Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-1990 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTSo SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL WR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. bf2-0 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 2, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT. Engineering SUBJECT: Village Parking District No. 3 Recommended Action: None. Receive as Information Report Summary: Attached is a copy of a petition signed by 14 of the 18 property owners within Parking District No. 3 to implement a preferential parking plan for their customers. The plan was discussed at a recent meeting between representatives from the merchants in the District and City Staff and is attached for your review. Basically, the plan would create 2 hour limited parking along the first row of parking spaces within the District. The merchants believe that implementation of such a plan would dis- courage Village employees from reserving the "best spaces" for themselves at the expense of their customers. The plan would cost approximately $1500 to implement (the cost to install signs) and would be paid for by the District. Unless Council objects to the proposed changes, staff is prepared to implement the plan. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Merchant's Petition with Proposed Plan. Motion and Vote: o l< Parking District #3 Saratoga village Saratoga, CA 95070 To: Property Owners Re: Customer Parking Plan 0 Merchants in Parking District #3 want to provide preferential parking for their customers. The simplest and easiest way to accomplish this is to designate and limit the first row of parking spaces next to the buildings to ®tee hour parking. Tut O I have discussed this matter with city officials, and they have indicated that they will approve this plan now if we get the property owners to agree and sign below. The city has been working on a parking plan for the entire village which won't be completed until later this year. Our immediate need is this "customer parking plan." I believe the merchants, in most cases, are the best persons to get the property owners' signatures. Someone will contact you soon to discuss this further. If you have any questions, please call Otto Crawford at 253 -6395. a ,. Village Parking District No. 3 City of Saratoga Santa Clara County, California Parcel Number 1 Parcel Description Property Owner 1 503 -24 -040 Commodore Service Corp. 2A 503 -24 -028 Joseph & Helen Brozda 2B 503 -24 -041 Joseph & Helen Brozda 3 503 -24 -015 Thelma Melto , et al 4 503 -24 -014 IrbrAer & The a Melton 5 503 -24 -013 Arthur & IUa Wallace -z R• �7-� ?�24g 6 503 -14 -012 James Ros nfeld, et al 7 503 -24 -042 Joseph Masek 8 503 -24 -010 George ayne a 9 503 -24 -009 Robt & Shirley Cancel ieri 10 503 -24 -008 Robt Shi ley Cancellieri Parcel Number Parcel Description Property Owner or 11 503 -24 -007 Yv s & Annette Casabonne 12 503 -24 -006 Otto & Bette awford 13 503 -24 -005 Leonard & Louella Sullivan 14 503 -24 -004 Chabre - Aimee, etc. Dmw SmM & Lwn Assm 14411 Big Basin "Y Saratoga. CA 95070 L�/ 62- OP_Qi, -^�< 15 503 -24 -003 Downey Savings / 16 503 -24 -039 Dennis & Sus n Cun ngham 17 503 -24 -034 Roberta-r,. worden Of v c . rOI^^ iry cs u i J / I'( 1, G- Illy. J Q-PROP0.9ED 2 HOUR PARK /NG(BSSpa ter) 4/, 39" -28 signs so19o. = t,"at 00 QQ- EXIS7-IN6 ISM /N. PARK /NG(SS J) Z• 4 % M- EXIST /N6 NAND /CAP PARK /N (spaces) 2.9 yo Af. •, Tots /S,aa� °s :� ✓PD «3 =ZO6 (96 "SpQCes) 46.6% 60 f � I �P Oh I SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /?2—J AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: J2/90 CITY MGR.APPROVAI,)W DEPT: Recreation SUBJECT: Recommended Motion: Authorize staff to proceed with recreation plans for the Warner Hutton House and approve additional funds for furnishings. On November 19, 1986, the City Council agreed to accept the Warner Hutton House for city and community use. According to CALTRANS within 60 -90 days the house will be relocated to Fruitvale Avenue next to City Hall. The Recreation Department, with the support of the Park & Recreation and Youth Commissions, is recommending several uses and the necessary furnishings for the house. Add $7,800 to currently approved budget amount of $17,200. 1. Staff report 2. Furnishing list 3. Warner Hutton House floor plan Motion and Vote: 0, - UMEW o2 0&MZUQ)(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM April 25, 1990 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Joan Pisani, Director of Recreation SUBJECT: Warner Hutton House At their March 5, 1990, meeting the Parks & Recreation Commission approved the recommended Warner Hutton House use and furnishing list as proposed by the Recreation Department staff. Staff would like to offer a variety of programs and activities to various age groups. Hopefully the uses will meet the needs of many people. Several of the proposed programs will generate revenue and help offset the cost of maintaining the house. Listed below are suggested plans for each room. Small bedroom: office space Large bedroom: 1) 2) Living room: 1) 2) 3) Family room: Kitchen: Yard day time pre - school and tiny tot programs evening adult classes staff, commission, council and community meetings recreation classes Thursday and Friday afterschool and evening teen drop -in program 1) recreation classes 2) Thursday and Friday teen drop -in program 1) cooking classes 2) Thursday and Friday teen drop -in program afterschool and evening afterschool and evening spring and summer outdoor weekend weddings On most days 2 -3 activities could be held at one time. Compatible activities such as a tiny tot program, cooking class and a city meeting could be scheduled at the same time and they would not interfere with each other. Two days per week after 3:00 p.m., the kitchen, living and family rooms would be available for youth activities which could include cooking, games, counseling, classes and as a gathering place for teens. Staff would not schedule activities for other age groups during this Youth Commission supported program. Warner Hutton House Currently $17,200 is in the budget for furniture and program equipment. The furnishing list has been revised and it is felt $25,000 will be needed. Staff has requested assistance from members of the Heritage Commission in selection of some of the furnishings for the house. Authorize staff to proceed with recreation plans for the Warner Hutton House and approve additional funds for furnishings. an Pisani Director of Recreation JP:pe April 25, 1990 Kitchen $ 800 Refrigerator 3,200 Oak table (9'x4" x 41 ") and 8 chairs 400 Work table 600 Pots, pans, bowls, dishes, etc. $5,000 Conference Room $ 300 Refinish top of Crisp Conference Room 10 -12' table 1.,700 15 conference room chairs $2,000 Large Bedroom $6,000 Tables, chairs, tiny tot program equipment Family Room $1,000 TV, VCR, tape deck 3,000 2 sofas, 2 chairs 1,500 Tables 400 Lamps, miscellaneous $5,900 Conference Room & 2. Bedrooms $5,500 Industrial carpet & rugs Small Bedroom $ 600 File cabinet & chairs TOTAL ESTIMATE: $25.000 pe 1 El EIILIRY_ BE BATHROOM❑ �EDROO� PORCH 16 0'X1 0' 5' -0'X •� f ❑❑ ❑ ul 0 a a FA MILY RC OM F-1 0 ❑❑❑ ❑ ❑❑ FIREPLACE KITCHEN BATHROOi' 7'- 3'X8' -1 .CLOSET ,y 1 cHad.�- EIV ,4 �� -r O \/ V ;WARNER HUTTON FLOOR PLAN 0 z s to EUIRY_ BE BATHROOM a �EDROO BAT.HRO PDRCH �; 16' 0'X 1 ' -0" n a 1111 5 7'- 3 "X8' -10 a a 1 El 0o a�a a CLOSET 2-CLOSET F-1 717[1777 .WARNER HUTTON FLOOR PLAN O O F MILY R OM 1 -8'X 19' 0' FIREPLACE a i KITCHEN ��Lt�l titL� 'tiJ 7H C�O C �J p 1 2 3 4. .5 10 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Ie2- 2O AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 2, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVA ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering ll SUBJECT: SD 89 -015 (19540 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd.) - Building Site Approval Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. SD 89 -015 approving the Building Site of Michael McConnell at 19540 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Authorize Mayor to execute the Deferred Improvement Agreement. Report Summary: The property owned by Michael McConnell at 19540 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. is ready to receive Building Site Approv- al. All conditions precedent to Building Site Approval have been fulfilled. A copy of the Planning Commission Resolution approv- ing the Tentative Map and containing all project conditions is attached. Also attached are the Deferred Improvement Agreement for the pro) ect and Resolution No. SD 89 -015 which, if adopted, will approve the Building Site. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Location Map. 2. Resolution No. SD 89 -015. 3. Deferred Improvement Agreement. 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 89 -015. 0tl�' REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: SD -89 -015, DR -89 -109; 19540 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Applicant /Owner: McConnell Staff Planner: Martin Jacobson Date: January 24, 19 9 0 APN: 510-05-26 Director Approval: SEEM I i �I6 -01 :1 -02 15405 Flo -0 4 - 03 55 1,5214 5!o -os -og 15234 W t 5rp -og.o4 15217 O 397 -19- so S Q 15 Z 510 -0, 19 511 5to -o5-03 19rpop iO 910 05 -25 �i9 15271 .� X97 -l9 -c 0 ls28o CA) 19 sly S10 -o5 -E7 Slo - 06- c (9) 0 15310 510 -05 -01 14634 510 -05 -2¢ /9621 510 -05 -!7 `Site !4591 -5(0-65-20 1443o I 510-05-14 11690 610-015-21 19GZI 19625 ; 19565 -oj -13 510 05- gtp -05- 510.5- 510-06' t7- 11 10 1 09 1s190 ' 397-!0-1 15230 377-10-1 $270 C' 19501 W \ O Q Z 510 -0, 19 511 z 510 -05-23 YJ J CA) 19 sly S10 -o5 -E7 Slo - 06- c (9) 19525 is RESOLUTION NO. SD 89 -015 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Michael Mc Connell (19540 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road) The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 1.14 acre Parcel shown as Parcel "C" on the Final Parcel Map recorded in Book 175 of Maps, Page 33 in the Santa Clara Recorder's Office and submitted to City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual building site. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR t SCICI SSOItSt IN 11N1i la.,.sT tTo 014NMI C LAND R III U DEVELOPMENT IPII'II0V"1'.NTS Project identification: SD 89 -015 Saratoga Los Gatos Rd. This agreement between the CITY OF SARATOGA, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and Mike Mc Connell hereinafter referred to as 'Owner" - WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property described in Exhibit "A" but wishes to defer construction of permanent improvements beyond the time limits otherwise required and City agrees to such deferment provided Owner agrees to construct improvements as herein provided. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: I, AGREEMENT BINDING ON SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST This agreement is an instrument affecting the title and posses- sion of the real property described in Exhibit "A ". All the terms, cove- nants and conditions herein imposed shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors in interest of Owner. Upon any sale or division of the property described in Exhibit "A ", the terms of this agreement shall apply separately to each parcel and the owner of each parcel shall succeed to the obligations imposed on Owner by this agreement. II. STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS A. City and Owner agree that the improvements set forth in this section may be deferred because: The public interest is served by having all improvements in this area done •at one time, that time to be determined in the future. B. Owner agrees to construct the following improvements on the pro- perty described in Exhibit "A" as well as required off site improvements in the manner set forth in this agreement: Improvements required by City Department of Public Works are gen- erally described on Exhibit "B ". (Cross out improvements that are riot re- quired.) 1. Curb and gutter 2. Sidewalks 1. Driveways 4. Street grading, base and paving j, Storm drainage facilities and facilities ixx &iORt=dA== B, Underground conduit with wiring and pull boxes 9. Barricades and other improve- ments needed for traffic safety 10. Street trees and other improve - pen s between curb and property 11. Relocation of existing fences, signs and utilities 12. Payment of a pro rata share of the costs as determined by the Dept. of Public Works of a storm drainage or street improvement which has been, or is to be, provided`by others or jointly provided by owner And others where such facility benefits the property described in Exhibit "A" f C. W1 L c 1)ircct.ur uC V%IIIIic Works dcLCnnLn,:.: Lhac Lhe r(:aSC,ns for the i1cfermenc of Lhe ir.ylravcmcnts as set forth in Section II nn lonl;or exist, he 511-311 notify Owner in writinL Lo commence Lheir installaci.on and construclidh. The .nolice-shall I.e mailed. to Lhe current owner or owhcrs of the land as shown on Lhe latest adopted county assessment roll. Tlic notice shall describe the work to be done by owners, the time wiLhin which the work shall commence and Lhe time within which it shall be completed. All or any portion of said improvements may be required at' a specified time. Each Owner shall participate on a pro rata basis in the cost of the improvements to be installed. If Owner is obligated to pay a pro rata share of a cost of a facility provided by others, the notice shall include the amounttn be paid and the time when payment must be made. III. PE• RrOR4LANCE OF THE WORT: Owner agrees to perform the work and make the payments required by City as set forth herein or as modified by the City Council. Owner shall cause plans a:d specifications for the improvements to be prepared by com' petent persons lcgally:.qualified to do the work and to submit said improve menc plans and specifications For approval prior to commencement of the work described in the notice, and to pay City inspection fees. •The work shall be done in accordance with City standards in effect at the time the improvement plans are submitted for approval. .Owner agrees to conrnence and complete the work within the time specified in the notice given by the Director Of Public Wprks and to notify the City at least 48 hours prior to start of work. In the event OCm er fails to construct any improvements re- quired under this agreement, City may, at its option do the work and colle all the costs from Owner, which costs shall be a lien on all. the property described in Exhibit "A" hereof, Permission to enter onto the property of the Owner is granted to City or its contractor as may be necessary to construct such improvements. IV. JOINT COOPERAI`IVE PLAN Owner agrees to cooperate•upon notice.by City with other property owners,.the City and other public agencies'to provide the improvements set forth herein under a joint cooperative plan including the formation of a local improvement district, if this method is feasible to secure the installation and construction of the improvements. V REVIEW OF -REQUIREMENTS , If Owner disagrees with the requirements set forth in any notice to commenca installation of improvements he shall, within 30 days of the date the notice was mailed, request a review of the requirements by the City Council. The decision of this Council shall be binding upon both the City and the Owner. VI NAVITENANCF. OF IMPROVE14rNTS City agrees to accept for maintenance those improvements specified in Section II which are constructed and co:apletod in. accordance with City standards and requirements and are installed within rights -of -way or ease- ments dedicated and accepted by resolution of the City, after tho expira- tion of one year from dace of sacisfaccory completion, Owner to maintain 4 Said improvc -nenLS at Owner's sole cost and expense at all times prior to such acceptance by City. Owner agrees to provide any necessary temporary drainage facilities, access road or other required imorovcmencs, to assume responsibility for the proper fuictioning thereof, to submit plans to the appropriate City agency for review, if required- and to maintain said improvements and facilities in a manner which will preclude any hazard to life or health or damage to adjoining property, f VII. BONDS Prior to approval of improvement plans by the City., Owner may be required to execute and deliver to City a faithful performance bond and .n labor and materials bond in an amount and form acceptableito City,-to be released by City Council in whole or in part upon completion of Lhe work required and paymcnL of all persons furnishing labor and materials in the performance of the work. VIII. INSURANCE Owner shall maintain or shall require any contractor engaged to perform the work to maintain, at all times during the performance of the work called for herein, a separate policy of insurance in a form and amount acceptable to City. IX. INDEMNITY The Owner shall assume the defense and indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, from every expense, liability or payment by reason of injury, including death, to persons, or damage to , property suffered tlirough any act or omission, including passive negligence or act of negligence, or both, of the Owner, his employees, agents, con- tractors, subcontractors, or his employees, agents, contractors, subcontrac- tors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them, or arising in any way from the work called for by this agreement, or any part of the premises, including those matters arising out of the deferment of permanent drainage facilities or the adequacy, safety, use or non -use of temporary drainage facilities, the performance or non - performance of the work. , IN 14ITNESS WHEREOF, City has executed this agreement as of CITY OF SARATOGA MAYOR Ili WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this agreement as of Ma.c,� Owner (This document to be acknowledged with signatures as they appear on deed of title.) APPROVED AS TO FOP — %I: ti R • EXHIBIT "A" That certain property situate in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, more particularly described as follows: The Land designated as Parcel "C" on the Final Parcel Map recorded in Book 175 , Page 33 in the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office. EXHIBIT "B" Improve Saratoga -Los Gatos Road to City standard including the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. f RESOLUTION NO. SD -89 -015 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF MCCONNELL - 19540 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of one lot, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -89 -015 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated January 24, 1990, being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the Categorical Exemption 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. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 13th day of September, 1989 and is marked Exhibit 'A' in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: 1. If site drainage is to be directed into a Santa Clara Valley Water District facility, detailed plans shall be sent to the district for review and issuance of a permit prior to start of construction. N. A. 2. Any well (s) on the site shall be registered with the Water District and either maintained or abandoned in accordance with their provisions prior to the start of construction. 3. Submit a "Parcel Map" to the City of Saratoga for checking and N.A. recordation and pay required checking and recordation fees. Done. 4. Submit an irrevocable offer of dedication to provide easements, as required. S Done, 5. Improve Saratoga -Los Gatos Road to city standards, including the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities (D.I.A.). 6. Construct a turnaround having a 32 ft. radius or approved equal using 2 1/2" A.C. on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. 7. Construct driveway approach 16 ft. wide at property line and flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use 2 1/2" A.C. on 6" aggregate base. With Building Permit. 8. Construct a "valley gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by the City Engineer. 9. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstruction of view as required at driveway access road intersections. 10. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. N.A. 11. Obtain Encroachment permit from Caltrans for work to be done within State right -of -way. Done. 12. Enter into a "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required improvements marked "D.I.A. ". Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these condition within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 24th day of January, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Siegfried, Harris, Tucker, Tappan, Burger NOES: Moran ABSENT: Kolstad l C7 • ATTEST: The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted: Signature of applicant Date tentmap.res pSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 'CV MEETING DATE: May 2, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVA ORIGINATING DEPT.: En ineerin SUBJECT: Route 85: Cox Avenue Overcrossing - Utilization of City Property Recommended Action: Approve request from Raisch Construction to use City property for construction purposes. Report Summary: Raisch Construction, the General Contractor for the Cox Avenue overcrossing, has asked the City for permission to use certain City properties while constructing the Blue Hills pedestrian overcrossing. The particular properties are 15' wide - 300' long strips along both sides of the freeway right -of -way parallel to the ramps leading up to and down from the pedestrian overcrossing. The properties would be used to temporarily stockpile dirt excavated from the overcrossing footings which in turn, would greatly ease the contractor's ability to maneuver his equipment. Because both properties are currently undeveloped park lands within Kevin Moran Park and Azule Park, the request seems reasonable. The contractor has agreed to fence the entire areas and restore the properties to their original conditions when finished using them. Typically, a request such as this would have come from the Santa Clara Traffic Authority in the form of a Request for Temporary Construction Easements. Appar- ently however, the need for these easements was either not con- sidered or deemed unnecessary when the project was designed. In any event, a copy of the Contrractor's request has been forwarded to the Traffic Athority for their review. The ultimate decision however, rests with the City. In a somewhat related matter, staff has checked the temporary pedestrian and bicycle facilities along Cox Avenue in the vicini- ty of the construction project. You may recall at your previous meeting there were concerns raised about the safety of the public travelling through this area. Staff is satisfied that adequate safety precautions are in place. If any Councilmember feels differently however, please let me know. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: Contractor's Letter dated April 10. Motion and Vote: ,� tnm 99 PULLMAN WAY, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 951 11 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 643, SAN JOSE, CA 95106 PHONE: (408) 365 -1 100 FAX NO: (408) 225 -2904 April 10, 1990 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Attn: Dan Trinidad Director of Maintenance Re: Blue Hills Pedestrian Overcrossing Dear Mr. n i dad , Raisch Construction is under contract by the State of California to construct the new Cox Avenue Bridge and Blue Hills Pedestrian Overcrossing. With regards to the Blue Hills site, we would like your permission to encroach upon your property approximately 15' along the the Route 85 Right of Way just north of the existing pedestrian walkway. This area is currently Undeveloped and we would disturb approximately 300' on each side of the Right of Way. Naturally we would return the areas affected to the original grades and reinstall any fence that would have to be removed for our activities. Additionally, we would take the normal precautions to restrict puplic access in areas of excavation and provide appropriate warning devices. We appreciate your consideration in this manner and if you have any questions please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Kevin Mcfall Project Engineer cc: 89508 - correspondence J. Allenback aisch' • "AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER" - STATE CONTRACTOR'S LIC. NO. 5391 1 S -A (CALIF.) SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. IF24 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 2, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVA ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Route 85: Prospect Rd. to Saratoga Creek - Grant of Temporary Construction Easements Recommended Action: Approve Grants of Temporary Construction Easements and authorize Mayor to execute Right -of -Way Contracts. Report Summary: The Santa Clara Traffic Authority is requesting three Temporary Construction Easements from the City in the vicinity of the Blue Hills pedestrian overcrossing as shown on the attached map. Two of the easements are located in Kevin Moran Park while the third easement is located in Azule Park. The easements are required for utility construction purposes associated with the Route 85 segment between Prospect Road and Saratoga Creek and would expire on December 31, 1992. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Location Map. 2. Easement Deeds. 3. Right -of -Way Contracts. Q W UG �• I 3,51 _ O J „ SCULLY —" 7S. 1.. e W pU) itl SO_ SS 0 z CL N r• /9••ovo�sd . 4 333- . Eri�fioy Ee,�ewient v� ` 49333 / OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR- SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA / 34 I 386 3B NORTHAMPTON / DRIVE I I TIITUS AND LANGTRY TRACT �t,J�r b - _7rt�AV }�• Ij T. wAro' M6.4A e/L I i 10.382 AC. OR. 1 : I Proposed w 49333-3 �Tamp.�at� Easeme.�� CITY OF SARATOGA III 50 L`�!s "Nar!•i 1 fd' /o Main PTN. 14 I 1 1 ` 111 �y", 1?. L \� J :F a ErisFinp \�:. i fl»ep. �y,rsh: Gu�rnrtn �1Q-1 42 cam- Z EASEMENT DEED We 4/17/90 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE DISTRICT COUNTY ROUTE POST MILE NUMBER 04 SO 85 14.6 49333 -2 49333 -3 The City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation GRANT to the State of California an EASEMENT for the purposes described herein. upon, over and across that certain real property in the City of Saratoga County of Santa Clara , State of California, described as follows: See Exhibit "A" Attached hereto and made a part hereof FORM RW 02 -15 (Rev. 11 -84) 94 34372 Parcel 49333- 2/49333 -3 4/17/90 EXHIBIT "A" Being a temporary easement to expire December 31, 1992 for construction purposes and incidents thereto described as follows: PARCEL ONE (49333 -3) BEGINNING at the Southeasterly corner of that certain parcel of land described in the deed to the State of California, recorded February 10, 1969 in Book 8429 of Official Records at page 124, Santa Clara County Records; thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING along the Northeasterly line of said parcel from a tangent bearing of N36 001'38 "W along a curve to the right with a radius of 3400.00 through a central angle of 1 °00'28" for an arc length of 59.80 feet; thence leaving said Northeasterly line S86 °3735 "E 122.60 feet to a point on the Easterly line of Lot 14 as shown on that certain Map entitled "Map of the Subdivision of the Titus and Langtry Tract", which Map was filed for record in Book E of Maps at page 117, Santa Clara County Records; thence along said Easterly line S3 049'30 "W 50.10 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 14; thence along the Southerly line of said Lot 14 N84 012'59 "W 84.73 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 4,980 square feet of land, more or less. PARCEL TWO (49333 -2) BEGINNING at a point on the Northeasterly line of that certain parcel of land described in the deed to the State of California, recorded February 10, 1969 in Book 8429 of Official Records at page 124, Santa Clara County Records distant thereon S32 °23'43 "E 174.67 feet from the Southwest corner of Lot 67 as shown on that certain map entitled "Tract 2970 Blue Hills of Saratoga ", which maps was filed for record in Book 134 of Maps at pages 54 and 55, Santa Clara County Records; thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING along said Northeasterly line S32 °23'43 "E 50.00 feet; thence leaving said Northeasterly line N57 °36'17 "E 25.00 feet; thence N32 °23'43 "W 50.00 feet; thence S57 036'17 "W 25.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 1,250 square feet of land, more or less. Bearings and distances contained in the hereinabove description are based upon the California Coordinate System of 1927, Zone III. Distances are grid. Multiply grid distances by 1.0000537 to obtain ground level distances. EASEMENT DEED We 3/7/90 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE DISTRICT COUNTY ROUTE POST MILE NUMBER 04 SCI 85 14.6 49805 City of Saratoga GRANT to the State of California an EASEMENT for the purposes described herein. upon, over and across that certain real property in the City of Saratoga County of Santa Clara , State of California, described as follows: Being a temporary easement to expire December 31, 1992 for construction purposes and incidents thereto described as follows: Being a portion of that certain parcel of land described in the deed to E. Gear, recorded December 6, 1971 in Book 9616 of Official Records at page 22, Santa Clara County Records, described as follows: COMMENCING at the most Easterly corner of said parcel conveyed to Gear; thence along the Northeasterly line of said parcel N32 023'43 "W 85.44 feet; thence leaving said Northeasterly line, at right angles, S57 036'17 "W 10.00 feet to a point on the Southwesterly line of the sanitary sewer easement recorded June 2, 1969 in Book 8553 of Official Records at page 505, Santa Clara County Records and being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence from said TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING along said Southwesterly line N32 °23'43 "W 30.00 feet; thence leaving said Southwesterly line at right angles S57 °36'17 "W 5.00 feet; thence parallel with said Southwesterly line S32 023'43 "E 30.00 feet; thence leaving said parallel line, at right angles N57 °36'17 "E 5.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 150 square feet of land, more or less. Bearings and distances contained in the hereinabove description are based upon the California Coordinate System of 1927, Zone III. Multiply grid distances by 1.0000537 to obtain ground level distances. FORM RW 02 -15 (REV. 11 -84) 84 34372 SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY Saratoga California IDIST.ICOUNTYIRTE.IP.M.1 R/W E.A.1 1990 04 SCL 1 85 114.61 437689 City of Saratoga - Grantor- RIGHT OF WAY CONTRACT Document No. 49333 -2 and 49333 -3 in the form of an Easement Deed, covering the property particularly described therein has been executed and delivered to Donna Harrison. Right of Way Agent for the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority, hereinafter referred to as the "Authority ". In consideration of which, and the other considerations hereinafter set forth, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. The parties have herein set forth the whole of their agreement. The performance of this agreement constitutes the entire consideration for said document and shall relieve the Authority of all further obligation or claims on this account, or on account of the location, grade or construction of the proposed public improvement. 2. It is understood and agreed that the property conveyed by document No.49333 -2 and 49333 -3 is being donated to the State by the undersigned grantor. Grantor, having initiated this donation, has been informed of the right to compensation for the property donated and hereby waives such right to compensation. (Page 1 of 2) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement the day and year first above written. Recommended for Approval: BY Donna Harrison Right of Way Agent By Sandra Ferguson Senior Right of Way Agent SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY By Will Kempton Executive Director - Grantor- No Obligation Other than Those Set Forth Herein Will Be Recognized ( Page 2 of 2 ) SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY Saratoga California City of Saratoga 1990 - Grantor- IDIST.ICOUNTYIRTE.IP.M.I R/W E.A.1 1 04 1 SCL 1 1 85 114.61 1 1 437559 1 1 RIGHT OF WAY CONTRACT Document No. 49805 in the form of an Easement Deed, covering the property particularly described therein has been executed and delivered to Donna Harrison. Right of Way Agent for the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority, hereinafter referred to as the "Authority ". In consideration of which, and the other considerations hereinafter set forth, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. The parties have herein set forth the whole of their agreement. The performance of this agreement constitutes the entire consideration for said document and shall relieve the Authority of all further obligation or claims on this account, or on account of the location, grade or construction of the proposed public improvement. 2. It is understood and agreed that the property conveyed by document No.49805 is being donated to the State by the undersigned grantor. Grantor, having initiated this donation, has been informed of the right to compensation for the property donated and hereby waives such right to compensation. (Page 1 of 2) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement the day and year first above written. Recommended for Approval: By Donna Harrison Right of Way Agent By Sandra Ferguson Senior Right of Way Agent SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY By Will Kempton Executive Director - Grantor- No Obligation Other than Those Set Forth Herein Will Be Recognized (Page 2 of 2) SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. B AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 2, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT. Engineering JA SUBJECT: FY 90 -91 Landscape and Lighting District Recommended Action: Adopt Resolutions Directing the preparation of the Engineer's Report and Appointing the Attorneys for the District. Report Summary: Under the provisions of the Landscape and Light- ing Act of 1972, the City raises revenues to fund maintenance and other incidental costs within the Landscape and Lighting District LLA -1. Pursuant to the Act, certain proceedings are required each fiscal year in which assessments are to be levied and col- lected within the District. The attached Resolutions, if adopt- ed, will begin the process for the 1990 -91 fiscal year by direct- ing the preparation of the Engineer's Report and appointing the Attorneys for the District. Fiscal Impacts: None directly. All costs associated with admin- istering, maintaining and servicing the District are assessed to the various zones within the District based on benefits received and collected by the County Tax Collector with the annual proper- ty tax. Attachments: 1. Resolution Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report. 2. Resolution Appointing Attorneys. Motion and Vote: DI �( _ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DESCRIBING IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990 -1991 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: 1. This Council did, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, conduct proceedings for the formation of the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 and for the levy and collection of assessments for fiscal year 1980 - 1981, and did, on June 18, 1980, pursuant to proceedings duly had, adopt its Resolution No. 950 -D, a Resolution Overruling Protests and Ordering the Formation of an Assessment District and the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment; 2. The public interest, convenience . and necessity require, and it is the intention of said Council to undertake proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments upon the several lots or parcels of land in said District, for the construction or installation of improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, for the fiscal year 1990 -1991. 3. The improvements to be constructed or installed, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto attached and by reference incorporated herein. 4. The costs and expenses of said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are to be made chargeable upon said District, the exterior boundaries of which District are the composite and consolidated area as more particularly shown on a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of the City of Saratoga to which reference is hereby made for further particulars. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in said District and of any zone thereof and shall govern for all details as to the extent of the assessment district. 5. The Engineer of said City be, and is hereby, directed to prepare and file with said Clerk a report, in writing, referring to the assessment district by its distinctive designation, specifying the fiscal year to which the report applies, and, with respect to that year, presenting the following: a) plans and specification of the existing improvements and for proposed new improvements, if any, to be made within the assessment district or within any zone thereof; b) an estimate of the costs of said proposed new improvements, if any, to be made, the costs of maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of any existing improvements, together with the incidental expenses in connection therewith; -1- c) diagram showing the exterior. boundaries of the assessment district and of any zones within said district and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the district as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's map for the fiscal year to which the report applies, each of which lots or parcels of land shall be identified by a distinctive number or letter on said diagram; and d) a proposed assessment of the total amount of the estimated costs and expenses of the proposed new improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of any existing improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels of land, respectively, from said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto. 6. The office of the Engineer of said City be, and is hereby, designated as the office to answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein, and may be contacted during regular office hours at the City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 or by calling (408) 867 -3438. * * * * * * Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Attest: City Clerk -2- Mayor l� EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 a) The construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities, including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease or injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste, water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements. b) The construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 4, 5, 6 and 7, of public lighting facilities for the lighting of any public places, including ornamental standards, luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances, including the cost of repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part thereof, electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements. C) The construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 8, 16, 19, 20 and 21 of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities and public lighting facilities for the lighting of any public places, including ornamental standards, luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances, including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease or injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste, electric current or lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements, water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ATTORNEYS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990 -1991 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, that WHEREAS, this Council has determined to undertake proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments upon the several lots of parcels of land in the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the construction or installation of improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof for the fiscal year 1990 -1991; and WHEREAS, the public interest and general welfare will be served by appointing and employing attorneys for the preparation and conduct of said proceedings; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, as follows: 1. That the law firm of ATKINSON - FARASYN be, and it hereby is appointed and employed to do and perform all legal services required in the conduct of said proceedings, and that its compensation be, and it hereby is fixed at not to exceed $500.00. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Attest: City Clerk ayor SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: CITY MANAGER ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: MAINTENANCE \DAN TRIN SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT ARTICULATED TANDEM DRIVE VIBRATORY ROLLER Recommended Motion: Approve the purchase of a new Articulated Tandem Drive Vibratory Roller for the Maintenance Department from Tractor Equipment Sales for the net purchase price of $24,192.17. Tractor Equipment Sales bid $3,000 for the City's old roller. We have determined that this is a fair price and probably more than we would receive in the open market. Report Summary: Bids were solicited from several local vendors for the purchase of this replacement equipment as per the attached. The need for this new roller arises from increased repairs and maintenance on the present roller which is a 1977 model. FISCAL IMPACTS: Funds for this replacement in the amount of $45,000.00 are included in the fiscal year budget. An additional $6,000 will be used to purchase a trailer for the roller. Attachments: Specifications and bids received. Motion and Vote: April 19, 1990 BID SUMMARY SPECIFICATION SM -2 -90 -057 ARTICULATED, TANDEM DRIVE VIBRATORY ROLLER A total of five bids were received prior to the bid opening deadline of April 17, 1990 at 3:OOpm. The low bidder is Tractor Equipment Sales, with a total cost to the City of $24,192.17. 1) Tractor Equipment Sales $25,354.00 705 Tully Road Tax 1,838.17 San Jose, California 95111 Sub -total 27,192.17 Alternate Bid Credit - 3,000.00 $24,192.17 2) Bay -Cal Equipment Inc. $25,462.00 5605 S. Front Road Tax 1,846.00 Livermore, California 94550 Sub -total 27,308.00 Alternate Bid Credit - 2,500.00 $24,808.00 3) Edward R. Bacon, Co. $31,450.00 555 Tully Road Tax 2,280.13 San Jose, California 95111 Sub -total 33,730.13 Alternate Bid Credit - 4,200.00 $29,530.00 4) Western Traction Company No Bid P.O. Box 1649 Union City, California 5) Nixon -Egli Equipment Company No Bid 24701 Clawiter Road Hayward, Califonria 94545 is lr- TRACTOR EQUIPMENT SALES 705 TULLY ROAD SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95111 (408) 297-7422 By: (�z Steven E. Van Tuyr President PROPOSAL --ROLLER Date:- April 16, 1990 .kY'ITEM-NUMBER QUANTITY DESCRIPTION ARTICULATED, TANDEM DRIVE t. VIBRATORY ROLLER PER ATTACHED SPECIFICATIONS: $25,354.00 MFG. & MODEL Bomag BW120AD ALTERNATE BID #1 1 1977 ESSICK VR42R TOW-BEHIND VIBRATORY ROLLER F. CREDIT $ 3,000.00 2 Fr V :IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS SPECIFICATION TO DESCRIBE A TANDEM DRIVE VIBRATORY ROLLER'BEST.SUITED FOR THE NEEDS OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. THE APPLICATION IS FOR ROAD REPAIR, MAINTENANCE WORK, NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION, ROAD SURFACING ;AND REINSTATEMENT. THE UNIT OFFERED MUST BE CAPABLE OF COMPACTING A WIDE :RANGE OF MATERIALS USED IN SUB —BASE, BASE — COURSE AND WEARING COURSE APPLICATIONS. THE UNIT SHALL BE NEW AND UNUSED, EXCEPT FOR TESTING. A MODEL IN PRODUCTION FOR AT'LEAST TWO (2) YEARS CONSISTING OF PARTS AND MATERIALS THAT ARE OF THE PROPER SIZE, QUALITY AND DESIGN. ITEMS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED BUT CONSIDERED STANDARD BY THE MANUFACTURER SHALL BE INCLUDED. OPTIONS TO THIS SPECIFICATION SHALL BE IN WRITING AND FAILURE ON THE PART THE BIDDER TO, COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS :IFICATION MAY SUBJECT HIS BID TO REJECTION. THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF ?IANCE WITH THIS SPECIFICATION WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BIDDER. tENT TECHNICAL LITERATURE ON THE ROLLER AND THE WARRANTY POLICY SHALL BE USHED.WITH THE BID PROPOSAL. ;THE MANUFACTURER'S' REGULAR WARRANTY SHALL APPLY TO ALL ROLLERS PROCURED h`, ;AGAINST THIS SPECIFICATION. THIS WARRANTY SHALL BE HONORED BY ALL FRANCHISED (,DEALERS WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE CITY'S ESTABLISHED PREVENTATIVE ',MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES SHALL BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE s„ rMANUFACTURER /DEALERS IN LIEU OF THE MANUFACTURER'S PRESCRIBED PROCEDURES `WHICH MAY FORM A PART OF THE WARRANTY. A WARRANTY CERTIFICATE AND /OR CARD 8HALL BE SUPPLIED WITH EACH ROLLER DELIVERED. WARRANTY WILL COVER SIX (6) ¢t, TWO ( 2 ) YEARS OR 5,000 HOURS MONTHS PARTS AND LABOR ON THE ENTIRE ROLLER, ft'",POWER TRAIN WARRANTY COVERING ANY COMPONENT TRANSMITTING TORQUE. it ;.QUALITY ASSURANCE PROVISIONS . -.PRIOR TO DELIVERY, THE ROLLER SHALL BE COMPLETELY INSPECTED AND SERVICED BY >THE DELIVERING DEALER AND /OR THE MANUFACTURER'S - STANDARD PRE- DELIVERY SERVICE. A CHECKLIST SHALL BE COMPLETED FOR THE ROLLER, SIGNED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ORGANIZATION PERFORMING THE INSPECTION/ SERVICE AND �•DELIVERED.WITH THE ROLLER. t.`.THE ROLLER WILL BE INSPECTED AT THE DEALER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS BEFORE DELIVERY' BY AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY FOR WORKMANSHIP, APPEARANCE, PROPER FUNCTIONING OF ALL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS, AND CONFORMANCE TO ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SPECIFICATION. ,;IN THE EVENT DEFICIENCIES ARE DETECTED, THE ROLLER WILL BE REJECTED AND THE DELIVERING DEALER WILL BE REQUIRED TO MAKE THE NECESSARY REPAIRS, ADJUSTMENTS OR REPLACEMENTS. PAYMENT AND /OR THE COMMENCEMENT OF A DISCOUNT PERIOD (IF },;APPLICABLE) WILL NOT BE MADE UNTIL THE DEFECTS ARE CORRECTED AND THE ROLLER +REINSPECTED AND ACCEPTED. ALTERNATELY, IF THE ROLLER IS INSPECTED AFTER �'DELIVERY AND REJECTED BECAUSE OF DEFICIENCIES, IT SHALL BE THE DEALER'S i RES,PONSIBILITY TO PICK UP THE ROLLER, MAKE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS AND $:REDELIVER THE ROLLER FOR REINSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE. FOR A PRE- DELIVERY INSPECTION, CONTACT THE MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT AT (408) :867- 3438. PREPARATION FOR DELIVERY THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE CONSIGNEE (RECEIVING AGENCY) WITH THE ROLLER. 1) COMPLETED AND SIGNED PRE - DELIVERY SERVICE CHECKLIST 2) "LINE SET TICKETS" OR "WINDOW STICKERS" SHOWING ALL OPTIONS INSTALLED. 3) BILL OF SALE 4) CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN , ,NOTE.; THE CITY OF SARATOGA WILL REGISTER AND LICENSE THE ROLLER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AFTER DELIVERY. THE NAME AND-ADDRESS ON THE BILL OF SALE /CERTIFICATE OF ;!-$ORIGIN SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS: CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 4 - - - -- -- _.,_ ... 1 i {A. e. if- t: ;BID EVALUATION `'IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF SARATOGA PURCHASING POLICIES, THE ROLLER :DESCRIBED HEREIN SHALL BE PURCHASED FROM THE RESPONSIBLE BIDDER SUBMITTING THE LOWEST AND BEST PROPOSAL, OR ALL PROPOSALS MAY BE REJECTED. THE .DETERMINATION OF WHICH BIDDER SUBMITTED THE LOWEST AND BEST PROPOSAL SHALL REST SOLELY WITH THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND SHALL BE BASED UPON THE LOWEST TOTAL COST. TO THE CITY. IN MAKING THIS DECISION, THE INITIAL PURCHASE PRICE WILL BE'CONSIDERED AS WELL AS THE FOLLOWING: 1) SCHEDULED DELIVERY TIME WARRANTY 3) THE ROLLER MUST MEET OR EXCEED THIS MINIMUM SPECIFICATION FACILITIES OF THE SUPPLIER MUST BE ADEQUATE TO SERVICE THE _s EQUIPMENT SOLD. '5) PROMPT PAYMENT DISCOUNT L6) AS PART OF THE BID EVALUATION, THE CITY MAY REQUIRE A DEMONSTRATION OF THE ROLLER PROPOSED IN THIS BID. THE. VENDOR WILL BE NOTIFIED OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE '< DEMONSTRATION APPROXIMATELY TEN (10) WORKING DAYS AFTER THE -` BID OPENING DATE. IGHT AND DIMENSIONS THE BASIC WEIGHT SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 5,000 POUNDS. WEIGHT: 5083# THE MINIMUM OPERATING WEIGHT SHALL BE 5,400 POUNDS. OPERATING WEIGHT; 5495# THE ROLLING WIDTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 47.0 INCHES. WIDTH: 47.3" 5 I �r L`L . 1. ' . !� 4 r; lw. DRIVE SYSTEM 0 THE ENGINE SHALL BE A TWO CYLINDER AIR COOLED DIESEL. TYPE: 2 -cyl air cooled diesel THE.MINIMUM S.A.E. RATED H.P. SHALL BE 34 @ 2600 RPM. '%, RATED H.P.: 34.7 @ 2600 RPM THE TRANSMISSION SHALL BE HYDROSTATIC. TRANS: hydrostatic DRIVING AND COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS• THE MINIMUM GRADEABILITY WITH /WITHOUT VIBRATION 30/40. GRADEABILITY: 30/40 THE MIMIMUM CENTRIFUGAL FORCE PER DRUM SHALL BE 6000 POUNDS. FORCE PER DRUM: 6300# THE STEERING SHALL BE ARTICULATING WITH 27 %' MINIMUM21VTICULATION. ARTICULATION: THE MINIMUM FREQUENCY SHALL BE 3,300 VPM. VPM: 3300 THE SPEED RANGE SHALL BE 0 -5 MPH. MPH: 0 - 5 THE SERVICE BRAKE SHALL BE HYDROSTATIC, THE PARKING BRAKE TO BE MECHANICAL. 6 SERVICE BRAKE: hydrostatic PARKING BRAKE: mechanical t ;:t. ,r r `= SPRINKLER SYSTEM THE WATER TANK SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM CAPACITY OF 40 GALLONS. GALLONS: 43-� THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE PRESSURIZED. TYPE: Pressurized THE SUPPLIER .SHALL NOT REMOVE OR EXCLUDE ANY ITEMS PROVIDED BY THE MANUFACTURER CONSIDERED AS STANDARD EQUIPMENT. THE UNIT OFFERED MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS STANDARD EQUIPMENT BY THE MANUFACTURER. HORN PARKING BRAKE LIGHT AND AUDIBLE ALARM ENGINE OIL LIGHT HYDRAULIC OIL LEVEL GUAGE ANTI - VANDALISM PACKAGE INCLUDES LOCKABLE HYDRAULIC TANK FILTER CAP TOOL BOX WITH TOOL KIT ON -OFF VIBRATION SWITCH FOR INDEPENDENT REAR DRUM CONTROL ADJUSTABLE OPERATOR SEAT WITH 3" SEAT BELT DRUM SCRAPERS LIGHT PACKAGE INCLUDES 2 FRONT LIGHTS LIGHT PACKAGE INCLUDES 2 RED REAR WORKING LIGHTS 2 POST R.O..P.S. DELIVERY REQUIRED WITHIN 45 DAYS OF BID AWARD. MISCELLANEOUS THE VENDOR SHALL HAVE AN ESTABLISHED SALES AND SERVICE. FACILITY WITHIN THE. SAN FRANCISCO - OAKLAND BAY AREA OR SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND MAINTAIN.A SUPPLY OF PARTS FOR THE UNIT BID. MANUALS THE VENDOR SHALL SUPPLY THE FOLLOWING MANUALS: ONE (1) OPERATOR'S MANUAL ONE (1) PARTS ANUAL ONE (1) REPAIR AND SERVICE MANUAL 7 SPECIFICATION FOR TANDEM DRIVE VIBRATORY ROLLER SPECIFICATION SM 2 90 057 ii ALTERNATE BID #1 THE CITY OF'SARATOGA WILL OFFER FOR TRADE THE FOLLOWING ITEM THAT IS CURRENTLY IN SERVICE. CITY OF'SARATOGA UNIT #35 1977 ESSICK VR42R TOW BEHIND VIBRATORY ROLLER THE VENDOR MAY CONTACT THE MAINTENANCE 'SUPERINTENDENT AT (408)867-3438 TO COORDINATE THE INSPECTION OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED UNIT. 10 8 10 j SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EBECIITIVS SUMMARY NO. % 4 ! AGENDA ITEM 4D MEETING DATE: May 2, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL /C66_ � ��v� ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney SUBJECT: Amendment of Fee Schedule Recommended Motion: Adoption of Resolution No. 2621.1 to re- establish the fee for occupancy inspections. Report Summary: On September 20, 1989, Ordinance No. 71.68 was adopted adding a new Article to the City Code requiring occupancy inspections upon certain transfers of real estate. At the same time, Resolution No. 2383.6 was adopted to establish a $165 fee for such inspections. On January 3, 1990, a new Fee Schedule was adopted and all prior fee resolutions were repealed, including Resolution No. 2386.6. We have now discovered that the occupancy inspection fee was inadvertently omitted from the new schedule. The proposed Resolution No. 2621.1 will reinstate the occupancy inspection fee in the same amount of $165 for both mandatory and voluntary inspections. Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: Motion and Vote: C" K_ Reinstatement of previously established fee. Proposed Resolution No. 2621.1 • RESOLUTION NO: 2621.1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF FEES AS ADOPTED IN RESOLUTION NO. 2621 WHEREAS, on January 3, 1990, the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted Resolution No. 2621 establishing a schedule of fees for various applications, permits, extensions, renewals, services and other matters enumerated therein; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Resolution No. 2621 to establish a fee for the conduct of occupancy inspections pursuant to Article 16 -71 of the City Code, such fee having been previously established by Resolution No. 2383.6 adopted on September 20, 1989, and inadvertently omitted from Resolution No. 2621, which repealed the former resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga that pursuant to Section 16- 71.030 of the Saratoga City Code, an inspection fee is hereby established in the amount of $165 for the conduct of .an occupancy inspection under Article 16 -71 of the City Code. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 2nd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk ' -1- Mayor - -_.-A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �I AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE:S 2 90 ORIGINATING DEPT.:Planning CITY. MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -89 -106; Location: 15410 Pepper Ln. Applicant & Appellant: Joseph Guilardi Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the approval of the Planning Commission including conditions re- quiring modification and deny the appeal. Report Summary: The Planning Commission conducted several hearings in order to resolve the compatibility concerns raised by the surrounding neigh- borhood. The Planning Commission ultimately approved the appli- cant's plans for a one and two -story addition with several archi- tectural modifications to prevent impact to neighbors. The appli- cant is objecting to several of these required modifications and is seeking Council's reconsideration. Staff supports the decision reached by the Planning Commission as ?revised plans enable the applicant's essential usage of the new structure without signifi- cantly affecting neighboring views or personal privacy. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Planning Commission reports 2. Resolution DR -89 -106 3. Planning Commission minutes 4. Correspondence 5. Exhibit "A ", Planning Commission approved plans Motion and Vote: �, Lk-O 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM: RA MEETING DATE:S 2 90 ORIGINATING DEPT.:Plannina CITY. MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -89 -106; Location: 15410 Pepper Ln. Applicant & Appellant: Joseph Guilardi Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the approval of the Planning Commission including conditions re- quiring modification and deny the appeal. Report Summary: The Planning Commission conducted several hearings in order to resolve the compatibility concerns raised by the surrounding neigh- borhood. The Planning Commission ultimately approved the appli- cant's plans for a one and two -story addition with several archi- tectural modifications to prevent impact to neighbors. The appli- cant is objecting to several of these required modifications and is seeking Council's reconsideration. Staff supports the decision reached by the Planning Commission as revised plans enable the applicant's essential usage of the new structure without signifi- cantly affecting neighboring views or personal privacy. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Planning Commission reports 2. Resolution DR -89 -106 3. Planning Commission minutes 4. Correspondence 5. Exhibit "A ", Planning Commission approved plans Motion and Vote: I r 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council DATE: FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -89 -106; Location: 15410 Pepper Ln. Applicant & Appellant: Joseph Guilardi 5/2/90 The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's approval of the one and two -story addition to an existing one -story single family home. After extensive hearings involving both the appli- cant, his architect and all adjoining neighbors, the Planning Commission approved a modified plan that addressed the neighbor- hood concerns at the same time retaining the significant elements of the applicant's design. The applicant is appealing the changes to the required plans as required by the Planning Commis- sion. Background The Planning Commission held extensive hearings to investigate neighborhood concerns. To summarize, the site specific concerns were as follows: 15450 Pepper Lane (adjacent to south property line): The neigh- bor expressed concern regarding the visual and privacy impacts from front yard and living areas. The Planning Commission re- quired modification to upper story bathroom windows and addition- al landscape screening to soften views. 15415 Pepper Lane (across Pepper Lane facing the proposed): These neighbors expressed mass and bulk concerns regarding their view from the front yard and interior living areas resulting from the proposed 2nd story and a porte cochere over the driveway. The Planning Commission required reduction of the porte cochere to accommodate only a single vehicle and required additional landscaping around the structure. 15395 Pepper Lane (across Pepper Lane facing the proposed): These neighbors expressed concern that views from the second story addition will impact rear yard patio /entertainment areas. The Planning Commission responded by requiring mature landscaping 1 ` DR -89 -106; 15410 Pepper Ln. in the front yard to replace diseased trees recently removed by the applicant by permit. 15370 Pepper Lane (adjacent to the northerly property line) : This neighbor was directly adjacent to the side elevation which will be two - story. Although this portion of the building exceed- ed required side yard setback, concern regarding the visibility of the new construction, privacy and solar access impacts were significant. In responding to these complaints, the Planning Commission required additional landscaping set back from the property line to reduce shading, obscure glass in the upper bathroom and reduction in width of the second floor balcony to prevent privacy intrusions. Protect Summary The following summarizes the project details: ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD, Residential PARCEL SIZE: 1.48 acres; 64,681 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 7% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 22 cu. yds. Cut Depth: 18 ft. Fill: 0 cu. yds. Fill Depth: 0 ft. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Wood shake roof with horizontal wood siding painted white. PROPOSAL LOT COVERAGE: 15,910 sq. ft. (25 %) HEIGHT• 26 ft. SIZE OF 1st floor: 3419 sq. ft. STRUCTURE: 2nd floor: 1845 sq. ft. Accessory Structures: 1330 sq. ft. Total: 6594 sq. ft. SETBACKS: Front: 77 ft. Rear: 117 ft. Right Side: 78 ft. Left Side: 80 ft. CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 23,638 sq. ft. (35 %) 26 ft. 6750 sq. ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 60 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. The applicant is requesting the City Council's reconsideration of changes required by the Planning Commission in granting design review approval. The changes to the applicant's plans by the Planning Commission included the following: 2 DR -89 -106; 15410 Pepper Lane 1. Reduction of the porte cochere from a two vehicle width to one vehicle width; 2. Change to the bathroom window on the north elevation from clear glass to obscure glass; 3. Reduction of the second story balcony to a maximum width of 7' —On. 4. Additional landscaping at both side property lines. The applicants are requesting deletion of Planning Commission conditions reducing the porte cochere, obscuring the bathroom window, and reducing the second story balcony. Analysis The Planning staff feels the site is an appropriate candidate for second story remodel and will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Second story residences, although not prevalent, do exist in close proximity to the application. Since all of the concerns and impacts have been addressed by Commission condi- tions, all design review findings can be made. Staff relies on the following issues to support its recommendation of approval. 1. Staff's initial review of the proposal conducted without benefit of neighborhood input was recommended approval without modification. As specified concerns were raised through the public hearing process, staff recommended changes to reduce the impact to adjacent neighbors. In staff's opinion, these modifications did not significantly alter the practical usage of the addition by the applicant. 2. The lot is substantially larger than the minimum lot size required for the zone district. Therefore, substantial setbacks are provided to all property lines. The Council should refer to the project summary above for specific setbacks provided. 3. The character of the existing residence as well as this neighborhood is reflected in the proposed remodel. The revisions include use of consistent building materials, window treatment and roof style which enables staff to find the project compatible with the neighborhood. 4. Substantial existing mature landscaping exists to minimize visual impacts of the proposed addition. An eight foot hedge exists on both side property lines that obscures views of the single story addition and a portion of the proposed second story. With the addition of landscaping required by the Planning Commission, the proposal will be substantially screened from neighboring views. 3 DR -89 -106; 15410 Pepper Ln. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the approval of the Planning Commission including conditions requiring modifications, and deny the appeal. t� Steve Emorlie Planning Director SE /dsc 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROW Martin Jacobson DATE marcl• 14, 1990 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR-89-106; 15410 Pepper Ln. APPLICANT /OWNER: Guilardi APN: 510-04-08 •E File No. DR -89 -106 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 8/18/89 Application complete: 9/15/89 Notice published: 12/27/89 Mailing completed: 12/28/89 Posting completed: 12/21/89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission has reviewed this project at two public hearings and one study session. Issues in contention involved the porte cochere, the impact of the second story on adjacent neighbors and neighbors across the street and the compat- ibility of the addition with the surrounding neighborhood. The item was continued to allow the applicant to prepare revised plans reduc- ing the impact on surrounding properties. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant has prepared revised plans in an attempt to conform with Planning Commission direction. The revisions can be summarized as: 1) the extension of the one story roof line on the northern elevation; 2) reduction of the porte cochere; and 3) the addition of three sided bay windows on either side of the entrance on the second story front elevation. The applicants also are requesting that additional landscaping be located prior to final building in- spection of the addition. The applicants feel that proposed land- scaping can be strategically located after construction commences to better preserve neighbors light, air views and privacy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the design modification and approve the application by adopting Resolution DR -89 -106. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR -89 -106 3. Plans, Exhibit "A" 4. Correspondence 5. Planning Commision minutes kah:ws5 \se \perpt \dr STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD, Residential Very Low Density PARCEL SIZE: 1.48 acres; 64,681 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 7% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 22 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 18 ft. Fill: 0 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 0 ft. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Wood shake roof with horizontal wood siding painted white. PROPOSAL LOT COVERAGE 15,910 sq. ft. (25 %) HEIGHT• 26 ft. SIZE OF 1st Floor: 3419 sq. ft. STRUCTURE: 2nd Floor: 1845 sq. ft. Accessory Structures: 1330 sq. ft. TOTAL: 6594 sq. ft. SETBACKS: Front: 77 ft. Rear: 117 ft. .Right Side: 78 ft. Left Side: 80 ft. CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 23,638 sq. ft. (35 %) 26 ft. 6750 sq. ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 60 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting the Planning Com- mission's review and approval of revised plans prepared to address Commission concerns voiced at the February 14, 1990 meeting. In addition to the preparation of revised plans the applicants proposed to install mature landscaping prior to final building inspection to ensure optimal placement in terms of the privacy and screening re- quirements of the adjacent neighbors. The applicant's architect has prepared revised plans that accomplish the following changes: Porte Cochere: This element remains as a feature of the front eleva- tion although reduced in length from 26 ft. to 17 ft. The applicants have reduced the porte cochere to accommodate one vehicle. Addition- al driveway width will accommodate a second vehicle outside of the porte cochere. Second Story Mass: The second story front elevation now incorporate bay windows on either side of the entrance to increase the building's articulation to reduce the perception of building mass. North Elevation: Because the north elevation was visible to the adjacent property, the stark nature of the two story represented a concern to both the adjoining neighbor and the Planning Commission. The revised plans have attempted to modulate the north elevation by off - setting a portion of the second floor and extending an overhang between the levels. Additionally, a hip roof is shown on the second story which reduces the wall area visible with the gable roof of the original proposal. GENERAL: The sti Lure's footprint and squa footage remain essen- tially the same, as does the exterior building materials. The set- backs from the side property lines are 78 feet to the southerly property line and 80 feet to the northerly property line. From the front property line, the setback has increased from 70 to 77 feet due to reduction of the porte cochere. ANALYSIS• The property provides generous open space to mitigate the impact of the second story addition. While staff feels that additional land- scaping will be needed to enhance the compatibility of this structure and to prevent privacy intrusions to adjoining properties, the con- cerns raised regarding the porte cochere are well founded. The Planning Commission will recall staff has called for the elimination of porte cochere in previous reports. Staff agrees that the original porte cochere reduced the amount of front yard setback which contrib- uted to an overbuilt appearance. The reduction of the porte cochere to a one vehicle width, reduces this feature's impact. Staff agrees that some amount of architectural relief is necessary to break up the horizontal nature of the front elevation which the porte cochere accomplishes this architectural mission. The only question remains: Is the porte cochere a compatible feature in this neighborhood? The concerns regarding the north elevation and its impact on the adjoining neighbor are also concerns shared by staff. Because the adjoining property is downhill, special care and attention should be paid to the views and privacy impact from this direction. Although mature landscaping exists, it will not be sufficient to obliterate the view of the addition. Moreover, the addition of a large number of mature trees may block sunlight to the neighbor's residence, which is also undesirable. Therefore, it is important to create an eleva- tion that does not appear massive and is architecturally appealing. The changes proposed improve the stark appearance of this elevation by creating an eave line to separate the two stories. Additionally, the second floor projection has been eliminated to create an offset between the portions of the second floor providing deeper architec- tural relief. Lastly, the gable end roof over the second story has reduced the amount of exposed walk area further reducing the massive- ness to acceptable proportions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve DR-89-106.pursu- ant to conditions set forth in the attached resolution. 13777 FRUITV.ALE AVENUE • SAR.ATOG,A, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman M E M O R A N D U M Date: February 14, 1990 To: Planning Commission From: Planning Staff Subject: DR -89 -106, Guilardi, 15410 Pepper Lane The above referenced item is a continued public hearing for design review approval from the January 10, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. As the Commission may recall, this project is an applica- tion to construct a second story addition to an existing one story, single family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 zone district. Due to neighborhood and Commission concerns over the design of the project, the applicant was directed to revise the plans to reduce the floor area of the home. This allows a carport on a second dwelling unit, to the rear of the property, to be enclosed while not exceeding the allowable floor area for the site. A suggestion was also made to the applicant to eliminate a proposed porte- cochere attached to the home on the front elevation. This action would result in the project becoming more compatible to the neighborhood and reduce the overall mass of the structure. The aftermath of the loss of the porte - cochere, is a long, unbroken eave line. As a substitute, a more modest, gable end entry cover could be constructed to furnish a similar effect. Other changes to the plan include reorientation of south facing windows on the second floor and a bay window extension covered by a hipped roof on the second floor above the entry. Total floor area of the resulting project measures 5219 sq. ft.; representing a reduction of 149 square feet. Including the 1330 sq. ft. second unit with a new, attached 200 sq. ft. garage, total floor area for the site equals 6749 sq. ft., where 6750 sq. ft. are allowed. Printed on recycled paper. Recommendation: Staff recommends conditional design review approval be granted based on revised plans marked Exhibit 'A', by adopting Resolution DR -89 -106. Conditions on the resolution include the elimination of the porte - cochere and added landscaping to buffer and screen the home from adjacent properties. Attachments: 1. Staff Report of 1/10/90 2. Resolution DR -89 -106 l� Martin idj2fobson Assistant Planner Attachments: 1. Staff Report of 1/10/90 2. Resolution DR -89 -106 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Martin Jacobson DATE: January 10, 1990 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR-89-106; 15 410 Pepper Ln . APPLICANT /OWNER: Guilardi APN: 510 -04 -08 Q G 0310-Os-03 1-. -pt I 510 -0 510 -03 -1¢ !9910 19880 (9281 510- o2 -Ofo 910-02 -07 �l0 -02 -08 152 15355 510 -03- 02 510 -03 -15 t 15365 51c 1 5300 1 93 05 510 -03 -01 510 -O3 -I6 510-02 -05 g/o -02 -09 1rjs IC7 54) LAR w Y. 15371 04 510 -04 -01 15400 510- 04 - l o 510 -o2 -16 05/0 -02- 10 52j4.0 +sto 09 (s) 1 7 1 5401 1 2 -03 - o4- l 5,50T 510 -04- 02 CA) 5427 10-02-18 Ca' 15449 Slo -oz -19 24 15395 516-02-11 15400. t Sg 15 510 -02-1 149 -05 `6510.02-04 1 ;5489 510 - 02 -13 19730 I 15405 0 510 -04 -¢ 510 -04 -03 19755 510 -o4 -o5 19770 5►o-oq -o7 19ga1 5!0-02' 14• 19750 510 -0 4 OG 14600. 44 slo- 26 -OZ9 Z � O 6LEN UN"&' Staff Report for Reference File No. DR -89 -106; 15410 Pepper Lane EXECUTIVE SUNMRY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 8 -18 -89 Application complete: 9 -15 -89 Notice published: 12 -27 -89 Mailing completed: 12 -28 -89 Posting completed: 12 -21 -89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code article 15- 45.080, a request for design review approval to construct a 419 sq. ft. first floor and a 1949 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing one - story home for a total floor area of 6931 sq. ft. in the R- 1- 40,000 zone district at 15410 Pepper Lane. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The project meets all minimum zoning ordinance standards and staff is able to make all required findings to recommend design review approval of the application. Existing landscaping plays a role in reducing the impact of the addition. Design features include the second floor stepping back from most of the perimeter of the home with roof massing interrupted by gable end components. No tree removal is proposed except for two diseased camphors and grading is minimal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Resolution DR -89 -106. ATTACHMENTS: mj /dx Approve the application by adopting 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR -89 -106 3. Plans, Exhibit 'A' 4. Correspondence File No. DR -89 -106; 15410 Pepper Lane STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD, Residential Very Low Density PARCEL SIZE: 1.48 acres; 64,681 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 7% GRADING REQUIRED: Approximately 22 cu. yds.; 18" deep. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Wood shake roof with horizonal wood siding painted white. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE LOT COVERAGE: 16,050 sq. ft. (25. %) 23,638 sq. ft. (35 %) HEIGHT: 26 ft. 26 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 1st Floor: 2nd Floor: Accessory Structure: TOTAL: SETBACKS: Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 3419 sq. ft. 1949 sq. ft. 1330 sq. ft. 6698 sq. ft. 6750 sq. ft. 70 ft. Front: 30 ft. 117 ft. Rear: 60 ft. 78 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. 80 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission's design review approval to construct a 419 sq. ft. first floor and a 1949 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing one -story home. Total floor area for the site, after the additions and including an existing accessory structure, would measure 6698 square feet. The project is located in the R -1- 40,000 zone district at 15410 Pepper Lane, approximately 400 ft. north of Glen Una Drive. The proposal is located in a neighborhood characterized by a diversity of architectural styles: from tudor and colonial to California ranch and Mediterranean, encompassing both one- and two - story designs. Two -story homes are to the north and east of the subject lot; a one -story is to the south. File No. DR -89 -106; 15410 Pepper Lane The subject property has a very gentle, 6.5% northeast facing slope. A variety of ordinance size trees, from oaks and pines to ornamental and fruit trees, are located on the parcel. Though still displayed on the site plan, a dead, 48" diameter Monterey pine was recently approved for removal. The residence on the property is a one - story, low profile, ranch style home measuring 3000 square feet. A 1330 sq. ft. caretaker's shed is to the rear of the lot along with a 220 sq. ft. outbuilding. The caretaker's shed is actually a second dwelling as defined by the zoning ordinance. The department has no record of a use permit being issued for the second unit. The site is served by a circular drive with an extended, traditional drive to the caretaker's shed. Desian Review The proposal meets all zoning ordinance standards with regard to setbacks, height, coverage and floor area. Staff is able to make all required findings to recommend design review approval of this application. The proposed addition is a 1949 sq. ft. second story and a covered entry portico to the existing one -story home. Total floor area of the dwelling would equal 5368 square feet. The second floor would cover 57% of the home's footprint. A mixed gable end and hipped roof will be finished with wood shakes. Horizontal wood siding is to be painted white. No changes to the caretaker's shed are proposed. But the 220 sq. ft. outbuilding is to be demolished in order to meet the maximum allowed floor area standard. Total floor area on the site would measure 6698 sq. ft. where 6750 sq. ft. is permitted. Staff has added a condition to the resolution requiring the applicant to obtain a second dwelling use permit prior to issuance of building permits. The project preserves existing privacy and views from surrounding properties by maintaining deep setbacks from property lines. The existing, mature landscaping screens the proposal from adjacent dwellings. Except for two diseased camphors, existing landscaping is being preserved and little grading is anticipated. The project is compatible to homes in the neighborhood by not exceeding the allowed floor area or maximum height. Mass and bulk are reduced by stepping much of the second floor back from the perimeter of the home and breaking -up the roof area with dormers and hipped roof features. Mature landscaping also adds to the softening of the project. File No. DR -89 -106; 15410 Pepper Lane Public Comment Staff has received two letters from neighbors objecting to this project. The first neighbor expresses concern over a loss of privacy in their back yard as a result of the second story addition. However, their property is located across Pepper Lane and slightly west of the project site making direct sight lines to the rear of the property infeasible. Existing, mature landscaping, including a large Monterey pine, further screens the addition from this neighbor. The second neighbor is located directly west of the project site. Their property is elevated approximately 10 ft. higher that the subject lot. For this reason, the second floor will be clearly visible from the front door of their home notwithstanding an 8 -9 ft. tall hedge separating the properties. To resolve this impact, staff has required 3, 15 -gal. redwood trees be installed between existing oak and redwood trees to complete a gap in the land- scaping. The Commission may also wish to consider minor changes on the elevation in question such as hipped roof or setting the second floor further back from the first floor to create a smoother transition between the two elements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application by adopting Resolution DR -89 -106. i;LC;L:VED WARREN B. HEIR AIA FEB -91990 A N D A S S O C I A T E S PLANNING DEPT A R C H I T E C T S • P L A N N E R S 14630 BIG BASIN WAY • P.O. BOX 14 . SARATOGA • CALIFORNIA 95070 867 -9365 INFORMATION ON CHANGES FROM ORIGINAL APPLICATION DRAWINGS ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS TO RESIDENCE FOR MR. JOSEPH GUILARDI 15410 PEPPER LANE, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Date: February 7, 1990 The following information is presented as support information for the changes made to the application drawings after the presentation of the project at the Committee -of- the -Whole meeting on January 30, 1990. Garage for Caretaker Unit The existing carport has been changed to a one -car garage, at the suggestion of the Planning Commission, without increasing the total square footage. The main residence has been changed in square footage by changes to small areas, finding that part of the main stairs were counted twice, and finding that certain other areas were calculated incorrectly. The whole project is now within the allow- able square footage for the site, including the area of the garage. The square footage is shown by areas on the drawings as required, and our calculations are identified by all areas. Master Bathroom Window Treatment The Master Bathroom area has been revised in accordance with the discussion and presentation at the Committee -of -the -Whole meeting. The location of the tub and shower have been changed to meet the applicants needs, and the windows have been changed to provide sunlight and view. The appearance from the exterior is more inkeepping with the home and, as agreed by some of the commissioners at the meeting, does not invade the privacy of the neighbor to the south as there was , a window in that direction on the original drawings. The high gable window will provide a x iew of the mountains and will not invade the privacy to the south. There is a need to provide the applicant with windows to his drivway for security reasons and this window arrangement will provide the only area to view the drive. Two Story Elevation at the Northeast Corner Concern was expressed by one commissioner who felt that the two story wall, full height of the home, would be an impact to the neighbor the the north. The only view of this corner is from the applicant's rear yard as the existing trees block this view from the north neighbor. The full height wall is, in the opinion of this office, an excellent element used to break the horizontal feeling of the home and remove any monotony with the roof line. Landscaping and Streeni The applicant agrees that certain new landscaping and trees will be provided to screen and protect the project. Landscaping is meant to enhance a building and INFORMATION ON CHANGES ADDITION AND LATERATIONS TO RESIDENCE FOR JOSEPH GUILARDI PAGE 2 - FEBRUARY 7, 1990 and site, and the landscape plan will be provided by a landscape architect dur- ing construction for Planning Department Staff to review. The applicant believes, and is supported by this office and the landscape architect, that the best loc- ation of trees for screening can be determined during the construction of the addition. The applicant agrees that he will work with staff during construction but does not wish any exact locations recommended at this time. All approvals will be given prior to occupancy. Driveway and Porte Cochere With a varied expression of opinions from the Planning Commission members present at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting the following information is presented by this office as architect to state our reasons why this element is necessary to the design .and meets the needs of the owner. 1. There is nothing in the ordinance that prevents a porte cochere. They do exist in this city to serve a need for the residences. 2. The size and location does not infringe on the rights of any neighbor as the front columns are approximately 70' from the front property line. The property is 1.48 acres, which can support this important element of design and use. 3. The front roof line has been changed to compliment the roof line at the second floor directly above the porte cochere. This change was made on the model presented and softens the front end facing the street. 4. The most important use of the porte cochere, other than provide cover at the front driveway at the front entrance, is to provide_ the additional one story look with the perpendicular element breaking the long horizontal line. When viewing from the driveway or the street, scale comes into use in design, and the true line of the building can be visualized. Just viewing the building from flat elevations does not give the true proportions of the porte cochere wing. As the architect it is my opinion that this wing adds to the design and apprearance, will not damage the neighbors, and provides a use for the owner. Architect 1 . File No. DR -89 -106; 15410 Pepper Lane RESOLUTION NO. DR -89 -106 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Guilardi - 15410 Pepper Lane WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval of plans to construct an 1845 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing one -story home; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: -The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the proposal maintains deep setbacks to the property lines and does not exceed the maximum allowed height. -The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that current and proposed landscaping screens the home from adjacent homes. -The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that only two diseased camphors trees are to be removed and grading is minimal at 22 cubic yards. -The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the second floor steps backs from the perimeter of the first floor and breaks -up the roof area. The landscaping also softens the impact of the addition. -The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning district in that the project does not exceed the maximum allowed height or floor area for the site. -The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that adequate setbacks to property lines are proposed. -The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that very little grading is necessary to File No. DR -89 -106; 15410 Pepper Lane complete the project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Joseph Guilardi for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 3. Height of structure shall not exceed 26 feet. 4. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 5. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing the following shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of a zone clearance: 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 4 feet or higher., d.) All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. e.) Erosion control measures f.) Standard information to include title block, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet no's. owner's name, etc. 6. The storage shed nearest the northeast corner of the property shall be demolished prior to final building inspection. 7. The applicant shall remove magazine racks and trash at the left side yard of the property prior to building permit issuance. File No. DR -89 -106; 15410 Pepper Lane 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a use permit for the second dwelling (caretaker's unit), prior to issuance of building permits for the second story addition. 9. Submit a landscaping plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to building permit. Plans shall include evergreen screen trees along the south property line between existing oak and redwood trees. Evergreen trees shall also be installed near the northerly neighbor and shall be setback at least 15 ft. from the property line, and within the front yard setback to screen the porte cochere and preserve the privacy of neighbors across the street. Trees shall be installed prior to final occupancy and be no less than 15 gal. in size. The trees shall be located to provide screening, to reduce privacy impact but to avoid impact on sunlight of the adjacent properties. The applicant shall install vines around the columns of the porte cochere for screening. 10. Obscure glass shall be used for the bathroom window at the left elevation. 11. The balcony railing shall be recessed by 3 ft. and be no more than 7 ft. wide to reduce privacy impact. 12. Revised plans reflecting the requirements on Condition #10 and and #11 shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to zone clearance. Section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the Building Division when applying for a building permit. Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 14th day of March, 1990 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Harris, Burger, Tappan, Kolstad File No. DR -89 -106; 15410 Pepper Lane NOES: Moran, Tucker ABSENT: Siegfried Chairperson, PlMnning Commission ATTEST: xl'� ec tary, Planning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 January 10, 1990 ----------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Co " ssioner Kolstad stated he is concerned about incompatibility with t neighborhood. Commission pan said he is very familiar with that street which is a very quiet r lifornia ranch environment. He stated he agrees with Commissioner Burg cou not vote for esign. KOLSTAD /HARRIS MOVED DENIAL OF DR -89 -114 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Passed 7 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. DR -88 -064 Yonan, 13845 Upper Hill Rd., request for design V -89 -045 review approval for a new 5,873 sq. ft. two -story single family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to allow 40% slope under the building site where 30% is the maximum allowed (cont. from 12/13/89). ------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated January 10, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:52 p.m. Mr. Lou Dorsich, Architect, appeared for the Applicant. He said he has met with staff and Mr. Kennedy to assess the impact on the rear deck of Mr. Kennedy's property. TAPPAN /HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. Passed 7 -0. TAPPAN /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR -88 -064 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7 -0. MORAN /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE V -89 -045 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7 -0. 11. DR -89 -106 Guilardi, 15410 Pepper Ln., request for design review approval to construct a 419 sq. ft. first floor and a 1,949 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing one story home for a total floor area of 6,931 sq. ft. in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 January 10, 1990 ----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated January 10, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:57 p.m. Mr. Warren Heid, Architect, appeared for the Applicant. He indicated that he and the owner agree with the Staff Report and feel that the information is accurate and the conditions are basically acceptable. He explained in detail how the plans evolved. He indicated that, after studying the property from many views, if the home is placed in the center of the property there would be appropriate setbacks. The porte - cochere was added for convenience and to complement the one story. The new ridge would only be 7 ft. higher than the existing ridge. The wall across the front at the second floor is behind the sloping roof and softens from the street. The second floor has two bathrooms that face Pepper Lane. The front is complemented with the multi -sided master bedroom and would be the only area that might invade other people's property. However there are about 155 to 160 feet, plus the distance the master bedroom sets back (nearly 200 feet) from the front of one house to the front of the next. The Applicants do not feel the neighbors will have their privacy invaded any more than they would. As far as south exposure is concerned there is approximately 100 ft. to the home to the south from the property line and another 90 ft. to the garage so again there is quite a bit of distance there. Ms. Mari Lynne Earls, 15370 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. She stated she has not been able to view any plans of the house. Ms. Earls viewed the plans at this time. Ms. Jane Gold, 15015 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. She said she feels the second story home interferes with her privacy. The windows from the second story would look directly onto her porch and into her living room. The natural landscape would be changed, and she would be seeing the entire house from her living room. She considers the house to be excessively bulky. She also feels the portico is not consistent or compatible with other homes in the area. She indicated the Applicant has not asked the feelings of any of the neighbors. She stated the pepper trees are vulnerable to frost and she cannot depend on those being there for any length of time. Ms. Pamela Lavin, 15450 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. Her property is higher and she is concerned about having the full end of the second story visible from her front windows. She understands there will also be a back deck on the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 13 January 10, 1990 ----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued second story and whoever is out there will be able to look onto her property and probably the adjacent property. She was concerned about the fact the house will be a bulky, high house and about the precedent which will be set if this home is allowed to be built. She also had concerns about the aesthetics of the house. After viewing the plans, Ms. Earls stated the placement of the deck is not as bad as she feared. She is, however, concerned because she is uphill and her first floor is lower than the Applicant's first floor. There are no significant trees along the property. line and the only thing that keeps the privacy between the two properties are hedges trimmed to a 7 ft. level. She is concerned that she will lose privacy in the swimming pool area. Mr. Heid addressed the neighbors' comments. He responded that the Applicant has tried to be aware of the concerns for privacy for the both the Applicant and the neighbors. He circulated pictures taken from the roof indicating the exposure from all angles. BURGER /TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:26 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Commissioner Burger stated that the Planning Commission is dealing with a large lot with extremely large setbacks. The home enjoys a tremendous amount of setbacks and, in her opinion, the design attempts to be sensitive to all of the neighbors. She has little problem with the proposal but would perhaps personally appreciate it more if it did not have the porte - cochere in the front. Commissioner Tucker concurred with Commissioner Burger's comments. She said she felt some sort of lattice work might soften the effect and keep it more in a rural setting. She expressed concern that the application is almost to the maximum and yet there is a second unit in the back that has a carport and not an enclosed garage. She would like to see the carport enclosed and the adjustments made because problems might occur in the future. Her other concern is that in condition 7 a caretaker's unit is discussed. She felt that if there is no mention in the ordinance of a caretaker's unit it should be referred to as a second unit. Commissioner Moran agreed with the comments about the covered area for the car. She said she is not in favor of keeping the carport or the circular driveway. Commissioner Kolstad indicated that after visiting the site the privacy and setbacks did not have as much impact as some of the neighbors indicated. He said he did not know if the portico is PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 10, 1990 --------------------------- - - - - -- PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 14 appropriate. The major issue is that the second story appears to have a long line to it and tends to be a bit imposing. He indicated that might be what the neighbors are concerned about. Chairperson Siegfried said he was not too concerned about the home and in looking at the plans again he felt that with 80 ft. setbacks on each side and then 30+ ft. for the master bedroom those concerns are well addressed. He said he did not have any particular problem with the circular driveway. Commissioner Harris stated she is not concerned about the circular driveway. She said that Commissioner Tucker's comments about enclosing the carport to make a garage for the second unit is well taken, and there would need to be some square footage adjustment so that a variance would not be needed on the square footage. Planning Director Emslie stated that staff is suggesting additional landscaping be added as a condition,and acknowledges the concern of the adjoining neighbor. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Applicant address the porte - cochere and the adjustment for the garage. MORAN /HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -89 -106 TO JANUARY 24, 1990. Passed 7 -0. Break 9:35 p.m. - 9:50 p.m. 12. V -89 -042 Hornung, 18651 Perego Way, request for variance approval to reduce the required 10 ft. side yard setback to about 6 ft. in order to construct a room addition to an existing home in the R -1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated January 10, 1990. He reported that this is a nonconforming lot and corrected the Staff Report to indicate the side yard setback is 7 ft. not 10 ft. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:51 p.m. Mr. Jeff Hornung, 18651 Perego Way, Applicant, 'addressed the Planning Commission. He agreed with the Staff Report and stated he is willing to compromise on the conditions of the Report. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 24, 1990 Technical Corrections to Packet Material Continued Page 2 as soon as they were received. Mr. Emslie commented that the proper procedure, if any Commissioners felt they did not have sufficient time to review the plans, would be to continue the item to February 14. Several Commissioners indicated they did not receive the drawings and would ask that the item be continued. Chairperson Siegfried indicated he would bring the item up later in the meeting when the Changs were present. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONS 1. V -89 -035 Gill, 13935 Saratoga Ave., request for variance approval to reduce the required rear yard setback of 45 ft. to 37 ft. to facilitate construction of an addition to an existing home in the R- 1- 20,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 2/14/90 at the request of the applicant) . ------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 2. DR -89 -116 Blackwell, 21357 Diamond Oaks Ct., request for V -89 -051 design review approval to construct a new 5,454 sq. ft. two -story home within the NHR" zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is requested to allow the home to be built on a greater than 30% slope, and to exceed the allowable floor area for this site (cont. to 2/28/90 for further geologic review). ------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 3. DR -89 -100 F4'. DR -89 -106 Briggs, 20540 Komina Ave., request for design review approval for a two -story addition to an existing one -story single family dwelling in the R -1- 10,000 zone district. The total proposed floor area including proposed detached garage is 3,002 sq. ft. (cont. to 2/14/90). — Guilardi, 15410 Pepper Ln., request for design review approval to construct a 419 sq. ft. first floor and a 1,949 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing one story home for a total floor area of 6,931 sq. ft. in the R -1 -40 zone per Chapter 15 of the City Cod ( cont . to 2/14/90) . -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j 5. DR -89 -039 Pearce, 14857 Bohlman Rd., reques sign review approval for a new 7,570 sq. ft. one -story single family dwelling in the HC -RD zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 1/10/90). PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA MINUTES DATE: January 30, 1990 PLACE: Community Center, Arts & Crafts Room, 19665 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Committee -of -the Whole Meeting --------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- . Parking Limitations in Village Districts he Planning Director summarized the parking limitations within v ious parking districts. The item was last discussed with the Plan 'ng Commission at a September study session. He also re- ported hat staff is in a position with the hiring of the City Engineer d completion of post earthquake recovery to recommend work procee with the study. Otto Crawford p sented his findings in conducting the surveys. He spoke with all erchants in the Parking District #3 to find out their specific em oyee parking needs which he summarized for the Planning Commission. Larry Tyler discussed the ' aching" problem between districts which compounded the lack of a Table parking in the districts. Gene Zambetti discussed his needs r employee parking for his business located in District #4. He felt that each time re- stricted space should be compensated wi an additional space. He suggested trying to reach an agreement th the School Dis- trict to secure additional parking. He also m tioned that the method of collecting the garbage diminished avai le parking. He also felt that the problem is a lack of parking the Vil- lage. Ann Marie Burger felt that this project should be handled quickly as possible. Gillian Moran felt that the statement of the review committee's mission was important in focusing on the essential issues. 2. DR -89 -106 - Guilardi, 15410 Pepper Lane The Planning Director summarized the direction of the Commission when this item was initially discussed at a public hearing. Warren Heid, architect for the applicant, presented a schematic model that illustrated the proposed addition. He then summarized how the applicants have addressed each of the Planning Commis- 1 sion's concer. : adequate enclosed par, ig for the 2nd unit, privacy issues of adjoining neighbors, and the porte cochere. The applicant responded to Planning Commission questions and presented alternative window placement for the north elevation. M/M Sweet presented their concerns regarding invasion of privacy into their rear yard entertainment areas and suggested land scaping to help mitigate view impact. The applicant presented his perspective of the addition and his concern for maintaining the neighborhood compatibility. Ann Marie Burger felt the lot was large and had generous set- backs. Regarding the privcy impact across the street, she felt that substantial heavy landscaping was necessary to address this concern. Regarding the porte cochere, she felt that home would be better without this feature, but this was an opinion based on personal preference. Gillian Moran felt that the porte cochere was overpowering for this particular neighborhood. She agreed with all other comments by Commissioner Burger. Jan Harris felt that some porch extension is appropriate includ- ing the port cochere as designed. She felt that the south eleva- tion needs good screening to mitigate the bulk of this view. Karen Tucker remained concerned regarding the porte cochere. \ DR -89 -026 - Yam, 22010 Ouarry Rd. The architect presented his revised plans which included reducing thy. 2nd floor by 700 sq. ft. and adding this to the 1st floor whic inc<was offset between the two levels. The Plan ion reiterated its concern regarding mass and bulk. Thsensus that the changes will be an improve- ment. H o color should be darker earthtone. Commis- sioner Mohat the windows of the revised elevations are preferred ginal submittal. 4. DR -89 -100 - 20550 Komina A The Associate Planner reviewe the concerns expressed by the Commission at the public hearing\�7hich were integration of the second story into the first, shading and solar access, and priva- cy of adjoining neighbors. The architect representing the applicant reviewed the changes to the plan which included a reduction in overall height and the addition of a hip roof rather than the gable for the second story addition. The Planning Commission expressed its concern regarding the 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 February 14, 1990 BLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Artuzzi, 19945 Herriman Ave., addressed the Planning Commissi He stated his opposition as the house sits on a hill above his ck yard and reduces the privacy in his back yard. He said he beli es the house is a two -story house. BURGER /MORAN MOV TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:42 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Commissioner Tappan re lled a previous application of a neighbor and wondered if it was ropriate for the Applicant to discuss this with Mr. Artuzzi and to work out a compromise. He said he is sympathetic to the Appl ant's point that he does not observe this as a two -story addition. Commissioner Burger indicated she would be able to make the variance findings because there a exceptional physical circumstances that exist on the lot in t s of the configuration of the land. BURGER /KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE V -89 -035 MAKING FINDINGS THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THE SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE O GOING OUT TO THE SIDE IMPACTS NEIGHBORS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD MO THAN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL AND ALSO MAKING THE FINDINGS THAT T E ARE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT EXIST ON THIS LOT DUE TO TS TOPOGRAPHY WHICH LIMITS THE ADDITION TO THE AREA IN WHICH IT S,, PROPOSED. Passed 6 -1; Commissioner Harris dissenting. 10. DR -89 -106 Guilardi, 15410 Pepper Ln., request for design review approval to construct a 419 sq. ft. first floor and a 1,949 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing one story home for a total floor area of 6,931 sq. ft. in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 1/24/90). ------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated February 14, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:47 p.m. Chairperson Siegfried noted a letter which was received from Mr. and Mrs. Gould objecting to the porte - cochere and expressing other concerns. Mr. .Warren Heid, Architect, addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. He expressed that the Applicant is interested in doing some landscaping but did not specify an exact PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 13 location. The Applicant agrees that trees should be planted prior to occupancy and wishes to have the right to landscape in keeping with appropriate views. Mr. Heid suggested that item 9 be amended to indicate that the Applicant is willing to plant evergreen trees and any type of tree that will afford screening and shielding both for himself and his neighbors. However, the Applicant would like the opportunity to have the discretion of locating those trees during construction. Mr. Heid indicated he was surprised to find item 8, regarding the porte - cochere, in the Resolution. He said a porte - cochere can be built in Saratoga as there is nothing in the ordinance that prevents one. Mr. Heid stated there is a need for the porte - cochere and the Applicant has a right to build it. He indicated the house is softened by the porte - cochere and requested that the merits of the porte - cochere be considered. Ms. Marian Earles, 15370 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. She said that there is no other house like this one on Pepper Lane. Ms. Earles indicated that the second story does not bother her. She made reference to the photographs that the architect circulated at the last meeting of a panoramic view of what the Applicant would be able to see from his second story. She circulated a photograph she took standing at the roofline. She said she saw all of the side of the Applicant's house unobstructed by any trees. If the Applicant is allowed to build a two -story building, he will be able to view all of her property. Ms. Earles indicated that the Applicant's house will make an incredible presence on her side. If the Applicant were to plant pine trees that grow to 20 or 25 feet, the shadows will fall directly onto her home. She said she has a sight- impaired daughter whose bedroom directly faces the proposed building. If the trees are planted, the shadows caused by the afternoon sun would require her daughter to work by,lamplight. Ms. Pamela Lavin, 15450 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. She recalled recommendations were made at the last Public Hearing for the architect to revise or reduce the size of the porte - cochere and she noticed that no changes have been made. Ms. Lavin said the porte - cochere will not fit into the neighborhood. Ms. Jane Gould, 15415 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. She said she feels the house is massive and excessive. The porte - cochere is large, imposing and overpowering. Mr. Heid circulated the pictures taken from where the second story of the Applicant's home will be located. Mr. Heid maintained that the Applicant has the right to build the porte - cochere and that he has a need for it. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 14 TUCKER /HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:09 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Commissioner Kolstad said he viewed the Applicant's home from Mrs. Earles' back yard. He said he could clearly see the existing chimney of the home and the tops of the bushes were in line with eave of the home. He stated he also viewed the property from Mrs. Gould's house. Commissioner Kolstad indicated that he is not in favor of the two -story because of the impacts. Commissioner Tucker reiterated she is still not in favor of the porte - cochere. She said she feels it adds a lot of bulk to the house. Commissioner Harris indicated that the homes surrounding this property are much smaller and that this is a large house and will be very bulky. Commissioner Burger said she felt the one or two story issue has been worked out to her satisfaction and because of the size of the lot she is willing to accept a two story design as proposed. She indicated that she personally does not favor a porte - cochere and felt uncomfortable asking the Applicant to remove it simply because it does not suit her sensibilities. Commissioner Burger indicated that in her opinion, from an impact point of view, the porte- cochere presents no greater problem than the two story addition. Commissioner Tappan stated that as design feature the porte- cochere is out of place for the neighborhood and that it radically departs from the general design characteristics of other properties in the area. He said he is sensitive to Mrs. Earles' concerns about her daughter. Commissioner Moran said she feels that the house has not been changed very much from what it looked like when it first came before the Planning Commission. The house still has problems with being compatible with the neighborhood and still has problems with being massive and bulky. She said she is not prepared to vote in favor of the proposal at this time. Chairperson Siegfried expressed that he does not like the porte- cochere. He said even if that were taken off he then has a concern about the what the look of the front of the house is. He said the side elevation on the left side also stands out. Chairperson PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 15 February 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Siegfried said he had no problem with the second story or the size but would like to see some relief on the side of the second story and some other design of the roofline or the entry to break it up. Mr. Heid suggested that since there is confusion the owner has a right to try to present a different design and requested a continuance. Chairperson Siegfried reiterated the concerns of the Planning Commission to the Applicant. IS /MORAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -89 -106 TO MARCH 14, 1990. Passed 0. 11. R -89 -121 Chang, 12500 DeSanka Ave., request for design review approval to construct a 438 sq. ft. first floor and an 815'sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing one -story home for a total of 2,907 sq. ft. in the R- 1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 1/24/90). --- - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------- Planning Direc or Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission date ebruary 14, 1990. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:20 p.m. Mr. Augustine, Designer, ddressed the Planning Commission. He indicated that one of the re ons for putting in a vaulted ceiling over the dining room was to a urinate the bulkiness and the house was designed to try to minimize he bulkiness. Mr. Jim Chang, Applicant, addresse the Planning Commission. He said he has discussed this proposal ith the neighbors and the neighbors are supportive of the plans. BURGER /MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC ARING AT 10:29 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Staff recommended that this item be continu to allow the Applicant to revise the plans to step back th second floor addition a minimum of 4 feet to reduce the bulk of he home and lessen the cumulative impact if a second story a ition is constructed on the home to the north. BURGER /HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUED DR -89 -121 TO MARCH 14, 1990 A STUDY SESSION ON MARCH 6, 1990. Passed 7 -0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10. DR -89 -106 Guilardi, 15410 Pepper Ln., request for design review approval to construct a 419 sq. ft. first floor and a 1949 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing one story home for a total floor area of 6931 sq. ft. in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 2/14/90). ------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Warren Heid, Architect, appeared for the Applicant. He reviewed his March 9 letter and explained the plans in detail: In response to a question from Commissioner Kolstad concerning Ms. Earls' request regarding the windows in one of the bedrooms, Mr. Heid responded that he feels the two windows do not invade privacy. The bedroom is not to be occupied and is intended to be a nursery in the future. Commissioner Kolstad expressed further concerns regarding the privacy issue, and Mr. Heid described the balcony and stated when standing on the balcony one cannot see towards the north. Commissioner Kolstad also expressed concern regarding the health and safety issues posed by the old newspaper racks on the property. Mr. Heid said he could not speak to that issue. Mr. Joe Guilardi, Applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. He commented on Commissioner Kolstad's concerns, and said he did not understand why issues other than Planning Department issues were brought up. Mr. Guilardi said he felt he has attempted to comply with the needs of the neighborhood, and it depends on the attitude of the neighbors as to how he would proceed from here on. He said he did not believe these issues were within the scope of this meeting. He indicated his lifestyle dictates the need for the porte cochere because of the rain, sun and smog problems. The one -car porte cochere does not meet his needs, but he is willing to accept it in order to satisfy the Planning Commission. Ms. Marian Earls, 15370 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. Ms. Earls said she is still not opposed to the second story. She said she did not feel substituting the bedroom windows with clerestory windows would cause a hardship and doing so would be a relief to her.. Ms. Earls said she would like staff to decide the placement of the trees and not leave that to the discretion.of Mr. Guilardi or his architect. Ms. Earls circulated a picture of her sight- impaired daughter's window and the shade approaching the window at mid - afternoon. She also circulated photographs taken PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued from her roof line of the Guilardi house. She volunteered to remove the clear glass from the window overlooking the Guilardi property and put opaque glass in it. Ms. Earls also requested that removal of the trash at the property line be made a condition of approval as the magazine racks tend to attract rats to the area. Ms. Jane Gould, 15415 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. She said she is particularly opposed to the porte cochere which impedes the enjoyment of her home. Mr. Carl Amdahl, 15370 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. He requested that the Planning Commission take into consideration the facts of the matter and bring this matter to a resolution as soon as possible. He said since his wife first addressed the Planning Commission on this issue they have received several letters from Mr. Guilardi and the situation is becoming a problem for them. Mr. Michael Gould, 15415 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. He said he is opposed to the porte cochere as it would take away the rural feeling of his home. Ms. Pamela Lavin, 15450 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. She said she is concerned with the trees that might be put in and would like to see fast - growing shrubbery put in. She also expressed concern with the back deck which would overlook her front yard and part of her front garden. Mr. Heid reiterated that the plan which has been produced is sensitive and he has attempted to have a building the neighbors would be happy to look at. Mr. Heid reviewed the plans and stated he was hopeful the Planning Commission would make a decision that would be saktisfactory to all parties. BURGER /HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:30 P.M. Passed 6 -0. In response to a question from Chairperson Tucker, City Attorney Toppel replied that the Planning Commission has always dealt with the entire site when reviewing design review applications so it could be within the parameters of the overall review to address the issue of trash removal. Commissioner Burger stated she is uncomfortable with trying to mediate neighborhood tensions and felt it would be inappropriate. She said, therefore, her comments would be directed to the land use issue only. Referring to Commissioner Kolstad's concerns, she stated that because of the large setbacks she saw no problem with PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued a two -story home that is sensitively designed, which she felt Mr. Heid has achieved. She indicated she would not favor any change in the neighbor's home in order to effect a conclusion in this case. The changes that have been made that were requested have met with staff's approval, and Commissioner Burger said she felt Ms. Earls' suggestions are good ones. She said she did not favor cutting the balcony from 10 feet wide to 5 feet and would prefer to see 8 feet. Referring to Nos. 1 and 3 of Ms. Earls' suggestions relating to the clerestory windows and trees for screening which address the privacy issue, Commissioner Burger said she would like to see the bedroom windows stay as they are but would like to see a number of trees planted along the suggested line in order to provide privacy without creating a lot of shade. She indicated she would like a condition in the approval that the magazine racks be removed as they are unsightly and are probably a health hazard or an attractive nuisance. Commissioner Burger indicated she had no problem with Ms. Lavin's suggestion for more landscaping. She reiterated her position on the porte cochere and said she would not vote against the application on that particular issue. Commissioner Kolstad said he concurred with Commissioner Burger regarding the porte cochere. He indicated he would like to add a condition regarding the side screening that no additional fence movement or construction will inhibit the growth or survival of the bushes on the side of the house which presently exist. He also indicated he felt it would be odd to put obscure glass in the upstairs and screening could be done for privacy with trees. Commissioner Tappan indicated he did not particularly like the porte cochere but felt that Mr. Guilardi and his architect have been sensitive by cutting it down to a one -car arrange. He said he would prefer to see the columns treated sensitively by using a wood treatment or some type of softening landscaping treatment. Commissioner Moran said she appreciates what the Applicant and his architect have done but also feels the neighbors still have valid concerns and indicated she is unsure whether much movement has been made to accommodate the neighbors. Commissioner Moran commented that she thinks the porte cochere is overimposing for the neighborhood and would like to see the bedroom windows changed to clerestory and would like to specify the number, size and location of the trees. She stated she would like to see the tree issue settled before construction begins. She said she also liked the idea of the 5 -foot pullback on the upper deck. Regarding condition 9, Commissioner Harris said her understanding is the neighbors would prefer to have evergreen trees not along the north property line but they should be in line with the tree PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 8 already in existence and landscaping would be added on the south side. Chairperson Tucker agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners, but she is still not convinced that the porte cochere does not add bulk to the house and does not feel it is compatible with the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR -89 -106 PER THE STAFF REPORT MAKING THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ON CONDITION 9, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED BY STAFF PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT (THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE TREES ON THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE, MULTIPLE RATHER THAN ONE, AND ON THE NORTH WOULD LIKE TO SEE TREES PLANTED AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING TREE. THE EFFECT TO BE ACHIEVED IS ONE OF RAPID GROWTH AND HEAVY SCREENING AND NOTHING THAT GROWS HIGH ENOUGH SO THAT IT BEGINS TO CAST A SHADOW ON THE NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR), OBSCURE GLASS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE BATHROOM ON THE WINDOW ABOVE THE TOILET; THE APPLICANT WILL WORK WITH STAFF IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO ELIMINATE A STRAIGHT -SHOT VIEW FROM THE BALCONY INTO BACK YARDS; THE MAGAZINE RACKS WILL BE REMOVED BEFORE PERMITS ARE ISSUED; THE SINGLE -CAR PORTE COCHERE WILL HAVE WOOD POSTS, AS OPPOSED TO A LAVA TREATMENT, AND LANDSCAPING TO BE ADDED FOR A SOFTENING EFFECT; THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING ON THE SIDES OF THE HOME WILL NOT BE DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION. Passed 4 -2; Commissioners Moran and Tucker dissenting. Break 8:55 p.m. - 9:10 p.m. 11. -89 -074 Wu, 18836 Ten Acres Rd., request for design review SM- -015 approval to construct a new 5995 sq. ft. two -story residence within the R -1- 40,000 zone district per ter 15 of the City Code. Site modification appr is requested to allow the building footprin to exceed the building pad boundary represented the tentative map, and to allow a portion of the tructure to exceed 22 ft. in height. A pool an tennis court are also part of the application. -------------------------------- - - - - -- --------------------- Chairperson Tucker noted a letter received fro Paul E. Nowack regarding this application. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the nning Commission dated March 14, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 p.m. Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone:' Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: ;3/26 q0 x-12%•6 APPEAL APPLICATION Joseph Guilardi 15410 Pepper Lane, Saratoga, CA 395 -5808 Joseph Guilardi DR -89 -106 15410 Pepper Lane, Saratoga, CA Date Receive Hearing Date Fee CITY *US Two story addition to one story house Decision Being Appealed: Parts of Resolution No. DR -89 -106 of Planning Commission Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): See attached sheet 1 PPellant,s Signature Joseph Guilardi - March 26, 1990 *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. TfITS�t Ir,M0J1 f.".!cT "r. crrn\1!T"'R.D ;-'IT:IIN 1IIL• DATE U1 -1'ilL Ul(:ISIO, .y TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS 0 Grounds for Appeal Joseph Guilardi - Appellant 15410 Pepper Lane, Saratoga, CA This appeal is made to present three (3) items of concern by the applicant for the use of his residence after the Planning Commission decision for the addition and alterations of his residence. The following items are presented for your consideration to modify the resolution. 1. Resolution Item No. 10: Obscure glass for one (1) window at the small bath at the north was incl- uded by the Planning Commission in lieu of clear glass. This window is one (1) of three (3) windows around the corner of this bath. The size of the windows are 24" wide by 36" high each. To have one (1) window with obscure glass and the other two (2) windows at this corner will not give the proper use and appearance. Architecturally this is not accept- able and the windows will be draped for privacy by the occupant, thus it will not invade the privacy of the neighbor to the north. 2. Resolution Item No. 11: The neighbor to the north requested that the Master Bedroom deck be held back fron the front wall of the bedroom a distance of 5' -0 ". The original plan presented did have this distance; however the Planning Commission changed this distance to not to exceed a total width of the deck to 7' -01'. They also said to recess it 3' -011, which would give a wider deck. Since the request of the neighbor was for 5' -0 ", and it was designed with this dimension, the commission's request for a 7' -0" wide deck is not pra- ctical for use. The use of this deck is necessary by the applicant and the neighbor will be protected as requested with the original plan. 3. This item is to request consideration of a two -car porte cochere in lieu of the one -car porte cochere approved. When the drawings were resubmitted by the architect for approval a letter dated March 9, 1990 accompanied the drawings. This letter, and discussion at the Planning Commission, stated that the applicant reluctantly accepted this change: however he wanted to have the two -car porte cochere. The residenc a is situated in the center of 1.5 acres and the two -car porte cochere was set back about 70' -0" from the street. The need for use of a two cars was presented but was not accepted to meet the requirements of the commission. Staff had originally approved the porte cochere in the Staff Report as a two -car porte cochere. oseph Guilardi 5410 Pepper Lane, Saratoga, CA File No. DR -89- A APN 510 04 008 AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING I� Joseph Guilardi as appellant on the above file and property known as 15410 Pepper Lane hereby authorize Engineering Data Services to do the legal noticing on the above file. Date: March 26,'1990 Signature: MICHAEL M. GOLD, M.D., F.A.C.C. A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CORPORATION _ DIPLOMATEIN INTERNAL MEDICINE DIPLOMATE IN CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE 2 "585 SAMARITAN DRIVE, SUITE 303 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95124 TELEPHONE (408) 358 -3458 / prr i -� 5, t fqc *Dno,-able I'iemb " op +Ile �rvt�'q't 0'p, 'c . - den( wQ_ arp wn fn� +►'5 )ettp-ro m r. C �� 1Q rd's Qp fb r- o c 57 4 ► C, Pep U , cCr PDr�-0oclnefe-J - bmr{}ec� hr.5 �nSh2� Ian n i n @6 mm�5`� ---fie Greco i }- s l-,ov 1 c�. t;c'_ n o +e �. -�►-�+ h i S �� r a4e nd ec - - .+- ,�- tiC'��r t� Q ►' �D 1 C ed� �'l�� i t ('p rf'9 r r)S a bo U 4 pt:' adc t a r►C t16 i 5 k rr,ee� r'r -tie la n n ► r5 0o m rn la ►� e I m ►-�c� o re ern+ i-ce I ; a5 Lt flecL Iv be, ► rrI`p05r r�Cfer- 4he --c� rv'&vy r 11 -1 he, SeCcJ +� ,p) a n n r rn g C m rn i 5S O ►� rr�e I r , home -b -ti)e mce+t n,c r+t 4+yj--+ +► me he mad VAef o eel- }v mdd i or ► m i rux�� -e the tic;�o cur �r4C'LChC?re . PO, of" he f)lO-hr-N )ns C'vrnm rS >vr� MICHAEL M. GOLD, M.D., F.A.C.C. A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CORPORATION DIPLOMATE IN INTERNAL MEDICINE DIPLOMATE IN CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE 2585 SAMARITAN DRIVE, SUITE 303 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95124 TELEPHONE (408) 358 -3458 (7CJ Y-nc>. r-lYl)qer5 v_)c-i 1�e l-F -Eire_ eh r2 '!�-r ocfij re 40 tae_ v xVe rn e I y 04124-1`1 + a C (o u5' CL n cc a9l I n' retUce ,A-e cE - t i1) r- C-7 u j I a rcL r�e m o v e 41,e po ( + C' l0 ekl e-re , 0 4�c r-- cie 15 )g e-) re u i S i o n_S (- (e, h v'�D rle t G� h r 5 }�� n e no ►^�+ -h a r, al ;;� u� In �-q)e ih )rcL Ian n ► n �' � nn m ss io ,c:, ►� -,n�f , >t� Five (a` rte; a rr►v'Cd �v i m�lP;� f- cl es ��r� C. �-�t. r, Ge:S a n� r� ,�o Y � e ve�l�,er� - �'1-�f ►-� c� ©r� 1 c.,� been re�(c,� C e� I ,�; i �j2 , ►-,��+ �,!_► ma_e �_ ; J e f-i CL, �1ne- t a n i1) n9 Corr) m 15 5)o n agree & d►511keel 1+; 1--++ no me Iho_c(- +i-)c �pI0.n r o m m) 5510.E e -ve r a,prcy e cL fiivo- cd r, pc)r+coe)/)ere prev )ou 5 eOYrPS�9hae��e, vue �e.e l -� I J ��' L}c {v r 2 be vu 1'9 0- r) v n n e c e SSA rc� O 6�(u sl v e) c:r, d a-y) G c 1. } i e+ 5) r e e 4 W o c)1c - Ue Viewed difc& +l '6 6 r' 11U►r rodm wi7lc�Du�L. yy _ wG �}►1l vbjec�- - �-rar`�1 y +v c. ppr)-L c7oo4,)ere- �r> Qn arm, r MICHAEL M. GOLD, M.D., F.A.C.C. A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CORPORATION DIPLOMATE IN INTERNAL MEDICINE DIPLOMATE IN CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE 2585 SAMARITAN DRIVE, SUITE 303 SAN DOSE, CALIFORNIA 95124 TELEPHONE (408) 358 -3458 1 y /4-5 -t-n Re SO 1 Lit 0 ry --L4-err s Gas Iv a. n d— I I p IA r. j-+16 n bud- },e. c oe s no4 have +1)0 r-19 + IrD inVa! de -�he prtkIa(?j �� v'tou15 c-F 4he ►tee t9 h bvYS ter, e A-)er' <�; tde- C) P h t rn . The r{e ►'n 5 u rr)d e r- c� p pe ak are � mcet( I h) rna-ke- 4br me- but (A I A- '� 0. � h& -rbe p la nnIn � Werl'e& I br�j Qnd- ha r' d �=ryI nci t-C C,wr k d-u t C Co rrmp r&ry) I vim, betWeen M r . C ui la, rd-4L ar- ncl I-, t s e r h k0 rs . hor-ne, 01� Wb I c k any Owner W o 0c(. be. prpu& , i-�pprovc -( of +h►e, appeaA . uuool& r k� Gl V�nO GIB e r>� v -� - - he- P l a n n a r1 Ci C& m ry-) I� i" c e(for -5 ouna nelc-l-e 41--Ne e(�q r+(- 6-c- -vho "e c,L,lh u h,tv 2 &E h-f - 4b y- "e1 r ©cv n propr44j r 9hl�; . -Than - c) (�Dr L Our ('Dr,S iC.QCl1'X��Or, I n i'�IrS r P�, Si neerely r AA'� el )7vto 7'�'c dL4"d 4/24/90 Re: Guilardi Appeal, 15410 Pepper Lane Dear Councilmembers: I live at 15450 Pepper Lane, south of and above the Guilardi peoperty, on the same side of the street. I initially expressed con- cern in written and spoken statements about having an enlarged, two - story residence at this end of the street which currently is lined with smaller, one -story homes. There are currertly some new large buildings nearby on Glen Una and there seems to be a precedent- setting move towards megastructures. Since our house is placed at a right angle to the street, my front view would consequently be of a high bulky structure with rear windows and deck overlooking our front garden. A two -car porte cochere is not in keeping with the neighborhood scale of architecture, overpowering and obstructing the views of neighbors across the street. Mr. Guilardi said he needed a two car porte cochere because of his allergies! After several planning meetings we reached what I felt was an uneasy compromise with concealing landscaping required, and a shortened deck and porte cochere ( reduced from roughly 32' to 19' out from the house) approved. Contrary to Mr. Guilardi's assertion in his appeal (last sentence), Mr. Emslie assured me that staff had never approved the two car porte cochere. I regret losing a view I've had for over thirty years; please feel free to come inspect from my side. I echo the distress felt by neighbors across the street, as well as the resident to his north. With 1.5 acres he could certainly expand on one level , rather than making an overwhelmingly adverse impact on this neighborhood. Sin cemly, 1 Pamela T. Lavin. i 15395 Pepper Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 April 19, 1990 City Council Committee City of Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Reference: Notice of Public Hearing on May 2, 1990 on DR -89 -106, Addition to the Guilardi residence, 15410 Pepper Lane Dear Members of the Committee: This letter is to express our concern for the potential impact that the proposed addition on the house at 15410 Pepper Lane would have on the neighborhood and the surrounding neighbors. Our home is across the street from Mr. Guilardi's property. We bought our home in 1963 because we found the rural suburban environment on Pepper Lane very much to our liking. Over the past 27 years we have enjoyed our home, and still desire to retain the pleasant atmosphere of our neighborhood. Our concern with the appeal on May 2 is the potential that the concerns that have been expressed by neighbors, who truly feel that they are being affected by the modification, may be negated. My wife and I, as well as other families in the neighborhood, have worked.with the Planning Commission /Site Review Committee since January to outline specific concerns that each of us have with the proposed addition. As a result, the Planning Commission had suggested modifications that would allow Mr. Guilardi to proceed with the.expansion of his home, and concurrently, minimize the impact to the surrounding neighbors. The nature of,the proposed modifications has the potential to cause the Guilardi home to contrast significantly with the homes immediately surrounding it and with the particular esthetics of the neighborhood. Because of the proposed second story addition, neighbors have expressed concern about privacy. These are the concerns that the Planning Commission had worked with to reach their determination. Considerable time and thought has gone into reaching compromise. We respectfully ask that the City Council Committee's decision in this matter carefully consider recommendations that had been made by the Planning Commission Committee, and the concerns that have been expressed by members of the neighborhood. We sincerely appreciate your consideration in this important decision. Sincerely, James R. Sweet, Jr. and Verna E. Sweet LXCLIVED WIAK U'( 'Wy U 19841 Glen Una Dr. Saratoga, California 95070 !JFPi March 8, 1990 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Commissioners: We wish to express our strong support for the remodeling project of our near neighbor ivlr. Joseph Guilardi, 15410 Pepper, Saratoga. The design represented in blueprints and the dimensional model we find attractive, pleasing, and will add quality and good character to.our neighborhood. We are hopeful that he will be able to remodel the house as presently prop% ed. omes built in another era in this area will all be remodeled in time and we feel that the Planning Commission should allow this to occur. Sincerely, & "-�- A Dr. and firs. Donald Prolo 0 /=e j /// /S q() RECEIVED FEB 121990 .6a r4 /-r)G�� Q,,,, -,�r< y emn��5sion PLANNING DEPT -T h 1-e fur,7 41 -e bra rr, ✓iPw, y. /1)r U/ lard /,5 !'c' ct o / ,I ns ex�rPme /y C� /6yreSsPd oaf ter. / -Ye - hk 5 MuclC, nv �PSi�n rPvi�icnS . - ,e/a tect f0 yhc POrfiG f� GS <Pyu C b y the- pla COr»ri���5 /0/1 Mr l- 7 u/ /aroCc CO��inue5 I � fz' his n� �5fi ,ho•s' to � �P: -.�S . �jh0w' 1�51��Si � ✓�� m cC ha 5 s la- toc-(- a t ma n y hom�5 /r; New �'h, -5 arch, fe ctvra/ PecctyrL a. nct r�Qf he. /oe.s nod See �f- a 5 e. /�c5h�n� u.)�'yiiC� . � {i�r�� rGcn'G� Ca l� 5�� /P L �,/iSagrPe y'y)e9P ha�'►e 5 w�rP build �,-� /'h� GYur'S o� ho''Se cc��Gt bvyc/�c j., �hPrv, �drf� <os we rt u 6c cC Iry r 1 'o -,Ae 6 7 i'd = Gi n G ( llhe r Ate /v i 5 0- t - /�Srre /sere - iii > % Av SP e, ccl6 e t re /Pv^a/7r'e AUew �•-�� /u n c( h a s lv �a rcc 5 4 I I C-Q t�7ui la- rc(t ' �ti-uC�'rP � � ��CJrc'Y Pid�PC 1�ia� �orh tic' oP fi6'hs �vo /4ble cc hicfi GtrP rn�c6� motes 6a- fee / �t a Or 5 L) t) a Ito c f� ✓e. cZ tUre �'h a %S ; mCo rr��oa /�� /e cu Ct .I we) uI //h e tv inv,/e � c. p /ct n n)n y nor,-, m t-y,) % h0rn vb�eiv�. v e&u �ro.� m y l�r�,n� y�dm vvirtc�o s a r1 o C'O n �'Yu c f/U r� c� �hC PO t ti c 0 ,b h a d cC >/O s e Cv n c( cud1 b( Q/ A4/t55 111t 4 moon �5 ©� ro0 m �urrer� t �y we /ooh cL. t rr,afv�e f'r�e s a r► ��y /i 4e e Q Fvr e S�COn4f �� a�cC� fives a.�c< CtU('UrnPdr7ie /a, -nC' wa rt�c v wi/ 5/0 n ® �' ex 0 e ss 1 ✓e vlh( a. )i cC o b bus j ✓c t��s �; • El PSP�ec�l1 ie 9U v04& off' y lOD�, u n Cl 7h e .sfru�tvr We 6ree-1- neX� dooms an Iv e t Av// y r�� u�� �h a 74 Me Ala n��n C/ F fn r 61) /a r��'s h oc% FiP "0 /a 17-s - 51/0 ere // � RECE -1VED 5 IS -Z 0 January 5, 1 y9t) PLANNING DEPT Dear Saratoga Planning Commission After reviewing the plans for Mr. Giulardi's new addition, we must report to the planning commision that we find the plans obtrusive and out of character with other homes on Pepper Lane. Our concerns relate to the following: 1. The home is set fairly close to the street, and a second story may violate our privacy, both in our front and back yards. Approval of a second story on this property may set an unwanted precedent for construction of other two story homes on Pepper Lane. 2. A circular driveway with a large portico is extremely imposing considering that our home and the Sweet's home next door are modest ranch style homes on one -half acre lots. Our "white picket fence rural cottage style" homes clash strongly with the imposing structure proposed. 3. The circular driveway creates too much paved surface area in the front of the house and violates the lush rnuntry 1ali17 g present in the neighborhood. One driveway seems more than sufficient. 4. One of the Monterey Pine trees on Mr. Giulardi's property and which has been noted.on his blueprints, has been removed due to disease. The other Monterey Pine tree may be threatened with disease soon. Should this tree need to be removed also, the structure proposed would seem even more imposing. We and our neighbors who have lived on Pepper Lane for many years wish to preserve the unique "country" feeling of our neighborhood. We thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Dr. and Mrs. Michael Gold 15415 Pepper Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 RECEIWD JAN - 31990 PLANNING DEPT P � �C I i ve, )9 C a P co f - r ,t cj ,.,dog,, 4" +rL4 f1 W LC a 1) - r -n) CA-0 Ole, cjj ci c C, � `fir -- � s ,�,, , G4�1� Cdr '43 'Cri 0-, co-n 41,5"h. La CrY7 ckn J tg(, Planning Commission /Site Review Committee: (Attention: Mr. Martin Jacobson, Assistant Planner) City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Jacobson and Members of the Committee: Reference: DR -89 -106 - Guilardi, 15410 Pepper Lane 5395 Pepper Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 January 2, 1990 RECEIVED JAN - 31 °C0 PLANNING DEPT This letter is to request that approval be denied for the proposed addition to the house at 15410 Pepper Lane. We have reviewed the plans at the Planning Division office today, and have serious concerns about the effect that the proposed addition would have in our Pepper Lane neighborhood, as well as to our own property located across the street. We bought our home in 1963 because we found the rural suburban environment on Pepper Lane very much to our liking. Over the past 27 years we have enjoyed our home, and still desire to retain the present atmosphere of our neighborhood. The proposal presented in DR -89 -106 is no mere minor addition to a house, but rather it is a major modification to the architecture style that will be clearly visible from Pepper Lane and the neighboring properties. There is not sufficient set -back with natural vegetation to shield or soften the enormity of the house with the proposed addition. The proposal is not in keeping with the style and architecture of the other homes in the immediate neighborhood. In the vicinity, next door to Mr. Guilardi on the north, the house owned by Mr. Carlton Amdahl has had a second story addition added. However, the addition is in the rear of the building, the house has significant set -back and natural vegetation to shield it. The addition onto Mr. Amdahl's house has not detracted from the atmosphere of the neighborhood. The three houses across the street from Mr. Guilardi's house (owned by Mr. John McNulty, Dr. Michael Gold, and ourselves) are all single story, ranch style houses, all clearly exposed to Pepper Lane. The house next door to him on the south is also single story. From the standpoint of our personal property, we currently have privacy in our back yard from man -made and natural barriers. The proposed second story would give significant visibility into our back yard area. We bought our house knowing we had the desired privacy, and we very much wish to retain it. We believe that approval of the referenced proposal will result in our privacy being compromised. From the front, the proposed addition would be clearly visible from our house, in sharp contrast to the rural setting that we currently have. In summary, we are extremely concerned with the impact that the proposal would have in our neighborhood, and consequently, we respectfully ask that the Planning Commission not approve the proposed addition to 15410 Pepper Lane. We sincerely appreciate your consideration in this important decision. Sincerely, James R. Sweet, Jr. and Verna E. Sweet EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATES 2 90 ORIGINATING DEPT.:PlanninU AGENDA ITEM: 6 A CITY. MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission conditions requiring im- provements to SW -NE Road; Applicant /Appellant: Eric Sung Location: 22631 Mt. Eden Road Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and modify the Planning Commission decision to require construction of the SW -NE Road as a subdivision condition. Report Summary: The developers have submitted a street improvement plan for the access to their approved four -lot subdivision for Planning Commis- sion review and approval. The Planning Commission required that minimal widening occur in conjunction with the subdivision but also required the deposit of the cash equivalent for widening portions of the access that coincides with the SW -NE Road called for in the NHR Specific Plan. Staff feels that the work to the SW -NE Road should occur now as the adopted City policy supports the construc- tion of this roadway as a significant feature of the ultimate circulation pattern in the hillsides. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Planning Commission minutes 3/28/90 2. Minutes 3/28/90 3. Resolution SD -87 -008 4. NHR Specific Plan Circulation Policies 5. Exhibit "A" Motion and Vote: SP � �` (59u,w 01 §&%Z19Q)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council DATE: 5/2/90 FROM: Steve Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission conditions requiring improve- ments to SW -NE Road. Applicant /Appellant: Eric Sung Location: 22631 Mt. Eden Road Overview The developer, Eric Sung, recently purchased the four -lot subdi- vision from Harbor Builders. As required by conditions of ap- proval, the developer submitted improvement plans for the access road extending from Mt. Eden Road to the subdivision for Planning Commission review and approval. The Planning Commission approved the applicant's proposal to repair and maintain the road at its current 18 ft. average width. The Planning Commission required as a condition that the developer deposit the cash value of widening costs of portions of the access which coincides with the SW -NE Road called for in the NHR Specific Plan. The developer is objecting to this requirement, feeling that it is onerous. Background As the Council is aware, the four lot subdivision was approved by the City last year. The subdivision is located on the "borrow" site used for the Quarry Creek repair. The subdivision was approved after an environmental impact report was prepared and certified by the Planning Commission. At the time of approval, the Planning Commission deferred action on the ultimate width of the access road serving this subdivi- sion. Because of the hillside terrain and large amount of mature native vegetation, the Planning Commission concluded that a detailed road improvement plan should be reviewed by the Planning Commission to minimize disruption to the natural environment. The staff recommendation was for improvement of the street to minimum hillside standards, a 26 foot wide street. Not only was this width the minimum street serving more than 4 lots, but portions of this road coincide with a street delineated in the City's circulation policies of the NHR Specific Plan. 1 Sung; 22631 Mt. Eden Rd. The applicant recently submitted proposed improvements to the access which include road widening at two critical areas. The remaining portions of the road would be overlaid at its present width which is an average 18 feet wide. Staff reported to the Planning Commission that approximately half of the access road coincides with the alignment of the SW -NE Road called for in the Specific Plan. As the Council is aware, the SW -NE Road is the major circulation feature of the specific plan intended to relieve Pierce Road from additional traffic. The Planning Commission was concerned that widening of SW -NE Road portions of the access to this development should occur when SW- NE Road is constructed through the adjacent Garrod property. The Planning Commission felt that widening through this rural neigh- borhood would alter its character substantially. Therefore, the coordination of improvements when the comprehensive construction of the road would delay alteration of the neighborhood until the latest possible time. This concern resulted in the Commission's decision to require the cash deposit in lieu of requiring con- struction immediately. Staff took a contrary position and recommended improvement of SW -NE portions as a condition of this final map. While staff is sensitive to the grading concerns and the alteration of the neighborhood character, but cannot ignore the adopted City policy requiring construction of this circulation feature. Staff felt there to be no other choice but to construct the improvement now that the opportunity to do so exists. The previous City Engineer recommended that the entire length of the access road be improved to 26 ft. This improvement would bring the access into compliance with the City's minimum street width for roads serving four or more lots. Upon reinspection of the access after receiving the applicant's proposed improvements, the City Engineer will accept narrower improvements, except for the areas within the SW -NE Road. Staff has also reviewed comment from residents served by the access road. Specific concern has been raised regarding the durability of the current road when future construction traffic is taken into account. To address this concern, the City Engi- neer will inspect the overlay after construction to assure the improvements are not damaged and have been implemented in accord- ance with City and engineering standards. This is an inspection that will occur in the routine course of project implementation and review. 2 Sung; 22631 Mt. Eden Rd. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and modify the Planning Commission decision to require construction of the SW -NE Road as a subdivision condition. Steve Ems-fie Planning Director SE /dsc 3 (5919V o2 0&M&ZQ)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission DATE: 3/28/90 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Proposed Street Improvements for SD -87 -008 Applicant: Harbor Builders /Eric Sung; Location: 22631 Mt. Eden Rd. OVERVIEW: The Planning Commission may recall conditions for approval for SD -87 -008, a four lot subdivision, required the submission of the access road improvement plans. The recent owner of the subdivision has prepared improvement plans for Commission review and approval to comply with this condition. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission may recall that the issue before the Planning Commission was the width of street improve- ments serving this development. The City Engineer recommended that the road be improved to hillside standards, 26 ft. in width. Because the existing road was on average 18 ft. in width, with some sections only 15 ft. in width, the applicants objected to making these improvements. In reviewing the topography and grading required to improve the access road to 26 ft., the Plan- ning Commission concluded that an in depth review of the improve- ment plans would be necessary to construct the optimal road in terms of traffic safety, circulation policy, grading reduction and tree preservation. The proposed improvements include minor construction at two critical curves to improve sight distances in these areas. The majority of the road which extends from Mt. Eden Road to the subdivision boundary is proposed to be repaired and resurfaced. These improvements will require removal of limited vegetation and minor grading within a specified area. The road within the subdivision would be developed to 26 ft. hillside standards. Sections of the access to the four lot subdivision coincide with the alignment of the SW -NE Road in the NHR specific plan. As the Planning Commission is aware, the SW -NE or "Swine" Road is the major circulation feature of the specific plan which is intended to relieve Pierce Road from vehicular traffic. The developers do not propose to widen portions of the access road which coincides 1 SD -87 -008; 22631 _. Eden Rd. with the SW -NE Road. ANALYSIS: Staff's primary concern is compliance with General Plan policy and improvement to the SW -NE Road. Staff is con- cerned about the sensitivity of grading and the loss of vegeta- tion but cannot ignore the circulation policies of the NHR spe- cific Plan. In staff's role as the administrator of policy direction, our recommendation must be for a 26 ft. road where the access coincides with the SW -NE Road. The City Engineer has recommended that the entire length of the access road be improved to 26 ft. This improvement would bring the access into compliance with the City's minimum street width for roads serving four or more lots. Upon reinspection of the access after receiving the applicant's proposed improvements, the City Engineer will accept narrower improvements, except for the areas within the SW -NE Road. Staff has also reviewed comment from residents served by the access road. Specific concern has been raised regarding the durability of the current road when future construction traffic is taken into account. To address this concern, the City Engi- neer will inspect the overlay after construction to assure the improvements are not damaged and have been implemented in accord- ance with City and engineering standards. This is an inspection that will occur in the routine course of project implementation and review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the street improvement except that those portions of the access road that coincide with the approved alignment of the SW- NE Road be improved to 26 ft. hillside standards. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution SD -87 -008 2. NHR Specific Plan Circulation Policies 3. Exhibit "A" SE /kah 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 28, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger said she the approval have not been satisfaction of the City no Page 16 felt that the original conditions of met and until they are met to the permits should be issued. City Attorney Toppel indicated the City could discuss obtaining the bond money and having it available once the work is finished and distributing the money to the party performing the work. He said the City would not undertake the responsibility of doing the work and said that the $5,000 may not be sufficient to cover the cost of the landscaping. He suggested that Mr. Olsen be involved in the process regarding scheduling. The applicant said he would be willing to be responsible for making sure the landscaping work is done. BURGER /TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE DR -90 -003 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE HOME WILL BE REDUCED TO NO MORE THAN 4000 SQUARE FEET AND THAT NO PERMITS OF ANY KIND WILL BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL CONDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION ARE SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED. Passed 5 -0. 14. SD -87 -008 Harbor Builders, 22631 Mt. Eden Rd., pursuant to conditions of SD -87 -008, the Planning Commission is required to review the street improvement plan for the development of an access road from Mt. Eden Rd. to the four -lot subdivision. The developer has prepared improvement plans for Commission consideration. ------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 28, 1990. He noted a letter which was received from Mr. Vince Garrod indicating the proposed improvements would destroy the rural character of the area. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:48 p.m. The engineer for the applicant addressed the Planning Commission. Using an overhead projector, he pointed out the area of the development on a map. Mr. William H. Perretti addressed the Planning Commission. He expressed concern regarding the plan stating it is an unreasonable interference of privacy and continues to open up the back yards to trespassers. He also indicated the natural landscape is not preserved, current erosion control standards are�not incorporated, and the natural contours are not preserved. He suggested that the engineer's plans have been misused by the builders. He said the property owners were required to pay the developer approximately $200,000. The project is not complete and he said he felt the access should not be allowed until the required drainage project PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 28, 1990 Page 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued is completed. He questioned if the money was spent and, if so, for what purposes. He said the neighbors would like the money back with any interest that has accrued. Mr. Dave Moss addressed the Planning Commission. He circulated pictures taken in his back yard. He said he felt the applicant should be denied any further permits pending completion of the contract negotiated. City Attorney Toppel pointed out the developer is not holding up the project. The City Council recently held a hearing to determine whether to go ahead notwithstanding jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers but there did not seem to be a willingness to do that nor was there support from the community to do so. The City Manager has been in contact with the Department of Fish and Game as well as the Corps of Engineers in order to expedite the project. The City feels that the Corps of Engineers does not have jurisdiction in the matter and is attempting to deal with the Department of Fish and Game. He said Mr. Perretti advised him that fencing along Quarry Road had not been installed, and he will follow up on that matter. Regarding the landscaping, the objective of the City is to do some planting for the next rainy season. Mr. Scott Cunningham, 14375 Saratoga Avenue, addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of Mr. John Murrin who owns property in the subdivision. Mr. Murrin's primary concern is the width of the road. Mr. Jan Garrod, 22621 Mt. Eden Road, addressed the Planning Commission. He indicated the major concern of his family is that the road was named Garrod Road and the portion referred to has been maintained by the Garrods as the County refused to take responsibility for it. He said his family would like to keep the area as rural as possible. In response to a question from Chairperson Siegfried, City Attorney Toppel reviewed the status of the road. BURGER /MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:14 P.M. Passed 5 -0. Commissioner Burger stated she would prefer that the road be maintained as a rural road and does not like the idea of gutters and curbs in the area. She also indicated she would be in favor of calling it Garrod Road. Commissioner Tucker also agreed with calling the road Garrod Road. She said she is in support of staff's recommendation for the 26- foot road because of the safety issue. ,, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 28, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 18 Commissioner Moran said the Planning Commission must be aware of long -term planning in this area and would be in favor of a 26 -foot road. Commissioner Tappan indicated he is also in favor of calling the road Garrod Road. He said he would argue for the 26 -foot width. Chairperson Siegfried expressed concern if the City has to condemn some of the Garrod property that might be an obstacle that would cause the road never to be built. He said he would not like to see the road stopped because the funds are not available but would not be in favor of widening 900 feet of the road if nothing further_ is done. TUCKER /MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE SD -87 -008 WITH A 26 -FOOT WIDE ROAD WITH RURAL GUTTERS AND NO CURBS. Commissioner Tappan said he was influenced by Chairperson Siegfried's remarks and could be persuaded to envision a road of less than 26 feet on the stretch of road. Pursuant to a question from Chairperson Siegfried, discussion ensued regarding possible funding for the road. Commissioner Tucker's motion failed on a 2:3 vote; Commissioners Burger, Tappan and Siegfried were opposed. BURGER /TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL AND THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONTRIBUTE THE MONETARY EQUIVALENT OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SW -NE ROAD AS SPECIFIED IN THE NHR SPECIFIC PLAN PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP. Passed 4 -1; Commissioner Tucker was opposed. 15. AZO -90 -001 City of Saratoga, wall height in Commercial Zone Districts. The City of Saratoga Planning Commission is considering enacting a revision to the existing commercial zone districts to permit a solid wall or fence to exceed the 6 foot height limit to a maximum of 8 feet when conditions require additional visual and acoustic screening (cont. from 3/14/90). ------------------------------------------------------------- City Attorney Toppel reviewed the revised ordinance in detail. He indicated he included a 60 -day period for installation of a wall after the requirement has been imposed and leaving it open for the Planning Commission to modify it based on a particular case. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:33 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. SD -87 -008 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF 22631 MT. EDEN ROAD, COCCIARDI APN #'s 503 -12 -024 (partial), 503 -12 -025 WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of 4 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -87 -008 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 5/24/89 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the EIR 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. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE, IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 1st day of April, 1989 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: 1. The applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or'said resolution shall be void. 2. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. 3. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation and pay required checking and recordation fees. 4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20 ft. ft. Half- Street on Nina Court and improve to minimum access road standards as prescribed by the City,Engineer. 5. Provide evidence of access rights to Mt. Eden Road from the SD -87 -008, 22631 Mt. Eden Road proposed cul -de -sac. 6. The applicant shall submit road widening, drainage and utility plans for improvements to the beginning of the subdivision to City Standards including: a. Access road from Mt. Eden road to the subdivision's westerly boundary to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. b. Designed Structural Section 26 ft. between flowlines. C. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (V -24). d. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities. 7. 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: a. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. b. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. C. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. 8. Construct standard driveway approaches. 9. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstruction of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 10. watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flew. 11. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. 12. Obtain encroachment permit from Santa Clara County for work to be done within their right -of -way. 13. Engineered improvment plans required for: a. street improvements b._ storm drain construction 14. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. 15. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval. 16. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. 17. A sanitary sewer connection from Cupertino Sanitary District is SD -89 -008, 22631 MT. EDEN ROAD required. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Co. or similar authorized water provider. 18. Seal any well in accordance with County standards. Submit a geotechnical investigation and report by a licensed professional for the following: a. geology b. soils (for each lot) C. foundation 19. Submit detailed on -site improvement plans showing: a. grading (limits of cuts, fills, slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities. b. drainage details C. retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls greater than 3 ft. or higher. d. erosion control measures 20. Prior to final map approval the applicant's geotechnical consultant should evaluate the potential for slope failure and erosion within Lot #4 (including all area outside the building area which may impact adjacent properties or local roadways). 21. Prior to issuance of building permits for individual lots, the applicant's geotechnical consultant should prepare detailed geotechnical design recommendations which address, but are not necessarily limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and design parameters for driveway, residential foundations and retaining walls. The geotechnical design recommendations shall be submitted to the City Engineer and Geologist. 22. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that his recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of site development and building permits. 23. The applicant's geotechnical consultant should evaluate the long- term stability of the proposed building site considering: 1) the proximity of the residence to steep slopes, 2) the site's seismic setting, 3) apparent dip -slope conditions and 4) the area of potential slope. instability identified by John O'Rourke in the SD -87 -008; 22631 MT. EDEN reference report. Appropriate geotechnical design should be proposed (as necessary) to ensure the long -term stability of the proposed development. The evaluation shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a permit. 24. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit plans- showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and approval. 25. Annex property to Cupertino Sanitary District prior to final map approval. 26. The developer Tract No. 7761, Mt. Eden Estates, is obligated to construct sanitary sewers in Quarry Road in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the District. These facilities must be constructed and accepted by the District prior to being able to provide sanitary sewer service for the proposed development. 27. Fire hydrants shall be located within five hundred feet from all future residences and deliver no less than one thousand gallons per minute of water for a sustained period of two hours. 28. The developer shall install fire hydrant(s), the exact number to be determined by the Fire Chief, that meet Fire District specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installled and accepted prior to construction of any building. 29. All future driveways shall be constructed to the following standards: a. slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O & S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the .proposed dwelling. b. slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2 1/2" of A.C. or .better on 6" aggregate based from a public street to proposed dwelling. c. slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on 4" aggregate base from a public street to proposed dwelling. d. driveways shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. Construct an emergency access road, as required as part of Tract 7761, for use in the event of an emergency only. 30. Provide a 10 ft. public utility easement along the edge of the . street right -of -way. 31. Prior to final map approval the applicant shall submit CC &R's to SD -87 -008, 22631 MT. EDEN ROAD the City for review and approval. 32. Dedicate scenic easement as shown on the tentative map. 33. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall enter into a Scenic Easement Agreement with the City. At a minimum, the agreement shall prohibit structures within this easement and require vegetation and topography to be kept in their natural states. 34. Tree removal prohibited unless in accordance with the City.Code. 35. Future homes on each lot require Planning Commission design review approval. 36. All applicable requirements of State, County, City or other governmental entities shall be met. 37. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall dedicate a 15 ft. wide trail and pathway easement as shown on the tentative map and /or approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. 38. The all weather equestrian trail shall be improved to be a minimum of 8 ft. wide or approved alternate. Trail to be comparatively level from side to side and unobstructed. All trail and pathway grading shall be completed prior to final map approval. 39. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit evidence to the City Engineer indicating that the City's water requirements including adequate fire flow and domestic water supply, as well as appropriate system appurtenances will be provided to the site. 40. The applicant shall repair and re- vegetate haul road used to export fill material to this'site in accordance with the permits pending with the Army Corps of Engineers to the satisfaction of the Planning Director prior to the approval of the final map. 41. The name Nina Court shall be revised on the final map to be consistent with the access road serving this project and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. 42. The mitigation measures contained on the final Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project are hereby incorporated as conditions of approval by reference as Exhibit "B" attached hereto. 43. The applicants shall be required to install a gate across the access road at the subdivision's westerly boundary which shall be maintained for the duration of the construction of the subdivision. 44. In addition to the mitigation measures incorporated in Exhibit "B" the following conditions are added: a. both the current and future owners of Lot #4 shall be SD -87 -008, 22631 MT. EDEN ROAD required to participate in the landscaping and re- vegetation of the Quarry Creek project. b. to the extent this project including Lot #4 is found to require modification of the Quarry Creek Repair project the proponents and there successors in interest shall be required to participate their proportionate share in the implementation of necessary alteration to the project. C. the applicants shall submit a detailed drainage and erosion control plan prior to the recordation of a final map to the City Engineer and City Geologist for review and approval. Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 24th day of May, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Harris, Siegfried, Burger, Tappan NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Kolstad,Tucker Chairman, Planning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted Applicant Signature Date 16 4. Site drainage plans to be approved so as to not impact adjacent properties. Action Program 1. Increase improvement criteria and fees if called for in study. POLICE SERVICES Policies 1. Encourage participation in a neighborhood crime prevention program. Action Program 1. Require installation of wires and recommend connection to a residential electronic fire and burglary detection system. 2. Adopt ordinance(s) to require security measures appro- priate for the area. 3. Recognize increased need for police services as area develops. 4. Condition tentative map for emergency access gate and security review by Sheriff's Department. CIRCULATION In reviewing the findings of this report, previous reports and current City policies, the following plan is recommended for adequate circulation and emergency access: 1. A public roadway, the SIV -NE connection, between Mt. Eden and Parker Ranch Road. 2. Emergency /secondary access between a Chiquita -Comer loop and the SW -NE connection. 3. A public through road, Saratoga Heights Road, between Tollgate and Pierce Roads. 17 4. An emergency access road from Hillmoor through the Fremont Union High School District site. S. Extensions of all other roadways shall be considered for emergency /secondary access at the time of development. Policies 1. Continue current policy of general minimum road standards with Planning Commission. Ability to authorize exceptions given special circumstances or conditions affecting the subject property. 2. Minimize cuts and fills for roadways. 3. Utilize retaining walls to reduce grading. 4. Overdesign structural section of roadways by 25 %. S. Require public right -of -way to be offered on all private access roads used for secondary /emergency access. 6. Allow secondary /emergency access roads to be generated. 7. Roads must be built to insurable standards. 8. The Citv shall obtain private road maintenance agreements with subdivision developers. 9. The City shall whenever possible, require private developers and landowners to maintain private landscaped areas within right -of -ways. Pierce Road Policies: 1. Collect fees on a per lot basis of those newly created lots to establish a fund for improving Pierce Road in a manner that would not significantly alter its character as follows: a. 13 foot paved lanes where widening does not impact the environment/ b. 11 foot paved lanes as a minimum where feasible. C. 12 foot between centerline and vertical obstructions (minimum). 2 CIRCULATION: Roadways have two basic purposes - -- access and circulation. Access roads serve two needs: First is the resident's ability to come and go on a regular and as needed basis to handle his daily transactions, such as work, school, shopping, etc. Second is for outsiders to provide services and wares to the property. Twenty -four hour emergency service is included in this need, requiring year round access and minimum design standards. Since vehicular access to a property is essential -for its use, careful consideration must be given to design and loca- tion of all roadways. - At some level of use and function, roadway design must consider more than just access to adjoining property. This is to say, the other end of the trip must be considered. This is circulation. When some level in the number of vehicles is reached (the number varies in different neighborhoods) both drivers and residents are impacted. At these increased levels of traffic the design standards change to provide for the additional concerns. Traffic volume is a quick measure of roadway function. The Subdivision Ordinance provides Saratoga's roadway design standards. These requirements change in response to the Zoning and Roadway Function (R -1- 10,000 zoning, hillside develop- ment, etc.). Hillside residential area roadways are classified as access, intra - neighborhood or collector streets. As mentioned earlier, when the use of a roadway increases, other factors must be considered. The ability of people to travel from house to house, neighborhood to neighborhood, city to city, etc. is circulation. An interstate .freeway's primary function is to provide circulation between states. A local street provides circulation within a neighborhood. Unfortunately, most roadways are used for other than their prime function. In general, most local streets, as distin- guished from arterials, provide access to adjoining property as well as providing for intra and inter neighborhood circulation. It is this multi - function that causes problems. In an effort to solve this problem, Traffic Engineers and Planners establish land use and circulation plans and criteria. The expected volumes on streets can be calculated using trip generation and direction assignment ratios. The roadway capacity, which does not consider the impact on adjacent property, can be readily determined. Neighborhood concerns for their environment become more and more prominent when number of trips per day increase. Structural and Geometric Design: Structural design determines thickness of the roadbed and is based on the soils bearing capacity and the volume and size of vehicles anticipated to use the road during its design life. Geometric Design determines street width, grades, curve radii, street arrangement, etc. and is generally based on such things as volume, speed, function, land use, etc. In areas of unusual geologic, topographic and /or ecologic concern, special consideration is and has been given to subdivisions through the Tentative Map and the Environmental Impact Report process. In some cases, standards such as curve radii and grades were adjust- ed to allow better adaption to these special conditions. The Subdivision Ordinance provides that both new and existing streets be improved to City Standards as the surrounding land is developed. However, some environmentally sensitive roads have not been improved. Such is the case of Pierce Road where several studies have been made to determine what if any improve- ments could be made while preserving its character and environment. Heretofore, no "Standards" as such have been developed to handle these special concerns. Criteria can be developed which could provide a basis for roads in areas of concern. Terrain, maximum slopes, and retaining wall height have been suggested. Such criteria must be flexible while still providing the overall control. Proposed Circulation: Traffic studies were commissioned by the Citizens Advisory Committee and Planning Commission for this Specific Plan to check five alternative plans for the northwest Saratoga hillsides (see Appendix). 1. Plan 2a (approved circulation element of the General Plan for northwest Saratoga), with a SW -NE con- nection between Mt. Eden Road and Parker Ranch Road, and with a "maximum" number of E -W connections (Quarry, Old Oak, Chiquita, Comer, Wardell, Hillmoor, Kreisler). CITY LIMITS ___... r J 4 f a CITY OF SARATOGA Northwest Hillside Area CIRCULATION PLAN oo--%-o Through public road 00, ftib WO Emergency /secondary access road Extension of all other roadways shall be considered for emergencVSecondary access of the time of development. N o Soo u feet 2. Plan 2a, with the SW -NE connection, but without E -W connections. 3. Plan 2a, without s SW -NE connection, and with E -W connections. 4. Plan 2a, without a SW -NE connection, and without E -W connection. Another alternative was requested by the Planning Commission: S. Plan 2a, the SW -NE connection, with the Comer and Chiquita connections. The Subdivision Ordinance and the 1974 General Plan currently allow: * Four (4) sites on Private Minimum Access Roads. * A maximum of fifteen (1S) sites on a single access public street. * Require 7S foot setbacks on Mt. Eden Road as a scenic highway. Congress Springs as a scenic highway is dedicated and conditioned. * Minimum access roads of 18 feet with 1 foot shoulders. - 42 foot minimum inside curve radii with 32 foot radius turnabout at terminus. - 30 foot radius returns at intersections. - 17h foot maximum grade returns at intersections. 400 foot maximum length cul -de -sac with addition- al Ordinance requirements. * Inter - neighborhood streets of 26 foot width. - concrete curb and gutters. - 3 foot wide level area behind curbs. - 15% maximum grade. 1 30 foot radii return at intersection. 400 foot maximum length cul -de -sac with additional Ordinance requirements. * Collector streets of 26 foot width plus parking bays. - concrete curbs and gutters. special bicycle /pedestrian /equestrian provisions. - 3 foot wide level area behind curbs. - 1S% maximum grade. - 40 foot radii return at intersection with other collectors. - appropriate warning signs for intersections. ECONOMICS: A report by John Cone reviewing the economics of the development of the area was commissioned by the City Council in November 1980 as part of this report. The summary and report are located in the Appendix. Measure "A" stated that this Specific Plan shall incorporate a provision for formation of Special Assessment Districts within new subdivisions to contribute toward the main- tenance of the streets and to fully fund storm drains required by said developments. However there is no way that this can be carried out without special legislation. As the City's assess- ment district attorney states "It would appear there is no way of implementing Section 4(e) of the initiative ordinance unless and until the legislatiure can be convinced that amendments to present law should be made to provide the mechanism for raising such monies, as are necessary." PROPOSED ZONING RESTRICTIONS: The majority of the Specific Plan Area is zoned HCRD (Hillside Conservation - Residential District) with a few parcels zoned R -1- 40,000, Agricultural and R -1- 20,000 (pending). County parcels are zoned A (20 -160 acres) and RHS, however any property annexing to the City is automatically pre -zoned to HCRD. 11 C f ((-y() ac c e U &-1.- r SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 'r MEETING DATE: May 2, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ,—� 1 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Tract 7770 (Chadwick Place) - Status of Violations Recommended Action: Council discretion. Report Summary: This item was continued from your March 7 meet- ing. At that time you allowed an additional two months for the various property owners to work with City staff to develop restoration plans for each of the affected lots and to complete the installation of erosion control measures. The following attempts to summarize the progress which has been achieved to date: Lots 1, 2, 10, 11, (Cocciardi) - These are the four "upper" lots within the subdivision accessed off of Old Oak Way. Since March 7, the owner has retained a consultant to develop restoration plans for each lot. The consultant has meet several times with City staff to define the parameters for restoration and the constraints for developing each lot. On April 19, a plan was submitted to the Planning Director integrating those two ele- ments. Staff expects to complete its initial review sometime next week and meet with the consultant to discuss comments and corrections. As previously reported, an Erosion Control Plan for these lots was approved on March 2. To date however, no attempt has been made to implement the plan. APN 503 -12 -24 (Cocciardi) - This is the parcel to the west of the subdivision under the Williamson Act contract. The status of this parcel is the same as the four upper lots, but is listed separately because it is not within the subdivision. Lot 3 (Williams) - This is one of the two lots accessed from the common driveway off Chiquita Way. Erosion control measures required on this lot are complete. The owners submitted a Nui- sance Abatement Plan to the Planning Director in February propos- ing certain restoration measures. The Planning Director respond- ed with comments in a letter dated March 7. Since then, the owners have communicated several times with the City, but have not submitted a revised plan addressing the City's comments. Lots 4, 6, 7, 8 (Chadwick) - These four lots are accessed from Chiquita Way and Chadwick Court. Except for some minor erosion control work remaining at the bottom of Lot 7, all erosion con- trol measures have been completed. No restoration work was required on any of these lots. Lot 5 (De La Cruz) - This lot is accessed from Chadwick Court. The status of this lot is the same as the above four lots. Lot 9 (Khan) - This is the other lot accessed from the common driveway off Chiquita Way. The required erosion control measures are complete on this lot. The owner has retained an architect to develop a restoration /development plan for the lot based on objectives provided by the Planning Director. As of this writing however, no such plan has been received although the architect has indicated his intent to meet with the Planning Director to present plans prior to May 2. The attached table further clarifies the status of each lot with respect to erosion control and restoration, (illegal grading and vegetation /tree removal), the two items declared to be public nuisances by the Council on January 17 and on which the Council must decide what further abatement actions are necessary by the property owners. Staff Recommendation: In my opinion, the various property owners have each made sufficient progress towards abating the nuisances in the subdivision to warrant a further continuance of this matter. Staff should be provided with the opportunity to review and comment on the restoration plans which have been or are expected to be submitted. Likewise, the property owners should be given the opportunity to respond to the City's comments. I believe it is in everyone's best interest to have the nuisances abated by the property owners themselves, rather than by the City. The amount of effort which would be required to abate the nuisances would place a significant burden on the Engineering Department's staff. If afurther continuance were to be granted, I would suggest that the Council develop certain performance milestones which the property owners would need to meet to demonstrate continued progress. Examples of milestones might be as follows: June 1 - Restoration plans approved by City. July 1 - Restoration and Erosion Control work begins. August 1 - Landscape materials and nursery stock ordered. October 1 - Restoration and Erosion Control work complete. November 1 - Landscape restoration begins. November 30 - Landscape restoration complete. Staff could then provide periodic reports to the Council on the status of the restoration program. If any particular property owner(s) failed to meet the performance milestones, Council could then take appropriate actions. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: None. Motion and Vote: TRACT 7770 - Status of Violations as of April 27, 1990 Lot Erosion Restoration (Grading and Control Vegetation /Tree Removal) 1 Approved plan. No work to date. 2 Approved plan. No work to date. 3 0. K. 4 0. K. 5. 0. K. 6. 0. K. 7. O.K. - Minor work still required. 8. 0. K. 9. 0. K. 10. Approved plan. No work to date. 11. Approved plan. No work to date. APN Approved plan. No work 503- to date. 12 -24 Plan received. Under review. Plan received. Under review. Nuisance Abatement Plan received. Comments provided to owner. 0. K. 0. K. 0. K. 0. K. 0. K. Expect plan by May 2. Plan received. Under review. Plan received. Under review. Plan received. Under review. A;,::jENC- SUA16 7,1060 -R!�aOLJ �R"(- ru PCP nr✓D, CA 95 Ap -zlc. a7, 1900 +y CIeYk C i41 DT lclr40�0l Ike-, -� ugst j Qtm,� fiu-c a p,'p,;,t�dUf S.;" / 14-a" ar, 1 p CQ e- '13 O-A, tL aj4o�L 4L fL Ma q I I qo 06 a%mda L uw�'A u1 V vy 16, l g y o. �L X f,-efud oVt' Av, Su& AL14 4&0, 6J SJW a otd W Aa �c� 7 F-Tetc Su I Deborah William 12161 Parker Ranch Road Saratoga, California 95070 -3058 April 2, 1990 City of Saratoga City Council City Offices 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Subject: Parcel 503 -15 -031 Lot 3 (Chadwick Place off Chiquita Way) Dear Council: 0 T RE CHY E110 APR 121990 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY LF ANAGER'S OFFICE ACTIVITY SINCE MARCH 7 COUNCIL MEETING: Since the last council meeting, we have decided to release our story to the news writers that we have been holding at bay. In the past, it was our feeling that in this election year, it would not be beneficial, in the spirit of cooperation with the city planners /council, to release a story to the media. With no sign of cooperation to date, and with our problems continuing on lot 3, we no longer see any reason to withhold the story. Also since the last meeting we have discovered work done on our lot, we assume to correct problems such as erosion and water run -off. This work was done on our lot (extensively) without our knowledge, review, or consent. We assume the city cooperated with Chadwick for the completion of this work. This will be added to our list of damages, as it is not in keeping with our plans to correct the problem, and will cost a considerable amount to undo and reconstruct. SUMMARY OF MARCH 7 COUNCIL MEETING: At the city council meeting March 7, we were again unsuccessful in gaining any cooperation from the City Manager, from the Planning Commission, or from the City Council, relating to lot 3 in the above mentioned parcel. Phil Williams, my husband, appealed to the council, but with so many attempts to establish a resolution to our plight, he lost his temper with the entire situation. I would like to apologize for Phil's unfortunate outburst of emotion and stress. I would also like to put before you a very definite and final request for cooperation. My husband and I have only minimal options left before we are forced to seek legal action of our own, primarily to recover real damages. These options are outlined below, and must be acted on within the month or they are no longer viable options. OPTIONS LEFT: 1) City allows lot 3 to be released, plans to be processed, and agrees to process these plans separately and with normal due process from the Chadwick and Coccardi lots. This would allow a construction loan to be secured, preventing further losses to the innocent buyers. 2) City purchases lot 3 from us for $1,200,000 to convert to permanent open space for the city of Saratoga. 3) City restricts further sale and development of any lots, by both developers, until all damages, including purchase price, to current buyers is reimbursed. Lot would revert back to Toni, allowing all future action to take place between the city and the developer, appropriately. i FINAL REQUEST: Since the city originally gave us a verbal commitment (with Planning Manager and City Manager approval) to process our plans, we would like to give the city an opportunity to honor the verbal contract and proceed with our home and landscape plans. There was no legal action taken, at the time our plans were submitted, and therefore, there was no legal reason to reject the proposal. We were even told it was the developers that were the object of the city's action. Since our lot was purchased as a fully developed lot from Toni Coccardi, per an approved plan the we looked at on 8/15/89, we would like the city to continue to restrict the sale of all further lots in this development until all damage is repaired, all damages to innocent parties resolved, and lots are fully developed and ready to be built. CONCLUSION: While we have tried to remain patient through this entire process, we have exhausted our time and money. While our home is listed for sale, this is not a seller's market, and our loan is payable in full at the end of this month. While an extension to the loan may be possible, we cannot sustain the $8,000 per month interest only payment any longer, especially in light of the deadlock we seem to be in with the city. We require immediate action by the city, and expect to hear a definite reply within a week. This reply should specifically address the requests in this letter as well as all future plans and timelines as they relate to this parcel. Regards, Deborah Williams cc: Mayor Martha Clevenger Steve Emsley Hal Toppel Harry Peacock City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 April 22, 1990 8C2 re: Abatement of Public Nuisance on Lot #3, Tract #7770 Attn.: Mr. Harry Peacock APR 2 1990 �D Saratoga City Manager CITY OF SARATQGA CITY MANAGER'S 0jrjrt[,,,E Dear Mr. Peacock, My wife and I are in receipt of your recent letter restating the city's current position regarding the abatement of the public nuisance(s) on our lot. We were somewhat surprised to see the May 2nd deadline for submission of abatement plans as we had not received any correspondence from the city to that effect We are, of course, also quite concerned that our time to submit plans for abatement is running out. To complicate matters, our land loan with Saratoga National Bank is due to expire on May 20th. At present, we are negotiating with the bank to extend the loan and are hopeful that this will be possible. If not, the loan will default, and the mortgage will go into foreclosure with the bank taking possession of the land. With that in mind, we are asking the city for a continuance to allow us more time to arrange for additional funding to allow us to arrange for plans to be drawn up regarding the abatement. Thank you for you help. Regards, ' Phil & Debbie Williams 12161 Parker Ranch Road Saratoga, California 95070 cc: Mayor of Saratoga City Council Members City Attorney t ' SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. MI AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 2, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVA ORIGINATING DEPT: EngineeringCA-f SUBJECT: Quito Road Bridge Replacement Project - Right -of- Way /Easement Purchase Agreements Recommended Action: Approve Right -of -Way /Easement purchases for subject project and Authorize Mayor to execute Purchase Agree- ments and Certificates of Acceptance. Report Summary: At long last, the five Quito Road property owners have agreed to the City's offers to purchase the required Rights -of- Way /Easements from them for the bridge replacements at Bicknell Road and Austin Way. Copies of the Appraisal Summary Statement and Purchase Agreement for each property are attached. Upon Council approval of the purchases and execution of the Purchase Agreements and Certificates of Acceptance by the Mayor, the right -of -way acquisition process will be mostly complete and the right -of -way certification process may begin. Assuming certification proceeds smoothly, it will be possible to construct the entire project this summer. FISCAL IMPACTS: The attached summary sheet itemizes the total acquisition costs of $32,570. Because this project is being performed under the Federal Bridge Replacement Act, the federal constribution will be $26,056. The remaining $6514 will be split equally between the Cities of Saratoga and Monte Sereno and the Santa Clara Valley Water District for a total of #2171 per juris- diction. Attachments: 1. Location Map. 2. Acquisition Summary. 3. Appraisal Summaries. 4. Purchase Agreements. 5. Certificate of Acceptance. 0 Site Location Map DEVON - AY' VANOCRRI rM o • Ay,� � 8pT F �i i o Cp C DR. '� J 13.a Cl. ,/ - U s > Qy C y H MARTHA AV. Ya iS > L , //` ° + ° .V. S f�� g ICF 9 W ° OR. ¢o AV. z YDN7 = C s a a > �� ADQr i I u[ f o¢ x 'n i ` /I/ CIND[N o ° ` i Y ^� 7 McC01 t r W M OY 1 : CT. L t 4 $ F h. 7 � h •r, XIRW.' G <i� OTLOS/ �o naRn DR. $ 1 = NAECL wT. 3G /fJ tt \tt 'rC,r� OV MIT" �• -'� ci` ' 74 ,t,TO *DEE AY. �U 5 •YgOCR % al ° M AY.t C }!t > NvQ` 'b` +�• . O@. h Av. 3 ° '� oRRtoe t G AEI(rr►p8A OR,tin^ N y'� ; i N NNII �r tt � '"AlN ►l. F ee � _vt�%� "' tt ; r SOUSA LN. saH ��ttV`��" u\� Da. AV. 1 N ULK XM A BUNG L N. I. ,t ✓ \, ADR [ ��. �'� °J' •r'% o � ISiYONT •Ip $ -' n YUNRO =r Oi Q, .t ! JaaLN ASPCSI y 3. tll[t li p . '�nsC fAwN i T " rvA S tz!• y7p{" ,y,]IgOWy< '►� F' / /•' ON �� �° MUNRO �' CL[NtW AV. z °a• y S' C..TiR _a R G ptt. p .• DR. / r 'q.°! - M GI • p Gl' BCW wr. u°r 3 HA0.L tG o itfYR i; a !„� ( u J `A•qr Ufa \NT 7� AV. h ►AltttY SCDI P i tt. S E a� �= P gCG� /�F d " t'` �O' c#s. �, N f Comm a L� sN[n a r• N` . P o J �� " wr• /tPEPE .. 'l ty °,�„ • C G W,0 Js v. Crq F tt \¢ f AN 4 t I"wAr k ALLENDALE g ' AVE 1 tt4 lL �4y, °i ] i t' S. "[]tRC(UTA AUDREY AY. G �j$ r u oo+oR. t v. r0 u R"vt;t;� pQ" . w�Ain G ° 5 '\ --- ` - } V r ` `r(Y�. O- al',\ tlAj uS nttwsa p _ C tt. o oAtS r)1 s s. Lose GNtos L,`Ap0 \�` /psri� rY W. PARR - WEST VALLEY , y `>: MAR tt tN. N>• h } i _ PO p4t� b+ iyt S COLLEGE �I 81 = `+` t \ C z. ^. \ rwfSltR M� " a. = E g NCM'( = SUBJECT MC CULLOUGH R�_: a + "R ` ; ��4`� ' c_ • =lam I� 14985 QUITO ROAD kr�u` I P L NV`s ►IS t7A 7' MtRIUOR ►OO ^ a c f 0 at i D IC D p P'US .."1q/N OA � Pvl[w � � �R. •_- -- J a'. ...... So-- ri c `�• WAS CT SAN MARGOS RD 1 CRE9fq y' O ;'o QO' AS y /4� C9 / I ° _$ C Slut" .utR- .ter + 00% ac e`,0.GUNDY , I.O.Ot. , C/�.ry lM. VE ING RD. PO. (a L \D5 3� O.1 _ I pDAt f WY. G4 NOME O/ESRTIM / 4 " FI ` ♦ NV. ,untDCR pltt ' c> alts Culas - ` ' `L s`Y t x '� ❑. o °? �h AV, f` LSSLINC M 0.CtfX\ ' N ( ✓ �n "' <1 - • '- �,A > ♦ L �A RD rA C1. °ALE CT. � :1 F y ►IRRACU AA orn � 0+ s ... . I CLUB WT. c,� LA1 er RAnn Cf. t OR cc Lv cR SUBJECT GANTAYAT '' _ ( ^- 9I 7EHE NO RD.W ° ,•� yOM 'i v 18642 MONTEWOOD C� C EATQ yJ GADyyrR�R• �`I wr. �II or 3 t 'f t S <I y GR(DORY W °Aq" SUBJECT HAGHSHENAS a.A`<: -- s` �� 1�F ' RD. Y. 15500 QUITO ROAD L I. �• V �' h.. a ` RQ ptS t:NAOt _< VINELAND rR11n.< ,� Ei f�i �tffi Ci. CD, ' ' Ar. is-T. LIST A�Ah VINL(µO + NNYWE > A r ` > O+,\ OP r �• �' ChARO ( RAN: IAy t0 N00 DR. �•• ic`AtSttN�— 1 i pgVES 8 n r g Y(rw J? � e. Ji o , p > iu: � 14 O t'AI "�LI• N • AV. • F Q l/ DR. �J :: . O ` h . b r W W� /ARLEY RO •e Im 7-. � t •A°' � . � � � AV, turro °a SUBJECT GARZEE RAV(NF W W _ \ '•. ttaa cos ��+ AV. ; :. I : wed 15520 QUITO ROAD+ O v _....__..__.- SUBJECT JOHNSON `' :. fit' '� \` .... W ' '^ � a. NtA Ar §408so�. D ^�o a 9a QUITO /AUSTIN WAY t' 0 °5` .Y`�y� 9? �4kt +� "rsFr! °!IIlf -0�+0. o m• � d ^ O QO' ' �o ' l \ \7 , E G,P � kF' ��°d t - � . C'C9�OtAM �p. �q A,R4 T C y _DJA, C Q -V •W R M /AA(Rr] ` 1 TirnRD LW A ft A aft, RO'! f' i i 4 h( 4, 41P y OAR SVIA St = _ Q )O� r ? 6ECRCSt ``w° •N: Qr. 'v. = °C4 .S = < NWA'( ��•�S:' C�`� °IlkF ^N PO Ct qV NLI• Ci1 .�cA,Mh ~f0 N �a' RP �......__. `y ,(?yf ' cETrN(t ,E?N��� Ntvoo ���t,0trt•' /° - �° �q� �� I ��o � 1�. �� t °�h LEFMANN, MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. I Real Property Appraisal, Counseling & Arbitration Quito Road Bridge Replacement Project Right of Way /Easement Purchases 1. McCullough (W9709 -20, 21 and 20A, 21A) Temporary Construction Easement: $ 1,725.00 Permanent Drainage Easement: $ 1,150.00 Amount of Purchase: $ 2,875.00 2. Johnson (W9709 -5 & 6) Right of Way: $11,685.00 Drainage Easement: 750.00 Amount of Purchase: $12,435.00 3. Haghshenas (W9709 -8, 9 and 8A, 9A) Temporary Construction Easement: $ 4,090.00 Drainage Easement: $ 1,250.00 Amount of Purchase: $ 5,340.00 4. Garzee (W9709 -7) Temporary Construction Easement: $ 4,500.00 Amount of Purchase: $ 4,500.00 5. Gantayat (W9709 -1, 2, 3, & 4) Right of Way: $ 3,055.00 Temporary Construction Easement: $ 3,365.00 Slope Easement: $ 500.00 Drainage Easement: $ 500.00 Amount of Purchase: $ 7,420.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF PURCHASES: $32,570.00 APPRAISAL SUMMARY STATEMENT Owner: Nadine B. McCullough PROJECT: Quito Road Bridge Replacement PARCEL NO.: W9709 -20 & 21 W9709 -20A & 21A Property Address: 14985 Quito Road Locale: Saratoga Saratoga, CA Zone: R -1- 40,000 Present Use: Single Best Use: Same Family Homesite Date Acquired: 10 -6 -69 IRS $ - -- Consideration: Total Property Area: 106,504 s.f./2.445 acres Property to be Acquired: All Part X Incl. Access Rights: Yes No X Market Value of Required Property (including improvements) is: $2,875.00 Summarized as follows: Temporary Const. Easement — $1,725.00 Permanent Drainage Easement - $1,150.00 Total Payment is: $2,875.00 This summary of the basis of the amount offered as just compensation is presented in compliance with Federal and State law and has been derived from a formal appraisal prepared for the City of Saratoga which includes supporting sales data and other documentation. 126 t Project: Quito Bridge Grantor: McCullough Parcel No.: W9709 -20A and 21A (Storm Drain) W9709 -20 and 21 (Const. Easment) AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY This is an agreement for purchase of real property by and between the City of Saratoga, hereinafter referred to as "City ", and Nadine B. McCullough, a married woman, hereinafter referred as to "Grantor ". It is agreed between the parties hereto as follows: 1. DELIVERY OF DOCUMENT Document Nos. W9709 -20A and 21A and W9709 -20 and 21, in form of a Storm Drain Easement Deed and Temporary Construction Easement, for the real property to be purchased, shall be executed and delivered by Grantor to L.L. Hunter, Property Agent and employee of the County of Santa Clara, for the purpose of placing the Storm Drain Easement Deed and Temporary Construction Easement into escrow. 2. PURCHASE PRICE AND TITLE The price for the property to be purchased under this agreement is TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY -FIVE DOLLARS ($2,875.00). City shall deliver the purchase price into escrow upon receipt of the Storm Drain Easement Deed and Temporary Construction Easement from the Grantor. The escrow agent shall deliver the purchase price to Grantor when title to the property vests in City free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, taxes, assessments and leases recorded and /or unrecorded, except: (a) covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations of record, if any; and (b) easements or rights of way over said land for public or quasi - public utility or public street purposes, if any. City shall also pay all costs of escrow and recording fees incurred in this transaction. 3. PRORATION OF TAXES. In the event City acquires fee title to the subject real property under the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement for Purchase page 2 Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 5081. et. seq. as of the recordation of the Deed conveying title to County, except that where City has taken possession pursuant to a right of entry, taxes shall be prorated as of the date of possession. In the event City acquires an order of possession in an action in eminent domain, taxes shall be prorated in accordance with California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5082. Further, Grantor authorizes City to deduct from the purchase price any amount necessary to satisfy any delinquent taxes, together with penalties and interest thereon, and any delinquent or non - delinquent assessments or bonds, which are to be cleared from the title to the subject real property. 4. PAYMENT OF MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST. Any or all monies payable under this agreement, up to and including total amount of unpaid principal and interest on any note secured by a mortgage or deed of trust, and all other amounts due and payable in accordance with the terms and conditions of the trust deed or mortgage shall, upon demand, be made payable to the mortgagee or beneficiary entitled thereunder. The mortgagee or beneficiary shall furnish Grantor with good and sufficient receipt showing the monies credited against the indebtedness secured by the mortgage or deed of trust. 5. LEASE WARRANTY. Grantor warrants that there are no oral or written leases, on any portion of the subject real property exceeding a period of one (1) month, and Grantor further agrees to hold City harmless and reimburse City for any and all of its losses and expenses occasioned by reason of any other lease on the property held by any other tenant of Grantor for a period exceeding one (1) month. 6. DISMISSAL OF ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN. Grantor consents to the dismissal of any eminent domain action involving the subject real property, and also waives any and all claim to any money that may now be on deposit in the Superior Court in any such action. This agreement is in full consideration for any and all claims of damage that may have arisen by any such eminent domain action. 7. POSSESSION. It is agreed by and between the parties that, notwithstanding any of the other provisions of this agreement, the right of possession and use of the property by City including the right to remove and dispose of improvements thereon, shall commence on the Agreement for Purchase page 3 close of escrow controlling this transaction, and the purchase price shown in paragraph 2 includes, but is not limited to, full payment for such possession and use, including interest. 8. IMPROVEMENTS. It is agreed by and between the parties that the purchase price for the subject real property (paragraph 2) shall include payment for the improvements thereon, including, but not limited to, those being acquired by City as part of this transaction. 9. CONFORMANCE. It is agreed by and between the parties that the driveways, walkways, and lawn areas on Grantor's retained property, if any, shall be reconstructed as necessary to conform to street frontage revisions. Said reconstruction shall be provided by City at no expense to Grantor. Permission is hereby granted to City or its authorized agent or contractor to enter upon Grantor's property, where necessary, for the purpose of conforming said driveway and walkways, and for the purpose of resloping and replanting the affected lawn and landscaped area, if any. 10. HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIAL. Grantor warrants and represents that, prior to execution of this agreement, it has disclosed to City in writing, all of the information it has with respect to the prior or contemporaneous presence, storage, disposal, or release of any hazardous waste materials, hazardous substances or toxic materials on the property, as-such are defined under local, state, or federal law. Should it be determined that there were or are any hazardous waste materials, hazardous substances, or toxic materials on the property known to Grantor but not disclosed to City, Grantor shall be responsible for the cost of removing same in accordance with applicable local, state, or federal law. 11. ESCROW. This transaction shall be handled through an escrow with Valley Title company, 300 So. First Street, San Jose, under Escrow No. 201014. Agreement for Purchase • page 4 12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This agreement represents the full and complete understanding of the parties with respect to the property being purchased. Any prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements by and between the parties or their agents and representatives with respect to such purchase are revoked and extinguished by this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has executed this agreement as follows: Attest: CITY OF SARATOGA By Grantor has executed this agreement on GRANTOR By 7 .. - B. McCullo6ug-r- , Mailing Address: 14985 Quito Road Saratoga, CA 95070 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By L.L. Hunter Property Agent APPROVED AS TO FORM: By G07 APPRAISAL SUMMARY STATEMENT Statement of PROJECT: Quito Road Bridge Replacement Juanita Villemaire Property Agent PARCEL NO.: W9709 -5 & 6 Owner: Desmond Johnson Property Address: NW -Q Quito Road and Austin Way Locale: Monte Sereno Monte Sereno, CA zone: R -1 -44 Present Use: Single Family Homesite Best Use: Same Date Acquired: June 2, 1988 IRS $ Consideration $ Total Property Area: Property to be Acquired: All Part X 15,377 sq. ft. Incl. Access Rights: Yes No X Market Value of Required Property (including improvements) is: $ 12,435.00 Right -of -Way easement 719 sq.ft. Drainage easement Area within new right -of -way area 200 sq.ft. Net additional area outside of right -of -way 604 sq.ft. 804 sq.ft. Total Payment is: $ 12,435.00 The above statement is derived from an appraisal of the subject property prepared for the City of Saratoga by Neil A. Lefmann, a qualified appraiser. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Jose, California, this U day of 19 '33, CAT ,1 -j Property Agent j1v20 i i Project: Quito Road Bridge Replacement Grantor: Johnson Parcel No.: W9709 -5 & 6 AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY This agreement is by and between the City of Saratoga, hereinafter referred to as "City," and Desmond Johnson, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor." It is agreed between the parties hereto as follows: 1. DELIVERY OF DOCUMENT. Document Nos. W9709 -5 and W9709 -6, in form of Easement Deeds for the interests to be purchased, shall be executed and delivered by Grantor to Juanita Villemaire, Property Agent and employee of the County of Santa Clara, for the purpose of placing the Easement Deeds into escrow. 2. PURCHASE PRICE AND TITLE. City shall place into escrow the sum of twelve thousand four hundred and thirty five dollars ($12,435.00) for the real property to be purchased. The escrow agent shall deliver this said purchase price to Grantor when title to the real property vests in City free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, taxes, assessments and leases recorded and /or unrecorded, except: (a) covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations of record, if any; and (b) easements or rights of way over said land for public or quasi - public utility or public street purposes, if any. City shall also pay all costs of escrow and recording fees incurred in this transaction. 3. PRORATION OF TAXES. In the event City acquires fee title to the subject real property under the terms, covenants and conditions of this agreement, taxes shall be prorated in accordance with California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5081 et. seq. as of the recordation of the Deed conveying title to City, except that where City has taken possession pursuant to a right of entry, taxes shall be prorated as of the date of possession. In the event City acquires an order of possession in an action in eminent Agreement for Purchase of Real Property Johnson Page 2 of 4 domain, taxes shall be prorated in accordance with California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5082. Further, Grantor authorizes City to deduct from the purchase price any amount necessary to satisfy any delinquent taxes, together with penalties and interest thereon, and any delinquent or non - delinquent assessments or bonds, which are to be cleared from the title to the subject real property. 4. PAYMENT OF MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST. Any or all monies payable under this agreement, up to and including total amount of unpaid principal and interest on any note secured by a mortgage or deed of trust, and all other amounts due and payable in accordance with the terms and conditions of the trust deed or mortgage shall, upon demand, be made payable to the mortgagee or beneficiary entitled thereunder. The mortgagee or beneficiary shall furnish Grantor with good and sufficient receipt showing the monies credited against the indebtedness secured by the mortgage or deed of trust. 5. LEASE WARRANTY. Grantor warrants that there are portion of the subject real property month, and Grantor further agrees to City for any and all of its losses a any other lease on the property held a period exceeding one (1) month. no oral or written leases, on any exceeding a period of one (1) hold City harmless and reimburse nd expenses occasioned by reason of by any other tenant of Grantor for 6. DISMISSAL OF ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN. Grantor consents to the dismissal of any eminent domain action involving the subject property, and also waives any and all claim to any money that may now be on deposit in the Superior Court in any such action. This agreement is in full consideration for any and all claims of damage that may have arisen by any such eminent domain action. 7. POSSESSION. It is agreed by and between the parties that City's right to take possession and make use of the property shall commence on the close of escrow controlling this transaction, and that the purchase price for the property includes, but is not limited to, full and complete compensation for such possession and use from this date, including interest. B. IMPROVEMENTS. It is agreed by and between the parties that the purchase price for the subject real property (paragraph 2) shall include payment for the improvements thereon, including, but not limited to, those being acquired by City as part of this transaction. Agreement for Purchase of Real Property Johnson Page 3 of 4 9. CONFORMANCE. It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the driveways, walkways, and lawn areas on Grantor's retained property, if any, shall be reconstructed as necessary to conform to street frontage revisions. Said reconstruction shall be provided by City at no expense to Grantor. Permission is hereby granted to City or its authorized agent or contractor to enter upon Grantor's property, where necessary, for the purpose of conforming said driveway and walkways, and for the purpose of resloping and replanting the affected lawn and landscaped area, if any. 10. HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIAL Grantor warrants and represents that, prior to execution of this agreement, it has disclosed to City, in writing, all of the information it has with respect to the prior or contemporaneous presence, storage, disposal, or release of any hazardous waste materials, hazardous substances, or toxic materials on the property, as such are defined under local, state, or federal law. Should it be determined that there were or are any hazardous waste materials, hazardous substances, or toxic materials on the property known to Grantor but not disclosed to City, Grantor shall be responsible for the cost of removing same in accordance with applicable local, state or federal law. 11. ESCROW. This transaction shall be handled through an escrow with valley Title Company, 300 South First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, under Escrow No. 201017 (SH). i Agreement for Purchase of Real Property Johnson Page 4 of 4 12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. • This agreement represents the full and complete understanding of the parties with respect to the property being purchased. Any prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements by and between the parties or their agents and representatives with respect to such purchase are extinguished and revoked by this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement as follows: City Date: City of Saratoga ATTEST: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: J "anita Vi leinaire % roperty Agent P O ED AS FOR jlv21 Grantor D. - '/ • Mailing Address: 1 1 6 ALL L St-- e L A C i i 7 15181 Becky ^Lane -` Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Project: Quito Road Bridge Replacement Grantor: Haghshenas Parcel No.: W9709 -8A and 9A (Storm Drain) W9709 -8 and 9 (Construction Easement) AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY This is an agreement for purchase of real property by and between the city of Saratoga,, hereinafter referred to as "City ", and Abbas M. Haghshenas, a married man, hereinafter referred as to "Grantor ". It is agreed between the parties hereto as follows: 1. DELIVERY OF DOCUMENT Document Nos. W9709 -8 and 9, and W9709 -8A and 9A, in form of a Storm Drain Easement Deed and a Temporary Construction Easement for the real property to be purchased, shall be executed and delivered by Grantor to L.L. Hunter, Property Agent and employee of the County of Santa Clara, for the purpose of placing the Storm Drain Easement Deed and Temporary Construction Easement into escrow. 2. PURCHASE PRICE AND TITLE The -price for the property to be purchased under this agreement is FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FORTY DOLLARS, ($5,340.00) City shall deliver the purchase price into escrow upon receipt of the Storm Drain Easement Deed and Temporary Construction Easement from Grantor. The escrow agent shall deliver the purchase price to Grantor when title to the property vests in City free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, taxes, assessments and leases recorded and /or unrecorded, except: (a) covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations of record, if any; and (b) easements or rights of way over said land for public or quasi - public utility or public street purposes, if any. City shall also pay all costs of escrow and recording fees incurred in this transaction. Agreement for Purchase page 2 of 5 3. PRORATION OF TAXES. In the event City acquires fee title to the subject real property under the terms, covenants and conditions of this agreement, taxes shall be prorated in accordance with California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 5081 et. seq. as of the recordation of the Deed conveying title to City, except that where City has taken possession pursuant to a right of entry, taxes shall be prorated as of the date of possession. In the event City acquires an order of possession in an action in eminent domain, taxes shall be prorated in accordance with California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5082. Further, Grantor authorizes City to deduct from the purchase price any amount necessary to satisfy any delinquent taxes, together with penalties and interest thereon, and any delinquent or non - delinquent assessments or bonds, which are to be cleared from the title to the subject real property. 4. PAYMENT OF MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST. Any or all monies payable under this agreement, up to and including total amount of unpaid principal and interest on any note secured by a mortgage or deed of trust, and all other amounts due and payable in accordance with the terms and conditions of the trust deed or mortgage shall, upon demand, be made payable to the mortgagee or beneficiary entitled thereunder. The mortgagee or beneficiary shall furnish Grantor with good and sufficient receipt showing the monies credited against the indebtedness secured by the mortgage or deed of trust. 5. LEASE WARRANTY. Grantor warrants that there are no oral or written leases, on any portion of the subject real property exceeding a period of one (1) month, and Grantor further agrees to hold City harmless and reimburse City for any and all of its losses and expenses occasioned by reason of any other lease 'on the property held by any other tenant of Grantor for a period exceeding one (1) month. 6. DISMISSAL OF ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN. Grantor consents to the dismissal of any eminent domain action involving the subject real property, and also waives any and all claim to any money that may now be on deposit in the Superior Court in any such action. This agreement is in full consideration for any and all claims of damage that may have arisen by any such eminent domain action. Agreement for Purchase page 3 of 5 7. POSSESSION. It is agreed by the parties that, notwithstanding any of the provisions of the agreement, the right of possession and use of the property by City including the right to remove and dispose of improvements thereon, shall commence on the close of the escrow controlling this transaction, and the purchase price shown in paragraph 2 includes, but is not limited to, full payment for such possession and use, including interest. 8. IMPROVEMENTS. It is agreed by and between the parties that the purchase price for the subject real property (paragraph 2) shall include payment for the improvements thereon, including, but not limited to, those being acquired by City as part of this transaction. 9. CONFORMANCE. It is agreed by and between the parties that the driveways, walkways, and lawn areas on Grantor's retained property, if any, shall be reconstructed as necessary to conform to street frontage revisions. Said reconstruction shall be provided by City at no expense to Grantor. Permission is hereby granted to City or its authorized agent or contractor to enter upon Grantor's property, where necessary, for the purpose of conforming said driveway and walkways, and for the purpose of resloping and replanting the affected lawn and landscaped area, if any. Agreement for Purchase page 4 of 5 10. HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIAL. Grantor warrants and represents that, prior to execution of this agreement, it has disclosed to City, in writing, all of the information it has with respect to the prior or contemporaneous presence, storage, disposal, or release of any hazardous waste materials, hazardous substances or toxic materials on the property, as such are defined under local, state, or federal law. Should it be determined that there were or are any hazardous waste materials, hazardous substances, or toxic materials on the property known to Grantor but not disclosed to City, Grantor shall be responsible for the cost of removing same in accordance with applicable local, state, or federal law. 11. ESCROW. This transaction shall be handled through an escrow with Valley Title Company, 300 So. First Street, San Jose, CA, under Escrow No. 201020 -A. Agreement For Purchase page 5 of 5 12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This agreement represents the full and.complete understanding of the parties with respect to the property being purchased. Any prior or contemporaneous oral o•r written agreements by and between the parties or their agents and representatives with respect to such purchase are revoked and extinguished by this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has executed this agreement as follows: Attest: City of Saratoga By Grantor has executed this agreement on .3 -26/,--F0 GRANTOR /1 By A bas M. Hbkg1f9hanas Mailing Address RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By L. Hunter, Property ent APPROVED AS TO FORM By: -5- G07 Abbas M. Haghshanas 1550 Quito Road Saratoga, CA 95070 APPRAISAL SUMMARY STATEMENT PROJECT: Quito Road Bridge Replacement PARCEL NO.: W9709 -7 Owner: Robert Paul Garzee and Shauna P. Garzee Property Address: 15520 Quito Road Locale: Monte Sereno Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Zone: R -1 -44 Present Use: Single Family Homesite Best Use: Same Date Acquired: Feb. 18, 1977 IRS $ Consideration $ Total Property Area: Property to be Acquired: All Part X 43,560 sq. ft. Incl. Access Rights: Yes No X Market Value of Required Property (including improvements) is: $ 4,000.00 Temporary Construction Easement Area within pre- existing right -of -way 1,162 sq.ft. Net additional area outside of right -of -way 1,002 sq.ft. 2,164 sq.ft. Administrative Settlement 500.00 Total Payment is: $ 4,500.00 This summary of the basis of the amount offered as just compensation is presented in compliance with Federal and State law and has been derived from a formal appraisal prepared for the City of Saratoga which includes supporting sales data and other documentation. jlv15 (updated 02- 09 -90) Project: Quito Road Bridge Replacement Grantor: Garzee Parcel No.: W9709 -7 AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY This agreement is by and between the City of Saratoga, hereinafter referred to as "City," and Robert Paul Garzee and Shauna P. Garzee, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Grantor." It is agreed between the parties hereto as follows: 1. DELIVERY OF DOCUMENT. Document No. W9709 -7, in form of an Easement Deed for the interest to be purchased, shall be executed and delivered by Grantor to Juanita Villemaire, Property Agent and employee of the County of Santa Clara, for the purpose of placing the Easement Deed into escrow. 2. PURCHASE PRICE AND TITLE. City shall place into escrow the sum hundred dollars ($4,500.00) for the real The escrow agent shall deliver this said when title to the real property vests in liens, encumbrances, taxes, assessments unrecorded, except: of four thousand five property to be purchased. purchase price to Grantor City free and clear of all and leases recorded and /or (a) covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations of record, if any; and (b) easements or rights of way over said land for public or quasi - public utility or public street purposes, if any. City shall also pay all costs of escrow and recording fees incurred in this transaction. 3. PRORATION OF TAXES. In the event City acquires fee title to the subject real property under the terms, covenants and conditions of this agreement, taxes shall be prorated in accordance with California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5081 et. seq. as of the recordation of the Deed conveying title to City, except that where City has taken possession pursuant to a right of entry, taxes shall Agreement Garzee Page 2 of for Purchase of Real Property 4 be prorated as of the date of possession. In the event City acquires an order of possession in an action in eminent domain, taxes shall be prorated in accordance with California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5082. Further, Grantor authorizes City to deduct from the purchase price any amount necessary to satisfy any delinquent taxes, together with penalties and interest thereon, and any delinquent or non - delinquent assessments or bonds, which are to be cleared from the title to the subject real property. 4. PAYMENT OF MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST. Any or all monies payable under this agreement, up to and including total amount of unpaid principal and interest on any note secured by a mortgage or deed of trust, and all other amounts due and payable in accordance with the terms and conditions of the trust deed or mortgage shall, upon demand, be made payable to the mortgagee or beneficiary entitled thereunder. The mortgagee or beneficiary shall furnish Grantor with good and sufficient receipt showing the monies credited against the indebtedness secured by the mortgage or deed of trust. 5. LEASE WARRANTY. Grantor warrants that there are no oral or written leases, on any portion of the subject real property exceeding a period of one (1) month, and Grantor further agrees to hold City harmless and reimburse City for any and all of its losses and expenses occasioned by reason of any'other lease on the property held by any other tenant of Grantor for a period exceeding one (1) month. 6. DISMISSAL OF ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN. Grantor consents to the dismissal of any eminent domain action involving the subject property, and also waives any and all claim to any money that may now be on deposit in the Superior Court in any such action. This agreement is in full consideration for any and all claims of damage that may have arisen by any such eminent domain action. 7. POSSESSION. It is agreed by and between the parties that City's right to take possession and make use of the property shall commence on the close of escrow controlling this transaction, and that the purchase price for the property includes, but is not limited to, full and complete compensation for such possession and use from this date, including interest. 8. IMPROVEMENTS. It is agreed by and between the parties that the purchase Agreement for Purchase of Real Property Garzee Page 3 of 4 price for the subject real property (paragraph 2) shall include payment for the improvements thereon, including, but not limited to, those being acquired by City as part of this transaction. 9. CONFORMANCE. It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the driveways, walkways, and lawn areas on Grantor's retained property, if any, shall be reconstructed as necessary to conform to street frontage revisions. Said reconstruction shall be provided by City at no expense to Grantor. Permission is hereby granted to City or its authorized agent or contractor to enter upon Grantor's property, where necessary, for the purpose of conforming said driveway and walkways, and for the purpose of resloping and replanting the affected lawn and landscaped area, if any. 10. ACCESS. City or City's officers, agents, contractors, employees and invitees shall be responsible for providing reasonable ingress and egress through the subject real property to Grantor and Grantor's contractors, employees and invitees. Reasonable access shall be defined as a period of time, less than or equal to ten minutes, that the Grantor and the Grantor's contractors, employees and invitees must wait prior to crossing over or on the subject real property. 11. HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIAL. Grantor warrants and represents that, prior to execution of this agreement, it has disclosed to City, in writing, all of the information it has with respect to the prior or contemporaneous presence, storage, disposal, or release of any hazardous waste materials, hazardous substances, or toxic materials on the property, as such are defined under local, state, or federal law. Should it be determined that there were or are any hazardous waste materials, hazardous substances, or toxic materials on the property known to Grantor but not disclosed to City, Grantor shall be responsible for the cost of removing same in accordance with applicable local, state or federal law. 12. ESCROW. This transaction shall be handled through an escrow with Valley Title Company, 300 South First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, under Escrow No. 201019 (PD). Agreement for Purchase of Real Property Garzee Page 4 of 4 13. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This agreement represents the full and complete understanding of the parties with respect to the property being purchased. Any prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements by and between the parties or their agents and representatives with respect to such purchase are extinguished and revoked by this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement as follows: City Grantor Date: Date 4�'-/ Martha Clevenger, Mayor Ro ert PauT "GarxjFe - City of Saratoga ATTEST: Date: !'o - / Harry R. Peacock, City Clerk Shauna P. Garzee J COMMENDS FOR P ROVAL: Mailing Address: 0 -c92 "qh 15520 Quito Road u vita Villemaire Monte Sereno, Ca 95030 P operty Agent APPROVED AS TO FORM jlvl7 (updated 02- 09 -90) APPRAISAL SUMMARY STATEMENT PROJECT: Quito Road Bridge Replacement PARCEL NOS.: W9709 -1, 2, 3 & 4 Owner: Akhila N. Gantayat and Bijoya L. Gantayat Property Address: 18642 Montewood Drive Locale: Saratoga Saratoga, CA 95070 Zone: R -1- 40,000 Present Use: Single Family Homesite Best Use: Same Date Acquired: June 2, 1988 IRS $ - - -- Consideration $ - - -- Total Property Area: Property to be Acquired: All Part X 45,456 sq. ft. Incl. Access Rights: Yes No X Market Value of Required Property (including improvements) is: Right -of -way easement Area within pre- existing right -of -way New right -of -way area Temporary construction easement Area within pre- existing right -of -way Area within new right -of -way area Net additional area outside right -of -way Slope easement Area within pre- existing right -of -way Area within new right -of -way area Net additional area outside of right -of -way Drainage easement Area within pre- existing right -of -way Area within new right -of -way area Net additional area outside of right -of -way Total Payment is: $ 7,420.00 705 sq.ft. 355 sq.ft. 1,060 sq.ft. 653 sq.ft. 355 sq.ft. 1,304 sq.ft. 2,312 sq.ft. 653 sq.ft. 355 sq.ft. 1,054 sq.ft. 2,062 sq.ft. 406 sq.ft. 201 sq.ft. 186 sq.ft. 793 sq.ft. $ 7.420.00 This summary of the basis of the amount offered as just compensation is presented in compliance with Federal and State law and has been derived from a formal appraisal prepared for the City of Saratoga which includes supporting sales data and other documentation. jlvl2 Project: Quito Road Bridge Replacement Grantor: Gantayat Parcel No.: W9709 -1, 2, 3 & 4 AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY This agreement is by and between the City of Saratoga, hereinafter referred to as "City," and Akhila N. Gantayat and Bijoya L. Gantayat, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Grantor." It is agreed between the parties hereto as follows: 1. DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTS. Document Nos. W9709 -1, W9709 -2, W9709 -3 and W9709 -4, in form of Easement Deeds, for the interests to be purchased, shall be executed and delivered by Grantor to Juanita Villemaire, Property Agent and employee of the County of Santa Clara, for the purpose of placing the Easement Deeds into escrow. 2. PURCHASE PRICE AND TITLE. City shall place into escrow the sum of seven thousand four hundred and twenty dollars ($7,420.00) for the real property to be purchased. The escrow agent shall deliver this said purchase price to Grantor when title to the real property vests in City free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, taxes, assessments and leases recorded and /or unrecorded, except: (a) covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations of record, if any; and (b) easements or rights of way over said land for public or quasi - public utility or public street purposes, if any. City shall also pay all costs of escrow and recording fees incurred in this transaction. 3. PRORATION OF TAXES. In the event City acquires fee title to the subject real property under the terms, covenants and conditions of this agreement, taxes shall be prorated in accordance with California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5081 et. seq. as of the recordation of the Deed conveying title to City, except that where City has taken possession pursuant to a right of entry, taxes shall be prorated as of the date of possession. In the event City acquires an order of possession in an action in eminent Agreement for Purchase of Real Property Gantayat Page 2 of 4 domain, taxes shall be prorated in accordance with California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5082. Further, Grantor authorizes City to deduct from the purchase price any amount necessary to satisfy any delinquent taxes, together with penalties and interest thereon, and any delinquent or non - delinquent assessments or bonds, which are to be cleared from the title to the subject real property. 4. PAYMENT OF MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST. Any or all monies payable under this agreement, up to and including total amount of unpaid principal and interest on any note secured by a mortgage or deed of trust, and all other amounts due and payable in accordance with the terms and conditions of the trust deed or mortgage shall, upon demand, be made payable to the mortgagee or beneficiary entitled thereunder. The mortgagee or beneficiary shall furnish Grantor with good and sufficient receipt showing the monies credited against the indebtedness secured by the mortgage or deed of trust. 5. LEASE WARRANTY. Grantor warrants that there are portion of the subject real property month, and Grantor further agrees to City for any and all of its losses a: any other lease on the property held a period exceeding one (1) month. no oral or written leases, on any exceeding a period of one (1) hold City harmless and reimburse ad expenses occasioned by reason of by any other tenant of Grantor for 6. DISMISSAL OF ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN. Grantor consents to the dismissal of any eminent domain action involving the subject property, and also waives any and all claim to any money that may now be on deposit in the Superior Court in any such action. 'This agreement is in full consideration for any and all claims of damage that may have arisen by any such eminent domain action. 7. POSSESSION. It is agreed by and between the parties that City's right to take possession and make use of the property shall commence on the close of escrow controlling this transaction, and that the purchase price for the property includes, but is not limited to, full and complete compensation for such possession and use from this date, including interest. 8. IMPROVEMENTS. It is agreed by and between the parties that the purchase price for the subject real property (paragraph 2) shall include payment for the improvements thereon, including, but not limited to, those being acquired by City as part of this transaction. Agreement for Purchase of Real Property Gantayat Page 3 of 4 9. CONFORMANCE. It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the driveways, walkways, and lawn areas on Grantor's retained property, if any, shall be reconstructed as necessary to conform to street frontage revisions. Said reconstruction shall be provided by City at no expense to Grantor. Permission is hereby granted to City or its authorized agent or contractor to enter upon Grantor's property, where necessary, for the purpose of conforming said driveway and walkways, and for the purpose of resloping and replanting the affected lawn and landscaped area, if any. 10. HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIAL Grantor warrants and represents that, prior to execution of this agreement, it has disclosed to City, in writing, all of the information it has with respect to the prior or contemporaneous presence, storage, disposal, or release of any hazardous waste materials, hazardous substances, or toxic materials on the property, as such are defined under local, state, or federal law. Should it be determined that there were or are any hazardous waste materials, hazardous substances, or toxic materials on the property known to Grantor but not disclosed to City, Grantor shall be responsible for the cost of removing same in accordance with applicable local, state or federal law. 11. ESCROW. This transaction shall be handled through an escrow with valley Title Company, 300 South First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, under Escrow No. 201018 (PD). 1 Agreement for Purchase of Real Property Gantayat Page 4 of 4 12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This agreement represents the full and complete understanding of the parties with respect to the property being purchased. Any prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements by and between the parties or their agents and representatives with respect to such purchase are extinguished and revoked by this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement as follows: City Date: City of Saratoga ATTEST: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: /1/",m a'�t J Aanita Villemaire operty Agent PPROVED AS TO FORM jlv9 Grantor Date: 3%29)90 Akhila N:-Gantayat T Date: 3 Bijoye L. Gantayat Mailing Address: 852 Las Lomas Drive Milpitas, CA 95035 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE (GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 27281) This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the within and foregoing Easement Deed to the City of Saratoga is' hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the City of Saratoga, and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand on , 19 By: jlv39 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 19/7 AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE:5 2 90 ORIGINATING DEPT.:Plannina CITY. MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: HP -17, Ordinance Designating Villa Deodara located at 20330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. as a Heritage Resource. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council approve Ordinance HP -17 designating Villa Deodara as a Heritage Resource. Report Summary: The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed this application for heritage resource designation at their April 4, 1990 meeting. The Commission determined that the application met the criteria for designation per Section 13 -15 of the City Code, and recommends approval of the designation to the City Council. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Report to Mayor and City Council 2. Ordinance HP -17 3. Staff report to the HPC dated 4/4/90 4. Application for designation 5. HPC minutes dated 4/4/90 Motion and Vote: or__ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Staff DATE: May 2, 1990 SUBJECT: Ordinance Designating Villa Deodara as a Heritage Resource (HP -17) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Background: The Heritage Preservation Commission received an application for heritage resource designation of Villa Deodara, located at 20330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, in March. This application was reviewed at their April 4, 1990 meeting. After careful consideration of the application and supporting materials, the Commission deter- mined that the residence met the criteria for designation per Section 13- 15.010 of the City Code. The Commission voted unani- mously to recommend to the City Council approval of the designa- tion. Recommendation: The City Council should hold a public hearing on the designation and, if it can make the findings for approval, introduce the ordinances designating the heritage resources. A second reading would be required at the next Council meeting. The ordinance would go into effect thirty (30) days after the second reading. S UQ� VaAes Walgren sistant Planner ORDINANCE NO. HP -17 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS VILLA DEODARA AT 20330 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD (APN 517 -11 -003) AS A HERITAGE RESOURCE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: Section 1: After careful review and consideration of the report of the Heritage Preservation Commission, the application and supporting materials, the City Council has determined that the findings per Exhibit "A" can be made and hereby designates the property known as Villa Deodara. Section 2: This designation shall become operative and take effect thirty (30) days from its date of passage. This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this day of 1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor EXHIBIT "A" REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION OF VILLA DEODARA 1. Villa Deodara exemplifies special elements of the cultural, social, economic and architectural history of the City. 2. Villa Deodara embodies distinctive characteristics of the Mediterranean Villa architectural style. 3. Villa Deodara is a structure which contributes to the unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar feature of a particular neighborhood or district within the City. 0919W o1 §&MZ19Q)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: April 4, 1990 FROM: James Walgren, Secretary to Commission SUBJECT: Consideration of an Application for Heritage Resource Designation The Heritage Preservation Commission has received the following application for Heritage Resource designation: HP -17; Villa Deodara, 20330 Saratoga- Los Gatos Road This application was submitted by the current owners of the property, Cornelius and Kandes Bregman. The house is a two -story Mediterranean Villa constructed in 1912. Additional historic and architectural information is provided in the application materi- als. Action by Heritage Commission: According to Section 13- 15.050 of the City Code, the Commission is required to render its recommendation on the designation in the form of a report to the City Council. The report shall set forth in detail the reasons for the Commission's decision and the information and documentation relied on in support thereof. In order for the Commission to recommend to the City Council approv- al of a heritage designation, the resource must satisfy one or more of the following criteria: (a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultur- al, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; or (b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or (c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or (d) It is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or architect; or (e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteris- tics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood.or district within the City; or (f) It represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or (g) It embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special his- torical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. Date Received s 22. LIo Designation # .► HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION APPLICATION FORM (No Fee) PROPERTY ADDRESS 20 S 6 C30 OAIA - NAME OF RESOURCE \A1101 �►° VQ PROPERTY OWNER ate^ OWNER ADDRESS !6we- OWNER PHONE OWNER SIGNATURE ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER �� 1:7- 11 V PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ",-eC aj�k',L4(2d 41561C PfGWTC4'S ----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- IMPORTANT Prior to submitting an application for heritage resource designation, the following should be read carefully: I, the applicant, understand that by applying for designation of my property as a heritage resource, that such property will be subject to the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Saratoga.,City Code I also agree that these provisions will be lied 'M as well as any conditions upon which the appli4tidi 1 , grated. Signature Date `� TL 5 ,� ^� e Address Phone fl J HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY ( #65) IDENTIFICATION 1. Common name: Villa Deodara 2. Historic name: The Deodars 3. Street or rural address: 20330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road City: Saratoga Zip: 95070 County: Santa Clara 4. Parcel number: 517 -11 -003 5. Present Owner: Cor S. & Kandes Bregman Address: 20330 Saratoga - Los Gatos Rd. City: Saratoga Ownership is: Public: 6. Present Use: Residence Zip: 95070 Private: X Original Use: Residence DESCRIPTION 7a. Architectural style: Mediterranean Villa 7b. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: The external appearance of this two -story rectangular home has been restored by its present owners to its original beauty. Nothing has been added to the main structure, though the back porch has been enclosed to make a garden room and bar area, and the roof timbers were exposed on the interior. The entire interior has been restored, with a mahogany panelled study installed on the lower floor. The entire garden landscaping has been redesigned with the exception of the magnificent deodar cedar trees for which the house has been named. The house is of redwood construction, including the ballustrade along the front. The entire house is stucco on the exterior. The impressive front door is of Honduran mahogany. The original landscaping included vineyards in the front and at one time sported one of Saratoga's first tennis courts. The vineyards have been replaced by a lawn and there is a new white ornate ironwork gate at the entrance. 41- . 8. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1912 9. Architect: Unknown ?,. �dU'tH�l{y�,. ''1{se•4,J {iNNHH7iiiJil7�1W{ C�; 10. Builder: Unknown iJ 11. Approx. prop. size Frontage: 110' Depth: 320.51' approx. acreage: .81 12. Date(s) of enclosed photograph(s): 1988 eft RR frn . j his :ttr+ � ; , �t • `��- ��it �� ��,. ,u D4a T � r 8. Construction date: Estimated: Factual: 1912 9. Architect: Unknown ?,. �dU'tH�l{y�,. ''1{se•4,J {iNNHH7iiiJil7�1W{ C�; 10. Builder: Unknown iJ 11. Approx. prop. size Frontage: 110' Depth: 320.51' approx. acreage: .81 12. Date(s) of enclosed photograph(s): 1988 13. Condition: Excellent: X Good: Fair: Deteriorated: No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: Back porch area enclosed. 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land: Scattered buildings: Densely built -up: X Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: Other: 16. Threats to site: None known: X Private development: Zoning: Vandalism: Public Works project: Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? X Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: The former carriage house at the rear of the property has been converted for use as a garage. A pool has been added to the back. SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and /or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site). This home was built by the J. G. Kennedys in 1912. They were from Palo Alto and Edith Kennedy was from a prominent San Jose family in the lumber business. The land was purchased from T. S. Montgomery, whose home was nearby. He had purchased 100 acres from Hannah McCarty; all of this land was once part of the El Quito Rancho Mexican land grant. In 1921 it was sold to the Richard Hams, another prominent Saratoga family. The Ham and Kennedy children attended Oak Street School (Saratoga School) and daughter Charlotte taught Joan Fontaine and Olivia DeHavilland at Sunday School. They installed one of Saratoga's first tennis courts which has ,since been removed. The current owners purchased it in 1980, and have restored it to its 1912 elegance. 20. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: X Arts /Leisure: Economic /Industrial: Exploration /Settlement: Government: Military: Religion: Social /Ed.: 21. Sources (List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates). Melita Oden, historian, 2/86; Cor and Kandes Bregman, 1986. 22. Date form prepared: 4/88 By (name): SHPC Organization: City of Saratoga Address: 13777 Fruitvale Avenue City: Saratoga Zip: 95070 Phone: 867 -3438 Locational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks): NORTH y 6 � Q � `a/ The two Heritage Preservation Commission applicants, Peter Sabin and Mary Givens, were in attendance and discussed their backgrounds with the HPC. Bruce Mitchell stated he will be able to stay on as a commissioner now that the meeting time has changed, which only leaves one vacancy on the HPC. The City Council will decide on one of the two applicants at their April 18th public hearing. Staff commented that attempts had been made by the city clerk to locate the former HPC applicant, Kitty McGuire, but that she had not responded. B. Paul Masson Memorabilia Update Staff had not yet received a response from Dividend Develop- ment regarding the possibility of obtaining old winery equip- ment from the closed facility. C. Response to Mayor Clevenger's Letter Accepted as submitted. .New Business A. Request for Heritage Resource Designation The commission reviewed the application for Heritage Resource Designation at 20330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, known as Villa Deodara, and concurred that the residence was historically significant and warranted designation. Staff agreed to prepare a resolution to the City Council. B. California Preservation Conference Registration Staff distributed registration packets to the commissioners and asked that they review the program and return it to staff at City Hall by the following week so that arrangements could be made to attend. IV. Items Initiated by the Commission none V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, mes Walgren Assistant Planner SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.-I(f// AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 2 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVA •PwIgJ40 4 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineerin SUBJECT: Tract 8316 (San Marcos Heights) - Final Map Aproval Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. SD 88 -008.1 approving the Final Map of Tract 8316 (San Marcos Heights). Report Summary: The 23 lot subdivision at San Marcos Heights is ready to receive Final Map Approval. All conditions precedent to Final Map Approval have been fulfilled. A copy of the Planning Commission resolution approving the Tentative Map and containing all subdivision conditions is attached. Also attached is Resolu- tion No. SD 88 -008.1 which, if adopted, will approve the Final Map of Tract 8316 but reject the offers of dedication for the public streets at this time. The dedicated public open spaces, (Lots 35 and 36), will be deeded to the City at the time the Final Map is recorded. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 88- 008.1. 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 88 -008. 3. Map of Tract 8316. Motion and Vote: RESOLUTION NO. SD 88 -008.1 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF Tract 8316 (San Marcos Heights) WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of Tract 8316 (San Marcos Heights) having heretofore been filed with this City Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completed, and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require- ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save and except as follows: *BONE NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: (1) The aforesaid final map is hereby conditionally approved. Said approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance with Section (3) hereof. (2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the State of California. (3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept- ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted, and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of the -1- A estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public ways and easements in accord with the standards of. Chap. 14, Municipal Code as amended and with the improvement plans and specifica.tions presently on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe- cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city. (4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining.require - ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate a.s shown on said map and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day of , 19 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR N.A. Done See Tract Map RESOLUTION NO. SD -88 -008 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF SAN MARCOS HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION AT ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY CRISP AVENUE AND GYPSY HILL ROAD Subdivision application has been made to the Advisory Ordinance of Nap Act o! the State of California and Agency under 34 lots the City Of Saratoga, for tentativearmahs approval all as more particularly set forth in File No. map proval City, and subdiWHEREAS, this Advisory Agency her .finds that the is consistent together with the Provisions for its design rop` relacon with the Saratoga General Plan and with gallnspecificvep] With g thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compat_i in such GeneraltPlan, reference and general land us and hereby made for further p datadp9 /13/89 sbain particulars and g EIR WHEREAS, this body has herstofor received and considered prepared for this project in accord with EQA, and the currently applica provisions of C WHEREAS, none Of the conditions set forth (g) is Government Code Section 66474 est Subsections throi subdivision, and taftative approval should be granted in accord si conditions as hereinafter set forth. �hearinS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed publ g at which time all interested parties were given a lull o pportuni to be heard and to present evidence, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for t hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 13th d o! September, 1989 and is marked Exhibit A in the hereinabove referr file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved, The conditions said approval are as follows: 1' Payer drainage fee in effect at the time Of obtaining final approval or receive the City EneJineer. credit for off -sits improvements approved by 2• Submit tract aaP to City for checking and recordation (pay mired checkinq and recordation lees). 3. Street dedication on all streets to be SO !t. 4• Access easement through Odd Fruitvale Ave. Fellows must extend all the way to 3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication• as required. to provide easements, 7 I San Marcos He. r sp Avenue /Gypsy Hil_ t d For Third Phase For Third Phase Done. See Improvementt Plans. / 6: Odd Fellows access road along their northerly border shall b windened where necessary to provide a consistent width for th entire length between Fruitvale Avenue and the intersection wit the connection street to Phase III. The entire access road t be overlayed with asphalt as directed by the City Engineer. 7. Improve all streets and the street connection between Phase 1I: and the Odd Fellows access road along their northerly border ti city standards including the following: A. Designed structural section 13 ft. between centerline anc flovline. B. P.C.. concrete curb and gutter (V -24). C. Underground existing overhead utilities.. '8. 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 sever or watercourse, including the following: A. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. B. Storm sever laterals with necessary manholes. C. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. 9. Access roads having slopes between 154 and 174 shall be surfaced using 4" of P.C. concrete rough surfaced using 4" aggregate base. Slopes in excess Of 154 shall not length. exceed 50 ft. in Access roads having slops permitted. in excess Of 17 -1/24 are not A. The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. J B. Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs, dynamic loading. C. Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of cul- verts and roadside ditches. lo- Construct standard driveway approaches. li. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 12. watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 13. No direct access allowed on emergency access roads from lots, and no direct access to rear street on double frontage lots. 8 San Marcos He! _sp Avenue /Gypsy Hil_ f d Done. 14. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. 15. Engineered improvements plans required for: A. street improvements 8. Storm drain construction C. Access road construction 16. Pay plan check and inspection teas as determined Done. improvement plans. from 17. Enter into improvement agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval. 18. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. Done 19. Erosion control measures to be constructed along Vasona Creek ��. downstream from development, (in the 21) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer area o! APN 397-3 - '20. The final map may be recorded as three phases provided that the first phase will include the cul-de -sac from Crisp Ave. including lots #15 through 20, the second phase shall be the Done. See Tract cul -de -sacs from Gypsy Hill Rd. including lots 024 through 33, and the third phase shall be the cul-de -sac from the Odd Fellows Map. facility including lots #6 through #14. The emergency access between the cul-de -sacs from Crisp Ave. and _ Gypsy Hill Rd. shall be fully constructed at the second phase. N.A. The third phase including the final location of an access road through the Odd Fellows facility shall be submitted for the Planning Commission's review and approval prior to recordation. Done. 21. A Streambed Alteration Agreement California Dept. of. Fish and Game for the obproposedfrroadway construction across the creek. All the conditions of the agreement shall be met. 22. The placement of utility lines shall be within the right -of -way and to minimze the impact on existing vegetation where not possible to locate the lines within the right -of-way, the lines shall be located so as to minimize interference with the routs systems of major trees. 23. All construction vehicles and equipment shall be muffled per California State Noise Standards for delivery motor vehicles. With Construction 24. Construction shall be restricted to Monday through Saturday from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 25. wat4r shall be sprayed on site,durinq construction of street and /or structures, to minimize the amount of dust. 26. Soil and materials hauled by trucks shall be wet and /or covered. 9 San Marcos He =" �� 1-_ lsp Avenue /Gypsy Hit Done. See Report. 27, The contents of existing containers on the site tested by a state certified analytical laboratory and shall removed from b the site in accordance with the recommendations prior to final map approval. expert With Building 28. Developer shall install lire hydrants that meet the Fir District's specifications. Fire the Fir, Permit. hydrant shall be prior to final map approval. 29. All fire hydrants shall be located within live hundred feet fro: the residences and deliver no less than one thousand gallons pei minute of water for a sustained period of two Saratoga hours. [City 01 Code 14- 30.040(c)]. With Building 30. All driveways shall have a 14 foot minimum width plus one foot shoulders. Permit. 31. Driveways shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. Turr; around shall have 33 ft. outside radius. Other types shall meet the Fire District requirements. Done. 32. Security r emergency shall be controed lt., ygatremote digital transmitter and a5 by the Fire District. approved Done. 33. A sanitary sewer connection shall be required in accordance with West Valley Sanitation District standards. Fees and posting of the sanitary sewer improvements bond shall be paid to the District to prior final map approval. 34. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose water Company. 35. All the requirements of SCVWD regarding treatment of wells shall be met prior to final N.A. map approval. 6. Hydrologic and hydraulic studies prepared by the applicant, shall be submitted to scvwD for review and approval prior to final map approval. With Tentative 37. Evaluation of Feasible Building sites - Geotechnically feasible building envelopes and driveway Map, access routes shall be indicated on the tentative map with the assistance of the project geotschnical consultant. potential slope instability associated with existing landslide features shall be considered when locating feasible development areas. The recommended foundation type for each building site shall be indicated on the tentative map. The consultant should review and approve the geotechnical feasibility of proposed' development as indicated on the tentative map. The tentative map and plan review letter prepared b the geotechnical consultant should be submitted-to the Cityo� for review by the City Engineer and Geologist to prior approval of the tentative map. 10 San Marcos He ��� i ,sp Avenue /Gypsy Hil —Ad 38. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits on individual lots, the following conditions shall completed. be satisfactorily (a) Supplemental Slope Stability Evaluations - The long -term stability of steep slopes and /or existing landslide features should be evaluated under static and anticipated seismic conditions. appropriate stabilization measures shall be recommended (as necessary) to address any potential adverse impacts existing landslides pose to the proposed development or adjacent properties. Appropriate subsurface investigation shall be conducted (if deemed necessary by the consultant) as a basis for the slope stability evaluation. The results of the stability evaluation should be submitted to the City for review by the City Geologist and Engineer prior to approval of With Building Permit. grading or building permits. (b) Supplemental Subsurface Investigation - GHOtechniCal design criteria for individual lot development shall be based on subsurface investigation in the vicinity of the proposed building site. The project geotechnical consultant shall verify that sufficient lot specific subsurface investigation has been completed as a basis for recommended geotechnical design criteria. A statement to this affect shall be included as part of the geotechnical plan review. (c) Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation paramettersinfor foundationsnand roadways)nto ensure that this recommendations have been properly incorporated. The consultant should also verify that sufficient lot specific subsurface investigation has been completed as a basis for recommended geotechnical design criteria. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of site development or building permits. (d) 4e0technical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant W=11 inspect, test (as needed), and approve all ical aspects of the project construction. The ions shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to 11 San Marcos He v.- �. lap Avenue /Gypsy Hi_ . c{Aftd the City Engineer for approval. review prior to final project Will be done. (e) Geologist shall recordation of review and drainage prior to further analysis. P to determine which lots need 39. Trail easement at the main riparian corridor and along the streets right -of -way shall be defined and shown on the tentative Done. map and be dedicated to the city. by the developer per the C ,The trails shall be improved requirements prior to* o final City s Maintenance Department bonded. The purpose of the trailpin the oopenalspaceadeasement shall be to provide recreation access without detracting from the natural environment. The applicant shall submit a trails imprOVement plan for Planning Commission review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. 40. Dasign review approval is required on all the lots prior to issuance of building permits. 41. The homes located at building sites of 10= elope or over, shall to gra hy. with stepped floor plan to follow the natural topography. 42. Location of the new homes shall be at building sites as approved Comby the Planning Commission. Any modification to the building mission) require site modification approval by the Planning 43. The homes on lots 2 3 height. ' ' 3. 33 shall not exceed 20 !t. in g The homes on lots 1, 23, 24, 23, and 26 are extremely sensitive due to the proximity, to the riparian corridor and a When design home should be considered by the planning Commission With Building review is considered. Permit. 44. The second than 300 of the first floorhandd be limited in area to la more Commission design review approval. � ffiinal subject is Planning consider the proximity o! the structure to the design shall also northerly portion of the lot. 43. The height of the homes on lots 31. and 32 shall not exceed 18 feet in height above the elevation of the south not ex -sac is seawrsd at the aid -point of the frontage o! each lot. a6. The maxi== height on the h exceed elevation 430 sea on lots 6, 7, 81 9 shall not abage sea level. X47. Materials and olors used for the structure shall be o! and tones c integrate with the natural types environment and in and with the City's Residential Design Guidelines. the rear of lots l0 t 48. An open space is 10 tt, as shown on the tentative map, and at hrough 14 as per Exhibit °AM attached shall 12 San Marcos Hei _sp Avenus /G ,,.� / ypsy Hil. - ; p See Open Space Agreement. Done. See Plans approved by PlanningQ Commission be dedicated as pri��vat open space easements and recorded it the county ofliae'ei�- Iordation prior to final ma approval. The easements shall be maintained at P NC structure, fence or natural form. NC easements. The easement to the roar of lotsa10o through t14nshall be added to the tentative map and recorded on the final map. 49. The rooflines and articulation of the elevations of the homes shall be designed to minimize the bulk of the homes and blend with the natural environment. 50. Graded area shall be.landscaped with native vegetation for screening and erosion control measures prior to start of winter seasonal rains. Plan for erosion control and revegetation shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to final map approval. With Building Permit 51. No retaining walls or exposed foundations shall exceed 5 !t. in height. 52. All fences and retaining walls shall conform with the fence regulation for hillside districts in accordance with ordinance 15- 29.020. Done. See Letter. 53. No fence, structure or a grading except what is necessary for the shally be permitted under sthe drip line otttheo existing large (about 700 diameter) oak trees on lots 4 and 22, 54. Native trees shall be planted along the street to c Done by Planning U xisting. trees. The plan shall be reviewed and appproved by the Commission. Planning commission prior to final map. 55. All landscaping shall include native vegetation to reinforce and promote the existing natural character of the m4*- 56. No recreational courts shall be allowed on the. lots which visually detract from the ad oin With Building Plans. Specifically, no recreation courtsshall bye allowed analotsnis, 19, 20, 21, 22, 20, 29. S7• pools shall be allowed subject to the Planning camsias on approval. 58• No Ordinance sise tree shall be removed unless in accordance With City Ordinance Article 15 -29, except for trees approved by the Planning Coeeission for removal at building sites, as shown on the tentative map. All the removed trees shall be replaced .by native trees, three (3) trees for each tree removed. With Construction 59. The new bridge over the creek shall be located to minimize tree removal and impact on the riparian corridor using methods See Plans. to avoid operation of heavy equipment at the riparian corridor. The bridge shall be placed during the dry season or adequate techniques shall be used to prevent turbidity in the water 13 San Marcos Haig- Sp Avenue /Gypsy Hi;.., fad avoid operation of her The brtdge shall be placed equipment at the during the d riparian corrido column. shall be used to prevent turbidity season or adequa With Design Review. urbidity in the wat 60. All to existing trees shall regruir� building sites at an area wit approval prior to design the City's Horticulturists revi, 61. Pursuant to City approval. upon the Cit r Code Section ,end 14-03.053 , the applicant shall its Officers, request, defend, indemnity and hold the City volunteers less from boards, commissions, employee an proceeding harmless and against any ofeto attack, set aside, void any claim, action °. made Proceedings, acts or dote or annul the approval, o: prior to such approval, which is broughtswtaken,thdone o] requested in Section 14- 83.060 of this Chapter. It a defense is requested, the Cit time any such claim y shall give prompt notice to the applicant o2 in the defense• action or proceeding, and shall cooperate fully from Participating and herein shall prevent ate City shall art eta g the defense, but in such event pay own attorney's fees and costs. , the City Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to within 30 days o! the passage of this resolution or said resolution be void, these conditi� shy Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or a Will expire. PPraN section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, other �ernmental entities must be met. y, City a , Count y Section 4. Unless appealeQ (10) of the Bathe " City Code, this Pursuant elution shall become ottactArt t. (10) days free requirements. of Artic. the data of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPT by the City of Saratoga Of California, this 13th day o! City o September, 1og9 Commission °omission, Stat by the following vote: AYES; Siegfried, iusYer, JbIstad NOES: Harris and Tucker Moran, and Tappan ABSENT: ATTEST: Cha roan, Plana n anion P Sour ry, l C as on 14 . San Marcos Heights, L .sp Avenue /Gypsy Hill Road '+ The l4-1703mg nditions are hereby accepted. al cant if Da ta 4 is 4