permitted in the open space
easement adjacent to Prospect Creek:
Report to Planning Commissio►�
SD -1567, Fremont Union High SLddol Dist.
1/17/85
Page 12
10. A fifty (50) ft. wide light and air easement shall be
recorded along the western property line. No structure over
20 ft. in height shall be located within this easement and no
tree, or other vegetation, shall be allowed to attain a
height greater than 20 ft. within this easement.
The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures listed in
Exhibit "D These mitigation measures shall be recorded with the
CC R's.
Delete -t in al Prospect Creek shall be provided in ac
this Santa Clara Distric su.ject to Design
Condition Review Ap•ro y. F'en�ing_shall be installed prior
ssuance of any Building Permits.
F. All trees over 12" in diameter and all oaks over 10" in diameter
shall be preserved. Special care shall be taken to preserve the
oak trees contained in the drainage swale that bisects the property.
Details on how these trees shall be preserved both during and
after construction shall be submitted for review and approval by
the City arborist prior to issuance of Final Map Approval.
G. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
H. Applicant shall provide a 15' -35' buffer along Prospect, Creek,
measured from top of bank, as shown on Exhibit 6 through the
-recordation of an open space easement prior to Final Map
Approval. The wording of this easement shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. (This
easement cannot be amended without prior City approval in
writing)-.
At the option of the City Council, the developer may:
1. Dedicate a park at least 2.3 acres in size on the site to
the City.
or
2. Pay in lieu park fees.
or
3. A Homeowner's Association can be formed to lease the park
site from the City on a long term basis and improve the site
to allow for recreational purposes subject to approval by the
Planning Commission of any improvement plans. The fees and
lease terms shall be approved by the City Council prior to
Final Map Approval.
Report to Planning Commiss(
SD -1567, Fremont Union High bchool Dist.
1/17/85
Page 13
*a---- Th��.ppii an ha.J prazra.de_ destuia path�zay cnnnPrtions�_as_
app.r-aved--by -tea- Par- lcs -auna -R reat< an -Ca amiz-c-ion., -het ea.n Pa rkar_
�a .br- 2,3 -aer parl��- axid._ihe_.exi�t tng -,pi de_sf _p.athway
-3d�aG t.- g�st�rx�aidesoaf_tt�_si.te.
K. Design Review Approval for the following required prior to Final
Map Approval:
1) Treatment of emergency access road and barrier.
*2} Fret- man-t- -&f- periQa.tx,iarm-. athway_isLC_lucling_barri.ers to_harsS
and vehi -l-es
3) Landscaping and irrigation plans for the unimproved areas
of the right -of -way, street trees especially, and erosion
control for all cut or fill slopes.
4) Design of any retaining walls over three feet in height.
5) Grading plans for the entire site.
L. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right
of -way that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping and irrigation
improvements shall be installed and established within 90 days
of completion of the right -of -way improvements.
*M app- 1- i -eant sha4- 1.- e -t-or- i- n-tQ- a.4,ands.eape_ Maintenance_Aareem_ent
w -t -tom- C-it 4e the,sa- lasids c aped. a rAa s �zi_thin_tba public
riy 1i L crf -ap r�rea -sh J-- era- rr�ta3 -t rer.� is seap�d- r-eas
frrr mzrrimrmr of cme- year -trf er- -wieh- tke--home+aw.neE-S-- as,soe- iat.inn
5tra1 be re3Y��isi}Tre- err- raa�imta��rrng eke-- panels ped- �ea�.
N. All individual lot owners shall be required to maintain all
landscaped ares within the public right -of -way in front of and /or
to the side of their lots. This provision shall be included in
the CC R's for this project.
O. All cut and fill slopes shall be of such material as to fully
support landscaping.
P. No single retaining wall to be more than 5 feet in exposed face
height.
Q All grading shall be contoured so as to form smooth transitions
between natural and man made slopes.
R. Developer shall comply with the conditions of P.G. E. regarding
the use of their easement as outlined in P.G. E's letter dated
November 13, 1984.
S. Developer shall comply with the conditions of the City Geologist
as outlined in his letter dated November 12, 1984.
T. Unless conditioned elsewhere in this report, all development of
the subject property shall be consistent with R -1- 20,000 standards
found in the Zoning Ordinance and all applicable Subdivision
ordinance standards.
Report to Planning Commissio(
SD -1567, Fremont Union High �C�,o1 Dist
*AA.
W.
*Y
APPROVED
MF /bjc
U. Upon recordation of the final subdivision map for this site, no
lots or parcels shown on such map may thereafter be further
subdivided so as to increase the total density of 55 units /47.5
acres permitted on this site.
V. All the conditions of this Staff Report shall be recorded on the
face of the final subdivision map for this project.
NOTE: All pools, spas, accessory structures, recreation courts
or main dwellings located outside approved building envelopes on
lots with an average slope greater than 10% shall be require-:
site modification approval by the Planning, Commission.
The riparian vegetation at the rear of lots 12 -14 shall be
preserved, as shown on Exhibit 6 -6, by the recordation of an open
space easement. The wording of this easement shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
X,. Grading shall be done in conformance with the plan and notes
contained in Exhibit 6 -6. No retaining wall shall 'exceed 5 ft.
in height.
The following improvements shall be bonded for as required by the
Director of Community Development (the form and amount of the
bond shall be determined prior to Final Map Approval):
Such traffic control measures for the Prospect Road /Stelling Road
area deemed by the Director of Community Development to be
appropriate, based upon his reasonable determination that the
measures are required to mitigate traffic impacts from the
project during a five year period beginning one year after all
public improvements.have been accepted by the City. If,, in the
judgement of the Director of Community Development,' a traffic
study is necessary to ascertain the impacts from the project, the
cost of the study shall be paid by the developer.
Z. There shall be no pedestrian or equestrian easement between lots 44 and 45
connecting Street 'A' to the existing pedestrian walkway leading to Norada
Court.
Pedestrian access shall be provided for between Kriesler Court
and Court "D Details of pedestrian access design shall be
submitted for staff review and approval.
P.C. Agenda 1/23/85
1/17/85
Page 14
Michael Flore
Associate Planner
Immommos
eoutimatilmleoliw
1°
.t Nall1101&
milluip.....e..
Orem lus II WES: ir
4.... lir
I d. WILS 11111116 MIMS 1.1 IR
RATOc A 5ONNYVAL
AGENDA BILL NO:
DATE: July 7, 1986 City Mgr Approval
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance
SUBJECT: Hakone Gardens Donation
Issue Summary
Mr. Ron Coleman of San Jose has donated 14 Koi to Hakone Gardens.
Fiscal Impact
Exhibits /Attachments
Letter from Ron Coleman.
Recommended Action
Accept and acknowledge this donation by way of a letter from the
Mayor.
Council Action
Approved.
DIC5
1
Agenda Item
Ron Coleman 3063 Knightsbridge Rd San Jose Ca 95132
Roy Swanson
Park Superintendent
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale
Saratoga Ca 95070
Ron Coleman
Sincerely yours
June 27 86
Dear Mr. Swanson:
This is to inform you that i have donated 14 Koi at the value of 520.00
to your Hakone garden. Mr Jack Tomlinson received them at the fish pond
It gives me satisfaction to know that now many people can enjoi the beautiful fish.
Mr. Gunter Helmholz took care of the delivery for me.
AGENDA BILL NO: /0
DATE: July 15, 1986
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance
SUBJECT: Hakone Gardens Donation
Issue Summary
Mr. Gunter Helmholz of Los Gatos donated 12 Nishikigoi (fancy
Japanese carp) to Hakone Gardens.
Fiscal Impact
Exhibits /Attachments
Letter from Mr. Gunter Helmholz.
Recommended Action
Accept and acknowledge this donation by way of a letter from the
Mayor.
Council Action
Approved
1
Agenda Item
City Mgr Approval
helmholz 18509 main blvd los gatos ca 95030 u s a
roy swanson
park superintendent
city of saratoga
13777 fruitvale ave.
dear mr swanson
this is to inform you that i donated 12 nishikigoi fancy japanese carp)
to the value of 420.00 to hakone garden i enjoy the serenity and beauty of this
japanese garden very much and it gives me the greatest pleasure to be able to contribute
at least something to it mr. jack tomlinson was present at the time and i discussed
with him the feeding and maintenance of koi i am on the board of the hayward koi club
and the secretary of the santa clara koi club and a breeder for the last 12 years
with that experience to my credit I would like to point out to you that by far the cheapest
and at the same time most healthy food for fancy carp is waynes cat fish food 18.00
for 50 pounds or purina cat fish food for about the same amount we used trout food
before but purina changed the formula and it is no longer suitable for koi
if you should have any questions regarding koi or pond maintenance feel
free to call me my phone is 408 353 2708
gunter helmholz
best regards
5 -16 -86
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. 0 AGENDA ITEM
DATE:
July 11, is
DEPT.: Community SPrvi rtes
SUBJECT:Change in Delinquent Garbage Bill Collection__Procedures
Summary: Currently, delinquent refuse collection bills involve
the City filing a property lien against the service address to
achieve collection of the bill. There has been a problem in de-
termiirig the identity of the property owners of the service addresses
who must be formally notified of the lien before it can be filed.
In addition, the lien process has been very time consuming for
both Green Valley and the City.
The deposit system proposed by Green Valley would be
charged only to customer who allowed a refuse collection bill to
become delinquent and would be refunded to the customer if no
further problems were experienced within a one -year period.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Exhibits /Attachments:
Recommended Action:
Direct staff to amend the appropriate contracts and
ordinances toward the objective of implementing the deposit system
proposed by Green Valley.
Council Action
Approved.
1. Report from Community Services Director.
PURPOSE
ANALYSIS
moo,
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Delinquent Garbage Accounts
75
Lr)''
DATE: July 11, 1986
COUNCIL MEETING: July 16, 1986
Green Valley has proposed a change in how delinquent garbage
bills are handled. The same proposal is being presented to the
other contract cities of Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Campbell.
The proposal is to require a refundable deposit for delinquent
garbage accounts. Green Valley is also proposing new charges
for commercial accounts to generate more revenue.
In mid -1984, the City Council adopted a delinquent garbage ac-
count collection procedure involving the filing of property liens
for the non payment of a refuse collection bill. A mandatory
service ordinance required Green Valley to continue providing
refuse collection services even though the bill remained unpaid.
The objectives of the procedure were to produce more revenue by
adding more accounts through enforcement of the mandatory service
provisions of the._,City's Ordinance, to deter people from allowing
their bill to remain delinquent because of the threat of the City
filing a property lien, and to generate revenue through the actual
filing of property liens which would be satisfied either when the
property was sold or when the County sent out a property tax bill
which would include the lien as a special assessment.
The procdure` has not been as effective as had originally been
anticipated. One reason is due to the difficulty in identifying
current property owners. Frequently, residents subscribing to the
garbage service are renters, and the property owners, who some-
time live in another country, are the ones who must be notified
before a property lien can be filed. Researching the County
assessors records has proved to be very time consuming, and the
records are sometimes six months out of date and filled with
errors. Contracting with a title company for the same information
improved accuracy, but title companies were not timely in providing
the information to the City. In addition, the lien procedure has
RECOMMENDATION
Page two
generated a lot of complaints and requests for account informa-
tion which has consumed large amounts of staff time.
The deposit system proposed by Green Valley would only be re-
quired of customers who had allowed a refuse collection bill to
become delinquent. The amount of the deposit would equal one
quarterly bill, and would be required from both residential and
commercial accounts. If, after a year, there were no further
problems with the account, the deposit would be refunded to the
customer.
The deposit system would probably be more cost effective than
the existing lien procedure for the following reasons:
1. Green Valley could stop service and cut costs if a
refuse collection bill became delinquent.
2. If a refuse collection bill became delinquent :a second
time during the year, the bill would be automatically
paid in full due to the forfeiture of the deposit.
An additional element of Green Valley's proposal involves the
establishment of new rates for commercial bins. The existing
rates would be charged if the Green Valley truck could drive
within ten feet of the dumpster to be emptied. Additional
charges would be made for distances in excess of ten feet as
indicated in the attached schedule. It is anticipated the rates
will generate $2,760 in new revenue annually in Saratoga.
Direct staff to amend the appropriate ordinances and contracts
toward the objective of implementing Green Valley's proposals
described in this report.
PREPARED BY:
Todd W. Argow
Carmunity Services Director
TWA: pbv
N, 4c,, GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY
PROPOSAL FOR
P.O. BOX 1227 LOS GATOS. CA 95030 PHONE 354 2100
CAMPBELL, LOS GATOS, MONTE SERENO, SARATOGA
RE: DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS
1) PAYMENT DUE DATES:
Payment is due payable during the service cycle. If payment is not
received within the service cycle time period, the account will be
considered to be delinquent.
The customer will receive a notice to pay balance within 15 days or
the service will be stopped.
If payment is not received, customer will be notified that his service
has been stopped.
2) STOPPED SERVICE AND DEPOSIT
If service is stopped due to non payment, there will be a $5.00
reinstatement fee. In addition a deposit equal to the cost of the
billing cycle will be required for residential commercial customers
on all accounts stopped for non payment.
3) NEW ACCOUNTS
All new residential commercial accounts will be required to make a
deposit equal to the cost of their billing cycle.
Pdefro4 peel)
9 001 ,r- .y, Avia 9
po `df ei
10' to 25'
26' to 50'
51' to 75'
76' to 100'
101' to 125'
126' to 150'
151' to 175'
176' to 200'
201' to 225'
226' to 250'
GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY
GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL CO.
(COMMERCIAL BINS)
ROLL OUT AND PUSH BACK CHARGE
AMOUNTS BELOW ARE EACH WAY
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
TIME SERVICED PER WEEK
lx 2x
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
PO BOX 1227 LOS G. TOS. CA 95030 PHONE 354 -2100
PROPOSED
3x 4x
15.00 20.00
30.00 40.00
45.00 60.00
60.00 80.00
75.00 100.00
90.00 120.00
105.00 140.00
120.00 160.00
135.00 180.00
150.00 200.00
5x 6x
25.00
50.00
75.00
100.00
125.00
150.00
175.00
200.00
225.00
250.00
4L6 Pig c..)
30.00
60.00
90.00
120.00
150.00
180.00
210.00
240.00
270.00
300.00
d 2160 i r.
RD
Z I, /C (s....�®
06. g 4•4•
AGENDA BILL NO. 1 e 1
DATE: 7/16/86
DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL
Summary:
Applicant wishes to develop retail shops and offices on 1.43 acres located
in the City of San Jose (commercial zoning) and parking for 40 cars to
serve the center on .41 acres adjacent to the site but located in Saratoga,
zoned residential (see enclosed "Saratoga Station" site plan)
Fiscal Impacts: Detachment from Saratoga loss of property tax, potential
sales tax, business license tax, utility taxes, all revenues.
Development of parking lot incremental property tax of
$1 /$1000 of assessed valuation from pmprovements. A potential of a portion
of sales tax (coniputed at 1% of gross sales) if negotiated with San Jose.
Exhibits /Attachments:
I. Staff report to Council w /Exhibit A
2. Ltr fm Cypress Properties dtd 6/20/86
3. Ltr to Kathy Kerdus dtd 3/5/85
4. Map of property
5. "Saratoga Station" site plan
Council Action
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA ITEM
(9c
SUBJECT: Cypress Properties; request for deannexation or rezoning property at
northwest corner of Saratoga Avenue/Lawrence Expressway
Applicant cannot get detached from San Jose to allow Saratoga to annex
the 1.43 acres so as to develop in Saratoga and in latter 1985, the Saratoga
City Council expressed its unwillingness to allow detachment from Saratoga
and allow development of the property in San Jose.
Applicant now requests that the Council formally consider allowing detachment
from Saratoga and reorganization into San Jose or amend the City Code to allow
development of a parking lot in the residential zoning district.
Recommended Action:
Deny the request to detach from the City of Saratoga.
Direct staff to prepare an appropriate amendment to the City code to allow a
commercial parking lot in residential zones with a Conditional use permit.
Staff to accept zoning request from applicant; sharing of tax revenues between cities
to be negotiated.
REPORT TO MAYO
c :Y Y CODA V C L
UELVW o4 0 °'R'
AN
SUBJECT: Request of Cypress Properties re: Use of vacant property
Northwest corner of Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway
ISSUE
Mr. John Gatto, representing Cypress Properties, is requesting
that the subject property be detached from Saratoga and annexed
into San Jose or the City Code amended to allow the property to
be used for parking for a proposed commercial development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow a commercial parking lot as a
conditional use in the residential zoning district, providing it
is vacant land adjacent to commercially zoned property to be used
for common development and is somehow constrained from developing
as residential property. (Wording to be restrictive to limit
conditions under which a parking lot could be developed in the
residential zone).
JUSTIFICATION
After studying the four options shown on attached Exhibit A,
staff eliminated #1, 3 and 4 essentially because the City would
not benefit financially or would lose control over design and
future maintenance of the site. Option #2 is of most benefit to
Saratoga for the following reasons:
1. Design of the project can be somewhat controlled through the
conditional use permit process. If the City objects to the
project, the use permit does not have to be granted. (40% of
the parking shown on the plan would be lost if the CUP was
denied and the project would have to be modified).
2. Maintenance of the project can be insured. The CUP can be
revoked if the conditions of approval are violated.
1
c
ATE: 7/10/86
UNCIL MEETNO: 7/16/86
Report to Mayor and City Council
Cypress Properties
3. Revenues can be generated for Saratoga, San Jose, and the
developer. Through negotations, Saratoga and San Jose could
split sales taxes generated from the project.
Y r huek Hsia
P °anning Director
YH/ kc /dc
2
7/10/86
Page 2
Cypress Properties
OPTION
#1. Deny request to
amend the Code.
parking lot could
not be built.
#2. Amend Zoning Ordi-
nance to allow
parking lot as
conditional use
in residential
zone
#3. Amend General Plan
and rezone property
to commercial des-
ignation.
#4. Approve reorgani-
zation of property
to detach from
Saratoga and annex
to the City of San
Jose
PROCEDURE
None
1) P.H. be-
fore P.C.
C.C. to
amend the
Code.
2) Use per-
mit required
from P.C.
prior to
construction
P.H. before
P.C. and C.C.
EXHIBIT A
PROS
Open space buffer
would be retained
for 3 existing resi-
dences at the west
of the property
Site would be
maintained. Incre-
mental property
tax $1 /$1000
assessed valuation
for land improve-
ments (minor).
City can enter
into an agreement
with San Jose to
share the sales
taxes.
Allows developer
more flexibility
with use. Would
allow retail use
and generation of
sales, utility,
business license
and property taxes.
Adopt Resolu- Property would develop
tion approving under one governmental
reorganization agency, City of San
Jose
CONS
Vacant residential
property would be
land locked or take
access through
commercial develop-
ment. No incremen-
tal taxes to City.
Could become un-
sightly if remain-
der of property de-
velopes as commer-
cial
Would permit any
residential proper-
ty to construct a
parking lot with
conditional use
permit. No sales,
utility, business
license taxes un-
less negotiated
with San Jose.
Would allow retail
building to be con-
structed close to
existing homes.
Possible loss of
buffer between uses,
impacting the resi-
dents.
Saratoga would
have no control
over proposed
design improve
ments. Loss of
tax benefit to
Saratoga. No con
trol of mainte-
nance and use of
property in the
future
3000 Sand Hill Road, Building 1, Suite 150, Menlo Park, California 94025 (415) 854 -0333
John L. deBenedetti
Timothy G. Sheehan
John M. Gatto
June 20, 1986
CYPRESS PROPERTIES
INCORPORATED
Honorable Mayor City Councilmembers
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Property NWC Saratoga Ave.
Lawrence Expressway
Dear Mayor and Councilpersons:
We have now acquired and own in fee the entire property outlined in
the attached exhibit. You will remember that we had several
discussions with council during 1985 regarding this property.
The crux of the problem is that Parcel 39 is located within the
City of Saratoga, and the remainder lies within the City of San
Jose. Also Parcel 39 is completely landlocked and is logically, as
well as physically, a portion of the larger area located in San
Jose. The area within the City of San Jose is zoned C -1, and the
area in Saratoga is residential.
In our initial discussions with the Saratoga City Council, the
issues of land use and processing procedures were discussed.
Maintaining commercial zoning at that corner seemed to be
acceptable, and procedurally there seemed to be two ways to go.
One was to seek to de -annex the front property from San Jose and
annex it to Saratoga. The other possibility could allow the area
in Saratoga to be used for parking only, with Saratoga having full
design review capability. This possibility was not immediately
available under the then existing ordinances.
The Saratoga City Council indicated a desire to pursue the
annexation course, and with our cooperation petitioned San Jose to
allow the de- annexation /annexation to occur. In September of 1985
the San Jose City Council unanimously voted against any such land
re- organization.
Honorable Mayor City Councilmembers
June 20, 1986
Page Two
Paranthetically, the Saratoga City Council had also voiced very
strongly, although not officially, that re- organization of Parcel
39 into San Jose would not be acceptable. This appears to leave
only the option of utilizing Parcel 39 for parking purposes, in
conjunction with the overall development.
During the discussions last year we had worked with staff to try
and find a procedure which would allow Parcel 39 to be used for
parking, and at the same time provide the City of Saratoga with
opportunity for project approval. The result was a suggested
change to the R -1 portion of the Code (suggested change attached).
After San Jose denied the re- organization request, we decided in
conjunction with staff to delay further pursuit of the matter until
we actually owned the parcels and /or had a specific project. We
are now ready to proceed with both of the above in place.
Also enclosed for your information, is a preliminary site plan for
the proposed project.
With that lengthy background, let me deal with the purpose of this
letter. We hereby request that the Saratoga City Council formally
agendize this matter, and allow us to proceed in either one of two
manners.
1. Allow Parcel 39 to be reorganized into San Jose without protest.
or
2. Instruct staff to pursue the necessary procedural steps to
allow Parcel 39 to be used for parking.
I thank you for your continued attention to this unique matter, and
will most happily answer any questions and participate in your
formal discussion.
--R ADDY KA
l'i'
4,.. Of CR.
P:.
7
4/3
SAR ATOGA
Tr,
2
IsEarki
POZ
170 AC
0%1
41/
2
DRIVE
TRACT r. s t,63I
BROOKSIDE COURT
ROS 2i2-141
z
AVENUE
11.
3
9 9
55
52
9
55
2
e
54
i0
e
w
4:1
(P)
w
tiJ
X
RADGYKA
LY DR.
15 AC
43
A lm
SARATOGA
44
DRIVE
zr
1
V
a
2 T
c)
TRACT ,o31
BROOKSIDE 2C'JRT
ZP
l M
1
ROS 212 -W
R te_
AVENUE
7
St
9
i
55
54
CYPRESS PROPERTIES
INCORPORATED
3000 Sand Hill Road. Building 1. Suite 150. Menlo Park. California 94025 (415) 854 -0333
John L. deEenedetti
Timothy G. Sheehan
March 5, 1985
Ms. Kathy Kerdus
Planning Department
City of Saratoga
13777'Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway
Dear Kathy:
After a review of the zoning ordinance, there appears to
be a simple means to address our concerns and provide the
City of Saratoga full ability to review and control the
manner in which the property in question can be utilized.
That I would suggest is to modify "Sec. 3.3 Conditional
Uses" of the R -1 portion of the code in a manner similar
to the below wording. This amendment would then allow
of the requirements and controls of the use permit process
outlined in "Article 16. Conditional Uses" to take effect.
Suggested wording:
Parking for uses located in a differently zoned or
designated area under the following conditions:
1. The otherwise designated property is immediately
adjacent and abutting the R -1 zone.
2. There is no means of access to the area considered
for parking from the R -1 zone designation.
3. The area considered for parking is a defined parcel
whose ownership is distin:tly different from that
of any abutting R -1 designated property.
Please review this suggested approach and provide a response.
If the basic idea is workable, we will be most happy to
participate in developing the exact language in any manner
deemed appropriate.
GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL CO., INC.
COMMERCIAL BINS
MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES
1) DELIVER BIN 25.00 r
(SIZE EXCHANGE N /C)
2) RETURN BIN (REMOVED FOR NON- PAYMENT) 25.00
3) RETURN TRIP DUE TO CUSTOMER ERROR 15.00
4) REINSTATEMENT CHARGE 5.00
5) STEAM CLEANING BIN 35.00 4
(1 CLEANING PER 6 M0. AT N /C)
6) SPECIAL REQUEST PAINT, CASTOPS, ETC.) 25.00 0
(STANDARD BIN NO CASTOPS METAL LID)
7) PLASTIC LIDS ADDITIONAL CHARGE
8) LOCKING BIN WITH 2 KEYS (ADDITIONAL CHARGE)
9) EXTRA PICKUP ON SATURDAY
10.00 PER MONTH g
10.00 PEP MONTH T
10% EXTRA 1d
A v,s3411
44 kWVA a