HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-1985 City Council packetg- J� /yid'
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: 9 -9 -85 (9/1R /R5)
FISCAL IMPACTS None
EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS
COUNCIL ACTION
1. Resolution No. SDR- 1605 -1
Resolution No. A- 1102 -1
Staff Report dated 872785
Appeal Letter
Initial
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
dJA
SUBJECT: SDR -1605, A -1102 George Hwang, 19288 Bainter Ave., Appeal by Suzanne Shankle
of Negative Declaration, Building Site Design Review Approvals by Planning Commission
ISSUE SUMMARY At the Planning Commission Meeting on 8/14/85, the applicant received
Building Site and Design Review Approvals for a 29 ft., two- story, 7,000 sq. ft. residence on
a hillside lot. A Negative Declaration for the project was also approved. Issues raised
during the consideration of the project were the large amount of grading proposed, impacts on
off -site views, the perception of bulk of the home and the impervious coverage which exceeded
15,000 sq. ft.
9/18: Upheld appeal, returned to Planning Commission; fees waived for 6 months.
Ms. Shankle is appealing the Planning Commission's decision on the Negative Declaration,
Building Site and Design Review Approvals. She is objecting to the excessive square footage of
the home, the excessive grading involved and the impact on views.
Also before the Council is a request for annexation of this property. The subject parcel is
currently within the City's Urban Service Area.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Determine the merits of the appeal and uphold or reverse the Planning Commission's/
decision. The Negative Declaration must be reaffirmed if the Council approves the
project.
2. Staff recommended approval of SDR -1605 and denial of A -1102.
4. Minutes dated 8/14/85
5. Exhibits
6. Correspondence received on the project.
By:
a- CIL `l <e(JGc, .F, PC ,s4
Secretary Planning Ccxnnission
RESOLUTION NO. SDR 1605 -1
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
GEORGE HWANG
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency
under the Subdivision Nap Act of the State of C,aifornia and un-
der the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Sa.7atoga, for tenta-
tive map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions' of 1 lots,
all as more particularly set forth in File No. SDR -1605 of this
City, and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and im-
provement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with
all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision
and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and gen-
eral land use and programs specified in such General Plan, refer-
ence to the approved Staff Report dated Auqu s t 2, 1985
being hereby made for futher particulars, and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the
(QafrAciparmioacemtdattx143= (Negative Declaration) prepared for
this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions
of CEQA, and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a)
through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect
to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in
accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for
the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the
31st day of July 1985, and is marked Exhibit B -1
in the hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same is hereby
conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as
more particularly set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by reference.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adop-
ted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the
14th day of August 1985, at which a quorum
was present, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Pines, Peterson Schaefer
NOES: Commissioner J. Harris
ABSENT: Commissioners B. Harris Siectfried
ATTEST: ADVIS
Ch af nnan
/ESIGN REVIEW
ATTEST:
NOES: Commissioner J. Harris
1 O o
�`��'1 C L C�� �C d�
Secretary; Planning Commission
RESOLUTION NO. A- 1102 -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an
application for Design Review Approval of a new, two -story single
family dwelling which exceeds
exceeds the.6200 sq. ft. standard and is over; and
'24 ft. W ght t he app od c met the burden of proof requii
to his said application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of
the site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits
submitted in connection with this matter, the application of GEORGE
HWANG for Design Review Approval be and the
same is (granted) iiigimo subject to the following conditions:
Per the amended Staff Report dated August 1, 1985
and Exhibits B -1, C -1 and D -1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 14th day of August 19 85 by
_the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Peterson, Schaefer, and Pines
ABSENT: Commissioners B. Harris Siegfri-d
FILE NO: A -1102
C airman, Planning Commission
EIA -4
Saratoga
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY
OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has
determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through
15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and
Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described
project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on
the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act.
The project is to construct a 8,100 sq. ft., two -story residence on a lot
with an average slope of 27 The lot; located at 19288 Bainter Ave., must
also be annexed to the City.
George Hwang
17283 Eaton Lane
Saratoga, CA. 95070
File No. SOR -1605
The project will not have a significant effect in that there will not be an
increase in the number of units on -site and the City Geologist has reviewed
the project and has recommended approval with certain conditions.
Mitigation measures will be included as conditions of approval.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 10th day of July 1985.
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF
S" 'TOGA
11.:A had
i
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
APN: 510 -24 -06
OMIFE 04 0 'T o C
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
e City of Sc: u:
roto.
APPROVED BY: lip
INilcf Revised: 8/-- 1- 4- /-85---
Date: 8/2/85
Commission Meeting: 8/14/85
APPLICATION NO. E., LOCATION: SDR -1605, A -1102; 19288 Bainter Ave.
APPLICANT: William Young OWNER: George Hwang
ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative Building Site Approval and Design Review
Approval for a two -story single family residence on a lot with an average
site slope of 27% and Site Modification to permit grading in excess of
1,000 cubic yards.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Annexation is required. Also required
is a variance to permit impervious coverage to exceed 15,000 sq. ft., use
permit for recreational court, and building and grading permits.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration prepared 7/10/85.
ZONING: Pre -zoned GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential- Hillside
HCRD Conservation Single Family
EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residential and orchard
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential
PARCEL SIZE: Gross 3.39 acres Net 3.31 acres
NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Moderately sloping topography with primarily
orchard trees.
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 327. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 27%
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 2,250 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 10 Ft.
Fill: 600 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 13 Ft.
PPOPOSFP (.ETFACKS: Front: 400 Ft. Rear: 52 Ft.
Left Side: 52 Ft. Right Side: 76 Ft.
HEIGHT: 29 Ft.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 22,819 sq. ft. with decks (5,580 sq. ft. for
Tenni c (fir ,r
SIZE OF STRUCTURE:
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1605, A -1102, Hwang, Bainter Ave.
Lower Floor(including garage):
Main Floor:
TOTAL:
8/1/85
Page 2
2,234 sq. ft.
*5,620 sq. ft. *Includes Greenhouse
7,854 sq. ft.
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and
standards of the zoning ordinance in that the impervious coverage
exceeds 15,000 sq. ft., and the lot is substandard in that the HCRD
Ordinance requires 3.51 acres per dwelling unit for an average site slope
of 27 However, this is a legal lot of record.
MATERIALS ii COLORS PROPOSED: Earthtone cedar siding with brown tile roof.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Tentative Building Site
Approval for a single lot of record. The subject parcel is not presently
within the City's boundaries. Annexation proceedings are in process. The
property has been pre -zoned HCRD.
The site development plan shows a two -story single family residence, a
pool /patio area and a tennis court. The tennis court is not under
consideration at this time, as HCRD regulations require that a use permit
be obtained. Exclusive of the court, the impervious coverage maximum is
being exceeded. The applicant has stated that he feels he can lower the
impervious coverge on site to 15,000 sq. ft. by using brickson sand for the
existing road and incorporating a 1/4" spacing for the wooden decks.
Subtracting these areas results in lowering the impervious coverage to
17,780 sq. ft. This is still 2,780 sq. ft. above the maximum allowed.
Additionally, with the change in impervious coverage standards for R -1-
20,000 and R- 1- 40,000 districts, the Commission has agreed to no longer
allow these proposals as impervious coverage. Unless the applicant can
provide other alternatives, a variance approval would be necessary. It
should be noted that percentage -wise, lot coverage is 15 However, 15,000
sq. ft. is the maximum impervious coverage permitted, no matter what the
size of the lot.
It has been brought to Staff's attention that a waterline to the property
to the southwest will lie under the proposed building site. The applicant
will be required to relocate the waterline and provide an easement, if
appropriate, to the affected neighbor(s).
The'City Geologist has reviewed and approved the project subject to certain
conditions. There is a question about the stability of old fill areas near
the proposed tennis court and adjacent driveway. The City Geologist will
be requiring additional information from the applicant's geotechnical
consultant and will require that the tennis court area be reviewed at the
time of application.
SDR -1605, 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.
Report to Planning Commission
8/1/85
SDR -1605, A -1102, Hwang, Bainter Ave. Page 3
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 relative to the environmental impact to
this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date:
July 10, 1985.,
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1602
(Exhibit "B -1" filed 7/31/85) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance
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 at the time of
final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regu-
lations 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.
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 easements, as
required.
D. Underground Existing Overhead Utilities.
E. Construct Storm Drainage System as directed by the City Engineer,
as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or
Watercourse.
F. Construct access road to maximum of 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft.
shoulders using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on
6 in aggregate base from private cul -de -sac to within 100 ft. of
proposed dwelling. Slope of access of access road shall not
exceed 12 -1/2% without adhering to the following:
1 Arracc rnari; havinn �lnnac Fes+
_1 /^J'• ___J
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1605, A -1102, Hwang, Bainter
1. Soils
2. Foundation Investigation /Design
8/1/85
Page 4
surfaced using 2 -1/2" asphalt concrete on 6" aggregate base.
2. Access .roads having slopes between 15% and 17% shall be
surfaced using 4" of P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4"
aggregate base. Slopes in excess of 15 shall not exceed 50
ft. in length.
3. Access roads having a slope in excess of 17 -1/2% are not
permitted.
Note: a) The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
b> The minimum vertical clearance above road surface
shall be 15 ft.
c) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use
of culverts and roadside ditches.
d) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use
of culverts and roadside ditches.
G. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal
using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6"
aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling.
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.
K. Engineered Improvements required for:
1. Access Road Construction
L. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from
Improvermment Plans.
M. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
N. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1605, A -1102, Hwang, Bainter
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
8/1/85
Page 5
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities)
C. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location,
etc.)
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for
walls 3 ft. or higher.
4. Erosion control measures.
5. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record date, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewer service to be provided and fees paid in accor-
dance with requirements of County Sanitation Dist. No. 4.
B. Public service easement along the northwesterly property line
of the parcel belonging to Seabright to be noted on building
plans.
U. SPECIFIC_ CONDITIONS CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT
A. Provide one (1) fire hydrant, so located that no part of any
residential structure shall be farther than 500' from at least
one (1) hydrant and the fire protection shall be so designed and
charged with water under pressure so that each hydrant for
residential fire protection shall deliver no less than 1,000
gallons per minute of water. Water storage or other availability
shall be such that for any on hydrant of the system, the 1,000
gallons per minute shall be sustained for a period of two (2)
hours.
B. The required fire hydrant installation shall be tested and
accepted by the Central Fire Protection District prior to
issuance of a building permit.
C. The property is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" and the
building(s) shall be provided with fire retardant roof
covering(s).
D. Provide an improved access road for fire protection vehicles to a
width of 18 feet, plus shoulders of one -foot (1') on each side.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR-1606, A -1102, Hwang, Bainter
8/1/85
Page F
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. Existing septic tank(s) must be pumped and backfilled in
accordance with Environmental Health Standards. Contact
Sanitation District for final inspeciton upon completion.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to
the SCVWD for review, certification, and registration.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION
A. All conditions of the July 10th and 19, 1985 City Geologist
reports shall be met.
B. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
permits.
C. Use permit required for recreational court.
D. Variance required to exceed 15,000 sq. ft. of impervious
coverage.
E. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
F. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures
shall be reviewed by the Planning 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.
G. All existing structures on site shall be removed or bonded for
removal prior to Final Map Approval.
H. Any waterlines to adjacent properties effected by the project
shall be relocated and an easement provided, as appropriate.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1605, A -1102, Hwang, Bainter
A -1102 DESIGN REVIEW
ANALYSIS CONCERNS
8/1/85
Page 7
Staff has many concerns about this very large and linear home. First, to
take advantage of the views, the home has been located on one of the higher
portions of the lot. Due to the size of the home and its location, visual
impacts to surrounding properties will be significant. Also, the location
of the home may impact the views of properties to the southwest.
Despite the large area of the lot, staff feels that the linear design of
the residence will create a bulky appearance. In addition, there are no
homes in the area that are of comparable size. In this situation, the
finding that the project is compatible in bulk to those homes within 500
ft. would be difficult to make.
Next, there is a concern about the grading. Of the 2,250 cubic yards of
cut, the grading figures are broken down into 700 cubic yards for the
access road, 700 cu. yds. for the home and 850 cu. yds. for the garden /pool
area. The fill required totals 600 cu. yds. and amounts to 200 cu. yds.
for the road, 300 cu. yds. for the parking area and 100 cu. yds. for the
home. This results in an imbalance of 1,650 cu. yds. which must be removed
from the site. An average truck can carry 9 cu. yds.. Therefore, the
number of truckloads to remove excavated materials is 183. Of course, if
larger trucks are used, this number would decrease.
The excavation required could be reduced by eliminating the pool /patio to
the rear and changing the driveway approach to utilize the existing access
road. Using an alternative driveway approach may create problems in
getting the average slope below that required for fire department access.
However, incorporating switchbacks may serve to reduce or eliminate this
problem.
Staff should note that the applicant has been cooperative in trying to
address staff's concerns and has made several changes to the original.
plans. The garage location was changed to the left of the home to cut down
the grading and reduce the number of retaining walls. A second story loft
was removed to eliminate some square footage and reduce the height.
Attempts to further reduce the grading have also been made.
Basically, staff feels that recommending approval for this size home in
the proposed location would be difficult. Staff would have to recommend
drastic cuts in the size of the house, elimination of the pool /patio area,
and a reduction in the driveway approach. In effect, the entire design
concept would be changed. Rather than trying to redesign the project for
the applicant, staff feels more comfortable in denying the project as
proposed.
8/1/85
SDR -1605, A -1102, Hwang, Bainter Page 8
Report to Planning Commission
FINDINGS
1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy and Compatible
Infill Project
The house has been moved downslope from the original proposal. The
roof area will not extend above the knoll of the site. Therefore, the
revised height, elevation and placement of the residence on the site
will not unreasonably interfere with views from adjacent properties.
The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the
surrounding residences in that the required setbacks are being
maintained and existing vegetation and the site topography will serve
to minimize privacy impacts.
2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape
Two large pine trees are being preserved. It appears that the driveway
has been located in the best way to minimize the impact on the land.
3. Perception of Excessive Bulk
The revised location of the residence reduces the perception of the
structure in that the residence will be tucked into the hillside. The
design of the structure, with the use of offset wings, serves to
minimize the perceived bulk. In addition, a condition has been added
to reduce the size of the residence.
4. Compatible Bulk and Height
With the revised location, the design of the structure and the
reduction in square footage, the residence will be compatible in terms
of bulk and height with the surrounding residences.
5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards
The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control
standards in that all City Standards shall be met.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial having been unable to make findings
#1, 2, 3 and 4, per the staff report dated 8/1/85 and Exhibits "B -1, C -1
and 0 -1." If the Planning Commission can make the findings, staff has
suggested the following conditions:
1.* Height of structure shall not exceed 29 feet measured in accordance
with Section 14.8.
2. Any modifications. to the proposed site development plans or elevations
shall require Planning Division review and approval.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1805, A -1102, Hwang, Bainter
APPROVED:
P.C. Agenda: 8/14/85
DL /dsc
Diana Lewis
Planner
8/1/85
Page 9
3. Landscaping shall be provided along the front of the residence to
reduce the visual impacts of the residence.
4. The parking areas shall be screened from the street and the northerly
adjacent property.
5. Landscape plans for Condition #4 and #5 shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building
permits.
*6. The residence shall not exceed 7,000 sq. ft. per Staff's calculations.
*7. The impervious coverage shall not exceed 15,000 sq. ft.
8. Landscaping planted behind the residence shall not be of the type that
at maturity will block views from adjacent properties. Landscape plans
shall include proposed landscaping to the rear of the residence for
review and approval by the Planning Division.
William Cotes
and Associates
TO:
Diana Lewis, Planner
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
SUBJECT: Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Review
RE: Lands of Hwang, SDR -1605
GEOTECHNICAL CON 71frs
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
July 19, 1985
S1375A
RECEIVED
JUL 2 3 1985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geologic and geotechnical
review of the subject application using:
o Letter Engineering Geologic and Soil and Foundation Study (report)
prepared by JCP Engineers Geologists, dated March 15, 1985.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical maps and reports from our
office files.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to develop a lot for residential use by constructing a
single family residence, pool, driveway, and tennis court. Our previous review letter
(July 10, 1985), recommended approval of the proposed development with the
conditions that a detailed geologic /geotechnical investigation be conducted for the
subject property to address the distribution of earth materials, evaluate the existing
artificial fill materials where development is planned, and to provide geotechnical
recommendations for the proposed development.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The referenced geologic /geotechnical report appears, in general, to adequately
address the distribution of earth materials and to provide general geotechnical
recommendations for the proposed residence construction. However, a characteriza-
tion of fill materials has not been completed. Our primary concern is with the
proposed driveway and tennis court which would be constructed to some degree on old
fill materials. It is our understanding that the proposed tennis court is not part of
this application and will be dealt with at a later time. We recommend that when
plans and geotechnical recommendations are submitted for the proposed tennis court
that the Town Geologist be given the opportunity to review them.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Diana Lewis, Planner
2
July 19, 1985
With the proposed tennis court construction issue temporarily put aside, the
proposed driveway remains to be addressed. During recent communication between
our office and the applicant's geotechnical consultant, Jim Prendergast assured us
that old fill materials would be excavated and recompacted as part of the proposed
driveway construction. We concur with this approach to deal with the old fill areas
and recommend that the applicant's geotechnical consultant submit his recommenda-
tion in a letter to the City. Consequently, we recommend approval of the subject
application with the following conditions:
1) Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendation The geotechnical consul-
tant should provide his recommendations in a letter for mitigating the
potentially non engineered fill :materials where development is proposed.
This letter should be submitted to the City and reviewed and approved by
the City Geologist prior to issuance of site development and building
permits.
2) Geotechnical Plan Review The geotechnical consultant shall review and
approve the geotechnical aspects (i.e., site preparation and grading, site
drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations, retaining
walls, and roadways) to ensure that his recommendations have been
properly incorporated.
The results of the plan review should be described in a letter by the
geotechnical consultant and submitted to the City to be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of site development and
building permits.
3) Geotechnical Field Inspection The geotechnical consultant shall inspect,
test, and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction.
These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site
preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improve-
ments, and excavations for foundations, retaining walls, and roadways
prior to the placement of concrete, steel, and fill.
William Cotton and Associates
WRC:PS:kt
3
Diana Lewis, Planner July 19, 1985
The results of the field inspections and the as -built conditions of' the project
should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the
City to be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to final approval.
Respectfully submitted,
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
(Ai/al-La/I/14
William Cotton and Associates
William Cow
and Associates
TO:
Mike Flores, Planner
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
SUBJECT: Preliminary Geologic Review
RE: Lands of Hwang, SDR -1605
GEOTECHNICAL CP-LISULTINTS
318 B North Sant enue
Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
July 10, 1985
S1375
At your request, we have completed a preliminary geologic review of the
subject application using:
o Tentative Map (20- scale) prepared by Jennings McDermott and Heiss,
dated May 29, 1985.
DISCUSSION
Our review of the referenced plan indicates that the applicant is proposing to
construct a single- family residence, pool, tennis court, and driveway. The subject
property has previously been developed and includes a single- family residence in the
northwest corner and a small cottage in the north central portion of the lot.
Additionally, an existing driveway, providing access from a private road and Bainter
Avenue, follows the northern property line to the cottage and switch -backs to the
existing single- family residence. The plans indicate that the existing residential and
related structures would be removed to accommodate the proposed development.
The proposed single family residence and pool would be located in the southwest
portion of the property in an area presently occupied by an orchard. The proposed
tennis court location is coincident with the single family residence located in the
northeast corner of the property. The proposed driveway would traverse the subject
parcel from the northwest property corner to the west central portion of the lot.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is characterized by gentle to very steep (1 to 44
natural and artificial, north facing, hillside topography. The proposed home and pool
site appears to have undergone only minor grading in association with agricultural
discing. The slopes are characterized by gentle to steep (5 to 19°) inclinations. The
proposed tennis court site has been extensively graded in association with the
previous construction of a compound building pad (i.e., part cut and part fill) for the
existing residence, carport, and garden areas. Level and gently sloping fill areas
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
-2
Mike Flores, Planner July 10, 1985
appear to have undergone some settlement (cracked and tilted surfaces) and graded
slopes are oversteepened (i.e., greater than 2 :1, horizontal:vertical) with inclinations
of 37 to 440. The proposed driveway alignment crosses natural slopes characterized
by inclinations of 7 to 20 and oversteepened cut and fill slopes adjacent to the
existing single family residence and driveway.
Drainage can be characterized by uncontrolled sheetwash to the north which
appears to be partially intercepted by the existing driveways and flatter building pad
areas. The subject property is underlain, at depth, by semi consolidated bedrock
materials of the Santa Clara Formation (i.e., conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and
claystone. The bedrock materials are, in turn, overlain by potentially thick,
expansive, older alluvial fan deposits and silty -clay, soil and colluvium.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The proposed development appears to be somewhat constrained by expansive
soil and colluvium, weak foundation materials, and the existing oversteepened and
possibly non engineered graded conditions on the site. However, it appears that a
thorough geologic /geotechnical investigation to characterize the site conditions,
appropriate geotechnical design, and proper and corrective grading practices could
satisfactorily mitigate the potential site constraints. Consequently, we recommend
approval of the subject application with the following condition:
Detailed Geologic Geotechnical Investigation The applicant should retain the
services of an engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer to conduct a
detailed geologic /geotechnical investigation of the subject property. This
investigation should address, but not necessarily be limited to:
Distribution of Earth Materials The consulting engineering geologist
should produce an original engineering geologic map of the subject
property to illustrate the surficial distribution of earth materials (i.e., soil
and colluvium, artificial fill, bedrock, etc.). Additionally, the engineering
geologist should produce at least three (3) engineering geologic cross
sections, perpendicular to the slope, through representative sections of
the proposed residence, tennis court, and driveway to clearly illustrate
the interpreted subsurface distribution of earth materials correlated with
surficial mapping and subsurface exploration.
Characterization of Artificial Fill Materials The geotechnical consul-
tants should characterize the engineering characteristics of the fill
materials in those areas where development is proposed (i.e., tennis court,
driveway, etc.). It should be determined if the fill materials where placed
in an engineered manner (i.e., proper soil stripping, benching, compaction,
William Cotton and Associates
Mike Flores, Planner
WRC:PS:kt
-3
Respectfully submitted,
LL
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
July 10, 1985
and drainage control) and appropriate mitigation measures (i.e., removal
and recompaction, etc.)- should be provided to assure the long -term
stability of the proposed development and natural and artificial slopes.
Geotechnical Recommendations The geotechnical consultants should
provide recommendations for the general geotechnical aspects of the
proposed development (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage
improvements, and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls,
roadways, etc.).
The resultant geologic /geotechnical maps and report should be submitted to the
City and reviewed and approved by the City Geologist and Engineer prior to issuance
of site development and building permits.
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
i j'
William Cotton and Associates
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address:
Project Description:
*Please do not
City offices.
appeal please
RECEIVED
AUG 2
COMMUNITY D
APPEAL APPLICATION
)c( ref. ill) Yi
/136-5 41,/fie. 1. (_es UaioS
(3s-
G eoY e 147
.SDE 160,- /lob
/�l2 uu ,4Qinky /4
`1 elA 0 S el 5/n /e
jlle.A eyeeas 1, o r Siam /s over 2-4
/.7 7/
Decision Being Appealed: g pro✓a -1 u -P Aci'diA 5//e. e«e% hifs
.tr Y/i
Grounds foil 2Q.dct�lc� u i e evee
de-5110
the Appeal Letter j
r ue. pp may be attached) NS 3�� 1r .Q ✓e. 74o /u e o, house, lf��w 9/ As a res ai o y( f _4e. a 9 /4 /V /Itd-
rA
die -7/12 /dr e, ,5/z e. e-- /lous e e e55/v6
a Th e. h I s-rde.
e-9 /,pi ee yrle di 1/e1 ✓5
ner A 6ar /lr
/1
1"'Y
Ijint's nature
Date Received:] b
Hearing Date k
Fee r j0
sign this application until it is presented at the
If you wish specific people to be notified of this
list them on a separate sheet.
TIHIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
CITY USE ONLY
26
C
Planning Commission
Minutes Meeting 8/14/85
A -1099
Commissioner Burger
the cut and fill on t
and also the size of
condominium units in
the units will be mit
commented that in her
face inward towards
bulkiness from outside
Staff Report, with th
landscaping strip in t
access. Commissioner
unanimously 5 -0.
5. A -1101 Mr. and Mrs. Sudin Vittal, Request for Design Review
Approal for a new, two -story single family residence
on a hillsi lot which exceeds the. 6,200 sq. ft. stan-
dard at 1526. Montalvo Heights Court in the R -1- 40,000
zoning distr ct; continued from July 24, 1985 (to be
continued)
It was directed that this mat er be continued to September 25, 1985.
6a.
6b.
6c.
Negative
SDR -1602
A -1107
It was directed that this matter be continued to August 28, 1985.
C7a, egative
7b. SDR -1605
A -1102
oved to approve A -1099, making the findings that
e grading is less than was previously proposed,
the units are relatively the same size as other
he Village closeby. She added that the bulk of
gated by the fact that the lot is secluded. She
opinion the bulkiest portion of the units does
ne another, which will reduce the perceived
he lot. She stated that the approval is per the
added condition that there will be a 3 ft.
e area west of the driveway and the emergency
Harris seconded the motion, which was carried
J.
0
Page 3
Declaration SD -1602 Tom and Ann Copenhagen
-Tom and Ann Copenhagen, Request for Tentative Building
Site Approval for a three (3) lot subdivision of a 14
acre site with a average slope of 31%, and Request
for Design Revie Approval for a new, two- story, single
family residence n lot B in the NHR zoning district at
14440 Pike Road; ontinued from July 24, 1985 (to be
continued to August 28, 1985)
Declaration SDR -1605 George Hwang
George Hwang, Request for Building Site and Design
Review Approvals for a new, two -story single family
dwelling which exceeds the 6200 sq. ft. standard and
is over 24 ft. in height, on a greater than 10% slope
at 19288 Bainter Avenue in an unincorporated area of
Santa Clara County to be annexed to the City and pre
zoned HC -RD continued from July 24, 1985
Staff explained the proposal, recommending approval of the Building Site
and denial of the Design Review, having been unable to make the
findings. They noted that the City Council will be acting on the
annexation to the City at their next meeting. Staff indicated that they
had received new plans from the applicant on Friday, which show that the
house has been moved. They commented that it now has a rear yard
setback of 98 ft. vs. 52 ft., and the grading was minimized somewhat.
They added that they still believe that the impervious coverage is over
the 15,000 sq. ft. allowed, but they believe that it can be brought down
to the requirement. They indicated that the applicant's figures now
show the square footage to be 7108 sq. ft., and the Staff's calculations
show 7546 sq. ft.
The public hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m.
The City Attorney explained that the annexation has nothing to do with
the nature of the development; it would simply incorporate the property
into the City boundaries. He added that the annexation is a technical
function of the Council, and there will be no public hearing conducted
on it. He commented that the development of the site, however, is the
subject of this hearing.
Planning Commission Page
Minutes Meeting 8/14/85
SDR -1605 and A -1102
William Young, representing the applicant, discussed the revised plan.
He indicated that the greenhouse is now a trellis, and explained the
changes made to the plan. He showed a model of the revised plan,
explaining the contours and grading. Mr. Young submitted letters in
support of the proposal.
Wanda Alexandra stated that she was not here to protest a house on the
property; however, she would like to ask for a delay in any decision
until all the facts are known and considered relative to the total
proposal. She commented that she feels the proceeding is out of order
because the property is not now in the City. She indicated that she
feels that annexation is a very serious matter in this application, and
asked if environmental consideration had been given to the application.
Staff explained that essentially the annexation will be categorically
exempt under CEQA provisions. The City Attorney commented that the
annexation is proceeding under a special section of the Government Code
as it relates exclusively to Santa Clara County.
Ms. Alexandra stated that she believes that there is an EIR required
before the process can proceed, and will look into that thoroughly. She
added that this kind of annexation is contrary to the spirit of the
County and Saratoga's General Plans and the concept of an urban service
area. She commented that this will be pushing into a very unstable
area, citing a landslide in the area. She asked who would be liable
when a dangerous situation results. She asked that the Commission not
make a decision tonight, but wait until this matter can be reviewed
thoroughly.
Arthur Siemens, Woodbury Drive, stated that he feels this is
annexation. He commented that this property is not contiguous
Saratoga, but is really an island. He spoke against the size of the
home and the location, stating that it should be moved another 50 ft.
down the hill. He expressed his concern regarding the slope and the
runoff. He also commented that plantings should be restricted so as not
to obstruct the neighbors' views.
Staff clarified that the property is contiguous to the City of Saratoga
and is not separated from the City by an incorporated area.
Fran Lawrenson stated that she lives down the hill from this house and
would be catching the water. She expressed concern about the unstable
earth and the removal of it and type of excavation necessary for the
building of this home.
Dr. Richard Sogg, 19262 Hidden Hill Road, spoke in opposition to the
grading and discussed the shifting of the hill.
Mel Wright stated that his property backs up to the easement road. He
expressed concern relative to the drainage. He submitted a letter from
Mrs. Joyce Consoli expressing her concerns.
Suzanne Shankle, Ravine Road, asked about the location of the pool. Mr.
Young explained the changes to her that have been made in the plan. She
indicated that she still does not feel good about the size of this very
large house, and does not feel it is appropriate because of the grading
and weakening of the hillside.
Diane Jefferson, 15895 Ravine Road, expressed concern about the
excavation and the unstable hills.
Bill Robson, Ravine Road, stated that he does not object to a home on
this property; however, he does object to the size, bulk and facad
this structure relative to the rest of the neighborhood. He expre
concern about the grading, commenting on the fragile condition of e
land.
Planning Commission Page 5
Minutes Meeting 8/14/85
SDR -1605 and A -1102
Discussion followed on the geology of the site. Chairman Peterson
stated that he is absolutely satisfied that Saratoga is on the leading
edge of doing the right things to mitigate the concerns expressed.
Dave Call stated that he is involved with the Styblo property, which
will be most impacted by this development. He expressed concern that if
this property is not handled properly it will decrease the value of the
Styblo property. He submitted a topo map of the property, indicating
that there is only one area where a home can be built. Mr. Call noted
that the proposed house has now been moved closer to that site and
suggested that it be moved back to the location where it was originally.
Mrs. Styblo expressed concern about the the fact that the proposed home
is now so close to her building site.
Mr. Young discussed options that could be used on the Styblo property.
He also addressed the drainage, stating that the water should be in a
conduit and they have an easement that takes it down to Redberry. He
stated that whatever proper engineering solution is required for
drainage problems, they will be incorporated and executed. He indicated
that they would be doing more testing on the soil at the time of
construction, and they will be consulting the City Geologist at that
time. Mr. Young discussed the grading on the site.
Discussion followed on the stability of the property. Staff noted that
there is a Condition III -A.1 requiring the geology per the City
Geologist's letters. Commissioner pines expressed his concern regarding
the stability. Commissioner Schaefer commented that the stability can
be dealt with through the City Geologist's comments and Mrs. Young's
efforts. She stated that she would be willing to consider approving
this in the new location because she feels the setbacks are appropriate.
She indicated that her only concern is the size of the home, and she
questioned the size of the chimney.
Commissioner Pines commented that he feels this is essentially a one
story house, and he feels that the landscaping will break up the sense
of bulk. He stated that he thinks that because of the way you look up
at the house, and because the two wings step back, it breaks up the
perception of bulk.
The conditions for the road improvement were discussed. Staff explained
that the easement is 16 feet.
Commissioner J. Harris commented that she feels this house is too big
Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J.
Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
At Commissioner Burger's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that he does
not believe that these proceedings are out of order. He commented that
any approval would be conditioned upon the property being annexed. He
added that the City views the annexation more as a formality, mainly
because the applicant is here because the County has insisted that they
be annexed. He explained that when there is a single lot such as this,
contiguous to the City, which is within our urban service area and the
owner wants to develop, it has been the practice of the County to tell
him to annex to the City first. He added that the lot has already been
prezoned by the City. He commented that the annexation will be based
upon certain findings, but they do not relate necessarily to the
development and the concerns raised by the neighbors this evening.
Staff explained that the County has a policy that within the urban
service area, if somebody wants to develop and they are contiguous with
the City, they need to come to the City first. The City then either has
to annex them or waive the rights to annexation. They added that if.the
City waives the rights then the County would let the applicant develop
within the County. The standards of developing in the City and in the
County were discussed.
Planning Commission
Minutes Meeting 8/14/85
Page 6
Break 10:00 10:15 p.m.
8a. Negative Declaration SD -1606 Joseph L. Teresi
8b. SD -1606 Joseph L. Teresi, Request for Tentative Subdivision
8c. A -1114 Approval and Design Review Approval for 21 multi-
family dwelling units near the southeast corner of
Bucknall and Saratoga Avenues, in the R M -5000 PC
zoning district
Staff gave the history of the project and explained the current
proposal. The access was discussed. Commissioner Schaefer commented
that she feels there is a need for a play area for children. The public
hearing was opened at 10:19 p.m.
Ken Riding, of A -M Company, gave a presentation on the project.
discussed the changes made, stating that they have tried to comply wl
everything discussed at the study session. He discussed the Staff
Report conditions, and Mr. Riding was asked to work with the City office
SDR -1605 and A -1102
for the steepness of the hill and she will vote against it.
Chairman Peterson noted the concern regarding drainage and slides. He
stated that he feels that if the City Geologist has said that he thinks
the concerns can be mitigated, he would have to agree. He commented
that, relative to the size, since there is 3 -1/2 acres of land, he could
support 10% above the 6200 sq. ft., or something in the 7000 sq. ft.
range.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR--
1605. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously 5 -0.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve SDR -1605, per the Staf Report dated
August 1, 1985 and Exhibit B -1, changing Condition II -F to read:
"Construct an access road 14 ft. wide with 1 ft. shoulders, and
inserting the dates of July 10, 1985 and July 19, 1985 as the City
Geologist's letters. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was
carried 4 -1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve A 1102, making the following
findings: #1 Interference with the views is not unreasonable as the
house has been moved down the slope, and therefore the pad height has
been reduced. #2 The natural landscape has been preserved by the
saving of the two large pine trees, and given the difficulty with the
geology, the driveway placement is perhaps done the best way possible in
order to minimize the impact on the land. #3 and #4 These would be
made jointly by adding a condition that the home be no larger than 7000
sq. ft. per Staff calculation, and that the impervious coverage
exceed 15,000 sq. ft. She explained that by adding those conditions
would be able to make the findings. Commissioner Pines seconded t
motion. The motion was carried 4 -1, with Commissioner J. Harris
dissenting.
Commissioner Schaefer suggested that a condition be added that the
height of the trees planted behind the home not exceed the height of the
house. Commissioner Burger amended her motion to add to Condition #5,
"The height of the trees planted along the southern property line of the
home are not to exceed the height of the roof at maturity."
Commissioner Pines pointed out that the ground behind the house is
higher than the house. He stated that he feels that it should be
conditioned by intent rather than by height. There was a consensus to
that effect, and Commissioner Pines seconded the amendment. The amended
motion was carried 4 -1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting. She
stated that she voted no because of the size of the home and the
incompatibility with the homes surrounding it. The appeal period was
noted.
RICHARD L. SDGG, M. D.
281 EAST HAMILTON AVE.
CAMPEIELL, CALIF. 95008
TELEPHONE 378 -1833
OPHTHALMOLOGY ANO NEURO.OPHTHALMOLOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2 August 1985
City of Saratova Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Sirs:
rc C:Z:1'vzip
A U C o 5 1985
re: Item of Discussion A. SDR -1605
A -1102
for Committee of the Whole Meeting
6 August 1985
I live at 19262 Hidden Hill Road, Los Gatos
in a 70 year -old home, formerly part of
the Kennedy estate, which immediately bounds
the Hwang tract. I am concerned about inappro-
priate development of the hillsite, both
from the point of view of potential deteriora-
tion of a somewhat unstable hill (D.S. class-
ification) and also from the point of esthe-
tics.
A variance to building on a greater- than -10%
slope, and a construction of a greater than 24
foot high home with greater than 6200 square
feet to me seems not in keeping with the
general style of the homes in the vicinity
at best, and at worst may contribute to
geologic problems which could endanger the
physical well -being of the homes (including
mine) in the vicinity.
Therefore I wish to strongly condemn the Request
for Building Site and Design Review Approval,
and feel that the parcel should not be
annexed to the City of Saratoga.
Thank you. Sincer-
c‘/
5/LeicC)
L iL 6 1LY
Lth,44_644-ci, ji Qt.() Cr-Lltr 61-46
414 ((--icada ttizz az,1
zaz ttze-car}
A tteuz
IizaL
Joyce Consoli Consultations
19370 REDBERRY DR.
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95030
(408) 354-6150
tat /62-
73-e ta)
/3 at /ci?„5"---
3Pra-udoS
41-110
C t ae-c.efy_6/( -0421-4a:etret
azz(
p _e_tec
,-.401,‘446iLJ
/e/ z-44-1.1 gezz.
ae .,4_,
L72
Dear Commissioners:
o
r
O
o 4)
U j
M ro
Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga, CA 95070
Arthur J. Slemmons
19655 Redberry Drive
Los Gatos, California 95030
41G 8 198:
August 8, 1985 '71U^1T
The undersigned have lived at 19655 Redberry Dr. for 30 years
and object to the proposed annexation and proposed building
plans on the Hwang property off Bainter Avenue.
The Lauer property and proposed Hwang annexation are "spot
annexations" in the worst sense. Although the map shows
them contiguous to Saratoga, they are separated by the San
Tomas Aquinas Creek. They are only accessible to Saratoga
around the creek on Austin Way and Bainter Avenue over a
distance of 4 mile. They would constitute an "island 4 mile
offshore" from Saratoga from a practical standpoint of providing
city services.
The monstrously large, 7,854 square foot, house (11 feet high
on the north elevation) will have an excellent view of the
many, surrounding single story ranch style houses along the
crest above Redberry Drive. It will have an excellent view
of the Los Gatos- Saratoga Highway. Needless to say, many
people will also have an excellent view of this enormous and
highly visible house at the proposed elevation. The site
could be lowered by 100 feet and the view of the valley, as
well as the surrounding neighbors and highway would still be
spectacular from this enormous house.
I am deeply concerned over the concentration of a necessarily
very large amount of runoff from the proposed construction.
Downhill neighbors may well end up suing Saratoga in the
next 10 to 20 years over resulting flood damage.
The owner proposes a very un- neighborly structure on a 3.39
acre lot that will be as close as 52 feet from the lot line
at the crest of the hill next to an existing, single story
home that now is quite low and enjoys the spectacular view.
The corner of the proposed structure will be only about 2
feet below this crest 52 feet away. If a 29 foot roof line
is used, the roof will be 27 feet above the crest. The
existing single story house's floor level is about 3 feet above
grade, or 24 feet below the roofline. This will mean the roof
line of the proposed structure will be about 20 feet above
the eyelevel of neighbors sitting in the present structure's
dining room that now enjoys a beautiful view of the valley.
Summary
It is our recommendation that Saratoga:
1. Deny the spot annexation of the Hwang property.
2. Deny the construction of so large a structure on this
highly visible lot.
3. Deny excessive impervious coverage that will cause
runoff.
4. Require the top -most part of any structures be no
higher than a 10 degree slope from the upper -most
crest of the upper lot lines. (The owner may decide
on a single story ranch style house.
5. Provide similar height limitations to any plantings
on the property.
6.Follow recommendations of your staff to deny approval
of this proposal.
7. Strongly urge the Saratoga City Council to both deny
annexation and recommend to the county against con-
struction of such a large structure in Saratoga's
Sphere of Influence.
Zd&
Art ur J. Slemmons
July 10,1985
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
RE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PARCEL
OFF BAINTER AVENUE, BY
GEORGE HWANG
My residence address is 16303 Ravine Road and borders the proposed
development of adjacent property by George Hwang. Having seen the
plans for the proposed project, I find the location, being fifty (50)
feet from my house, quite disturbing and objectionable.
This letter will serve to register protest against the location,
height and size of the proposed building. As planned, the structure
will block my view, thus decreasing the value of my home /property. I
have been advised by real estate persons, familiar with my area of Los
Gatos, that the desirability of my property will be substantially
reduced by this building plan of Mr. Hwang's.
There are many other locations on his property (over 3.5 acres) that
he can build wi -thout being intrusive.
Please deny the Hwang proposal as inappropriate for our area.
Sincerely,
aca---C-Q-- 6- laati.126
Charles G. Shankle, Jr.
AUG 8, 1985
15879 RAVINE ROAD, LOS GATOS, CA. 95030
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF SARATOGA CITY HALL,
SARATOGA, CA, 95070
HONORABLE COMMISSION AND STAFF:
AS THE OWNER OF PROPERTY AFFECTED BY THE WHANG PROJECT,
I AM PROTESTING THE LOCATION, EXORBITANT SIZE AND
INAPPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND IMPERVIOUS
COVERAGE.
I AM REQUESTING DELAY OF THE FINAL DECISION ON THE PROJECT
BECAUSE I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SOME CRITICAL
INFORMATION PRESENTED AT THE STUDY MEETING ON AUGUST 6 WAS IN
ERROR. FURTHERMORE, SEVERAL NEIGHBORS MOST AFFECTED BY SUCH
BUILDING ARE AWAY ON HOLIDAY AND WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO
EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ON AUGUST 14.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ANNEXATION REQUIRED FOR THIS
PROJECT WOULD BE SPOT ANNEXATION WHICH IS ILLEGAL. THIS IS A
SERIOUS MATTER WHICH WE HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER.
PLEASE DELAY ANY DECISIONS REGARDING THIS PROJECT FOR AT
LEAST ONE MONTH Td ALLOW TIME FOR FACT FINDING AND RESEARCH
REGARDING ACCUR• AND LICATIONS OF THE WHANG PROPOSAL.
ANDA B NiER
Exoci 'a \535
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
August 1, 1985
To Whom It May Concern
We have reviewed the plans of the proposed dwelling on Bainter Ave,
previously owned by Mr. Hurlburt,to be built by Mr William Young. Pleased be
advised that We are in approval of these plans.
Sincerely,
Wilf d J. oude
Dorothy Jl oude
19292 Bainter Ave.
Subject: SDR -1605, :A1102 (Bainter 1985
:Request for Continuance
We have Just learned yesterday, from neighbors, that
there is a hearing tonight to approve or disprove
a- large
building project on the property adjoining 'ours Section
13A Point 7 (B) of Ordinance NS-3-54 requires that we
receive not less than 10 nor more than 30 calendar days_
notice.
It ._is aiso :rumored that part of a building on our
property is to be removed. Prior to purchasing the propert
we';checked: with the Saratoga Planning Department and they
assured us that the building would never be jeopardized.
We hereby request an extension "or denial of the above
referenced project due to the fact that we received
prior notification.
To:
City Council
,City,;of Saratoga
From: Mr. Mrs. John Stannard
September i8, 1985
John Cathy Stannard
19280 Bainter Ave;
Los Gatos, ,CA
Saratoga City Council
Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Council Members:
Arthur J. Slemmons
19655 Redberry Drive
Los Gatos, California 95030
September 12, 1985
The citizens of Saratoga deserve well thought -out
plans for both zoning and annexation. "Spot Annexation"
and "Spot Zoning" without adequate planning for either are
the opposite of good government.
Subject: Denial of Annexation and Denial of Design Approval
of the Hwang Property
The city of Saratoga can do better than re -zone or spot
annex at the whim or convenience of a land developer or land-
owner and can do long -term harm to the taxpayers of Saratoga
for such un- planned and precipitate actions.
The undersigned therefore urge that the Saratoga City
Council deny the proposed spot annexation of the Hwang property
on the 32% slope mountainside above Bainter Avenue.
Varience for Excessive slope and Cut and Fill
We have heard many times that Saratoga is stricter than
the County for approving construction. The only reason the
builder and landowner are before the Saratoga Planning Commission
and Saratoga City Council is the County's General Plan (Section
E; Constructed Environment, p. 9) specifically states:
"Building sites and potential access must
not be on land greater than 30% slope."
The proposed building site is on a 32% slope. Further, the
above section of the County's General Plan also prohibits
To give you an idea of the excessive cutting and filling for
the proposed building, the building will require a cut of
2250 cubic yards (about 375 truck loads) and a fill of 600
cubic yards (about 100 truck loads).
Summary
"Excessive cuts and fills
The reason the builder and landowner are before you at
all is because they believe you will be more lenient than the
County. The Saratoga Planning Commission has already proven
them correct in this assumption and this is why we are appealing
their action to allow the proposed large building on this high
slope site.
The reason they want to be annexed into Saratoga is so
they can make this more lenient decision possible by being under
Saratoga's jurisdiction.
We oppose the proposed building approval and spot annex-
ation without adequate planning as being a disservice to the
citizens and taxpayers of Saratoga and your neighbors.
Very truly yo rs,
Slemmons
Margaret B Slemmons
2
E skyk
1
CARL L. DIERKES ASSOCIATES
BOX 495
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95071
TO: City of Saratoga, Planning Department
Re: 19288 Bainter Avenue, Saratoga, CA
July 31, 1985
Car -rkes
19 7. .ainter Avenue
Sa :toga, CA
I have reviewed the plans of the proposed home at 19288 Bainter
Avenue, Saratoga, CA to be built for Mr. and Mrs. George Hwang by
William Young, builder.
I support the project as presently designed and have no objections
whatsoever.
AGENDA BITT• NO.
E 9/9/85 (9/18/85)
DFi'A: Community Development
SUBJECT:
Issue Summary
Recommendation
Fiscal Impacts
Reversion to Acreage of three lots, SDR -1596 C W Associates
(John'Chu) Quito Road and Montpere Way.
The City Council at their regular meeting dated July 17, 1985,
approved a eight (.8) lot subdivision for C and W Associates (John
Chu):. The approval of this subdivision included the condition
that the applicant.f.ile for a reversion to. acreage of the
existing 3 -lot subdivision prior to Final Map Approval.
This application satisfies that condition.
1. Conduct a public hearing on reversion to acreage.
2. Determine the merits of the request.
3. Staff recommends approval of Reversion to Acreage subject
to the appropriate findings of Section 66499.16 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
None
Council Action
9/18: Approved by Resolution 2274.
CITY OF SARATOGA
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Proposed Parcel Map.
2. Staff Report dated 5/22/85
3. Chapter 6, of the Subdivision Map Act relating to
Reversion to Acreage,
4. Resolution
Initial:
Dept. Hd. P
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
44 58'43"W
75.08 i
-18 WIOF PSDE
7 3 P5 DE
TO BE ELIMINAtS
20' INGRESS EGRESS
J EASEMENT AND PSE 1 ee
1R4 t .3 PSDE TO BE ELIMINATED 11
TO BE ELIMINATED Slj D'6.
I•'r 10 PEE 4247 A
10` WIDE P5E
M N'it0' E 126.10
70 BE ELIMINATED
SEWER EASEME.
PER 2322 0.8. PG.`.,G7
AND 8K. 8281, O.R. PG. D
PROPERTY LINE
TO BE ELIMINATED 'y4�
t%
SET WITNESS PIPE
AT INTERSECTION Of
S.S.E AND LOT LINE
25' WIDE P5E TO BE ELIMINATED
rN1t 26 w (RI
PROPERTY 1400
..0 BE ELIMINATED
2s
NMAO'E 4318043
I0' SEWER
EASEMENT
PER BK 5701
OR. PG 71
01
LANDS OF
MEEK
FD. MONUMENT BOIL
NAIL r w1TNOUTMONUMENT RE WAY
Ire. N•EC—
MAXIM
LANDS OF
GRAVES
LANDS OF
GRAVES
N 4R M' 1
74.2E
t
14
LANDS OF
SLACHLAND
M
LANDS OF
McLEAN
s
SCVWD
EASEMENT PER
OK. E 033. O.R.. 9
PG. PC
M Fo' K E
30.25
LANDS OF
BOWERMAN
41 SET WITH MfE
MPE BEARSN A0' E
15.08 FROM NW CO
LANDS OF
ANSOK
TRACT No. 1866
LANDS OF
BROYLES
LANDS OF
LEANDRES
LANDS OF
ALLEN
PARCEL MAP
BEING A REVERSION TO 800660E OF L075 A, 8, AND C
OF LANDS OF 1808400, RECORDED IN BOOK 437 OF
MAPS, PAGES 2-28 AND LYING ENTIRELY WITHIN THE C171
OF 588620GA, CALIFORNIA AND BEING A PORTION OF
OUITO RANCHO, SANTA CLARA 730571, CALIFORNIA.
EncinEaone
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
CONSTRUCTION
CUPERTINO, CA 4408) 257.6452
8` _.'J�
8`. 32'02
E 54 45'56"
175'48'53" 32.0G 98.1
36'35'11" 235.00 150.06
(36`15'02" 235.00 748.68)
9
APN: 403 -24 -5, 6 7
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
*Revised: 7/17/85 City Council Meeting o Sarptogo
AO
*Revised: 5 /29 /85APPROVED BY:
Date: 5/16 /ELATE:
Commission Meeting: 5 122 18IT.IALS:
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SD,:-1596, 13744 Quito Road
APPLICANT: John Chu
OWNER: The Sumitomo Bank of California.
ACTION REQUESTED: Grant Tentative Map Approval for a 10 lot subdivision'.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final Map Approval, Design Review and
Building Permits required. Reversion to acreage of previously approved map.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for
this project.
ZONING: R- 1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium
Density- Single Family
(M -10)
EXISTING LAND USE: One single family dwelling and accessory structures.
(vacant)
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential to the south and west;
P.G.& E. easement and S.P.R.R. to the northeast.
PARCEL SIZE: 4.27 Acres
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Gentle AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 4.423%
NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: The site is bordered by Wildcat Creek along
the western edge of the property. Oak, maple and fruit and nut trees on
site.
PROJECT HISTORY: The City Council granted.Final Map Approval (SDR-1342) for
e three (3) lot subdivison on the site at its meeting of'November 22,'1978.
The owner of the site at that time never pursued the project and has since
sold it. This existing map must be reverted to, acreage prior.. to:
recordation of any new final map.
.At the time of that previous map recordation, the easements for Santa Clara
Valley Water District (S.C.V.W.D.) were established on the site.
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1596; Chu(Sumitomo Bank), Quito Rd.
SUBDIVISION ISSUES:
5/16/85
Page 2
The lots proposed in this subdivsion meet minimum standards for lot width,
depth and size. Five of these lots (lots 5 through 9) will be
substantially constrained in development by .existing and proposed
S.C.V.W.D. easements.
According to S.C.V.W.D., 75% of Lot 5 is covered by their easement which is
not correctly shown on the map. Unless this easement is changed, Lot 5
will not be a buildable site and will have to be deleted from the map.
S.C.V.W.D. has also required that the proposed cul-de -sac be located
entirely outside of the easement along Wildcat Creek. The cul -de -sac will
have to be shortened and this will affect the access to Lots 4 and 5. This
problem could be dealt with by having these lots share a common access and
driveway.
Total cul -de -sac length is over 690 ft. (measured to centerline of
Ravenwood Drive) so an emergency or secondary access is required. The
applicant proposes an emergency access using the S.C.V.W.D. and Sanitation
District easement to connect the end of the cul -de -sac to Quito Road
through Lot 5.
S.C.V.W.D. has proposed a potential requirement that the 30 ft. wide high
pressure pipeline easement running through Lots 6 through 10 be expanded to
prevent excessive loads on this pipeline. This could make Lot 8 difficult
to develop since it is a very narrow building site. However, even with
this easement expansion, an over 3,000 sq. ft. single story structure could
be built on the site. Lot 6 has an unusual shape and will probably require
an equally unusual building design.
A large almond and a large walnut tree will have to be removed to
accomodate the proposed cul -de -sac. Since the cul -de -sac must be shortened
to stay out of the S.C.V.W.D. easement, a 20" oak originally in the bulb of
the proposed cul -de -sac can be preserved. The remaining trees on the site
can be preserved. The 18" oak on Lot 5 can be preserved if Lots 4 and 5
share a common driveway and the emergency access road also uses this
driveway.
Lots 1, 2 and 10 have the potential to create the greatest impact on the
adjacent residents to the south. Staff has recommended restrictions on pad
elevations and structure heights to prevent adverse impacts.
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.
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1596; Chu(Sumitomo Bank), Quito Rd.
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
5/16/85
Page 3
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of
Santa. Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this
project, if approved under this application. Said determination date:
5/8/85.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SD -1596
(Exhibit "B" filed 4/8/85) subject to the following conditions:
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance
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 at the time of
final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regu-
lations 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.
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. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft.
Half- Street on Montpere Way.
D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements,
as required.
E. Improve Montpere Way to City Standards including the following:
1. Designed Structural Section 15 ft. between centerline and
flowline.
2. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (V -24).
3. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities.
F. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 50 ft.
Half- Street on Quito Road.
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1596; Chu(Sumitomo Bank), Quito Rd.
DIA G. Improve Quito Road to City Standards, including the following:
DIA
DIA
1. Designed structural section 40 ft. between centerline and
flowline.
2. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (V -24).
H. 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.
I. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using
double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate
base from Quito Road to Montpere Way..
Note: a) The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
b) The minimum vertical clearance above road surface
shall be 15 ft.
c) Bridges and other roadway structures shall be de-
signed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
d) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use
of culverts and roadside ditches.
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 Quito Road from lots.
N. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
0. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements
2. Storm Drain Construction
3. Access Road Construction
5/16/85
Page 4
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1596; Chu(Sumitomo Bank), Quito Rd.
P. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improve-
ment Plans.
Q. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to
be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
R. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required
improvements marked "DIA
S. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
for:
1. Soils
2. Foundation
5/16/85
Page 5
B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to build-
ing 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 ft. or higher.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be
removed.
5. Erosion control measures.
6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with
requirements of County Sanitation Dist. No. 4 as outlined in
letter dated 4/25/85.
B. Improvement plans to be submitted to the district for review and
approval.
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1596; Chu(Sumitomo), Quito Road
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT
Si/6/8S
Page 6
A. A fire hydrant shall be installed and accepted prior to issuance
Of any building permit. Contact should be made with the water
company as soon as possible to eliminate engineering delays.
8: Provide overhead clearance of i5 ft. over the road or driveway.
All tree limbs, wires, etc., shall be removed.
C. Emergency access road shall be provided because cul -de -sac is
longer than 400 ft.
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 Company.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. The proposed cul -de -sac shall not encroach into any portion of
any district right of-way.
No structures, pools, fences, gates, or major landscaping shall
be contained in the S.C.V.W.O. 30 ft. easement along the northern
portion of the site. Minor landscaping may be permitted if
approved by the district through its permit process.
C. The exact location of the 84 inch high pressure west pipeline
centerline shall be located in the field and shown on the
Tentative Map.
D.T. The structures on Lots adjacent to Santa Clara Valley Water
Dist. easement shall be setback from 7 to 16 feet from the SCVWD
easement line as shown on the plan attached to the district's
letter dated May 8, 1985. An easement covering this area shall
be transferred to the district.
OR
2. Deep building foundations shall be designed so that no loads are
transferred to the 84 inch pipe and no damage would occur to the
buildings if the pipe is repaired for those portions of the
structure within the additional easement in D.I. above.
Foundation plans must be submitted for SCVWD review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
E., The tentative and final map shall note that an 84 inch high
pressure pipeline is located in the easement and that no
structures of any kind, fences, gates or any other blockage can
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1596; Chu(Sumitomo Bank), Quito Road
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION
5/166/65
Page 7
be allowed in this easement. This information shall also be
recorded on deeds so that future owners are aware of these
requirements.
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 Planning Division to evacuate the
potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall pro-
vide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /build-
ing site.
C. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances. The existing healthy pepper trees located near the
southern boundary line of the subdivision shall be preserved.
D. Applicant shall file a reversion to acreage for the existing
three (3) lot subdivision prior to Final Map Approval.
E. The finished pad elevations for lots adjacent to the subdivision
to the south shall be at the same level or lower than those
existing finished pads.
F. All trees that will remain on site shall be protected during
construction. Tree protection methodology shall be reviewed and
approved by the City tree specialist prior to issuance of
building permits. In general, no impervious surface shall be
allowed closer than 6 -10 ft. from an existing tree.
6- Lots 4 and 5 shelf use a eemmon driveway 4o preserve the 46= omit
on Lot 5-
H. An emergency access road shall connect the cul -de -sac to Quito
Road using the easement on Eot 5 end common driveway for Eots 4
end 5 Treatment of the emergency access road and gates shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to Final
Map Approval.
I. The existing S.C.V.W.D. easement on Lot 4 (previously Lot 5 on
Exhibit "6 shall be altered as shown on the Tentative Map prior
to Final Map Approval. Failing this, the applicant must remove
Lot 4 from the map with map alterations subject to Planning
Commission review and approval. Adequate access to, and building
area for, Lot 4 must be proven prior to Final Map Approval.
J. The applicant shall establish CC &R's, to be recorded with the
Final Map, covering the following:
APPROVED:
MF/dsc
.P.C. Agenda: 5/22/S5
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1596; Chu(Sumitomo Sank), Quito Rd.
5/16185
Page 8
1. No structures, pools, fences, gates or major Landscaping
shall be placed within the Santa Clara Valley. District
S.C.V.W.D.) easements particularly on Lots 5 (Lot 6, Exhibit
"8 through 8.
2. All landscaping plans for the areas within S.C.V.W.D.
easements shall be reviewed and approved by S.C.V.W.D. prior
to installation or issuance of a S.C.V.W.D. permit.
3. All Lots fronting on the existing Montpere subdivision shall
be limited to single story structures no highere than 18 ft.
4. Structures on Lots 5 (Lot 6, Exhibit "8 through 8 (Lot 10,
Exhibit "8 shall comply with Condition VII.D. of this staff
report.
5. Eefs 3 end 4 shell be etno +e story or stngie story to
eppeerence when stewed from the reer feo;xth-3-
K. The CC &R's listed above shall be recorded on the deed for each
lot and each homeowner shall be informed of these CC &R's prior to
any purchase. These CC &R's shall be reviewed and approved by
Staff prior to Final Map Approval.
L. Replacement trees, in addition to the street trees required by
the Subdivision Ordinance, shall be installed to replace those
trees over 12" in diameter that will be removed as a result of
construction. Landscaping plans showing these trees and the
street trees shall be submitted for Staff review and approval
prior to issuance of any building permits. Landscaping shall be
installed prior to final inspection /occupancy.
M. Lots 5 through 9 as shown on Exhibit "8 -1" shall be reduced to
four (4) lots for a total of 8 lots in the subdivision (per
original street layout Configuration A). Map revisions showing
this shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to
Final Map Approval.
Michel Flores
Planner
to the legislative body, and if no such claims have been recorded, the
security shall be released in full.
Such release shall not apply to any required guarantee and warranty
period nor to the amount of the security deemed necessary by the local
agency for such guarantee and warranty period nor to costs and reasonable
expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
The legislative body may authorize any of its public officers or em-
ployees to authorize release or reduction of the security in accordance with
the conditions hereinabove set forth and in accordance with such rules as it
may prescribe.
[Amended, Chapter 1195, Statutes of 19831
66499.8. Release of security involving another agency
In all cases where the performance of the obligation for which the
security is required is subject to the approval of another agency, the local
agency shall not release the security until the obligation is performed to the
satisfaction of such other agency. Such agency shall have two months after
completion of the performance of the obligation to register its satisfaction or
dissatisfaction. If at the end of that period it has not registered its satisfaction
or dissatisfaction, it shall be conclusively deemed that the performance of
the obligation was done to its satisfaction.
66499.9. Limitation of liability upon security
Any liability upon the security given for the faithful performance of any
act or agreement shall be limited to:
(a) The performance of the work covered by the agreement between the
subdivider and the legislative body or the performance of the required act.
(b) The performance of any changes or alterations in such work;
provided, that all such changes or alterations do not exceed 10 percent of
the original estimated cost of the improvement.
(c) The guarantee and warranty of the work, for a period of one year
following completion and acceptance thereof, against any defective work or
labor done or defective materials furnished, in the performance of the
agreement with the legislative body or the performance of the act.
(d) Costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.
66499.10. Recovery method dependent upon form of surety
Where the security is conditioned upon the payment to the contractor,
his subcontractors and to persons furnishing labor, materials or equipment
to them for the improvement or the performance of an act and takes the form
of a deposit of money or negotiable bonds, a suit to recover the amount due
the claimant may be maintained against the holder of such deposit. Where
the security takes the form of a surety bond, or surety bonds, the right of
recovery shall be in a suit against the surety. Where the security takes the
form of an instrument of credit, the cause of action shall be against the
financial institution obligating itself on such instrument of credit.
71
Chapter 6. Reversions and Exclusions
Article 1. Reversion To Acreage
66499.11. Allows for reversion to acreage
Subdivided real property may be reverted to acreage pursuant to the
provisions of this article.
66499.12. Legislative body or owners of record may initiate proceedings
Proceedings for reversion to acreage may be initiated by the legislative
body on its own motion or by petition of all of the owners of record of the
real property within the subdivision.
66499.13. Form of petition
The petition shall be in a form prescribed by the local agency and shall
c ontain the following:
(a) Adequate evidence of title to the real property within the subdivi-
sion.
(b) Sufficient data to enable the legislative body to make all of the
determinations and findings required by this article.
(c) A final map which delineates dedications which will not be vacated
and dedications which are a condition to reversion.
(d) Such other pertinent information as may be required by the local
agency.
66499.14. Fee for processing reversions
The legislative body may establish a fee for processing reversions to
acreage pursuant to this article in an amount which will reimburse the local
agency for all costs incurred in processing such reversion to acreage. Such fee
shall be paid by the owners at the time of filing the petition for reversion to
acreage, or if the proceedings for reversion to acreage are initiated by the
legislative body on its own motion shall be paid by the person or persons
requesting the legislative body to proceed pursuant to this article before
such initiation of proceedings.
66499.15. Public hearing required
A public hearing shall be held on the proposed reversion to acreage.
Notice thereof shall be given in the time and manner provided in Section
66451.3.
66499.16. Necessary findings by legislative body
Subdivided real property may be reverted to acreage only if the
legislative body finds that:
(a) Dedications or offers of dedication to be vacated or abandoned by
the reversion to acreage are unnecessary for present or prospective public
purposes; and
(b) Either.
(1) All owners of an interest in the real property within the subdivision
have consented to reversion; or
(2) None of the improvements required to be made have been made
within two years from the date the final or parcel map was filed for record, or
within the time allowed by agreement for completion of the improvements,
whichever is the later, or
(3) No lots shown on the final map or parcel map have been sold within
five years from the date such map was filed for record.
72
AGENDA BILT, NO. 9'0.13
DATE: 9 /9/85 (9/18/85)
DEPA: Community Development
=MT: Final. Building Site Approval of SDR -1508, OUDEWAAL, Big Basin Way
__L11_
Issue Summary
Recommendation
Fiscal Impacts
Council Action
9/18: Approved.
1. The SDR -1508 is ready for Final Approval
2. All bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to
the City.
3. All requirements for the City and other::agencies have been
met.
Adopt Resolution No. 1508 -2 attached, approving the final
map for SDR 1508. Authorize execution of contracts for
improvement agreement.
None
Exhibits /Attachments
CITY OF SARATOGA
1. Resolution NO. 1508 -02.
2. Report to Planning Commission.
3. Status Report for Building Site Approval.
4. Location Map.
Initial
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1:
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
a
meeting held on the day of 19
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 1508 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Martin Oudewaal
The 0.407 acre Parcel shown as Parcel A on the final
parcel map prepared by West Fall Engineer, and submitted
to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as
one (1) individual building site.
MAYOR
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1508, Martin Oudewaal
(have) (h) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required
items:
Offer of Dedication N/A Date Submitted
Record of Survey or Parcel Map yes Date Submitted 9/4 /6b
Storm Drainage Fee 941.00 Date Submitted 9/4/85 Receipt
All Required Improvement Bonds 1100.00 Date Submitted 9/4/85 Receipt# 84
All Required Inspection Fees 1612.00 Date Submitted 9/4/85 Receipt# 2479
Contract Improvement Agreement yes Date Signed 9/4/85
Park and Recreation Fee N/A Date Submitted N/A Receipt#
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(CCig.gm.) (Final) Building Site Approval for Martin Oudewaal
SDR 1508 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Condition(s) Reason for Non Compliance
Director of Community Development
UMW cts
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: SDR -1508, Martin Oudewaal (Saratoga Real II)
14629 Big Basin Way
Tentative Building Site Approval -1 lot
(Commercial -3 Condominiums)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION HISTORY:
Amended (9/27/83)
Amended (10/28/81)
REQUEST: Amendment to previously approved Tentative Building
Site Approval to reflect 3 condominium units as approved
by the City Council on appeal and request for a one
year extension.
Please see UP -531, attached, for the basic data on this project.
Other details of the project are described in the Design Review
application A -793.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of
the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Sub-
division 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.
DATE: 10/22/81
Commission Meeting: 10/21/81
The original Use Permit (UP -500) for 4 condominium units expired.
The City Council, on appeal, granted UP 531 for 3 units on September
7, 1983. Staff has requested the applicant amend the site approval
to conform to this approval prior to action on his request for a
one year extension.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1508, Oudewaal
and available fiscal and environmental resources.
G. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit
grading and drainage plans to CAL TRANS for review and
approval.
10/22/81
Page 2
A Negative Declaration was prepared and filed with the County
of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental
impact of this project. Said determination date: June 8, 1981.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for
SDR -1508 (Exhibit B filed September 23,1983) subject to the
following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of
Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the sub-
mission 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; sub-
mission of engineered improvement plans for any street
work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regu-
lations and applicable Flood Control regulations and re-
quirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby
made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site ap-
proval 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.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ENGINEERING SERVICES
A. Construct standard driveway approach.
B. Provide adequate sight- distance and remove obstructions
of view as required.
C. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will
change, retard or prevent flow.
D. Convey drainage water to street, storm sewer or water-
course as approved by the Director of Community Development.
E. Obtain encroachment permit from CAL TRANS for work done
within State right of way.
F. Install one (1) Big Basin Way style street light on
Big Basin Way.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1508, Oudewaal
10/22/81
Page 3
H. Replace existing concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk
along Big Basin Way as directed by the Director of
Community Development.
I. All access ways to be a minimum of 18 ft. wide.
J. All access ways, parking areas, and other quasi- public
paved areas are to be surfaced using a minimum of
21/2" A.C. on 6" aggregate base.
K. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining
Final Approval
L. 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).
M. Obtain encroachment permit from Santa Clara Valley
Water District.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
1. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed
professional
a. Geology
b. Soils
c. Foundation
2. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior
to building permit being issued.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits detailed on-site
improvement plans showing the following shall be sub-
mitted to the Department of Community Development for
review and approval:
a. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities)
b. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall,
location, etc.)
c. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or
R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1508, Oudewaal
d. Erosion control measures
10/22/81
Page 4
e. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record data,.location map, north arrow,. sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewer service is available to this project from Big
Basin Way.
B. The sewer within the complex must be a public one with the
necessary grant of a sanitary sewer easement.
C. Applicant's engineer shall submit a grading plan showing a suitable
location for the sewer within the complex for district review and
approval.
D. Upon receipt of the grading plan necessary fees will be determined
and paid to the district:
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
1. Install an automatic fire sprinkler system for the parking garage
and storage rooms in accordance with NFPA pamphlet #13.
2. Provide a 1 hour self closing door for the Parking Garage level
stairway.
3. Provide one portable fire extinguisher with a minimum UL rating of
2- A/10 -B:C for each level. The specific location on each level will
be designated by the Fire Chief. It is recommended that said ex-
tinguishers be installed in break glass cabinets.
4. Provide a fire department hose connection for each level. Hose
connections shall be supplied from the street main and controlled
with an approved shutoff valve. The size and type of thread for
the hose connection will be designated by the Fire Chief. The
specific location for each hose connection will be designated by the
Fire Chief.
5. The entire building shall have an early warning smoke heat
detection system throughout. The signal is to be transmitted
by a telephone dialer co the Fire Station and to be designed
so as to operate 24 hours on standby power. All plans to be
approved by Fire Chief prior to issuance of building permit.
6. Provide emergency lighting for hallways and stairways on
each level as well as the Parking Garage. Said lighting
shall be illuminated when power to the building is dis-
connected.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1508, Oudewaal
7. Fire places shall be maintained with spark arrestors constructed
with heavy wire mesh or other non combustible material with
opening not to exceed one half inch (2').
8. All electric gates shall be approved by the Fire Chief prior to
installation.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. Sewage disposal to be
provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer
to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation District
'No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with
said district to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Erosion protection of the bank shall be provided by the owner prior
to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
B. Right -of -way along creek to be dedicated as shown on map to Santa
Clara Valley Water District and /or City of Saratoga. Owner shall
contact the Real Estate Division regarding transfer of right -of-
way.
C. Owner shall accept all liability for the proposed concrete pad in
the right -of -way.
10/22/81
Page 5
D. Incorporate site drainage into an existing storm drain system.
Design any new outfall into the creek to serve the general area
to minimize the number of future outfalls. Outfall structure
details shall be submitted to the District for review and issuance
of a permit to advertising for construction.
E. Owner shall show any existing well(s) on the plans and inform the
District of their proposed use.
F. A fence at least 42 inches high shall be installed between the
development and top of creek bank. Show details.of any fencing in
the improvement plans.
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 Department to evaluate the potential
for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent
feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportuni-
ties on /in the subdivision /building site.
Report to Planning Commission 10/22/81
SDR -1508, Oudewaal Page 6
C. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right
of -way that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping and irrigation
plans shall be submitted to the Permit Review Department for review
and approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be
installed and established within 90 days of completion of the right
of -way improvements.
D. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement
with the City for those landscaped areas within the public right
of -way. The applicant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a
minimum of one year after which the homeowners association shall
be responsible for maintaining the landscaped areas.
E. A11 individual lot owners shall be required to become members of a
homeowners association for the express purpose of maintaining all
landscaped areas within the public right -of -way. The C.C. R's
of the homeowners association shall be reviewed and approved by
the Permit Review Department, prior to final approval.
F. C.C. R's shall state that the City has the right but not the
duty to enforce the C.C. R's. The C.C. R's shall not be
amended without written consent from the City of Saratoga.
G. A Geotechnical Investigation shall be conducted as described
in the City Geologist's letter dated October 22, 1981. The
results of the investigation shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer and City Geologist prior to issuance
of a building permit.
IX. COMMENTS
Approved:
MF:jd
Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
P.C. Agenda:
*As amended
10/28/81
10/28/81 Planning Commission Meeting
/"N,,z,(
Mic ael Flores
Assistant Planner
LOCATION MAP
SDR 1508
S
AGENDA BILL NO. C
DATE:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
9 -9 -R5 (9- 1R -85) C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Final Approval SDR -1572, Richard Ward
Glasgow Drive (2 lots)
is D
Issue Summary
1. SDR -1572 is ready for final approval
2. All bonds and agrements have been submitted to the City.
3. All requirements for City Departments and other agencies have been met.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 1572 -02 attached approving the final map of SDR -1572
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachnents
1. Resolution No. 1572 -02
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Status Report for Building Site Approval
4. Location Map
Council Action
9/18: Approved.
SECTION 1:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO.1572 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Richard Ward
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
The 0.287 acres and 0.34 acres Parcels shown as
Parcel A and B on Final Parcel Map, prepared
by Kevin Fisher and submitted to the City Engineer,
City of Saratoga, be approved as two (2) individual
building sites.
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
by the following vote:
MAYOR
C
ULt_MW 04 Ungi
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: SDR -1572, V -645, Richard Ward, 20472 Glasgow Drive,
Tentative Building Site Approval 2 lots and Variance for
existing 27.4'rear yard.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of Tentative Building Site Approval and
Grant of Variance for a 27.4' rear yard.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final Building Site Approval and
Design Review Approval for any new residence on Parcel A.
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION
ZONING: R- 1- 12,500
GENERAL PLAN: Medium Density Single Family (M -12,5)
SITE DATA
PARCEL SIZE: Parcel A 12,500 Sq. Ft.
Parcel B 14,103 Sq. Ft.
NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Several significant trees including
a 24" Eucalyptus, 32" Fir, 28" Palm and 4' Pine. The lot is 4 -5'
higher:than the adjacent lot to the north.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2.5%
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
SETBACKS Front 53' Rear 27.4'
Parcel B Left Side 58.3'
Right Side 10'
HEIGHT: Existing Two Story Structure on Parcel B
DATE: 6/6/84
Commission Meeting: 6/13/84
Report to the Plannin
SDR -1572, V -645
STAFF ANALYSIS: The site is part of Tract 4826 which received Final
Approval in 1971. The tentative map for this tract showed two lots
on the subject site. However, it appears that the owner created 1 lot
out of the two on the tentative map,'saving the large older house and
the significant trees on site. The house is not on the City's historical
list but it may have some historical significance. It has a rear
setback of 27.4' where 35' is required (since it is a 2 -story home).
This requires a variance because of the City policy of correcting any
ordinance violations prior to site approval.
The side setback for the home and width of Parcel A are critical for
this application. The following approval is based on a 10' side set-
back for the existing home and a 90' lot width for Parcel A. A
condition is suggested by the Staff Report to measure these two dimensions
in the field prior to Final Map Approval.
Another concern for the site is the build ability of Parcel A given the
location of the trees on the site. On inspection of the site it appears
that the 28" Palm is mislocated on the map. It is closer to the pro-
posed lot line splitting the property. Additionally, the 24" Eucalyptus
and 32" Fir are significant trees. The fir has a spread of approximately
20' in diameter. It will be difficult to locate a residence on the site
without removing at least 1 tree.
VARIANCE FINDINGS: V -645
C
6/6/84
Page 2
1. There is physical hardship associated with the land regarding the
existing home in that it is a main structure already built. It
would be an unnecessary physical hardship to require removal of
the residence since it was in compliance with the ordinances of
the City at incorporation and its impact on the neighbors is minimal.
2. Exceptional circumstances applying to this lot relate to the improvement
and widening of Saratoga- Sunnyvale after the development of the house.
Additionally, the main structure may have some historical significance
within the neighborhood.
3. Requiring removal or relocation of the main structure would be a
denial of common privilege since if the lot were vacant, the costs
and physical hardship of moving the structure would not be incurred.
4. The granting of this variance, would not be a grant of special
privilege since exceptional circumstances exist.
5. The use will not be ..detrimental to the community or injurious to
the properties in the vicinity.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance for the
main structure per the Staff Report and Exhibit "B" dated May 9, 1984.
Report to the Planni "n Commission
SDR -1572, V -645
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: June 5, 1984
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for
SDR -1572 (Exhibit "B-1" filed June 7, 1984) subject to the following
conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
6/6/84
Page 3
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.
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. No direct access allowed on "Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd.'.' from lots.
D. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community
Development for driveway approaches or pipe crossings
of City Street.
E. Comply with any conditions of Cal Trans.
Report to the Plannirj Commission
SDR -1572, V -645
6/6/84
Page 4
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
1. Foundation
B. Bonds required for condition C.
C. Other requirements: Existing structures to be brought to
current Building, Plumbing, Electrical and Mechanical Codes
based on a report by appropriately licensed professional.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance
with requirements of County Sanitation District No. 4 as
outlined in letter dated May 23, 1984.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed
and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk
sewers of the Sanitation_District No. 4. Prior to final
approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district
to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells
to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and
certification.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. Prior to Final Map Approval, the 10' side setback and 90'
width are to be staked in the filed and checked by the
Director of Community Development.
B Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance
of permit. Care is to be taken to preserve the existing
significant trees on site. A deposit fee is to be submitted
so that the City's horticultural specialist can review and
comment on the plans for the Planning Commission Review.
C Prior to issuance of building permits 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 /in the subdivision/
building site.
Report to the Plann( Commission t 6/6/84
SDR -1572, V -645 Page 5
VIII. COMMENTS
APPROVED
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable
City Ordinances.
KK /b j c
P.C. Agenda 6/13/84
4/1 ?-te:A4 cf
Kathy Kerdus
Planner
'.MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1572 Richard Ward
(have) (fix) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 6/1
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required
items:
Offer of Dedication N.A. Date Submitted
RVEiAP i Parcel Map yes Date Submitted
Storm Drainage Fee $1300.00 Date Submitted 6/27/85 Receipt 77 6
All Required Improvement Bonds N.A. Date Submitted Receip
All Required Inspection Fees 200.00 Date Submitted 6/27/85 Receipt #7706
Building Site Approval Agreement N.A. Date Signed
Park and Recreation Fee $2600.00 Date Submitted 6/27/85 Receipt #7706
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
giond €q (Final) Building Site Approval for
SDR- 1572 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Condition(s)
Robert S. Shook
Richard Ward
Reason for Non Compliance
Director of Community Development
:y:�
MINIM III..
IMMO". am
�s-t_t�criw -7ewR
1111111111111101111111
u.si.IpII o
�111111111Ew W 1 /I B RA
l 111 azzAlw
litaloolOks II If, 4, 04 ex
1 0, s v u 2.4* N.
10% woo ow 0 ms s
v. ay.
44 V NI 1 444 90 Ow a
AGENDA BILL NO Initial:
9J�� Dept. Hd.
DATE: 9 -9 -85 (9- 18 -85)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE AND RELEASE. OF MONUMENT BOND
OF TRACT 7495, TRICIA WAY, WILSON DEVELOPMENT
Issue Summary
The public improvements required for the subject tract have been
satisfactorily completed. This "construction acceptance" will
begin the one (1) year maintenance period. All monuments have
been completed for this tract.
Recommendation
Grant "construction acceptance" and release monument bond for
Tract 7495.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits/Attachments
1. Memo describing development and bond
Council Action
9/18: Approved.
CITY OF SARATOGA
C. Atty.
C. Myi
OEUW TV 00
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for Tract 7495
DATE: 7 -30 -85
Name Location: Wilson Development, Inc., Tricia Way
Public Improvements required for Tract 7495
have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the
City Council accept the improvements for construction only.
This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance
period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and
improvement security will remain in full force.
The following information is included for your use:
1. Developer: Wilson Development
Address: 14370 Saratoga Avenue
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
2. Improvement Security:
Type: Cash and Security Bond
Amount: Cash $10,000, Security Bond $95,000
Issuing Company: Amwest Surety Insurance Co.
Address: P. 0. Box 4500
RSS /dsm
Wnn1land Hills, Calif. 91365
Receipt, 14 -Q -C t i- ee.t -e--f #5153
3. Special Remarks: Release Cash Bond of $10,000
Robert 1S Shook
ti T
EOIRANDUM
UMW off
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867- 34 38
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Release of Monument Bond for Tract 7495
Name Location: Tricia Way, Wilson Development
All public street monuments for Tract 7495 have been in-
stalled, verified in writing by the engineer or surveyor and are
acceptable to us. The engineer or surveyor has also verified he
has received payment for placing the monuments.
Therefore, I recommend the City Council approve the release of the
monument bond posted by the developer.
The following information is submitted for your use:
1. Developer: Wilson Development, Inc.
RSS /dsm
Address: 14370 Saratoga Avenue
2. Bond Type:. Security
3. Bond Amount:$10,000
6. Special Remarks:
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
Address: P. 0. Box 4500
4. Bond, C- r- t3 -f or Ree —i-pt 1049627
5. Issuing Company: Amwest Surety Insurance Co.
DATE: 7 -30 -85
Woodland Hills, Calif. 91365
AGENDA BILL NO.
932
DATE: 9/9/85 (9/18/85)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
CITY OF SARATOGA
SUBJECT: Reversion to Acreage of two (2) lots. Bryce L. Reynolds,
Parker Ranch Road, Vista Arroyo Court and Farr Ranch Road
OMB
Issue Suunnaiy
The applicant is requesting that two '(2) contiguous lots, both under his
ownership, be reverted to acreage (become one (1) lot) at the corner of
Parker Ranch Road, Vista Arroyo Court and Farr Ranch Road in the R -1-
40,000 zoning district. All improvements were installed under Parker
Ranch Tract 6528.
Mr. Reynolds wants to construct a small addition to the existing house and
accessory structure on one lot. The gross floor area of all structures on
site will then total 7106 sq. ft. The design review standard for this zon-
ing'.district is 6200 sq. ft. Therefore Mr.'Reynolds wants to revert to
acreage two lots into one so that he can construct a small addition and
accessory structure. The Planning Commission suggested and supports Mr.
Reynold's request.
Recommendation
1. Conduct a public hearing on the reversion to acreage.
2. Determine the merits of the request.
Initial:
Dept. Bd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
None
Fiscal Impacts
3. Staff recommends approval of the reversion to acreage subject to the
appropriate finding of Section 66499.16.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Proposed Parcel Map
2. Chapter 6 of the Subdivision Map Act relating to Reversion to Acreage
3. Letter of request from applicant
4. Resolution
Council Action
9/18: Approved Resolution 2275.
LEGEND
INDICATES 0X151.3/4 IRON PIPE IUNLESS NOTED).
O• INDICATES EXIST. STD. CITY MONUMENT
----DISTINCTIVE BORDER
ALL DISTANCES AND DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND
DECIMALS THEREOF.
THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER INDICATES THE BOUNDARY
OF LAND SUBDIVIDED BY 71115 NAP. THE AREA
WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER IS 2.130 ACRES.
BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE BEARING S 20.44'26" ALONG THE
CENTERLINE VISTA ARROYO CT. AS SHOWN
ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO.6528, THE PARKER
RANCH, FILED IN BOOK 499 OF MAPS, PAGES
55 THRU 41, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS.
DISTINCT IV
BORDER
LOT IS
Tr. 652 8
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA S.S.
ON THIS _DAY OF 1585,
BEFORE ME. THE UNDERSIGNED, A NOTARY PUBLIC IN
ARO FOR SAID COUNTY a 5TATE PERSONALLY APPEARED
0610L1215.0 8 LOVA_L_IMNOLDS WHO PROVED
TO 06 ON THE BA 515 OF SATISFACTORY `VI DENCE TO BE
THE PERSONS WHO EXECUTED THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT
AS OWNER ANO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY ENECUTED
THE SANE. WI INESS 01 HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THE
DAY AND YEAR FIR5T ABOVE WRITTEN. MY COMMISSION
EXPIRES
NOTARY PUBer174 AND FOR SAID COUNTY a STATE
PARCEL R
2.130 AC.
GRACE E. CORY CITY CLERK BY
LOT 18
TR.6526
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PARCEL MAP, BEING A REVERSION
TO ACREAGE WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CRY
OF SARATOGA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY RESOLUTION 140
AT* DULY AUTHORIZED
MEETING HELD ON THE DAY OF 1965
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS IS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF
TRACT N0.6526 AND TRACT 00.8528.
CITY OF SARATOGA 1983.
P RC EL AP
OWNER:
LOVA L. REYNOLDS
TIN ONE SHEE
BEING A REVERSION TO ACREAGE OF
LOT 19, OF TRACT 80.6526, RECORDED IN BOON 14
OF MAPS ,PAGES 23. 07 AND LOT 1•
of Tract No.6529, Ths Parker Ranch
Unit Two, Recorded In Book 499 of
Maps Pages 35 -41 and Lying Entirely
Within the
CITY OF SARATOGA, CA.
JENNINGS MC DERMOTT HEISS,Inc.
civil engineers land planners, son jose
AUG. 19135 BCALE "0 BO'
,S'LIRVFYAR'S AFRTIFICATEI
THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BT K DA INKIER MT DIRECTION
IMO WAS C0MPI LEO PROM
RECORD DATA IN CONFORMANCE 11I10 THE ACQUIREMENTS
OP THE CKDIY1110N NAP ACT AT THE MEDIUM OF
BRYCE REYNOLDS IN AUG. 1989.
1 HE06111 STAt6 THAT THE PARCEL MAP PROCEDURES OF
ML LOCK AGENCY HAVE SEEN COMPLIED VIM AND THAT
THIS NAP 60NF0RM1 TO THE APPROVED TENTATIVE
NM 11 ANY
ROBERT G. Mr OERMOTT L.S. 2734
p•CARAFR'S CERTIFICATFI
101[0 THIS _OAT OF NB5 AT
M IN E006 01 HMS. PASS �T TML l[QKST
01 A06000 G. MC0LAM0TT.
L AU RN[ «t COVNT• 002000 R
OT 0011175
CITY ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE
THIS MAP CONFORMS 5110 THE REQUIREMENTS OF ME
SIWDIYISIDN MIA ACT AHD LOCAL ORDINANCE.
ROBERT S. SHOOK R C.E )4897 BATE
73 W 'SENT DCgRTIFICATEI
ME UNDERSIGNED MEREST CERTIFIES THAT WE ARE
ALL 1M! PARTIES HAVING ANT 800000 TITLE 1
IM 610 TO THE REAL PRO1EATT INCLUDED 911016 THE DISTINCT.
IVE BORDER SHOWN 0108 ME WITHIN MM, THAT YE
AU TM ONLY PERSONS 1601E COITTT11 ARE NECESSARY
010 THAT WE 00 ESEES CORM? /0 THE PREPARATION
ANO 00100001108 or SAID PARCEL MAP, BEING 4
REVERSION TO ACREAGE OF THOSE LANDS WITHIN
THE 015T1NCTIVE BORDER LINE. THIS LOT 10 NOT
RE SUBDIVIOABLE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL
15 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF TRACT NO. 8526.AN0
TRACT N0. 6528.
BRYCE L. REYNOLDS
J.M.H. 2713
0
to the legislative body, and if no such claims have been recorded, the
security shall be released in full.
Such release shall not apply to any required guarantee and warranty
period nor to the amount of the security deemed necessary by the local
agency for such guarantee and warranty period nor to costs and reasonable
expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
The legislative body may authorize any of its public officers or em-
ployees to authorize release or reduction of the security in accordance with
the conditions hereinabove set forth and in accordance with such rules as it
may prescribe.
[Amended, Chapter 1195, Statutes of 19831
66499.8. Release of security involving another agency
In all cases where the performance of the obligation for which the
security is required is subject to the approval of another agency, the local
agency shall not release the security until the obligation is performed to the
satisfaction of such other agency. Such agency shall have two months after
completion of the performance of the obligation to register its satisfaction or
dissatisfaction. If at the end of that period it has not registered its satisfaction
or dissatisfaction, it shall be conclusively deemed that the performance of
the obligation was done to its satisfaction.
66499.9. Limitation of liability upon security
Any liability upon the security given for the faithful performance of any
act or agreement shall be limited to:
(a) The performance of the work covered by the agreement between the
subdivider and the legislative body or the performance of the required act.
(b) The performance of any changes or alterations in such work
provided, that all such changes or alterations do not exceed 10 percent of
the original estimated cost of the improvement.
(c) The guarantee and warranty of the work, for a period of one year
following completion and acceptance thereof, against any defective work or
labor done or defective materials furnished, in the performance of the
agreement with the legislative body or the performance of the act.
(d) Costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.
66499.10. Recovery method dependent upon form of surety
Where the security is conditioned upon the payment to the contractor,
his subcontractors and to persons furnishing labor, materials or equipment
to them for the improvement or the performance of an act and takes the form
of a deposit of money or negotiable bonds, a suit to recover the amount due
the claimant may be maintained against the holder of such deposit. Where
the security takes the form of a surety bond, or surety bonds, the right of
recovery shall be in a suit against the surety. Where the security takes the
form of an instrument of credit, the cause of action shall be against the
financial institution obligating itself on such instrument of credit.
71
Chapter 6. Reversions and Exclusions
Article 1. Reversion To Acreage
66499.11. Allows for reversion to acreage
Subdivided real property may be reverted to acreage pursuant to the
puovisions of this article.
66499.12. legislative body or owners of record may initiate proceedings
Proceedings for reversion to acreage may be initiated by the legislative
body on its own motion or by petition of all of the owners of record of the
real property within the subdivision.
66499.13. Form of petition
The petition shall be in a form prescribed by the local agency and shall
contain the following:
(a) Adequate evidence of title to the real property within the subdivi-
sion.
(b) Sufficient data to enable the legislative body to make all of the
determinations and findings required by this article.
(c) A final map which delineates dedications which will not be vacated
and dedications which are a condition to reversion.
(di Such other pertinent information as may be required by the local
agency.
66499.14. Fee for processing reversions
The legislative body may establish a fee for processing reversions to
acreage pursuant to this article in an amount which will reimburse the local
agency for all costs incurred in processing such reversion to acreage. Such fee
shall be paid by the owners at the time of filing the petition for reversion to
acreage, or if the proceedings for reversion to acreage are initiated by the
legislative body on its own motion shall be paid by the person or persons
requesting the legislative body to proceed pursuant to this article before
such initiation of proceedings.
66499.15. Public hearing required
A public hearing shall be held on the proposed reversion to acreage.
Notice thereof shall be given in the time and manner provided in Section
66451.3.
66499.16. Necessary findings by legislative body
Subdivided real property may be reverted to acreage only if the
legislative body finds that:
(a) Dedications or offers of dedication to be vacated or abandoned by
the reversion to acreage are unnecessary for present or prospective public
purposes; and
(b) Either.
(1) All owners of an interest in the real property within the subdivision
have consented to reversion; or
(2) None of the improvements required to be made have been made
within two years from the date the final or parcel map was filed for record, or
within the time allowed by agreement for completion of the improvements,
whichever is the later, or
(3) No lots shown on the final map or parcel map have been sold within
five years from the date such map was filed for record.
72
Mr. Arjan Idnani
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Reversion to Acreage Lot 19
Tract 6526 and Lot 14
Tract 6528; Parker Ranch Subdivision
Dear Mr. Idnani:
We wish to do a reversion to acreage for the referenced lots in the Parker
Ranch Subdivision. Please schedule us on the September 18 City Council
Meeting if at all possible.
You should have already received under separate cover the necessary materials
from Mr. Bill Heiss.
Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
Bryce Reynolds
September 4, 1985
Bryce L. Reynolds
12182 Parker Ranch Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
RECEIVED
S EP0 6798..
COMMUNITY DEVELOP;,:.,,,
f,
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA REVERTING TO ACREAGE
CERTAIN LOTS IN TRACT 6526 and 6528,
PARKER RANCH UNIT NO. 1 AND 2 AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
WHEREAS, Bryce L. Reynolds is the sole owner of Lots
Nos. 19 and 14 of Tract 6528 and 6526, Parker Ranch Units
No. 1 and 2; and
WHEREAS, Bryce L. Reynolds has requested that said
real property be reverted to acreage in the manner and
form as set forth hereinafter; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 1985 the City Council of
the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing at
the request of Bryce L. Reynolds for said reversion to
acreage, and after the closing of said public hearing,
reviewed and considered applicant's request, staff reports,
and other evidence presented to the Council at said public
hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga
HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
(a) Lots 19 and 14 are combined into one lot and
returned to acreage.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted
at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga
held on the 18th day of September, 1985 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
1. The City Council makes the following findings:
(a) Dedications or offers of dedication to be
vacated or abandoned by the reversion to
acreage are unnecessary for present or pro-
spective public purposes.
(b) All owners of an interest in the real property
being reverted to acreage have consented to
said reversion to acreage.
2. Having made the above findings:
MAYOR
AGENDA BILL NO. 9:9Z
DATE: 9/9/35 (9/18/85)
DEPT: Community Development
SUBJECT:
Issue Summary_
Recom endation
Fiscal Impacts
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No. 1545 -02.
2. Report to Planning Commission,
3. Status Report for Building Site Approval.
4. Location Map.
Council. Action
9/18: Approved.
NONE
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
Final Building Site Approval, SDR -1545, Warren "Sturla
Cox Avenue and Saratoga Creek, (1 lot)
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
1. SDR -1545 is ready for final approval.
2. All bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the City.
3. Requirements for City and other agencies have been met.
Adopt Resolution No. 1545 -02 attached, approving the final
map for SDR -1545 and authorize execution of contract improvement
agreement.
SECTION 1:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 1545 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF WARREN STURLA
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
The 0.462 acre Parcel as shown Parcel 1 on the final
parcel map prepared by West Fall Engineer 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
i
meeting held on the day of 19
by the following vote:
MAYOR
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1545. Warren Sturla
(have) XXX)X4 been met as approved by the Planning Commission on
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required
items:
Offer of Dedication YES Date Submitted 9/6/85
Record of Survey or Parcel Map yes Date Submitted 9/6/85
Storm Drainage Fee 1 Date Submitted 9/9/85 Receipt 8455
All Required Improvement Bonds 1500.00 Date Submitted 9 Receipt# 8455
All Required Inspection Fees 1 /40.UU Date Submitted 9%9/85 Receipt# 7767
Contract .Improvement;Agreement- yes_ Date Signed 9/9/85
Park and Recreation Fee N/A Date Submitted Receipt#
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(UMAIXgn n "(Final) Building Site Approval for Warren Sturla
SDR- 1545 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Condition(s) Reason for Non Compliance
1640
Ro•.' •''S. S o0
D ector of Community Development
SUBJECT:
ZONING: P -A
SITE DATA:
SITE SLOPE: +3%
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
HEIGHT: 24 ft.
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 5,250 sq. ft.
GB off '`s' o C�
r,"r.0 r
Revised 3/28/84
DATE: 3/20/84
Commission Meeting: 3/28/84
A -900, V -615 SDR -1545 Warren Sturla (Dragon Daic), Cox and
Saratoga Creek, Tentative Building Site Approval 4 Office Condo-
minium Lots
REQUEST: Tentative Building Site, Variance for a side setback and Design Review Approvals
to construct 4 office condominiums.
'OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Final Building Site Approval and Building Permit.
'PLANNING DATA: +20,141 sq. ft. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial- Professional
Administrative
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Vacant Professional Office lands to the east and south,
Saratoga Creek to the west and residential to the west and north.
NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Saratoga Creek riparian area to the west, native
grasses on site.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: The owner of the property received tentative building site approval for
p acing c ng an office structure on the site on 6/25/83 which did not provide for condo
miniumizing the offices. (SDR -1461, report attached). Two extensions have been
granted on this approval.
SETBACKS: Front: 25 Ft. Rear: 68 Ft. Left Side: 15 Ft.. Right Side: 141/2 Ft. Proposed
(15'5" required)
Report to Planning Commission
A -900, V -615 SDR -1545 Sturla, Cox Saratoga Creek
COVERAGE: 26%
LANDSCAPING: 30% (with car overhangs included)
27% (excluding car overhangs)
3/20/84
Page 2
COLORS MATERIALS: Building will have a wood exterior with redwood or cedar stain and
use brown tile or shake roofing.
REFUSE: The site plan indicates a trash enclosure on the southwest corner in the landscape
strip. Staff is recommending that the container be moved out of the landscaping and onto
the 10'6" unused space in front, and that it be completely enclosed with 6 ft. fencing.
The space in front is not included as a parking space because there is no backup and the
stall length would be substandard without the overhang. Moving the trash enclosure into
this space would have several benefits; first, it would preserve more landscaping, second,
it would result in more_ease in moving the container in and out of the enclosure and,
third, it would preclude parking in this space.
RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: There are residential homes across Cox Avenue to
the north, Saratoga Creek to the west and vacant land zoned for office use to the east and
south.
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: The parking lot, as proposed, does not have a standard
turnaround space at the end. However, the applicant has revised his previous plans so
that a maximum of 5' will be available as maneuvering space.
Report to Planning Commiss
A -900, V -615 SDR -1545 Sturla, Cox Saratoga Creek
3/20/84
Page 3
DESIGN REVIEW
BACKGROUND:
The project site is part of a 16+ acre complex zoned for office use. A significant
portion of this area is undeveloped. Tracts #3318 and #3454 have been developed with
medical offices. These offices were restricted by CC R's recorded in September, 1963,
which limited the floor area to an average of 3,570 sq. ft. on an average lot size of
approximately 18,000 sq. ft.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
The project site has several unique characteristics.
First, it is a corner lot which will be one of the entrance points to this future com-
plex of professional and administrative office. The proposed site plan is very similar
to existing medical offices fronting Cox Avenue to the east and will be reinforcing this
development standard for setbacks, parking, sidewalks and landscaping required of future
projects along Saratoga Creek Drive.
Second, this site is bordered by Saratoga Creek and a stand of mature trees which are a
valuable scenic resource for this area. Development along the creek could enhance this
unique feature by appropriate landscape treatments, particularly landscaping to screen
and soften the parking areas.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
Site Plan Changes: The original proposal indicated landscape and parking easements on the
adjoining site in order to satisfy development requirements. The applicant has modified
the building and reduced the exterior dimension which results in the accomodation of all
the parking and landscaping within the property boundaries. The interior floor area has
been reduced to 5,250 sq. ft.
The applicant is no longer requesting compact parking for the site.
Coverage: The applicant is proposing a 5,250 sq. ft. building on a 20,141 sq. ft. lot re-
sulting in 26% coverage. Existing medical office buildings in the area average approximately
20% coverage.
Landscaping: A landscape plan has been submitted which shows plantings similar to landscap-
ing around the medical offices to the east. The plan also indicates a 5 ft. landscape strip
along the southern property line which includes a 22 ft. car overhang. Under preliminary
plans for the adjoining office site, this 5 ft. strip would be combined with a 3 ft. land-
scape strip on the adjoining site, which would create 8 ft. of landscaping between the
parking lots of the two sites.
There is some low ground cover indicated along the western perimeter of the parking lot.
Along this perimeter, the applicant has indicated his intention to provide additional land-
scaping on what is currently City -owned property, in order to screen the parking lot and
headlights from the residence -on the opposite side of the creek. Staff does not anticipate
unreasonable impacts to this residence due to the distance, existing vegetation along the
creek and the limited nighttime use of the office building. While additional landscaping
would be nice if City approval could be obtained, staff is not recommending that it be a
condition of approval.
Report to Planning Commissic,.- 3/20/84
A -900, V -615 SDR -1545 Sturla, Cox Saratoga Creek Page 4
Staff is recommending that liquidamber not be planted in the landscape strip along the
southern boundary. The root system on these trees is inappropriate for small spaces and
it does drop both leaves and seed pods which causes maintenance problems. A tree with a
canopy for shade in the summer might be more suitable.
Parking: Parking Required: 26 spaces (1 space /200 sq. ft.)
Parking Provided: 25 standard (92' x 20')
1 handicapped
26 Total Spaces
The parking ordinance allows for a 9'6" parking stall width when double striping is provided.
The City's standard details for parking also allows a 22 ft. overhang to.be considered as
part of the required 20 ft. stall length. No compact spaces are proposed.
Sidewalks: The applicant is proposing minimum pedestrian walkways along Saratoga Creek Dr.
which is consistent with existing offices in the area and a city -wide standard of limited
sidewalk pavement. The Commission may, at this time, wish to review the provision of ped-
estrian walkways and wheelchair access for this large professional and administrative office
complex, as this will be an employment center as well as a service center.
Design Considerations: Because there is little variation in building depth on the front
elevation facing Cox Ave., staff is recommending that more variation be introduced in the
window treatment to provide for some architectural relief. This could be accomplished by
varying the size or placement of the windows.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated 3/20/84, Exhibits
"B, C and D subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall construct temporary 4 ft.
fencing along the western property line in order to protect Saratoga Creek and the
trees along the creekbed from construction activity and debris.
2. The applicant shall provide a trash enclosure with fencing at least 5 Ft. in height
or 1 Ft. higher than the container, whichever is greater.
3. Minor reductions in building size and minor changes in the building elevations may be
approved by the Permit Review Division.
4. Building plans shall $how double striping for the parking stalls and "No Parking"
lettering on the space in front of the trash enclosure. Striping and lettering
to be completed prior to final occupancy.
5. Windows on the north elevation shall be varied in size or placement to provide
for some architectural relief.
Report to Planning Commission
A -900, V -615 SDR -1545 Sturla, Cox Saratoga Creek
3/20/84
Page 5
VARIANCE
The applicant is requesting a variance for a 142 ft. right sideyard setback where a 15'5"
setback is required.
Side Yard Setback
The P -A zoning district requires that the minimum sideyard be 10% of the lot width and
additionally:
"One foot shall be added to a side yard for each five feet by which a wall of
the structure within twenty -five feet of a side property line exceeds forty feet
in length, parallel or approximately parallel to the side property line." (Sec. 6.7.C)
The intent of this Section is to reduce the visual impact of long stark walls and, where
office buildings are adjacent to each other, to increase the distance between structures
in order to lessen the "alley" effect.
The proposal does maintain more than the minimum setback of 13 ft., but does not meet the
requirements of the additional setback due to the wall length.
FINDINGS
1. Strict or Literal Interpretation Physical Hardship
Sideyard Setbacks: The prupose of the increased setback is to reduce the impact of
long, stark walls or an alley effect between buildings. The enforcement of this
section does impose the unnecessary hardship, as the normal setbacks will not produce
this effect with this proposal.
2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstance
Sideyard Setbacks: The setback area in question does border the Saratoga Creek
riparian area, instead of adjoining residential or other office development and
this constitutes exceptional circumstance.
3. Common Privilege
Sideyard Setbacks: The strict interpretation of the additional setback requirement
does deprive the applicant of the common privilege to reasonably develop the site as
the building meets the base setback requirement and enforcing the additional setback
would not achieve the benefit intended by the regulation.
4. Granting of Special Privilege
Sideyard Setbacks: The granting of this variance would not constitute granting of
special privilege as there is exceptional circumstance concerning the sideyard setback
adjacent to Saratoga Creek.
5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare
Sideyard Setbacks: The proposal would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare.
RECOMMENDATION FOR SIDEYARD SETBACKS: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report
dated 3/20/84 and Exhibit "C
Report to Planning Commis 3/20/84
SDR -1545, V 615 A 900 Sturla, Cox Saratoga Creek Page 6
BUILDING SITE APPROVAL 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 filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's
Office relative to the environmental impact of this project. Said determination date:
8/9/78.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1545 (Exhibit "B -2"
filed Feb. 8, 1984) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance 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 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 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
required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Construct standard driveway approach.
B. Dedicate and improve Saratoga Creek Drive to provide for a 25 foot half
street (reconstruct as to currently required City Standards).
C. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or
prevent flow.
D. Convey drainage water to street, storm sewer or watercourse as approved
by the Director of Public Works.
E. Underground utilities (poles, pipes, etc.).
F. Engineered improvement plans required for street, pedestrian walkway and
storm sewer construction.
G. Provide standard pedestrian walkway along Cox Avenue (remove pole presently
in walkway).
H. No vehicular access is to be allowed to Cox Avenue.
I. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval.
J. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (pay required checking
and recordation fees). (If Parcel Map is shown on existing map of record,
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1545, V -615 A -900 Sturia, Cox Saratoga Creek
3/20/84
Page 7
submit three (3) to -scale prints).
K. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at
driveway and access road intersections.
L. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Services for driveway
approaches or pipe crossings of City Street.
M. Pay Plan Check and Inspection fees as determined from Improvement Plans.
N. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed with-
in one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
0. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
P. Overlay Saratoga Creek Drive for its entire width and length with 12 inches
asphalt concrete if trenching for storm or sanitary sewer is required.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Soils and foundation report required prior to issuance of building permits.
B. Existing utilities on property to be undergrounded (consistent with the Ordinance).
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of
Sanitation District No. 4.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by
the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Santa Clara County
Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be
posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Dedicate right -of -way along entire creek frontage to Santa Clara Valley Water
District.
B. All grading adjacent to the Santa Clara Valley District right -of -way to be
done in accordance with sheets 20 -20B of said agency. Details of grading to
include the cross sectional view at the right -of -way and are to be shown on the
Improvement Plans. Plans to be submitted to Santa Clara Valley Water District
for review and permit, prior to issuance of building permit.
C. Incorporate site's drainage into existing storm drain system per Santa Clara
Valley Water District letter dated July 19, 1983. Outfall structure details
to be submitted to Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and permit prior
to Final Site Approval.
'Report to Planning Commis,
SDR -1545, V -615 A -900 _.,uria, Cox Saratoga Creek
Approved:
KK /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 8/24/83
Kat Kerd
Planner
Linda Lauzze
Planner
3/20/84
Page 8
0. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location
and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara Valley Water District
for review and certification.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits.
B. Staff Design Review required for landscaping to be provided along Cox Avenue
in right -of -way adjacent to walkway prior to Final Approval.
C. 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.
D. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City
for those landscaped areas within the public right -of -way.
E. Construct turnaround at end of parking lot as approved by Director of Community
Development.
LOCATION MAP_
s 1 54-5