HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-1990 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTSt
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM T
METTING DATE: June 6, 1990 CITY MGR. A, ;ROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT. Engineering — ,
SUBJECT: Tract 8316 (San Marcos Heights) - Acceptance of Grant
Deed of Open Space, Lots 35 and 36.
Recommended Action:
Accept Grant Deed of Open Space and authorize City Manager to
process Grant Deed on behalf of city.
Report Summary:
Attached is a Grant Deed which grants Lots 35 and 36 of Tract
8316 (San Marcos Heights) to the City for use as dedicated public
open space. The developer is required to grant these lands to
the City as a condition of approval for the subdivision and is in
I ieu of the Park and Recreation fees which would normally have
been collected.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
1 Grant Deed
3. Tract Map
Motion and Vote:
r MAIL TAX STATEMENT TO GRANT DEED
I
Name The undersigned Grantor declares the
Address tax to be
City
a
Sta ,e Count Transfer Tax $
la L County
Full Value
By this instrument dated May 18, 1990 for a valuable
City Conveyance Tax $
consideration,
SARATOGA PACIFIC OAK, a joint venture composed of Rogers and Brook,Inc.,
a California corporation, and Bryan D. Dunnivan and Joyce Lynn Dunnivan,
his wife, and Constantinos Karkalemis
hereby GRANT(S) to
CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation
the real property situated in the City of Saratoga
County of Santa Clara State of California, described as follows:
PARCEL ONE: ALL OF LOT 35 as shown upon that certain Map of Tract No. 8316,
which Map was filed for record on May 25, 1990 in Book 614
of Maps, at pages 17, 18,19,20, ]1 Official Records of Santa Clara County
anq
RESERVING THEREFROM a private 20 foot ingress- egress easement
designated as "PARCEL B" on the aforementioned Map, for the
benefit of PARCEL A as shown on said Map.
PARCEL TWO: ALL OF LOT 36 as shown upon that certain Map of Tract No. 8316,
which Map was filed for record on May 25, 1990 in Book 614
of Maps, at pages 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 Official Records of Santa
Clara County.
ROGERS AND BROOK, INC.
a California corporation
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of.... Santa Clara
.. ...............................
l
Biryan D.-'Dunnivan-
/ 1, LP J 7.G!'v aCJ N�,/.Tt�t/.L/J -Q.,✓
�JoYVe Lynn/ Dunn �i/-vvan, /
On May 18, 1990.......... .1 before me ......... �a�1, C�, D.,,$ G�1�2ldeC ...... a Notary Public in and for said
James R. Rq ers personally AXJ6 XXVt X )6XXXXii4J6XdW61Ura16XfJWidfi)E
County and State personally appeared. ... .. .. .. 9 . .. ...... .. p sonal/ known tome vv
AYdX*Xto be the person who executed the within instrument as .... . . the ............. President sVVYY��aan.....................
lF9( i( 9t) l�l( lQ9Fx11ikll�( 9tX7( 9!!( 919PX+ 1!( x9( 9@ l( 9( 3( 1 @!(9?#l�it�79(4�)(f49@Xx94%rk�( Kai(( 9( 4�It91�X� #�R9(a(�trXtK�(�QN90i@l(d4# ..........
X "zX4tKXX pX X*Xi pXeA#Ixhet executed the within and foregoing instrument on behalf of the corporation therein named and acknowledged to me that
su��pfAflf AiwBfir�lld4�nliii„iin,nnumm�,�
OFFICIAL SEAL
_ JANICE D. SCHNEIDER ?
WITNESS my hand and Official Seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA :7
Notary Public
K_ COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
n
ACKNOWLEDGMENT -CORPORATION
Comm. Exp. Jan. /S, i9?4
p
On,n111,111IntU1,111IRUII,U 1111nG Itltlnttuunlf
VTC -127
.............................. ... ....... . ...... a
i�
r
c`
PARCEL ���� YsNUl� U��&y� .
•A• \4P� t8 • �,��gy f,.
NOT A BUILDIf1G BITE �$ \\
�\es\ P� DESIGNATED REMAINDER
19
' PAROgL , i•� \��
20
1
11841c 2t
35
30 23 o �
22 �
s
28
C
23
2
26 0 4
31 D� �• �'
P 4
�1q �c0 D 8 p.
� c, 25
32 3
33
O 6
i
34 16
RA,04"OWT a Ma
20 palteOr*oatf!
PARGEL`C' t4 15
I A
' 17
q
PARCEL
•A� `Q l8
WOT A BUILDING SITE
s
20
� I ,
t p
Vg
SIC
35
30 23 O p ° ti I
-28
�P 7
81 OF
44%
26
E
21
SCALE
P�+`` DESIGNATED REMAINDER
22
F
24
7�40
�
11 -'N
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: June 6, 1990
ORIGINATING DEPT. Engineering
AGENDA ITEM +1<
CITY MGR. APPAL
SUBJECT: 1990 Street Maintenance Program -
Award of Construction Contract
Recommended Action:
1. Declare Graham Contractors, Inc. of San Jose to be the
lowest responsible bidder on the project.
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the attached contract with
Graham Contractors, Inc. of San Jose in the amount of
$306,235.52.
3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up
to $46,000.
Report Summary:
Sealed bids for the 1990 Street Maintenance Program were opened
on May 22, 1990. Four contractors bid the project. A summary of
the bids is attached. Graham Cosntractors, Inc. of San Jose
submitted the lowest responsible bid of $306,235.52, which is
8.1% below the engineer's estimate of $333,246.70.
Fiscal Impacts:
The adopted FY 89 -90 budget contains $369,700 in Account No.
3031 -4530 to fund the Street Maintenance Program. Sufficient
funds are therefore available to cover the base contract amount
and anticipated change orders.
Attachments:
1. Bid Summary
2. Contract.
Motion and Vote:
l �
r
DATE: May 22 ► 1990
TIME: 2 :00: 8:00 P. M.
CITY OF SARATOGA
BID SUMMARY
Sheet 1 of 2
PROJECT
Slurry Seal and Cape
Seal on Various City
Streets
..MNEWN�
Engineer's
Graham
Contractor
CPM
Valley Slurry
Seal
It
.Description �
Quantity
Unit
Unit
price
l Amount
Unit
Amount
Unit
Price
Amount
Unit
Price
Amount
1
Install Slurry Seal II
2,192,454.0
S.F
0.052
114,007.6
0.049107,430.25
0.0432
94,714.01
.0536
L17 ,515.
2
Install Fabric Mat
116,481.0
S.Y.
0.50
581240.5
0.525161,152.5
3
0-5353
62,352.28
0.55
64,064,
3
Install Binder A.R.4000
34,944.0
gal
0.70
24,460.8
0.669
23,377.53
0.56
19,568.
4
Seal
Install 3/8" rockspfor
25j,
43 675,0
22.00
38,434.0019.25
33,629.75
30.00
52,410.
5
al CRlSe on for Chip
40i768.0
gal
1.50
61,152.0
1.37
55,852.116
1.53
62,375.04
1.20
48,921,
6
Power Sweeping
,049,329.
S.F.
0.01
10,483.29
0.008
8,386.63
0.0119
12,475.12
0.009
9,434
7
Paint Double Yellow Live
9, 913.
L.F.
0.50
4F956-50
n.27
2,676.51
0.159 C
1,576.17
0.20
1,982.
8
Paint 4" white edge lin
a 1,347.0
L.F.
0.30
404.10
0.27
363.6
0 .105r,
142.11
0.15
202.
9
Paint Cross Walk
12.0
Ea
170.0
2,040.00
165.0
1,980.0 C
291.5
3,498.00200.0
2,400.
10
Paint Pavement Marking
L.S.
L.S.
7,000.0
7,000.0
4400.
4,400.0
9351.
9,351.007500.0
7,500.
11
e o
Install D Marker Doubl
1 224.0
Ea.
4.0
4r896.0
4.4
5,385.6
3.58
4,381.9
4.0
4,896.
12
Install Blue Markers
68.0
Ea.
7.0
476.00
5.5
374.0
4.24
288.3
4.0
272.
13
Paint 8" White Line
350.0
0.40
140.00
0.2
.94.5
0.10
35.0
0.30
105.
14
Paint 4" Broken White
1,395.00
L.F.
0.30
418.50
0.2
376.6
0.10
139.50
0.10
139.
15
Paint 6" BrokenoW ee
428.00
L.F.
0.30
12 40
0.2
115.5
0.212
90.74
0.11
47.
16
Paint 4" Broken Yellow
1 920.00
L.F.
0.40
768.00
0.27
518.40
0.10
192.00
0.10
192.
J
TOTAL
333,246.7
1306,235.52
3-08,618.49
29,651.
DATE: May 22 , 1990
TIME: 2 :00: 8:00 P. M.
CITY OF SARATOGA
BID SUMMARY
Sheet 2• of 2_
PROJECT
Slurry Seal and Cape
Seal on various City
Streets
Engineer's
Gentz
Construction Co
It
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit
Price
Amount
Unit
'
Amount
Unit
rice
Amount
Unit
Price
Amount
1
Install Slurry Seal II
2,192,454.0
S.F
0.052
114,007.6
.057
124 970.0
2
Install Fabric Mat
116,481.0
S.Y.
0.50
58,240.5
0.54
62,900.0
3
Install Binder A.R.4000
34,944.0
gal
0.70
24,46 . 0.81
0.56
19,569.0
d
SaL
Install 3/8" rockspfor
1,747i.
tons
25.0
43,675,k
55.00
96,085.00I
5
CRlSee�nulsioh for Chip
Seal
M768.0
gal
1.50
61.152.0
0.78
31,800.0
6
Power Sweeping
11049p329.0
S.F.
0.01
10,483.29
044
41,934.0
7
Paint Double Yellow Line
9,913.0.
L.F.
0.50
4,956.50
0.20
1,983.00
8
Paint 4" white edge lins
1,347.0
L.F.
0.30
404.10
0.13
175.0
9
Paint Cross Walk
12.0
Ea
170.0
2r040.00
192.5C
2,310.0
10
Paint Pavement Marking
L.S.
L.S.
7,000
0 7,000.0
7578.Cl
7,578.0
11
Yello
Install D Marker Doubl
1 224.0
Ea.
4.0
4,896.0
3.85
4,712.0
12
Install Blue Markers
68.0
Ea.
7.0
476.00
3.85
262.0
13
Paint 8" White Line,
0
4
140.00
0.26
92.0
14
Paint V Broken Whites
1,395.00
L.F.
0.30
418.50
0.08
112.0
15
Paint 6" Brokeno5h? ee
428.00
L.F.
Of3O
128.40
0.11
47.0
16
Paint 4" Broken Yellow
1,920.00
L.F.
0.40
768.00
0.08
154.00
i
TOTAL
333,246.7 1
394,683.0
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM x
MEETING DATE: June 6, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services
SUBJECT: Amendment to Animal Control Regulations
Recommended Motion: Adoption of Ordinance
Report Summary: At the Council meeting on May 16, 1990, the proposed ordinance
was introduced, with the change to require that all fencing for the purpose of
confining a dog must be 6 feet in height. Additionally, the fence must be of sufficient
strength and design to prevent escape by the particular dog being confined. This
change has been incorporated into the revised draft dated 5/16/90.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance.
Motion and Vote: Introduced on 5/16/90.
SUBJECT: Landscape and Lighting District LLA -1 for
Fiscal Year 1990 -91
Recommended Action:
1. Adopt Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's
Report.
?. Adopt Resolution of Intention to Order the Levy and Collec-
tion of Assessments pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting
Act of 1972 and setting the time and place of the public
hearing for said District..
Report Summary:
On May 2, 1990, Council adopted Resolution No. 2649 describing
the improvements and directing the preparation of the Engineer's
Report for Landscape and Lighting District LLA -1 for fiscal year
1990 -91. The attached resolutions, if adopted, will acccomplish
the second step in the three -step process of continuing the
existing District for the coming year. The public hearing is
scheduled for your special meeting on July 10. The Engineer's
Report is net included in Your packet because of its length. The
Report includes the following information for each Zone within
the District:
- total assessment
- Rules for spreading the assessment
- cost estimate
- description of work
- Assessment Roll
- Assessment Diagram
Copies of the Engineer's Report are available for your's and the
public's review in my office and with the City Clerk.
Fiscal Impacts:
None directly. Thie costs of administering, maintaining, and
servicing the District are charged to the various ?ones within
the District based on benefits received. The County Assessor
collects the amounts with the annual property taxes and in turn
re,mburses the City.
SAkkRATOGA
LC
CITY COUNCILr
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NO. l J "�
AGENDA ITEM
!
MEETING DATE: June 6, 1990
CITY MGR.,APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT.
Engineering
SUBJECT: Landscape and Lighting District LLA -1 for
Fiscal Year 1990 -91
Recommended Action:
1. Adopt Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's
Report.
?. Adopt Resolution of Intention to Order the Levy and Collec-
tion of Assessments pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting
Act of 1972 and setting the time and place of the public
hearing for said District..
Report Summary:
On May 2, 1990, Council adopted Resolution No. 2649 describing
the improvements and directing the preparation of the Engineer's
Report for Landscape and Lighting District LLA -1 for fiscal year
1990 -91. The attached resolutions, if adopted, will acccomplish
the second step in the three -step process of continuing the
existing District for the coming year. The public hearing is
scheduled for your special meeting on July 10. The Engineer's
Report is net included in Your packet because of its length. The
Report includes the following information for each Zone within
the District:
- total assessment
- Rules for spreading the assessment
- cost estimate
- description of work
- Assessment Roll
- Assessment Diagram
Copies of the Engineer's Report are available for your's and the
public's review in my office and with the City Clerk.
Fiscal Impacts:
None directly. Thie costs of administering, maintaining, and
servicing the District are charged to the various ?ones within
the District based on benefits received. The County Assessor
collects the amounts with the annual property taxes and in turn
re,mburses the City.
�e
Attachments:
1. Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report
2. Resolution of Intention
Motion and Vote:
f
S/ARAT'O]GA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. / ( AGENDA ITEM:
MEETING DATE: 6/5/90 CITY MANAGER:
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: DAN TRINIDAZ� NTENANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CITY HALL JANITORIAL SERVICES YEARLY CONTRACT
Recommended Motion:
Authorize, staff-, to request proposals from interested parties for a new
Janitorial services.contract at City Hall for year -end 90/91.
Report Summary:
The City issues purchase orders for contracts on an annual basis for
janitorial services at City Hall.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Funds for this endeavor are included in the upcoming fiscal year budget.
Attachments:
Request For Proposal.
Motion and Vote:
of`
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR CITY HALL OFFICES
INTRODUCTION
The City of Saratoga is notifying interested-Janitorial Services
Contractors of the need for a proposal for janitorial services to
clean the offices at the City of Saratoga City Hall, 13777
Fruitvale Avenue.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
All of the following task descriptions will be performed routinely
five days a week, Monday through Friday, unless otherwise noted.
All work must be completed between the hours of 6:OOPM and 7:OOAM
daily.
ITEM #1
1) Gather all waste paper and place for disposal:
2) Empty and clean all ash trays.
3) Sweep and /or dust mop all floor surfaces.
4) Vacuum clean all carpeted areas.
5) Dust desks, chairs, tables and other office furniture.
6) Dust counters, file cabinets and telephones.
7).Dust all ledges and all other flat surfaces within reach.
8) Dust high partition ledges and molding. Note: weekly.
9) Remove fingerprints from woodwork, walls and partitions.
10)Remove fingerprints from door and partition glass.
11)Clean restroom fixtures and chrome fittings.
12)Clean and refill all restroom dispensers from stock.
13)Spot wash restroom walls, partitions and doors.
14)Clean restroom mirrors.
15)Wet mop restroom floors.
16)Sanitize toilets, toilet seats and urinals.
17)Wash all drinking fountains.
18)Polish or clean door kick plates and thresholds. Note: monthly
19)Dust all venetian blinds. Note: monthly.
20)Vacuum clean all window draperies. Note: yearly.
21)Dust off or vacuum air grills. Note: weekly.
22)Keep janitor closet clean and orderly.
23)Leave only designated night lights on.
24)Check and lock windows, doors and gates upon completion of work.
25)Floor waxing.
a) Buff and wax all tile monthly.
b) Strip and re- wax all tile, twice yearly.
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
The City will provide only paper products and hard soap. The
contractor will provide custodial tools such as: vacuums., floor
machines, pads, floor care products, cleaners,-disinfectants and
any other material necessary appropriate to complete the above list
of tasks.
TERM OF PROPOSAL
The term of this proposal is for approximately one year beginning
on the first day of actual work performed to June 30, 1991.
INSURANCE
The contractor will carry the following insurance:
A) Workmens Compensation: show proof of, as required by law.
B) Bodily Damage and Property Damage: a combined single limit
for one million dollars ($1,000,000). This policy must include
a hold - harmless agreement as follows:
The janitorial services contractor and his insurer agree to save
and hold harmless the City of Saratoga, its officers, agents and
employees from any liability of any nature whatsoever caused in
whole or in part, by the negligence of the Contractor or his
agents or employees.arising out of work performed under the
terms of this proposal. The janitorial services contractor will
also cover all legal and court costs.
C) Automotive Insurance: Bodily insurance of one million dollars
($1,000,000) and property damage insurance of one hundred
thousand dollars ($100,000).
BONDS
The Janitorial Services Contractor will have a blanket fidelity
bond in the amount of five thousand dollars ($.5,000) covering all
of its employees.
l
LIQUIDATED.DAMAGES
The City will suffer damages if work is not performed as required
in this proposal. In the event that the Janitorial Services
Contractor fails to provide custodial services for any workday as
required, then liquidated damages will be deducted from the monthly
billing at $100 per day.
PRE - PROPOSAL INSPECTION
Any prospective Contractor who may wish to inspect the areas to be
cleaned may do so during normal working hours by making an
appointment. An inspection tour will then be scheduled at the
convenience of the City by contacting Bob Rizzo, Parks and Building
Superintendent at (408) 867 - 3438.
TERMINATION
In the event the successful Contractor refuses to deliver or
provide the goods, wares, apparatus, material or services in the
manner and within the time(s) specified or fails or refuses to
comply with any requirements of this proposal, the City of Saratoga
may serve notice. The notice will be in writing upon the
Contractor of its intention to cancel its contract with the
Contractor and purchase said goods, wares, apparatus, material or
services from another source. Within the 10 days after mailing of
such notice, the City may without further notice, cancel the
contract.
i
PROPOSAL, - SUBMISSION DEADLINE
All proposals must be received by 5:00 PM on Friday, June 22, 1990.
Please submit written proposals to:
Bob Rizzo, Parks & Buildings Superintendent
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
i -
SQA(�RATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �y[� AGENDA ITEM: C—)
MEETING DATE: 6/5/90 CITY MANAGER :
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: DAN TRINID�INTENANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CITY STREET SWEEPING SERVICES YEARLY CONTRACT
Recommended Action:
Authorize staff to solicit requests for proposal from interested
parties for a new yearly street sweeping services contract for
fiscal year 90/91.
Report Summary-
The City issues purchase orders for contracts on an annual basis
for street sweeping services, which include the Village Parking
lots, arterial streets, etc.
Fiscal Impacts:
Funds 'for these services are included in several programs in the
upcoming fiscal year budget.
Attachments:
Request For Proposal.
Motion and Vote:
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
STREET SWEEPING SERVICES
Introduction
The City of Saratoga is notifying interested Street Sweeping
Contractors of the need for a proposal for the mechanical sweeping
of certain streets, medians, and parking lots on a monthly basis
in the City of Saratoga.
Scope of Services To Be Performed
To provide a monthly mechanical sweeping service for the following
areas:
ITEM #1 - Street Sweepin
A) Prospect Avenue from Lawrence to Stelling
B) Saratoga Avenue from Highway 85 to Quito Road
C) Cox Avenue from Paseo Presada to Highway 85
D) Herriman Avenue from Saratoga Avenue to Highway 85
E) Fruitvale Avenue from Saratoga Avenue to Brandywine
F) Allendale Avenue from Fruitvale Avenue to Quito Road
G) Quito Road from Saratoga Avenue to Old Adobe
ITEM #2 - Sweeping of Curbed Median Strips
A) Fruitvale Avenue Medians
B) Saratoga Avenue Medians
C) Prospect Road Medians
D) Allendale Medians from Fruitvale Avenue to Portos,
Side and Center Medians
ITEM #3 - Hakone Gardens Parking Area
ITEM #4 - Parking Districts - Big Basin Way
A) Parking District #1 off 4th Street
B) Parking District #2 off 3rd Street
C) Parking District #3 from the BP Service Station
to the Saratoga Inn
D) Parking District #4 off 5th Street
ITEM #5 - Miscellaneous Parking Areas
A) Historical Site - Saratoga -Los Gatos Road
B) Parking Areas at Civic Center: includes City Hall,
Community Center and Civic Theatre
C) Library Parking Area
FREQUENCY OF SERVICE
All areas listed are to be' swept on a once -a -month basis. Monthly
schedule to be reviewed by the Maintenance Department.
TERM OF PROPOSED CONTRACT
The tekMI".of the proposal is for approximately one year, beginning
on the first day of actual work performed to June 30, 1991.
INSURANCE
A) Workmens Compensation: show proof of, as required by law.
B) Bodily Damage and Property Damage: a combined single limit for
one million dollars ($1,000,000). This policy must include a
hold harmless agreement as follows:
The Mechanical Sweeping Services Contractor and his insurer
agree to save and hold harmless the City of Saratoga, its
officers, agents and employees from any liability of any nature
whatsoever caused in whole or in part, by the negligence of the
Contractor or his agents or employees arising out of work
performed under the terms of this proposal. The Sweeping
Services Contractor will also cover all legal and court costs.
C) Automotive Insurance: Bodily injury insurance of one million
dollars ($1,000,OOOj and property damage insurance of one
million dollars ($1,000,000).
BONDS
The Street Sweeping Contractor will have a surety bond to guarantee
performance in an amount equal to three (3) months of the contract.
Proposal Submission Deadline
All proposals must be received by 5:OOPM on Friday, June 22, 1990.
Please submit written proposals to:
Bob Rizzo, Parks & Building Superintendent
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
SARA(T�O�yGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ` r AGENDA ITEM � Q
/-
���1Zo
MEETING DATE: June �. 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Personnel Resolutions for Fiscal Year 1990/91:
Resolution Authorizing Permanent Positions in City Service;
Resolution Adding to Basic Salary Classes and Employment
Classifications; Resolution Setting Management Salaries;
and Resolution Adopting Pay Schedules for Temporary Employ-
ees
--------------- - - --
Recommended Motion:
1. Approve Resolution No. Authorizing Permanent
Positions in City Service for Fiscal Year 1990/91.
2. Approve Resolution No. 85 -9. Adding to Basic Salary
Classes and Employment Classifications.
3. Approve Resolution No. 85 -9. Amending Resolution 85 -9.69
Setting Management Salary Ranges for Fiscal Year 1990 -91.
4. Approve Resolution No. Adopting Pay Schedule for Part -
time Temporary Employees for 1990/91.
Summary:
1. The Resolution authorizing permanent positions in the City
service includes two additional full -time positions, a
Secretary to be shared by the Community Services Director
and Finance Director, and the Assistant to the City Manager
(Environmental Programs Manager).
2. The Resolution Adding to Basic Salary Classes and Employment
Classifications changes one of the Community Services Offi-
cer positions to a Senior Community Services Officer.
3. The Resolution setting management salaries reflects the
results of the job market survey data used in setting ranges
which is part of the comprehensive management compensation
system.
4. The Resolution adopting pay schedules for part -time tempo-
rary employees covers those part -time positions which are
filled on a temporary basis and are not part of the regular
classifications.
Fiscal Impacts:
Wage and salary costs are included in the proposed 90 /91budget.
Attachments
1.
Resolution
No.
2.
Resolution
No. 85 -9.
3.
Resolution
No. 85 -9.
4.
Resolution
No.
Motion and Vote:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 6, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT. Engineering 41 #IOP44e�_
SUBJECT: Tract 7770 (Chadwick Place) - Status of Violations
Recommended Action:
1. Review status of violations on each lot.
2. Release Lots 5, 6, and 8 from the Nuisance Abatement pro-
ceedings.
3. Receive Planning Director's report on restoration plans for
Lots 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, and APN 503- 12 -24.
Report Summary:
This item was continued from your May 2 meeting. At that time,
Council approved a schedule of certain performance milestones
which the various property owners would need to meet to demon-
strate sufficient progress towards abating the nuisances on each
lot. That schedule is 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.
Each property owner was notified of the above schedule. A copy
of the notice provided to them is attached.
At your meeting, you will review the restoration plans for each
lot on which restoration work is required. The Planning Director
has been working with the property owners to develop the restora-
tion plans so he will be presenting the plans to you at your
meeting. His report on the restoration efforts is contained in a
companion memo.
The attached table summarizes the status of each lot with respect
to erosion control and restoration, (illegal grading and vegeta-
tion /tree removal), the two items declared to be public nuisances
by the Council on January 17. Since the nuisances, if any, which
existed on Lots 5, 6, and 8 have been satisfactorily abated by
the property owners, it is my opinion that Council can release
these three lots from the Nuisance Abatement proceeding.
Fiscal Impacts:
6 T-Z
Attachments:
1. Summary of Violations.
2. Notice to Property Owners.
Motion and Vote: i �,/
✓rv�-✓ ' /�.�".`- ��
Lot
TRACT 7770 - Status of Violations as of June 1, 1990
Erosion
Control
1.
Approved
plan.
No work
to date.
2.
Approved
plan.
No work
to date.
3.
Minor seeding
required.
4.
Minor seeding
required.
5.
O.K.
6.
O.K.
7.
Minor seeding
required.
8.
O.K.
9.
O.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
Restoration (Grading and
Vegetation /Tree Removal)
Revised plan submitted. Under
review by City Arborist.
Revised plan submitted. Under
review by City Arborist.
Revised plan submitted.
O.K.
O.K.
O.K.
O.K.
O.K.
Revised Plan Submitted.
Revised plan submitted. Under
review by City Arborist.
Revised plan submitted. Under
review by City Arborist.
Revised plan submitted. Under
review by staff.
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
• (408) 867 -3438
3� COUNCIL MEMBERS:
May 15, 1990
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
Ms. Carolyn Coccairdi Phil & Debbie Williams Imdad & Sitara Khan
Re: Nuisance Abatement - Tract 7770
(Chadwick Place Subdivision)
Dear
On May 2, the Saratoga City Council approved in concept, a time-
table for abating the nuisances on the various lots in Tract
7770. The timetable is summarized 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.
Oct. 1 - Restoration and Erosion Control work complete.
Nov. 1 - Landscape restoration begins.
Nov. 30 - Landscape restoration complete.
As the owner of one or more lots in the subdivision on which
nuisances were previously declared to-exist, I'm writing to
formally advise you of this timetable and of the first milestone
date of June 1. (The City is scheduled to approve the restora-
tion plans at their June 6 Council meeting.)
By now, you should be working with the Planning Director to
develop your restoration plans. If you need further assistance
from either he or myself, please do not hesitate to get in touch
with either of us at 867 -3438.
As subsequent milestone dates approach, I will be reporting to
the City Council on the progress of the abatement process on each
lot. If at any time the Council determines that adequate
progress is not being made on any particular lot(s), the Council
will then take appropriate measures to remedy the situation.
Printed on recycled paper.
I appreciate your anticipated cooperation throughout this proc-
ess.
Sincerely,
Larry I. Perlin
City Engineer
LIP /df
cc: City Attorney
City Manager
Planning Director
Andarch Associates
Westfall Engineers
Richard Murray
Printed on recycled paper.
I
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438 2-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 5/30/90
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Restoration Plans for Lots 3 & 9, Tract 7770
Recommended Motion: Review and approve restorative grading and
landscape replacement for Lots 3 & 9 in Tract 7770 subject to
conditions.
overview
Staff has received restoration plans for all lots within Tract
7770 currently in violation of the City's grading and tree pres-
ervation: Lots 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 & 11. Staff finds that the restor-
ative actions on two lots (3 - Williams) & (9 - Khan) are con-
sistent with regrading and tree replacement provisions of the
City Code. Lots 1, 2, 10 & 11 (Cocciardi) are currently under
review by the City Horticulturist that will be completed prior to
the 6/20 City Council meeting.
Background
Both lots 3 & 9 require restoration, including grading and addi-
tional landscaping to replace the multiple trees removed without
permits. The specific violation details are as follows:
Lot 3 - Williams
Grading: An existing level area conceptually identified on
the approved tentative map as a building location was ex-
panded into a westerly facing slope. Minor grading occurred
on the existing pad to even out this area.
Tree Removal: Two oak trees at 24" each were removed. One
tree was on the westerly slope and the other was to the east
of the existing level pad.
1
Lot 9 - Khan
Grading: A building pad was created between the 682' and
686' elevations. This created building pad is generally
located within the conceptual building located on the ap-
proved tentative maps. In creating this pad a topographic
"finger" extending from the westerly slope was cut and fill
placed below the 685' elevation.
Tree Removal: Two oak trees at 24" each northerly of the
created pad adjacent to existing dense vegetation.
In considering restoration of these lots, staff applied the
following criteria:
1. Pursuant to City Code 15- 50.120(a), trees removed illegally
shall be replaced with suitably sized replacement trees if feasi-
ble. If similarly sized trees are not feasible because of age or
size, an equivalent number of trees shall be provided and main-
tained.
2. Pursuant to City Code 15- 50.120(b) where suitable replace-
ment trees will not provide equivalent aesthetic value, the value
of the trees shall be calculated using an accepted computation.
The value of the trees removed plus any installation and mainte-
nance costs constitute the civil penalty to be assessed by the
City.
3. When it is infeasible to locate all the equivalent trees to
compensate the loss of illegaly removed trees, the following
formula calculates the civil penalties to be assessed:
Civil Penalty = (Value of trees removed) + (Cost to
install) - (Actual cost to replant trees which are less
than full replacement equivalent)
The City's past experience with installation costs has been
at least equal to the value of the tree installed.
4. Replacement landscaping shall be located in the immediate
vicinity of trees removed and in areas to screen views of future
residences to achieve the maximum aesthetic benefit.
5. Restorative grading shall restore conditions illegally
removed without resulting in the additional environmental impact
or damage. To achieve this, tentative building sites were con-
sidered in order to reconstruct landforms so as to help blend the
future home with the surroundings and to avoid unnecessary import
and export of earth to and from the site.
6. Restorative grading shall not alter natural drainage pat-
terns nor result in adverse erosion conditions. Proposals for
restorative grading shall utilize natural drainage patterns to
the extent possible.
2
7. Landscaping shall be provided an automatic and reliable
irrigation system for a minimum.of five years. The irrigation
system shall be water - conserving drip type.
Staff has received plans for lots 3 and 9 that adhere to the
above criteria. Therefore, staff can recommend that restorative
action can begin. The details for each lot restoration can be
summarized as follows:
Lot 3 - Williams
Grading: The westerly slope will be replaced with compacted fill
material to return the slope to blend the artificial slope with
the natural contours. The level pad that existed prior to the
illegal grading activities will be retained as a future building
site.
Replacement Landscaping: As noted above, two oak trees each meas-
uring 24" in diameter were removed from the site. The restora-
tion plan indicates 12 oaks at 8" diameter which exceeds the
size of trees illegally removed from the site. Four replacement
trees are to be located within the reconstructed westerly slope
where one tree was removed. The remaining 8 trees are to be
located east of the building site to screen future building from
neighboring views. All graded slopes are to be planted with
ground cover.
All replacement landscaping is proposed to be irrigated with
either domestic water planned for this subdivision or a temporary
non - potable supply if domestic service is not available at the
time of planting.
Lot 9 - Khan
Grading: The topographic "finger" removed from the westerly
slopes to create the building site is to be reconstructed with
compacted fill material. Additionally, a knoll will be con-
structed on the east side of the created pad to create a natural
transition between the natural slope and the graded pad as well
as to screen the future building from neighboring views.
Replacement Landscaping: Two trees each measuring 24" in diameter
will be removed from the site. Twelve 24" box size trees are
proposed that will provide the size equivalent of the trees re-
moved from the site. The trees are proposed for the slope areas
below the created building site to screen future building from
neighboring views.
All landscaping will be on automatic irrigation system from the
domestic water supply. Should domestic water not be available t
the time of planting, staff will require connection to a tempo-
rary, non - potable source.
Staff finds the proposals for Lots 3 & 9 consistent with the
requirements of the City Code as well as the criteria stated
3
above and recommends their approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Installation of trees shall be pursuant to the recommenda-
tions of the City's Horticulturist. The Planning Director shall
conduct an inspection subsequent to installation to insure satis-
factory installation and to verify the tree sizes equal the sizes
of trees removed.
2. All landscaping irrigation and grading shall be bonded 150%
of its value for a period of two growing seasons. .
3. The lot owners shall enter into a maintenance agreement for
five years that shall ensure that reasonable care shall be given
to all replacement landscaping. The agreement shall be in a form
satisfactory to the City Attorney and shall be entered into prior
to final inspection of landscaping.
STEPHE EMSL , Planning Director
SE \TRCT770:cw
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ' V AGENDA ITEM:
MEETING DATE:6 6 90
ORIGINATING DEPT.:Plannina CITY. MGR.
Appeal of DR -90 -006; SD -90 -001; UP
SUBJECT: Applicant: Holly Davies; Appellant:
Deveer, et.al.; Location: 14629 Big
I
APPROVAL
111JCeJV,eWf Cre64
30 -001 & V -90 -012
Barbara Van
Basin Way
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold
the Planning Commission approval of DR -90 -006, SD -90 -001, UP -90 -001
& V -90 -012, subject to the conditions listed in each Planning
Commission Resolution.
Report Summary:
The applicant requests construction of a 1453 square foot office
building in the CH -2 zone within the Saratoga Village. The Plan-
ning Commission approved the design review request on a 3 to 2 vote
finding the proposal was a low intensity use compatible with the
historic character of the Village. Owners of condominiums adjacent
to this project object to the 26 foot height proposed, feeling this
scale would overpower the streetscape and detract from the livabil-
ity of their units. While the Planning Commission requested reduc-
tion in height, the applicant felt the proposed height was neces-
sary to retain the historic design.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments:
1. Director's Memo dated 5/30/90
2. Minutes - 3/28, 4/11 & 5/9/90
3. Correspondence
4. Resolutions: DR -90 -006, SD -90 -001, UP -90 -001 & V -90 -012
5. Staff reports to the Planning Commission
Motion and Vote:
r
OTTE @2
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 5/30/90
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -90 -006; SD -90 -001; UP -90 -001 & V -90 -012
Applicant: Holly Davies
Appellants: Barbara Van Deveer, et. al.
Location: 14629 Big Basin Way
overview
The Applicant is proposing to demolish an existing aged structure
to construct a 1453 square foot office building in the CH -2 zone
district within the Saratoga Village. The project was approved
by the Planning Commission and recommended by the staff as the
proposed structure was consistent with the Village design guide-
lines, and the use was low intensity legal offices. The Appel-
lant expressed concern that the 26 foot maximum height of the
proposal was out of character with the Village and adversely
impacted their properties.
Background
The Applicant is seeking the following permits to construct the
one -story office within the Village:
1. Design Review: to construct a 1453 structure in place of an
uninhabited dilapidated structure fronting on Big Basin Way.
2. Use Permit: to allow a ground floor office, a use other
than retail commercial.
3. Building Site: to allow significant construction on a lot of
record that has not been subdivided within the previous fifteen
years.
4. Variance: to allow a privacy fence separating the project
and the adjoining condominiums to be higher than 6 feet in
height up to a maximum of 8 feet, and to allow a 516" high
free - standing sign.
Pursuant to City Council direction, the Planning Commission
1
I
approved all related applications at one time, so the Council may
act on any aspect of the request.
The proposed project is located within the Village perimeter CH -2
zone. As the Council is aware, the CH -2 zone is less commercial-
ly intensive vis -a -vis the CH -1 zone as this zone tends to con-
tain a mixture of retail, office and residential uses. The sub-
ject site is relatively flat near the proposed building site but
slopes downward to Saratoga Creek. Further, the property is
slightly higher than the adjacent condominiums to the east but
lower than the residences to the west. The existing structure to
be demolished is not considered to be historically or architec-
turally significant and was, therefore, not at issue during
Planning Commission hearings.
The Applicant worked closely with the Planning Department to
develop an application that conformed with the character of the
Village and the criteria of the draft Village Design Manual. The
result is a proposal that emulates the historic "New England"
style seen in Saratoga's early development. The Applicant has
selected a simple gable roof at a pitch indicative of the homes
built by early Saratogans. The exterior materials are vertical
wood shiplap siding, wood trim and small paned windows. The
following table summarizes the project details:
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: CH -2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR
PARCEL SIZE: 17,930 sq. ft. (gross) 12,136 sq. ft. (net)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 20%
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 450 cu. yds. Cut Depth: 6 ft.
Fill: 83 cu. yds. Fill Depth:1.5 ft.
MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Wood shiplap siding and wood windows
painted white. Roofing material is grey asphalt shingles.
PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
PEDESTRIAN OPEN SPACE: 20% 20%
LOT COVERAGE: 47.5% 60%
HEIGHT: 26 ft. 26 ft.
SIZE OF 1st flr: 1453 sq.ft.
STRUCTURE: 2nd flr: -0-
TOTAL: 1453 sq. ft none
2
SETBACKS Front:
15 ft.
Front:
15 ft.
Rear:
160 ft.
Rear:
0
Exterior Side:
4 ft.
Exterior Side:
0
Interior Side:
16 ft.
Interior Side:
0
The variance application to construct an 8 -foot fence on the side
property line was prompted by Planning Commission discussion
concerning the design review application. Essentially, the
Planning Commission felt that additional fence height was neces-
sary to screen privacy impacts due to the change in elevation
between the project and the adjoining condominiums. The Planning
Commission continued its design review hearings to enable the
applicant to complete a variance request and to notice a public
hearing.
The sign variance was requested by the applicant to improve the
identification of the site given the residential setbacks provid-
ed by this proposal. It is because the proposed sign is free-
standing that a variance is required. The Planning Commission
found that a free - standing sign integrated with the white picket
fence was in keeping with the residential character of this
section of the Village as well as provide adequate sign identifi-
cation for the business.
Neighbors expressed their concern regarding the proposed building
height of 26 feet. While the proposed use, a law office, was
considered to be compatible, the residents of the adjacent condo-
miniums felt that the 26 foot height would overpower the street -
scape as well as appear to loom over adjacent units and outdoor
living areas. Neighbors also felt that the subject site's great-
er elevation compounded the effect of the 26 foot height.
The applicant proposed the building height to execute a specific
architectural style rather than to create second story floor
space. The roof pitch was selected to emulate the roof style of
early Saratoga cottage architecture. Since the single story
office will have exposed ceilings, no second floor area is pro-
posed within the roof areas. Office storage areas are proposed
within a basement.
The Planning Commission requested the applicant explore design
alternatives that lowered the building height to address neigh-
bors' height concerns. Additionally, the Planning Commission
requested landscaping, increasing the fence height, and obscure
glass in windows facing the condominiums to also address these
concerns. While the applicant provided the additional landscap-
ing and fencing, she adhered to the roof design as initially
proposed for aesthetic reasons. At the conclusion of Planning
Commission deliberations, a majority of the Planning Commission
decided that the building height did not adversely impact the
surrounding properties and could not be reasonably modified
without seriously affecting architecture of the proposal.
As the Council will note from the attached minutes of Planning
Commission hearings and study sessions, a great number of issues
rK
were discussed in connection with this proposal. While much
attention was focused on the building height, and privacy im-
pacts, residents also expressed concern regarding the applicant's
ultimate plans for developing the rear portions of the site
adjacent to Saratoga creek. No definitive plans were discussed
with the Planning Commission in connection with this proposal.
However, staff noted that the City's parking and development
standards on this site would result in minimal additional devel-
opment. The Planning Commission did note that further development
would be subject to additional consideration under a separate
design review application.
Findings
As the minutes indicate, the Planning Commission was not unani-
mous on this decision. While consensus was reached regarding the
use permit, variance and building site approval, the Design
review application resulted in a split vote.
Commissioners who voted against the design review application
were unable to find the proposed 26 foot height compatible with
the surrounding buildings. Further, the dissenting Commissioners
felt that the applicant could reduce the building height without
adversely affecting the applicant's design concepts.
A majority of the Commission voting to approve the design review
request felt that adequate mitigation measures were incorporated
into the proposal. Namely, the obscure glass, privacy fence and
additional landscaping served to minimize the impact of the
office building and its height on the adjacent properties. The
Planning Commission majority felt that the proposed office main-
tained a residential character and would be a low intensity use
within a commercial zone district which would promote the compat-
ibility with the mixed neighborhood.
Staff recommended approval of the proposal by finding the project
consistent with applicable City Codes and General Plan policy.
The project conformed with all standards (except fencing & sign -
age as discussed above), as well as the Village Plan which en-
courages architecture consistent with the historic character of
the Village. Staff noted that the use permit was necessary to
allow offices to be located on the ground floor. The Village
Plan encourages the location of more intensive retail uses on the
ground floor to promote a pedestrian environment. Because the
proposed use is not as intensive as the Village Plan envisions, a
use permit is required. In this location, Staff felt that the
compatibility with the adjacent use dictated a less intensive
use.
4
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Com-
mission approval of DR -90 -006, SD -90 -001, UP -90 -001 and V -90 -012
subject to the conditions listed in each Planning Commission
Resolution.
,-9TEPFVEN E SLIE, Planning Director
CCMemo /SE:cw
5
f
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 28, 1990
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 11
Commissioner Tucker said she felt she did not know what that
condition would solve as it looks like it is putting the applicant
in a bind to do the City's bidding since the City entered into an
agreement with the subdivider not this developer.
Commissioner Moran stated she did not like to see the increasing
amount of traffic on Pierce Road.
Commissioner Burger indicated that the surest and quickest way to
get the improvements completed is to say to the individual
responsible for the improvements that he cannot live in his house
until the improvements are made. Commissioner Burger said if the
Planning Commission is at a deadlock on this issue she would not
be in favor of holding up approval on the application for that
reason alone and would vote for the approval on the application
with the condition on the applicant. However, she would want to
have staff talk to the subdivider tomorrow.
Planning Director Emslie suggested that the important part is to
get the improvements started and diligently pursued. Staff will
communicate the Planning Commission's concerns to the subdivider
and report back in writing in two weeks as to the schedule for
improvements in order to have a commitment from the developer for
the completion of the improvements on the record.
MORAN/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE SM -89 -016 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 4 -0.
MORAN /TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR -89 -098 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE
GARAGE NOT BE USED AS A SECOND UNIT AND THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED TO
REPORT BACK TO THE PLAN COMMISSION IN WRITING WITH THE SCHEDULE
FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS AND THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS BE INITIATED AND
PURSUED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT. Passed 4 -0.
Break 9:20 - 9:35 p.m.
11. DR -90 -006 Davies, 14629 Big Basin Way, request for design
SD -90 -001 review approval to construct a one -story 1453
UP -90 -001 square -foot office building located within the
CH -2 zone district. Building site approval is
necessary to demolish an existing aged residence
and construct an entirely new structure at this
location. Use permit approval is also requested
to allow professional office space located at
street level and having street frontage within the
Commercial Historic zone district per Chapter 15
of the City Code.
------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 28, 1990
Page 12
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Chairperson Siegfried was reseated on the Planning Commission.
Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning
Commission dated.March 28, 1990.
Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit.
Chairperson Siegfried noted receipt of a letter from Anne Wagner
expressing concerns about the proposed office building.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:38 p.m.
Ms. Kate Schmidt addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the
applicant. She stated the 26 -foot height is needed to enhance the
historic character of the building to allow for the pitch of the
roof. She said the applicant does not want to impose on the
neighbors and is willing to use obscure glass on the east elevation
or to construct a higher fence.
Ms. Anne Wagner, 14611A Big Basin Way, addressed the Planning
Commission. With reference to the grade, Ms. Wagner commented that
when standing in her back yard the grade is significantly different
from the house next door. She indicated the proposed office
building would be 4 feet back from the fence and would be about 29
feet high. The building is to the west of her home and would cause
her to lose the sunlight in the middle of the afternoon.
Ms. Wagner stated she is glad the property is being developed but
she has a problem with the sunlight, the height of the building and
privacy.
The resident of the unit next to Ms. Wagner addressed the Planning
Commission. She circulated photos taken of the property. She
expressed concern regarding the bulkiness and the height of the
building. She summarized a letter she sent to the Planning
Commission regarding the property.
Ms. Mary Bosco, 14611D Big Basin Way, addressed the Planning
Commission. She expressed concern regarding the height of the
building and the slope of the lot. She also expressed concern that
other structures might be built on the property.
Ms. Holly Davies addressed the Planning Commission. She said she
felt the neighbors were overreacting in their appraisal of the
proposal. She said she feels it is a conservative use of the
property.
MORAN /TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:00 P.M.
Passed 5 -0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 28, 1990
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 13
Commissioner Tucker expressed concern with the height and the fact
that the building is only 15 feet from the street. She said it
appears the building will be higher than the other buildings in the
area. She requested clarification from staff regarding the signage
and expressed concern regarding whether the applicant would convert
the attic space into a second story.
Commissioner Burger shared the concerns raised by Commissioner
Tucker. She said it does appear there will be some impact to the
neighbors next door as the building is close the fence on the
eastern side and questioned the possibility of heavy landscaping
in that area.
Commissioner Tappan said he is familiar with the area, and the
neighbors are correct in that there probably is a 3 -foot slope.
He said he felt the building was sensitively designed and agreed
with the applicant's point that there are many more aggressive uses
of this lot than this proposal. He suggested that the Planning
Commission request a detailed landscaping plan which would address
the privacy issue.
Chairperson Siegfried stated he felt the building was sensitively
designed, but he is bothered that .it is so close to the property
line. He said he would like to see landscaping or a fence to
address the privacy issue and would like to see the pitch of the
roofline lowered.
Commissioner Tappan said he is in favor of use of obscure glass,
the building has been sensitively, designed and would move for
approval.
Commissioner Moran stated she, too, is happy with the design but
would like to see a smaller sign and landscaping. She said if a
fence is used she would rather have an 8 -foot fence that starts
back in off the sidewalk.
Commissioner Burger indicated she was not ready to vote on the
proposal because she would like to see some modification to the
roof and a landscaping plan.
Ms. Davies said the 8 -foot fence and obscure glass could be easily
accomplished. She indicated there is not room for landscaping as
there must be room left for a 4 -foot wide handicap access.
TAPPAN /BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -90 -006, SD -90 -001 AND
UP -90 -001 TO APRIL 11, 1990 WITH A STUDY SESSION ON APRIL 3.
Passed 5 -0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 11, 1990
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 5
Commissioner Burger stated since none of the neighbors expressed
any concerns she would assume that there is no problem with the
outdoor dining and the hours the applicant is proposing.
Commissioner Kolstad said he was in agreement with the extension
of the hours. He said the building would act as a buffer for the
noise.
Commissioner Burger agreed with Commissioner Kolstad's comments.
KOLSTAD /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE UP -89 -015.1 AMENDING THE HOURS IN
CONDITION 2 TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DINING DURING .REGULAR HOURS OF
OPERATION. STAFF IS DIRECTED TO INCLUDE A STATUS REPORT AND REVIEW
OF ALTERNATIVES FOR TRASH ENCLOSURE WHEN THE USE PERMIT IS REVIEWED
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN SIX MONTHS. Passed 5 -0.
Break 8:25 p.m. - 8:40 p.m.
8. DR -90 -006 Davies, 14629 Big Basin Way, request for design
SD -90 =001 review approval to construct a one -story 1453
UP -90 -001 square -foot office building located within the
CH -2 zone district. Building site approval is
necessary to demolish an existing aged residence
and construct an entirely new structure at this
location. Use permit approval is also requested
to allow professional office space located at
street level and having street frontage within the
Commercial Historic zone district per Chapter 15
of the City Code (continued from 3/28/90).
------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning
Commission dated April 11, 1990. He pointed out that the City
Council gave specific direction to the Planning Commission at its
last meeting regarding the processing of applications and the
phasing of approvals of applications. The City Council has asked
that the Planning Commission consider projects as a whole. While
projects may be made up of various components such as design
review, variances and use permits, it is the City Council's
direction that the Planning Commission approve all components at
one time under one approval. Therefore, the appropriate action in
this case would be to continue the design review in order to
concurrently consider a variance for an 8 -foot fence.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:45 P.M.
Ms. Kate Schmidt, architect for the project, appeared for the
applicant. She responded to questions from Commissioner Kolstad
regarding the plans.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 11, 1990
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 6
Ms. Barbara Van Derveer, 14611 Big Basin Way, #B, addressed the
Planning Commission. She expressed concern that the building is
too big and bulky for the area. She felt the height of the
building should be lowered and requested that a sound wall fence
be used. She also expressed concern regarding the unavailability
of landscape plans.
Ms. Mary Bosco, 14611 Big Basin Way, #D, addressed the Planning
Commission and expressed concern regarding the height of the
building and the slope of the lot. She reiterated previous
concerns about whether a second floor would be added to the
building and whether there would be other development on the land.
Ms. Schmidt responded to the comments made by the neighbors. She
stated that obscure glass would be used along the east elevation,
an 8 -foot high fence would be added upon approval of a variance and
landscaping would be provided which will obstruct the view between
the sites. She indicated the drop in grade was measured at 1.5 to
1.8 feet and pointed out that an 8 -foot fence would put the
neighbor 9 feet 6 inches below the fence height which would make
it difficult to see over the fence. Ms. Schmidt answered further
questions from Commissioners regarding the plans.
BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:04 P.M. Passed
5 -0.
Commissioner Burger stated she would be willing to consider a
variance for an 8 -foot fence along the side yard. She said she
would like to see the roof line lowered in combination with
lowering the pad elevation and would like to see the brick patio
behind the building eliminated because it will invite people to
congregate. By eliminating the patio, the land could be used for
heavy landscaping. Commissioner Burger also suggested that the
8 -foot fence be a sound wall. She said she would like to see a
different solution to the handicapped access, but if the rest of
the Commission wants to see the handicapped access continued on the
side some type of landscaping should go in on that side.
Commissioner Tappan disagreed with many of Commissioner Burger's
comments. He said he likes the design and suggested that putting
an 8 -foot fence in would be similar to putting in a billboard. He
stated he feels the privacy impacts are minimal. He also did not
favor reducing the grade.
Commissioner Kolstad stated he did not feel there was a privacy
issue but a transition issue. He said he would favor reducing the
height by two feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 11, 1990 Page 7
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Moran agreed with Commissioner Kolstad's comments.
She said she likes the current treatment of the handicapped access
and the patio.
Chairperson Burger requested that the Commission entertain the
thought of reducing the brick patio so there is not a jog against
the fence and a few feet of landscaping could be added beyond the
patio.
Chairperson Tucker said she would like to see the roof line lowered
to 22 to 23 feet and felt that lowering the pad elevation is a good
idea. She was in favor of the patio.
KOLSTAD /BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -90 -006, SD -90 -001 AND
UP -90 -001 TO MAY 9, 1990. Passed 5 -0.
9. DR -90 -015 Deiwert, 12272 Via Roncole, request for design
review approval for 644 square -foot second story
addition in the R -1- 10,000 zone district per
Chapter 15 of the City Code.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Kolstad reported on the land use visit.
Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning
Commission dated April 11, 1990.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m.
Mr. Roger Griffin, Paragon Design, appeared for the applicant. He
clarified that the staff had indicated in the report that the two -
story addition is perceived as appropriate to the surrounding
neighborhood. He distributed photographs of the view onto Via
Roncole and of homes in the vicinity.
BURGER /MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:28 P.M. Passed
5 -0.
Commissioner Burger commented on the lack of a tucked -in effect on
the second story especially on the rear elevation and the left
elevation.
Commissioner Kolstad stated he felt the design departs from the
pictures supplied.
Commissioner Moran said she agrees with the Staff Report.
KOLSTAD /BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -90 -015 TO MAY 9, 1990 WITH A
STUDY SESSION ON MAY 1. Passed 5 -0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 9, 1990 Page it
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Moran said it was a question of how much
responsibility the Planning Commission feels comfortable with. She
indicated she is happy to serve on a Planning Commission in which
the decisions stand firm unless they are appealed to the City
Council. She felt the Council would be signalling that it wants to
pay closer attention to Planning Commission decisions and wants to
take more responsibility for land use and policy implementation.
This is a tool that would allow the Council to take a stronger and
more decisive leadership position. If that is what the Council has
in mind it should go forward with this new structure. Commissioner
Moran stated she would be happy either way and felt the Planning
Commissioners would take their responsibility as seriously either
way. She agreed with Commissioner Siegfried that two
Councilmembers should concur in bringing a matter up.
Commissioner Burger stated her recommendation would be that the
Council not adopt the change in the ordinance.
SIEGFRIED /TAPPAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL NOT ADOPT THE
CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE. Passed 5 -0.
Commissioner Siegfried requested the Minutes reflect the Planning
Commission's consensus that if the Council goes forward with the
ordinance the two Councilmember concurrence alternative would be
better than the one Councilmember alternative.
Commissioner Tappan stated as things are now there is sufficient
protection for all concerned. He said he felt the Council would be
ill advised to recommend an amendment because it politicizes their
position.
Commissioner Kolstad said he felt the appeal process is adequate
and seems to work.
-ies
11. DR -90 -006 Davi$, 14629 Big Basin Way, request for design
SD -90 -001 review approval to construct a one -story 1453
UP -90 -001 square -foot office building located within the CH -2
V -90 -092 zone district. Building site approval is
necessary to demolish an existing aged residence
and construct an entirely new structure at this
location. Use permit approval is requested to
allow professional office space located at street
level and having street frontage within the
Commercial Historic zone district per Chapter 15
of the City Code. Variance approval is also
requested to allow an 8 -foot tall fence along the
west side property line and to allow a free-
standing identification sign.
----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 9, 1990
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 12
Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission
dated May 9, 1990.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:20 p.m.
The applicant, Holly Davies, and her representative, Rate Schmidt,
requested that their comments be deferred until after the neighbors
have presented their comments.
Ms. Anne Wagner, 14611A Big Basin Way, addressed the Planning
Commission. She expressed her opposition to the 9'6" fence and
indicated an 8 -foot fence would be acceptable. She addressed
several questions to Ms. Schmidt regarding the number of windows on
the east side and whether they are of obscure glass. If the
windows are not obscure glass, she questioned whether, if there was
an 8 -foot fence between the properties, would someone standing in
the office building be able to look into her living room.
Ms. Barbara Van Derveer, 14611B Big Basin Way, addressed the
Planning Commission. She expressed concern at the staff
recommendation that this application be approved as presented. She
did not feel the applicant made any concessions except for the 9161,
fence. She felt the issue of the massiveness of the building was
not addressed. She said that as a professional designer she felt
it was a design mistake. She reiterated the neighbors are not
opposed to the project but have concerns which need to be addressed
and they were not addressed by the applicant.
Ms. Mary Bosco, 14611D Big Basin Way, addressed the Planning
Commission. She said she shares the same concerns mentioned by the
other neighbors. She discussed the elevations of surrounding
buildings and distributed a handout indicating the elevations.
Ms. Schmidt responded to Ms. Wagner's questions. She circulated a
sketch indicating it would not be possible to see over an 8 -foot
high fence at the highest elevation of the building. She indicated
that with 916" fence, obscure glass would not.be necessary. She
said the applicant is open to solutions regarding the privacy
issue.
Planner Walgren confirmed that staff deleted the condition for
window removals with the 916" fence. The restroom window remained
obscure.
Ms. Holly Davies addressed the Planning Commission regarding her
application. She explained the proposal in detail. She circulated
photographs of the property. Using an overhead projector,
Ms. Davies presented a slide depicting a previous proposal for the
property.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 9, 1990 Page 13
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
BURGER / MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:51 P.M.
Passed 5 -0.
Commissioner Burger expressed concern regarding the height of the
fence and with the fact that the residents would be viewing a fence
covered with ivy in addition to a house covered by ivy. She said
she was almost persuaded about the height of the building in terms
of architectural integrity but was concerned about the overall
impact of the 26 -foot height. She also expressed concern that an
additional structure would be built some time in the future.
Commissioner Siegfried said he would not vote for a 9116" fence
anywhere but did not have a problem with the 8 -foot fence even if
it means using obscure glass. He said the structure is in keeping
with the Village and the height would be acceptable to him.
Commissioner Moran stated she is opposed to the 9'6" fence and it
appears that an 8 -foot fence and obscure glass would satisfy the
problem at hand.
Commissioner Tappan said he was not in favor of the 916" fence
because of the billboard effect. He stated he felt the building
was pleasingly designed and reiterated the applicant's comments
that there are more intense uses of the property than the present
proposal.
Chairperson Kolstad concurred with the comments regarding the
fence. He said he is not as concerned as he was previously about
the 26 -foot height but was concerned with the amount of composition
shingle roofing appearing that close to the street at that height.
He stated a 2 -foot reduction in height would probably not make much
difference in the style and questioned why the applicant has not
reduced the height. For that reason,.he would not be in favor of
the application.
MORAN/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE V -90 -012 WITH AN 8 -FOOT FENCE.
Passed 5 -0.
MORAN /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE SD -90 -001 PER THE MODEL
RESOLUTION. Passed 5 -0.
MORAN /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE UP -90 -001 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 5 -0.
MORAN /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE DR -90 -006 WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT
OF 24 FEET AND WITH CLEAR GLASS WINDOWS IN THE REAR OFFICE AND
OBSCURE IN THE BATHROOM.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 9, 1990
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 14
Commissioner Burger said she was not comfortable with the motion
because she did not know if 24 feet is better than 26 feet and
questioned whether 2 feet would make that much difference.
Commissioner Siegfried stated he seconded the motion but is not
sure that 2 feet would make that much difference.
Commissioner Moran indicated she understood Commissioner Burger's
concerns and commented that the buildings next door are much lower
and seem to be of the same style as the proposed building. She
said that 22 feet would be in keeping with that style also.
Planning Director Emslie responded he has an inherent concern about
conditioning the project in some way that will not be seen. The
overall proportion of the side elevation to the roof would be
affected.
Commissioner Siegfried withdrew his second to the motion as he
seconded the previous motion for purposes of discussion.
TAPPAN /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE DR -90 -006 WITH A CONDITION THAT
THE BUILDING BE INSPECTED PRIOR TO FRAMING TO DETERMINE WHETHER
OBSCURE GLASS SHOULD BE USED. Passed 3 -2 (Commissioners Burger and
Kolstad opposed).
12. UP -90 -002 Saratoga Office Ltd., 12900, 30, 50, 80 Saratoga
Ave., request for use permit approval to allow
multiple freestanding site identification signs at
a professional office complex located at the
southeast corner, of Cox and Saratoga Avenues
within the PA zone district per Chapter 15 of the
City Code.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission
dated May 9, 1990.
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:10 p.m.
The applicant, appeared and explained additional signs are being
requested because some tenants were lost because of lack of signage
and prospective tenants are requesting additional signage.
SIEGFRIED /BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:11 P.M.
Passed 5 -0.
Various Commissioners stated they had no problem with the
application.
March 19, 1990
Mr. Steve Emslie I ECEI' VED
Planning Director
Planning Commission /Site Review Committee (LIAR 41 195U
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue PLgNN�IN(; DE=PT
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Emslie and The Planning Commission:
I am writing regarding the Hearing March 28th on the property at
14629 Big Basin Way (APN 503 -25 -013). My home is next door, at 14611 #A
Big Basin Way, one of the Stonepine Condominium homes.
If a two -story office building is put next door, it will significantly
affect my quality of life and my property value. It is simply not appro-
priate to allow a two -story office building in between two one -story
homes. The building will block the sun in my backyard, and people in
the office building will be able to peer into my backyard and home. My
home is very small (under 1,000 square feet), and to ask me to keep the
curtains drawn makes the place small and gloomy, and deprives me of
enjoying my backyard.
The city has done a marvelous job in beautifying the street. It is
up -to -date but still retains all the charm of Saratoga. I am proud to
have friends and relatives come to visit. In fact, the work the city did
gave me the motivation to invest in improvements in the front yard...
I took out the dying ivy, put in a curved brick walkway and planted new
ground cover and an herb garden. I want whatever is built next door to
preserve the same charm, and show the same caring as our newly improved
street, plants, walkways (and my front yard) do.
I should comment that I do not object to an office building per -say.
I am very happy that someone is finally going to do something with the
property. My strenuous objection is to a TWO STORY building, which has
a negative impact on me, and is not in concert with this area.
My plants and I need the sun, and I need my small bit of privacy.
Please do not allow a two -story building to be put right next to me. Thank
you for the opportunity to challenge the above mentioned application.
A ely, agner, Ho wner
Big Basin Way
17
�" �� ;' . , � -- ��z�!� � ���� -mac.
ell
March 23, 1990
Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Planning Commission /Site Review Committee
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Emslie and Planning Commission:
This letter is in regard to the hearing March 28th on the property at
14629 Big Basin Way (APN 503 -25 -013). My residence is directly next door to
this property, being 14611 #B Big Basin Way.
After extensively viewing and reviewing the'impact that the proposed building
will have on my and my adjacent neighbors' properties, I have the following
comments:
1. 1 feel that the proposed structure is too tall in height - in essence the
height of 26' is the height of a three story building; on either side and
directly across the street are one story structures. I feel that the proposed
development is not compatible with the other structures in the immediate area
in terms of height and bulk, in reference to Design Criteria Section 15- 46.040(f).
In addition, my privacy and accessibility to sun are very important to me.
From my back yard the proposed structure would tower over me, being only four
feet away from the fence line. The structure will take away my hill view and
will cut down on sunlight.
Proposal: Reduce the height of the roof; a 7/12 roof pitch could be used
just as successfully as the proposed 10/12 roof pitch.
2. Because the proposed structure is only four feet from my back yard, the
building is raised three feet from ground level, the land slope is higher
than my property, and the structure has three windows on the east and five
windows on the west, all of which look down on my property, my privacy and
enjoyment of my property is greatly impacted. As a native of California,
enjoying my back yard and garden is important to me. 'Being able to be in
my living /dining room without being peered at through eight windows is also
of great concern. (There are no other windows in my living /dining room
to provide natural light, thus screening this off for privacy would make it
a dark hole.)
Proposal: A. Structure should be on street level, not raised up three feet.
(Why is this three foot rise necessary ?)
B. Applicant erect eight foot fence, rather than six foot fence,
between the proposed building site and the Stonepine Condominimum
complex. The addition of a two foot lattice with live vine
screening added to the fen% could also be considered.
3. Because the proposed development has such an impact upon my property, I am
requesting sight lines of the west and east elevations be made for my and
the Planning Commissions'review.
4. Staff Report
A. Page 000092 - To quote: "The 26 foot height is primarily for aesthetic
purposes in order to allow for an 8/12 roof pitch... ". The architect's
plans call for a 10/12 roof pitch on all the plans.
B. No mention of the basement is made in this report.
I would like to request the following conditions:
1. Attic space to be kept as storage space for all time - never to be used
or converted to working or living space.
2. No additional windows are to ever be added to the. proposed structure.
3. No additional structures are to be added to this site APN 503-25 -013,
address 14629 Big Basin Way.
4. An eight foot fence, rather than six foot, be erected between the proposed
building site and the Stonepine Condominium complex.
I'm sure that the applicant for the proposed development, myself, and the
adjacent neightbors can reach an agreeable solution to the above concerns.
Sincerely,
,4"44, t�, 'L JJ�
Barbara Van Derveer
14611 Big Basin Way, #B
Saratoga
I . --- )
Date Received:_
(olq Hearing Date: _
• 0 / /J� Fee
CITY USE ON
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: Barbara Van Derveer, Anne Wagner, Mary Boscoe
Address: c/o VAN DERVEER DESIGNS, 20465 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road
68 ra t:eaa,.�.��.TSf17n
Telephone: (4U8) 867 -3808
Name of Applicant: Davies
Project File No.: DR -90 -006, SD -90 -001, UP -90 -001
Project Address: 14629 Big Basin Way _
Project Description: Design review approval to construct a one story
1,453 sq ft office building located within the CH -2 zone district
Decision Being Appealed • DR -90 -006, SD-90-001, UP-90-001, V -90 -092
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
See attached42 page letter-from all three appellants named above
-1 3
A pellant's Signature
*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.
TIITS APPLTC,%TTOV NIUST BE SUBMITTED 1VITFIIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
'r 1 5: 5 C -C S I Q,
May 15, 1990
Betsy Corey, City Clerk
City Council Members
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Betsy Corey and City Council Members:
This letter is designed to describe the grounds for appeal of the proposed Davies
office building at 14629 Big Basin Way (APN 503 -25 -013). As three neighbors at
Stonepine Condominiums, 14611 Big Basin Way, direcly next door to the east,
Anne Wagner, Unit A, Barbara Van Derveer, Unit B, and Mary Boscoe, Unit D, we
are directly impacted by the proposed structure.
It should be noted that this appeal is enhanced by the fact that the vote for
approval was a 3 to 2 vote. Two commissioners felt strongly enough to not approve
the project, with other commissioners voicing concerns about the building height
and desire for landscape plan even though they voted in favor of the project.
We feel the following points should be paid attention to:
1. HEIGHT OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE - In reference to Design Criteria Section 15- 46.040(f)
the proposed structure is not compatible with other structures in the immediate
are in terms of height "and bulk. The height of 26 feet is not necessary for this
proposed ONE STORY building. (The height of 26 feet is in essence the height of a
three story structure.) All of the structures down the street to the left of the
proposed development are single story residences, with mature trees and shrubbery
shielding them. We made a street scape in photographs to illustrate this point and
presented it at the April 11 Planning Commission hearing; this street scape was
retained by the Planning Commission.
24 LANDSCAPE PLAN - Landscape plans to help with the privacy and sound issues were
requested by the Planning Commissioners at the Planning Commission hearing
April 11. No further landscape design as requested was submitted by Mrs. Davies.
At the May 9 Planning Commission hearing Mrs. Davies casually mentioned that some
pitosporum could be planted. In actuality, where will it be planted and will
it really be planted? Is this sufficient for shielding and for privacy?
We don't quite understand how a project can be approved when plans are incomplete;
we do not believe that a casual remark constitutes a plan.
3. PRIVACY - In Barbara's letter dated March 23 submitted to the Planning Commission,
item 3, she requested sight lines of the west and east elevations because the
proposed structure is only four feet from our back yards, the building is
raised three feet from ground level, the land slope is higher than our properties,
and the structure has three windows on the east and five windows on the west,
all of which look down on our back yards and into our living and dining rooms.
We had a study session and no sight lines were submitted; it was only at the
May 9 Planning Commission hearing that Kate Schmidt, architect for the proposed
project, made a small sketch which was passed to the Commissioners; we never saw
this sketch. In addition, Mrs. Davies mentioned on May 9 hearing that she may
want to build a "cottage" at the end of the proposed development site. Where are
the plans for this additional structure?
4. FENCE DESIGN - To reduce looking at this raised structure, we as neighbors
did in fact request an eight foot fence to be designed and submitted by
Mrs. Davies. The Planning Commissioners also agreed that a fence design
should be submitted. A small drawing of a fence was added to the bottom of
of the original site plan; "wood, vertical boards, paint white, wood lattice
paint white "'is the description. A fence with overlapping boards would
assure true privacy, rather than vertical boards which shrink with ageing
and the weather and leave spaces in between.
To quote from the Planning Commission's Brochure titled Welcome to the Saratoga
Planning Commission, under "Findings ": In order to approve a project, the
Planning Commission must make certain findings required by the City Code and
State law... in order to approve an application for design review, the Commission
must find that the proposed structure
1-Avoids unreasonable interference with views or privacy
(The proposed structure does indeed interfere with our hill views and privacy.)
3. Minimizes the perception of excessive bulk.
(The proposed structure will appear massive, 26 feet in height, 15 feet
from the sidewalk for passerbys to view an appearance of a gray whale,
viewing 2/3 of this structure as grey roof and 1/3 white building. By
lowering the roof at least 3 feet this bulkiness will be reduced.)
h. Is compatible in bulk and height with surrounding structures.
(As previously stated and photographed, the proposed structure is not
compatible with the surrounding structures.)
We believe that the three above stated criteria quoted directly from the
Planning Commission brochure must be reconsidered for this project and that
Mrs. Davies could make an effort to compromise. To date we have not seen this
compromise.
As we have consistently state in previous correspondence and hearings, we are
not fighting the proposed development; we only wish that due consideration be
made in appreciation for our residences which are greatly impacted in a variety
of ways, and that some compromise in the height and landscaping plan be enacted
on Mrs. Davies' part.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Barbara Van Derveer Anne Wagner
14611 Big Basin Way, #B 14611 Big Basin Way, #A
Saratoga Saratoga
M Beach Boscoe
1 1 Big Basin Way, #D
Saratoga
WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
100 East Sunnyoaks Avenue
Campbell, California 95008
Telephone (408) 378 -2407
February 6, 19010
James Walgren
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
RE: 14020 Big Basin Way
Dear Mr. Walaren :
SERVING RESIDENTS OF
CITY OF CAMPBELL
TOWN OF LOS GA TOS
}_ CITY OF NIONTE SERENO
-'V ;(r�i QITY OF SARA TOGA
F UrJ,94tC1RATED AREA
Fe bl
`� 19 ,10
T
The above- mentioned property is currently connected to the
sanitary sewer main within Big Basin Way. A demolition
permit must be acquired from this office prior to the
demolition of the existing residence. Prior to construction
of the new office building, a new sewer connection permit
will be issued.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to Cali.
Very truly yours,
William A. Gissler
District Manager and Engineer
_'�" ��A
by: Mike Fuller
Junior Civil Engineer
(FORMERLY COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4)
RESOLUTION NO. DR -90 -006
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIES - 14629 BIG BASIN WAY
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has re-
ceived an application for design review approval to construct a 1453
sq. ft. professional office building at 14629 Big Basin Way in the
CH -2 zone district.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full oppor-
tunity 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 unreasonable interfere with views of the surrounding
residences in that the proposed building is located at the east
side of the parcel with a driveway access the rear parking area
which provides a view corridor of the creek area beyond.
-The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of
the surrounding residences in that it is a two story structure in
height, but only the ground floor is usable space with an open
double height interior roof height.
-The natural landscape is being preserved. by minimizing tree
removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that the existing
building pad adjacent to Big Basin Way is level and no ordinance
size trees are to be removed.
-The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in
relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the structure is
well designed with a steep roof pitch that is compatible with the
older structures along Big Basin Way.
-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 it is less bulky and at a lower height than a
majority of the buildings in the Saratoga Village area.
-The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar
access of adjacent properties in that it is a relatively low and
unobtrusive structure which has a steeply pitched roof, minimiz-
ing the building's overall impact.
-The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion
control standards in that the proposed grading is minimal due to
an existing level building pad and the applicant will be respon-
sible for re- vegetating the property prior to final occupancy.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
File No. DR- 90 -00_, 14629 Big Basin Way
Section 1. After.careful consideration of the site plan, archi-
tectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection
with this matter, the application of Davies 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. Total gross floor area for all structures on site shall not
exceed 1453 sq. ft. (excluding attic space and basement).
5. No structure shall be permitted in any easement.
6. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a
Tree Removal Permit.
7. Slopes shall be graded to a maximum 2:1 slope.
8. All exposed slopes shall be contour graded.
9. Exterior colors shall be off -white with dark green trim as sub-
mitted.
10. Prior to zone clearance approval, applicant shall submit land-
scape plans for the Planning Director's review and approval
showing proposed ground cover.
11. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing the following shall be
submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of a zone
clearance:
a. Grading (limit of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, exist
ing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities.
b. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, locations,
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 re-
moved.
e. Erosion control measures.
12. Any portion of a structure located under the dripline of a tree
shall have pier and grade beam foundation with the beam poured at
original grade. Soil in the area beneath the tree canopy shall
be covered with 8" of chips during construction to prevent dam-
age.
File No. DR- 90 -00,,; 14629 Big Basin Way
13. All requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District for
flood control shall be incorporated into the project and complet-
ed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the
Building Division.
14. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code
Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. Re- roofing, less than
10 %, shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix E, City
of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210).
15. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained
in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Sara-
toga.
16. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative
to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire
District for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit
(City of Saratoga 16 -60).
17. Driveways: All driveways have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one
ft. shoulders.
a. Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of 0 & S
or better on 6" aggregate base from a public street to the pro-
posed dwelling.
b. Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2 -1/2" of A.C.
or better on 6" aggregate base from a public street to proposed
dwelling.
18. The applicant shall replace existing street improvements (curb,
gutter, sidewalk, and driveway) along the entire frontage on Big
Basin Way per the City Engineers requirements.
19. The State right -of -way extends 35 feet from the centerline of Big
Basin Way (State Route 9). Any work within the right -of -way
require an encroachment permit from Caltrans.
20. A demolition permit must be acquired from the West Valley Sanita-
tion District prior to the demolition of the existing residence
and a new sewer connection permit issued.
21. The applicant shall provide obscure glass for the restroom on the
east elevation. This change shall be shown on the plans prior to
zone clearance.
22. Trelissing shall be provided along the east elevation of the
structure and some type of climbing vine or ivy shall be provided
to soften this elevation's appearance. In addition, the appli-
cant shall provide additional trees along the north corner of the
structure to provide screening. The size and quantity of the
trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director
prior to zone clearance.
23. The applicant shall submit a variance request to allow an eight
(8) foot tall wood fence along the east side property line prior
to zone clearance.
File No. DR- 90 -00�i 14629 Big Basin Way
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, Coun-
ty, City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolu-
tion 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 9th day of May, 1990 by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Siegfried, Moran, Tappan
NOES: Kolstad, Burger
ABSENT: Tucker
irpersbn, Planning Commission
ATTEST: v
J/� 7w�
ecret ry, Pla ning Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Applicant Date
RESOLUTION NO. SD -90 -001
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
DAVIES - 14629 BIG BASIN WAY
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 -90 -001 this City, and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improve-
ment, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all spe-
cific 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 March 28, 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 building site approval and tentative approval should be granted
in accord wit 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 28th day of
March, 1990 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. All conditions of Resolution DR -90 -006 shall apply.
Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these condi-
tion: within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolu-
tion shall: be void.
Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24
months or approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, Coun-
ty, 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 t@ (10) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 9th day of May, 1990 by the following vote:
SD -90 -001; 14629 Llg Basin Way
AYES: Siegfried, Burger, Kolstad, Moran, Tappan
NOES: none
ABSENT: Tucker
ATT ` T:
'Secreftary, lanning commission
Chairman, Planning commission
Z//
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted:
Signature of Applicant
RESOLUTION NO. UP -90 -,,
A RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING USE PERMIT
DAVIES - 14629 BIG BASIN WAY
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Use Permit Approval to allow a professional office
building located at 14629 Big Basin Way having street frontage within
the Commercial Historic Zone District.
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; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds:
(a) That the proposed professional office use is in accord with
the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the dis-
trict in which the site is located.
(b) That the proposed professional office use and the conditions
under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate condi-
tions have been placed on the project to minimize potential impacts.
(c) That the proposed professional office use will comply with
each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, and
other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the applica-
tion of Davies for use permit approval be and the, same is hereby
granted subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions of resolution DR -90 -006 shall apply.
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. Conditions of this use permit must be completed
within 24 months or approval will expire.
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, Coun-
ty, City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 5. 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 9th day of May, 1990, by the following
vote:
UP -90 -001; 14629 r.).Lg Basin Way
AYES: Siegfried, Burger, Kolstad, Moran, Tappan
NOES: none
ABSENT: Tucker '
Chairman, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secret y, P nning Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Applicant Date
RESOLUTION NO. V -90 -0_
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIES - 14629 BIG BASIN WAY
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Variance Approval to construct both a 916 11/8' tall
property line fence and a 516" tall freestanding site identification
sign at 14629 Big Basin Way within the CH -2 zone district;
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; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support his said application, and the Planning Commission makes the
following findings:
A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent w'e the objectives of the Ordinance in that by
approving the fence variance, privacy impacts between the
two adjacent properties will be minimized. The 516" freestanding
sign allows this residential style office (with residential
derived front setback requirements) to be visible.
Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that
are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of
the property which do not apply generally to other properties in
the same zoning district in that the fence is necessary to sepa-
rate office functions from residential uses and the sign allows
the office to be developed as residential in character while
still identifying the tenants.
Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specific
regulation of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in
the same zoning district in that both fence height and freestand-
ing sign variances have been approved in the past given similar
situations.
Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special;
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties
in the same zoning district in that all property owners within a
commercial zone district would be given the same consideration.
Granting the Variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity in that it meets all applicable
City, County, and State requirements regarding health, safety,
and construction regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga
does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, archi-
tectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection
with this matter, the application of. for variance approval be and the
V -90 -012; 14629 Bs g Basin Way
same is hereby granted subject the following conditions:
1. All conditions of Resolution DR -90 -006 shall apply.
Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these condi-
tions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolu-
tion 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 Commission,
State of California, this 9th day of May 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Siegfried, Burger, Kolstad, Moran, T cppan
NOES: none
ABSENT: Tucker
;',harmarn, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
I y /
Secr ary,; /Planning Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Applicant Date
4/88
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: DR -90 -006, SD -90 -001, UP -90 -001 ; 14629 Big Basin
Applicant/ Owner: Davies
Staff Planner: - James walgren
Date: March 28, 19 9 0
APN: 503 -25 -013 Director Approval:
File No. DR -90 -006, SD -90 -001, UP -90 -001; 14629 Big Basin Way
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY•
Application filed:
1/23/90
Application complete:
2/23/90
Notice published:
3/14/90
Mailing completed:
3/15/90
Posting completed:
3/8/90
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for design review approval to construct
a 1453 sq. ft. single story office building located at 14629 Big
Basin Way within the CH -2 zone district. Building site approval is
requested to demolish an existing aged residence and construct an
entirely new structure at this location. Use permit approval is also
requested to allow professional office space located at street level
and having street frontage within the Commercial Historic zone dis-
trict per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
PROJECT DISCUSSION: The proposed project is located at the end of
the Village area and is on the Saratoga Creek side of Big Basin Way.
The structure itself and the proposed development of this site meets
all of the requirements set forth in the recently adopted Commercial
Historic zoning ordinance. In addition, the applicant has worked
closely with staff to ensure that the proposed development is con-
sistent with the character of the Village and the criteria of the
draft Village Design Manual.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application by adopting Resolu-
tions DR -90 -006, SD -90 -001, and UP -90 -001.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolutions DR -90 -006, SD -90 -001 and UP -90 -001
3. Plans, Exhibit "A"
kah:ws5 \jw \perpt \dr
File No. DR -90 -0 SD -90 -001, UP -90 -001; 1 29 Big Basin Way
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: CH -2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR
PARCEL SIZE: 17,930 sq. ft. (gross) 12,136 sq. ft. (net)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 20%
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 450 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 6 ft.
Fill: 83 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 1.5 ft.
MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Wood shiplap siding and wood windows
painted white. Roofing material is grey asphalt shingles.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Characteristics:
This relatively flat and open parcel currently includes an existing
dilapidated residence built between the late 1800's and the early
1900's. The home is neither a Designated Heritage Resource or on the
Heritage Resource Inventory. The Heritage Preservation Commission is
sorry to see it demolished, but agrees that it has not been main-
tained. At the back of the property there is an abrupt and steep
downslope towards the creek. This creek bank is densely vegetated
with mature trees.
Design Review:
This proposed wood sided professional office building meets all
applicable zoning ordinance requirements for the CH -2 commercial
historic zone district. The applicant has worked closely with staff
to develop the site with a project that is compatible with the nature
of the Village area and the guidelines of the draft Village Design
Guidelines. The steep pitch of the roof and its gable design com-
bined with the materials proposed will help to integrate this new
structure with the existing older residences and offices in this
district. Staff feels that all of the design review findings can be
made to recommend approval of this project.
PROPOSAL
CODE
REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
PEDESTRIAN OPEN SPACE:
20%
20%
LOT COVERAGE:
47.5%
60%
HEIGHT:
26 ft.
26 ft.
SIZE OF 1st Floor:
1453 sq. ft.
STRUCTURE: 2nd Floor:
-0-
TOTAL:
1453 sq. ft.
none
SETBACKS: Front:
15 ft.
Front:
15 ft.
Rear:
160 ft.
Rear:
0
Exterior Side:
4 ft.
Exterior Side:
0
Interior Side:
16 ft.
Interior Side:
0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Characteristics:
This relatively flat and open parcel currently includes an existing
dilapidated residence built between the late 1800's and the early
1900's. The home is neither a Designated Heritage Resource or on the
Heritage Resource Inventory. The Heritage Preservation Commission is
sorry to see it demolished, but agrees that it has not been main-
tained. At the back of the property there is an abrupt and steep
downslope towards the creek. This creek bank is densely vegetated
with mature trees.
Design Review:
This proposed wood sided professional office building meets all
applicable zoning ordinance requirements for the CH -2 commercial
historic zone district. The applicant has worked closely with staff
to develop the site with a project that is compatible with the nature
of the Village area and the guidelines of the draft Village Design
Guidelines. The steep pitch of the roof and its gable design com-
bined with the materials proposed will help to integrate this new
structure with the existing older residences and offices in this
district. Staff feels that all of the design review findings can be
made to recommend approval of this project.
File No. DR -90 -L , SD -90 -001, UP -90 -001; _.029 Big Basin Way
Building Site Approval:
The applicant is required to request building site approval (BSA) in
order to construct a new structure on a parcel which was originally
developed in either the late 1800's or early 1900's. The purpose of
the BSA process is to ensure that all off -site improvements related
to this proposed development are either in place or are provided for.
Staff has transmitted a set of plans to the Santa Clara Valley Water
District, the West Valley Sanitation District, PG & E, San Jose Water
Company and other affected agencies, including Saratoga's own build-
ing and engineering departments for review and comment. All of their
conditions are attached in Resolution SD -90 -001.
Use Permit:
Pursuant to the recently adopted commercial historic zoning ordi-
nance, developed specifically for the Saratoga Village area, the
applicant is required to obtain use permit approval to allow a non -
retail use to have Big Basin Way street frontage. This ordinance is
designed to encourage pedestrian oriented retail.uses, though pro-
fessional offices are also encouraged and are a permitted use if
located either above street level or at the street level if separated
from the street frontage by a retail or service establishment. In
this particular location, however, it is not as important to separate
an office use from Big Basin Way. The subject property is'located
towards the end of the Village area across from Sixth Street on the
north side of Big Basin Way. The existing character of this district
is of residential dwellings and residential structures converted to
professional office uses. This proposed use will both upgrade the
existing property with an attractive addition, and increase the
Village's vitality by bringing in additional long term tenants.
Commercial Historic District:
The CH -2 zoning district is distinguished from the CH -1 district by
its more residential character and the existence of many older homes
converted to office uses. The commercial core of the Village area,
where the majority of restaurants and services are located, is zoned
CH -1. This project is well within the ordinance requirements regard-
ing height, setbacks, impervious coverage, and design. In addition,
the CH -2 ordinance requires that 20% of the site shall be devoted to
pedestrian open space. The required front yard can be used in calcu-
lating this number. By including the front yard, the brick walkway
along the east side of the building, and the outdoor patio, the
applicant has achieved the 20% minimum.
Signage:
The applicant is proposing a six foot six inch tall, nine square
foot, free standing identification sign. The sign will be painted
white to match the building and will have non - illuminated four inch
green painted letters. While staff feels that the proposed sign is
attractive, free standing signs are only allowed at sites containing
five or more uses (Plaza del Robles for example). However, given the
structure's 15 foot setback at this narrow site, staff feels that a
variance to the sign ordinance can be supported and recommends that
the applicant be directed to do so.
File No. DR -90 -C , SD -90 -001, UP -90 -001; __629 Big Basin Way
Impacts:
Staff has received concerns from adjacent townhome owners to the east
that this 26 foot tall office structure will impact their views and
solar access and will unduly impose on their homes. While staff is
concerned with the compatibility of the two different uses, it is
also apparent that this project is a very restrained development
proposal of this site. The 26 foot height is primarily for aesthet-
ics purposes in order to allow a 10/12 roof pitch to match the style
of the older homes in the area. Functionally, the building will
operate as a single story office with an exposed double height inte-
rior roof. The attic spaces at'the ends of the structure, shown on
the cross section of Exhibit "A ", are uninhabitable and inaccessible.
In addition, an office use will have much less impact on an adjacent
residence than would a retail or restaurant use. However, staff does
recommend that the restroom window on the east elevation be of ob-
scure glass and that the two office windows either be removed or
changed to a clerestory type. This would reduce the chances of
future privacy impacts between the raised foundation office building
and the adjacent townhome. Trelissing could be provided along this
elevation to provide some type of vine to soften its appearance.
RECOMMENDATION: Direct the applicant to apply for a variance to the
sign ordinance and approve the application by adopting Resolutions
DR -90 -006, SD -90 -001, and UP -90 -001.
oguw o1 §&M&XQ)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 3, 1990
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: DR -90 -006, SD -90 -001, and
UP -90 -001; Davies, 14629 Big Basin Way
This application for a one -story 1452 square foot office building
within the Saratoga Village was originally heard by the commission
at the March 28th public hearing. At that meeting, neighbors ex-
pressed concerns regarding the 26 foot height of the proposed build-
ing and the privacy impacts this office would have on their adjacent
townhomes.
At the following April 3rd Committee -of- the -Whole study session,
there was general agreement among the commissioners that the 26 foot
height was not excessive and added to the overall appearance of the
structure. The commission did recommend additional landscaping
along the north corner of the building and that the applicant apply
for a fence variance to allow an eight foot tall fence along the
side property lines.
Staff recommends approving this application with the above mentioned
conditions, and with the original conditions requiring obscure
windows along the east elevation and climbing vines to soften this
elevation's appearance.
Respectfully submitte ,
es Walgren
Assistant Planner
Attachments:
1. Correspondence from neighbors
2. Staff report dated 3/28/90
3. Resolutions DR -90 -006, SD -90 -001, and UP -90 -001
4. Minutes dated 3/28/90
5. Plans, Exhibit "A"
0919 (02 0
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: planning Staff
DATE: May 9, 1990
SUBJECT: DR -90 -006, SD -90 -001, UP -90 -001
and V -90 -012; Davies, 14629 Big Basin Way
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background:
This application for a one -story 1453 square foot office building
within the Saratoga Village was originally heard by the commission
at the March 28th public hearing. At that meeting, neighbors ex-
pressed concerns regarding the 26 foot height of the proposed build-
ing and the privacy impacts this office would have on their adjacent
townhomes.
At the April 3rd Committee -of- the -Whole study session, there was
general agreement among the commissioners that this wood sided
residential style office building was a subdued proposal for this
site and was compatible in design and character with the heritage
nature of the Village. The commission did recommend additional
landscaping along the north corner of the building and that the
applicant apply for a fence variance to allow an eight foot tall
fence along the side property line.
At the following April 11th public hearing, neighbors concerned
about the height of the structure and its impact on their homes to
the east reiterated their desire for the 26 foot tall office build-
ing to be reduced in height and for an eight foot tall sound wall to
be constructed between the two properties. Since an eight foot wall
would require a variance from the City fence ordinance, the applica-
tion was continued to the May 9th public hearing in order to read -
vertise the project.
Conclusion:
The applicant has now submitted a proposal for a wood fence along
the east property line which begins as a 3 foot picket fence within
the front yard and rises to 9 feet 6 inches (which includes 1 foot
of lattice) roughly 25 feet back from the sidewalk to beyond the end
of the structure, and then drops to 8 feet (which also includes 1
foot of lattice) at the rear of the developed portion of the site.
Davies, 14629 Big Basin Way
Staff feels that the existing residential uses within a commercial
zone district constitutes exceptional circumstances in this case to
warrant the fence variance and recommends approval of resolution V-
90 -012.
Staff also supports the variance request for the 5 foot 6 inch tall
freestanding identification sign located within the required front
yard setback of the property. This sign will only rise 2 feet 6
inches above the 3 foot tall picket fence and staff does not feel
it will obtrusive. This type of custom made wood sign (painted
white with dark green lettering) is encouraged in the draft Village
Design Manual, though the sign ordinance currently only permits them
through the granting of a variance.
Staff does not feel that a masonry sound wall is necessary in this
instance where the proposed commercial use is for a professional
office which will not generate the type of noise that a restaurant
or a retail or service use would, and recommends approval of the
wood fence as submitted.
As a footnote to comments made during previous meetings regarding
the rear brick patio area being replaced with additional landscap-
ing; the CH -2 zone district requires that a minimum of 20% of the
parcel be left as accessible pedestrian space, which this patio
fulfills (when including the front yard setback).
Recommendation:
The applicant feels that the proposed 26 foot height, allowing the
increased roof pitch, is a major architectural feature of the pro-
ject and has not reduced the height as discussed by the commission-
ers and neighbors at previous public hearings. Staff still feels
that even at 26 feet in height this project will provide minimal
impact on their adjacent properties, and recommends approval of the
project as submitted.
Staff also recommends approving the variance request for both the 9
foot 6 inch to 8 foot tall wood fence and the freestanding sign, as
well as resolutions DR -90 -006, UP -90 -001, and SD -90 -001. With the
addition of a 9 foot 6 inch fence along the east property line,
however, staff has deleted the condition to remove the office win-
dows along the structure's east elevation. All other original
conditions of approval are recommended to remain.
Respectfully submitted,
e5 (0,0, 1��
es Walgren
Assistant Planner
Davies, 14629 Big Basin Way
Attachments:
1. Staff report dated 3/28/90
2. Resolutions DR -90 -006, SD -90 -001, UP -90 -001, and V -90 -012
3. Minutes dated 3/28/90 and 4/11/90
4. Correspondence from neighbors
5. Plans, Exhibit "A"
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. _J 8
MEETING DATE:6 6 90
ORIGINATING DEPT.:Planninct
AGENDA ITEM: le,
CITY. MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Contract Agreement to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report addressing the proposed 10 -lot subdivision located on ap-
proximately 75 acres situated on the west side of Pierce Road
between Congress Springs Road and Teerlink Drive (Paul Masson
Mountain Winery).
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the City Clerk to execute the contract upon receipt of
the required fee from the developer.
Report Summary:
The subject property is 75.5 acres and is characterized by rela-
tively steep to very steep natural ridge crest, hillside, creek
bottom topography and a former quarry.
Development of the property is constrained by unstable and poten-
tially unstable ground, locally steep slopes, potentially expansive
surface materials, and the site's seismic setting. Due to these
existing and potential future impacts and constraints, an Environ-
mental Impact Report was deemed necessary.
Staff prepared a Request for Proposal for this project which was
sent to approximately twelve (12) EIR consultants within San Fran-
cisco and the Bay Area. After reviewing the three proposals which
best addressed Saratoga's needs, the environmental planning firm,
STA, Inc. was chosen. Attached is the contract agreement between
the City of Saratoga, the Collishaw Corporation (developers), and
STA, Inc.
The City's fee structure requires the developer to provide the
contract amount plus 10.3% for the City's administration of the
contract prior to execution of the contract.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments: Draft Contract
Motion and Vote:
ws5 \steve \memocc \sta
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 10/
AGENDA ITEM `� G
MEETING DATE: June 6, 1990 CITY GR. PROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT. Engineering 0.-
SUBJECT: Route 85: Saratoga Creek to Los Gatos Creek -
Quito Road Overcrossing
Recommended Action:
Receive as information.
Report Summary:
At your last meeting, I reported on the status of the design work
on the Quito Road overcrossing. I also reported on certain
decisions which were made by the Traffic Authority regarding the
width of the structure. Initially, a two -lane structure was to
have been pursued, but after further evaluation, it was
determined that a four -lane structure appears warranted. The
final decision on the width of the structure rests with the
cities of San Jose and Saratoga, although San Jose has indicated
that they can accept either two or four lanes, whichever Saratoga
prefers.
The Council decided that they would like to more carefully review
the traffic data for Quito Road as well as receive community
input before rendering a decision on this matter. Consequently,
the Traffic Authority has been asked to conduct a Community
Meeting, see attached letter.
The purpose of the Community Meeting will be to examine pertinent
information about Quito Road and other related issues that will
lead to a recommendation about the width of the overcrossing and
the potential policies for Quito Road. These issues include, but
are not limited to:
- Existing and projected traffic volumes.
- Intersection levels of service.
- General Plan policies.
- Winchester /Bascom configurations.
- Neighborhood impact
Attached is information extracted from the Route 85 Traffic
Analysis report and the City's General Plan and copies of traffic
counts taken by the City on Quito Rd. in 1989 to assist the
Council with developing a recommendation. Rather then go into a
lengthy discussion of this information and the various issues at
this time, I will be prepared to discuss this with you at your
meeting.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Motion & Vote:
Staged Construction Alternative was analyzed for Year 1990 conditions only,
since it is assumed that the interchange would be ccutpleted by Year 2000.
The various alternatives are described below.
o No -Build Alternative uses future conditions without the Route 85
freeway.
o Build Alternatives: All of the Build Alternatives assume
construction of the Route 85 Freeway with no interchange at
Prospect Road or at Quito Road, and with different ramp locations
at Winchester Boulevard and at Bascom Avenue within the Route 85/17
interchange ccoplex. Numerous Build Alternatives have been
evaluated prior to this study. The previous alternatives were
=nbered I through VIII. This study focuses on the Alternative IX
series. For the Alternative IX configurations, the Route 85/17
interchange is a full freeway- to-freeway interchange with direct
connectors for northbound Route 17- to-northbound Route 85, and
southbound Route 17- Route 85. Loop ramps are
Provided for the southbound Route 85 to northbound Route 17
movements, and the northbound Route 85 to southbound Route 17
movements.
Alternative IX A: This alternative has a full interchange at
Winchester Boulevard, and a half- diamond
interchange with ramps to and from the south
at Bascom Avenue.
Alternative IX -B: This alternative has split- diamond
interchanges at Winchester Boulevards and
Bascom Avenue, with one -way connector roads
between Winchester and Bascom.
Alternative IX-E: niis alternative has no interchange at
Winchester Boulevard and a full- diamond
interchange at Bascom Avenue.
—® Alternative IX -F: This alternative has rams at Winchester
Boulevard to and from the north only, and a
full - diamond interchange at Bascom Avenue.
o Started Construction Alternative has no interchange at either
Winchester or Bascom, and the following four connections at the
Route 85/17 interchange:
& - .• • Route • southbound Route - Northbound Route 85 to northbound Route 17
- Northbound Route 17 to northbound Route 85 (loop ranip)
- SOUthbound Route 17 to southbound Route 85
ES -2
o Saratoga Avenue: ADr is expected to increase on both sides of
the freeway corridor under the Build and the Staged
Construction Alternatives;
o Winchester Boulevard: The TRANPIM model shows increased
traffic im wdi.ately north and south of the corridor for those
alternatives with a Winchester Boulevard interchange;
o Bascom Avenue: Traffic is forecast below existing levels
with a half interchange, but equal to or greater than existing
traffic with full freeway access at this location;
o Union Avenue: An interchange results in higher ADI's south of
the corridor, and volumes are approximately equal to existing
volumes north of the corridor;
o Camden Avenue: South of the corridor on Camden Avenue, which
serves as a heavy north -south canmter route, traffic is about
equal to existing levels with the freeway; while north of the
i corridor, it is significantly reduced due to the diversion of
harne-based work trips to Route 85.
Traffic Impacts of No Winchester 1nterch9_Me_
A comparison of Alternative IX -A and IX -E in this study demonstrates
the traffic impacts of eliminating the Winchester interchange. Alternative
IX -A is the Full Winchester -Half Bascom concept, and Alternative IX -E is the
No Winchester -Full Basin concept.
In the City of Saratoga, Alternative IX -E results in higher ADI' on
FnAtvale Avenue and Cox Avenue, both of which would feed traffic from the
Winchester Boulevard interchange into the Saratoga Avenue interchange.
Alternative IX -E is also the only alternative which would increase traffic
above existing volumes on Allendale Avenue and on Quito Road between
Allendale Avenue and Cox Avenue. West of Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga -Ins
Gatos Road also experiences hider traffic levels with no Winchester
interchange. These increases are believed to be caused by the diversion of
traffic that would have accessed the freeway at Winchester Boulevard to
local streets and the Saratoga Avenue interchange. The addition of ramps to
and from the north at Winchester Boulevard, as illustrated by Alternative
IX -F, results in lower traffic levels at the above locations.
ES - 4
Table 2 -2
24 -HOUR ROADWAY COUNTS
#
Location
Date
Two -Way
Total
1
Saratoga Avenue S/O Herriman Avenue
1 -05 -89
9494
2
Saratoga Avenue S/O Rossmare Court
1 -05 -89
13008
3
Saratoga Avenue S/O Fruitvale Avenue
1 -05 -89
15196
4
Saratoga Avenue N/O Fruitvale Avenue
1 -05 -89
22379
5
Saratoga Avenue N/O Dagmar Drive
3 -14 -87
22440
6
Saratoga Avenue S/O Cox Avenue
2 -05 -87
25746
7
Cox Avenue W/O Saratoga Avenue
1 -11 -89
13068
8
Cox Avenue E/O Saratoga Avenue
1 -11 -89
9077
9
Buclnall Read W/O Quito Road
1 -11 -89
2746
--� -10
Quito Road N/O Allendale Avenue
1 -20 -87
25640
11
Allendale Avenue E/O Dolphin Drive
1 -11 -89
7700
12
Fruitvale Avenue S/O Farwell Avenue
4 -17 -89
9918
13
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road W/O Farwell Avenue
4 -17 -89
24947
14
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road W/O E1 Camino Grande
4 -17 -89
35501
- -� 15
Quito Road N/O Bicknell Road
4 -17 -89
6080
16
Daves Avenue N/O Saratoga Avenue
1 -25 -89
2616
17
Saratoga Avenue W/O Viewfield Road
4 -17 -89
39396
18
Santa Cruz Avenue on -ramp to SB 17
5 -17 -89
4655
19
Santa Cruz Avenue off -ramp from NB 17
5 -17 -89
5696
20
Santa Cruz Avenue N/O Andrews Street
4 -17 -89
22330
21
Daves Avenue W/O Santa Cruz Avenue
1 -25 -89
4262
22
Winchester Boulevard S/O Eaton Lane
4 -17 -89
19694
23
Winchester Boulevard S/O Pollard Road
3 -08 -89
32360
24
Pollard Read W/O Wedgewood Avenue
4 -19 -89
19125
25
Bu-=- Road S/O Hacienda Avenue
8 -20 -86
8053
26
Hacienda Avenue W/O San Tomas Aquino Road
1 -27 -89
3958
27
Hacienda Avenue E/O San Tomas Aquino Road
1 -27 -89
10656
28
San Tomas Aquino Road N/O Hacienda Avenue
3 -03 -86
8267
29
San TCanas Aquino Road S/O Campbell Avenue
10 -15 -86
19375
30
Campbell Avenue W/O San Tomas Aquino Road
2 -11 -89
28243
(continued on following page)
N/O
= North of
E/O
= East of
S/O
= South of
W/O = West of
2 - 10
TABLE 2 -2
24 -HDUR ROADWAY COUNTS (Continued)
Location Date Two -Way
Total
56
Union Avenue S/O Camden Avenue
5 -06 -86
20061
57
Harwood Road S/O Los Gatos - Almaden Road
1 -31 -89
5855
58
Harwood Road N/O Los Gatos - Almaden Road
1 -37 -89
4258
59
Camden Avenue S/O Branham Lane
4 -17 -89
37183
60
Camden Avenue N/O Branham Lane
1 -14 -87
38787
61
Branham Lane E/O Leigh Avenue
6 -07 -89
20700
62
Branham Lane W/O Leigh Avenue
6 -07 -89
20600
63
Winchester Boulevard S/O Knowles Drive
6 -07 -89
22400
64
Santa Cruz Avenue S/O Saratoga Avenue
6 -07 -89
20800
65
Fhritvale Avenue N/O Allendale Avenue
5 -24 -89
16545
66
Quito Road S/O Allendale Avenue
5 -24 -89
17634
67
Saratoga Avenue N/O Cox Avenue
4 -26 -89
27700
68
Saratoga Avenue S/O Lawrence Expy /Quito Road
6 -08 -89
30500
69
Quito Read N/O Cox Ave
6 -21 -89
23936
70
Woodard Road E/O Bascom Avenue
6 -21 -89
5686
71
White Oaks Avenue W/O Bascrn Avenue
6 -21 -89
4860
72
White Oaks Avenue E/O Basccan Avenue
6 -21 -89
2647
73
Samaritan Drive E/O Basccin
6 -21 -89
23474
74
Bascom Avenue S/O Samaritan Drive
6 -21 -89
25418
75
National Avenue S/O Samaritan Drive
6 -21 -89
3681
76
Branham Lane W/O Union Avenue
7 -19 -89
19281
N/O
= north of
E/O
= east of
S/O
= south of
W/O = west of
2 - 12
Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc.
r �
0 200 400 !00
JQ
41
KNOwLFS
OR
4j
A�
P
0v OR
/ Oy
Figure 3 -4
Half Winchester - Full Bascom
Alternative IX -F
ROUTE -85 /ROUTE -17
INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATION
EX: 34500
A: 25900
z 8:25900
0 E: 28300
m F: 25700
PROSPECT SC:30200
EX: 30500 RD.
A: 25100 Ex: 38100
B: 24900 M32 EX: 28200
25200 � A: 21900 �
EX: 13100 : 24900 B: 21600
A: 8100 : EX: 36700 E: 21800 O
\ B: 9300 �S 8:33000 F: 21800 r4
\\ E: 8000 \ E: 33500 SC: 24200 5
F: 7700 EX: 27200 iP F: 32900 6
SC: 9400 A: 24500 dlj SC: 33600
B: 24200 a rssr0000 �sx: 278001,
\ E: 24300 •; ssm A: 2481,00
\ F: 24100 `, ;; e: 2.2,
\\ SC:23900 x.ssm P: 253000 O
\ sc: 26800 BUCKNALL RD. E-
EX:25700 �: Goo EX: 7800
EX: 25700 \ A: 34900 A: 23 00 A: 6400
_..._ .... _ _ _ _ A: 32300 B: 35800 VQ COX AVE. e: zsooa
B: 32300 \ E: 38100 O 9: s 295°0 E: 8800
E: 32500 \ F: 34300 ` SC: 24100 F: 6400
F: 32200 c:38eoo SC: 6400
SC: 33000 \� 5 Ep: 9900
r ---
MCFARLAND AVE. o II E: : 9900
0100 EA: 9000
r9 O� Sc: 11100 B: 7000
E: 8000
`rC0 �4G \ \ 57 F:71100
T EX: 25600 C:8 00
EX: 15200 A: 25200 _
A: 17700 d B 25400
B: 17800 d� +�.. �� \ \ E: 27800 EX: 4000
E: 17800 A� \ SC: 28400 B 3400
F: 17700 Ex: ieeoo E: 3800
SC: 18000 B: 20500 S F: 3600 \
E: 22700 1 C SC: 4100
HERRIMAN AV. SC: 21900 ALLENDALE 8s EA 7200
AVE.
� F: 7100
7700 \ sc:'7B0o
H A: 6600
O 6700 X: 17600 D RD \ \
n EX: 9700 E: 7800 E p0
P A: 10200 F: 6400 A 16200 O
1 O� B: 10300 "1 SC: 7400 B:116400 p
b �g�� E: 10300 E:16500 c� \
5° F: 10300 SC: 17000
SC: 9700
' REDGEWOOD AV
EX: 9900 a
0 A: 13500 C
EX
B: 13500 : 1911,a
B O E: 15200 EX: 6100 A: 16200
G9� F: 13500 A: 6100 B: 16200
SC: 14600 B: 9200 E: 16800
LOS E: 5700 F: 15300
F: 6300 �JSC: 1 7300J1 73000
G4T0S SC: 5700
EX: 19700
A: 25700
B: 25000
E: 23900
EX: 25000 F: 24300
A: 17600 a CSC: 18700
B: 17400 EX: 2600 EX: 4300
E: 17900 o A: 1600 A; 2300 8 2900
1600
F: 17800 B: :
SC: 19100 `s9p - a F: 1700 E: 3000
F:2900
I
TOGS SC: 1900 SC_ 3.2.0.0
P�S�I DA
VES a vE
1_ 35500 A _ EX: 2
EX: : .230600-] 4
A: 29900 l� E 19500 > 2
E 31800 cos F: 20600
F: 30200 EX: 37100 �4 SC: 17100
SC: 32500 A: 31300 0 M. 21500 _
B: 31100 S A: 19000
1990 E- 33100 �d E: 19100 �N
F: 31900 F 19200 4
SC: 33500 _ _ SC: 19600
EX: 39400 �� E% 430(
A A: 34900 A 4800(
A • � • • B: 34700 r �i� e 1801
E: 36800 TO 1sc 4900
F: 35700 C4 - - - --
SC: 36300
4I�
EX:20B00
p: E1200
EX: 34500 .
NB: 35500
1M A: 30100
Z B: 29200
0 E: 29400
pROSpE F: 29300
�,
EX: 38100 RD.
NB: 39200
A: 37100
H: 37100 EX: 3060.0 EX: 28200
\ E: 37500 NB: 28600 NB: 29000
\ F: 37800 B: 28500 mL: 38700 A: 24300
\ \\ EX: 13100 9 284°00 NAB: 35700 B: 24100
\ NB: 14000 A: 35700 E: 24000
9: 35800
\\ A: 10000 !P P 36600 F: 23500
EX: 27200 C7
E: 10000 �: 27900 ��' 2700 EX: 27800 d
\ F: 9100 A: 27700 NB: 22800 NB: 302200
B: 27700 A: 2500 A: 28400
B: 2500 B: 28800
\\ F: 27800 6: 22800 R: 292200 O
F: 2500 r: 28900 BUCKNALL RD. F
\ ,�V• mC: 24000
EX: 25700 \\ NB.2e7 Q �. 25500 EX: :7' 0 rn
NB: 27200 A: 36100 ? COX AVE. B: 269.00 NH0
B: 38500 2: 28a00 A: 0
A: 33300 s: 40000
B: 33300 \ F. 38900 e: 26200 B:
E: 33700 E:
F: 33700 \ EX: 9100 F:
MCFARLAND AVE. NB B 00 B: 1 `9 _ Ex: 9100
�0 �\ E: 14800 NB: 10100
410, .6 �1 L F: 12800 A: 8200
4 � C B: 8200 \
E: 9300
LX, 25600 EX 15200 r G d \ \ NA 28200 F: 8500
NB: 16400 d� +Qe, B: 28400 EX: 4000
A: 18400W�i, �� E: 30500 NB: 4100
:
B: 18500 _ EX: 18800 �' F: 28400 A 3700
E: 18500 B: 3800
NB: 18900 %, S� E: 4300
F: 18600 ' A: 2D800 \ F: 3800
HERRIMAN AV. F: 20800 ALI E� 86 X 6600
AVE. E. \ A: 7700
C(4 In \ 6: 7000 B.
z EX: 7700 \ F: 7600
NB: 8100 /
O A: 7900 U 1LD• \
P B: 8000 LE8 600 ¢ EX: 970 0 E: 8500 500 O NB: 10400 F: 7800 800 B: 10500 100 E: 10400 200
F: 10400
WEDCEAOOD q'
$ZG j0 [INBX: 19100
: 19700
C9� NB: 10500 � EX: 8100 A: 17700
A: 13500 NB: 8800 H: 18100
OS H: 13500 A. 8300 E: 18600
F: 17100
EX: 25000 tq? E: 13900 B: 8000
NB: 27300 0 F: 13800 E: 7900
A: 18700 ,Q F: 8000
B: 19000 d
E: 19300
i F: 19200
EX: 19700
NB: 24600
EX: 2600 A: 28200
4 B: 2000
NB: 2700 E: 266700
O A: 2200 F: 27800
B: 2200 EX: 4300
E: 2200 NB: 4500
F: 2200 A: 3400
B: 3400
TOG+9 E: 3600
V1Y' F: 3500
t+u DATES AvE.
EX: 22300
EX: 35500 NB: 26300 4
NB: 38000
A: 31100 A: 22600
B: 22400
B: 30800 s E: 25400 "
E: 318001 C F: 24300 \,
F: 318000 EX: 37100 9T
NH: 40500 OS EX: 21500
A: 34400 NB
2 O D O 23700
B: 34100 �d A: 21200 .5N
E: 35200 B: 21000 �.
F: 34900 E: 24000 V
F: 22900
EX: 39400
NB: 42700 (Ek 4300
A: 36700 Sa a �j� �: 6100
B: 36500 `�
E: 37300 0: 6100
F: 3_7200 EX: 20800 rOC9 F 61000
NB: 23900 1
A: 24300 9�
4.
forecast to have ADr volumes less than No-Build conditions
without the Route 85 freeway, as evidenced by Year 2000 ADT
projections.
Therefore, there would be no significant impacts on traffic
originating from or destined for the neighborhoods on White
Oaks Avenue east of Bascom Avenue with the construction of an
interchange at Baffin Avenue and the Route 85 freeway.
a..
Special Issue #2:
Jurisdiction: city of Saratoga
Issue: Determine the local impacts of possible "cut - through" traffic
to and fram Quito Road using Devon Avenue, Martha Avenue, and
McCoy Avenue via McFarland Avenue to access the Saratoga
Avenue interchange at Route 85.
Analysis: With Alternatives IX A, IX -B and IX -F. ADT on Quito Road
between Cox Avenue and Allendale Avenue is forecast to drop
under Year 1990 corxiitons. The reductions in traffic with
these three alternatives can partially be attributed to a
shift in traffic frcxn Quito Road and connecting arterials to
the Route 85 freeway due to northerly access at Winchester
Boulevard. Alternative IX -E and the Staged Construction
Alternative would increase traffic by 2,200 and 2,800 vehicles
Per day, respectively. In Year 2000, Alternative IX -E would
also result in an increase in ADT over No-Build conditions
without the Route 85 freeway constructed.
Potentially, a small percentage of traffic from Quito Road
would attempt to use the McFarland Avenue neighborhood to
by -pass the Saratoga Avenue /Cox Avenue intersection.
However, traffic on Saratoga Avenue is expected to increase
due to construction of the Saratoga Avenue interchange.
Consequently, it will be difficult for a significant number
of vehicles to make left turns from McFarland Avenue to
southbound Saratoga Avenue. Today's turning movement volumes from
McFarland Avenue are very low, at 17 and 23 in the AM and PM
peak hours, respectively.
7 - 2
Table A -1
ROUTE 85 IIJIFIBECi'ION 0OUNM -- AN Peak Hour
Auuroaches
North East South
No. Intersection LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
1
Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd.
58
169
261
66
25
465
0
& Saratoga Ave.
71
327
83
87
132
55
2
Saratoga Ave. & Herriman
106
930
0
46
0
112
25
Ave.
0
291
203
0
0
0
3
Saratoga Ave. &
0
0
0
967
9
0
0
Fruitvale Ave.
556
387
0
252
0
424
4
Saratoga Ave. &
62
340
129
122
9
1,347
30
Scotland Drive
0
721
38
0
0
0
5
Saratoga Ave. & Via
40
1,279
310
514
1,015
5
4
Monte Dr.
0
660
it
0
0
0
6
Saratoga Ave. &
0
77
387
739
0
106
0
Ranfre Lane
3
778
0
33
0
15
7
Saratoga Ave. &
28
31
586
3
0
438
112
Dagmar Dr.
27
602
0
19
0
109
8
Saratoga Ave. &
0
0
0
0
800
0
McFarland Ave.
29
594
0
17
0
53
9
Saratoga Ave. & Cox
Ave.
106
615
125
74
263
66
10
Saratoga Ave. &
Bucknall Rd.
62
587
1
12
1
122
11
Saratoga Ave. &
Westview Dr.
0
640
9
0
0
0
12
Lawrence Expy /Quito Rd.
& Saratoga Rd.
16
353
255
137
515
16
13
Quito Rd. & Bucknall Rd.
27
471
6
189
107
683
14
Quito Rd. & Cox Ave.
0
407
40
0
0
0
15
Quito Rd. & Allendale
Ave.
0
407
267
0
0
0
16
Fruitvale Ave. &
Allendale Ave.
288
444
79
43
23
157
17
Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd.
& Fruitvale Ave.
145
5
23
24
1,231
277
18
Quito Rd. & Pollard Rd.
617
72
0
59
0
939
19
Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd.
& Austin Way
0
1
65
9
1,567
1
20
Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd.
& Quito Rd.
167
0
7
0
1,555
236
(Continued on
following page)
West
LT TH RT
114
1,111
58
169
261
66
25
465
0
206
0
17
0
587
261
0
0
0
106
930
0
46
0
112
25
1,068
0
44
0
32
0
1,210
18
0
0
0
0
967
9
0
0
0
0
1,240
21
0
0
0
193
1,032
62
340
129
122
9
1,347
30
4
1
2
5
1,522
0
20
0
16
40
1,279
310
514
1,015
5
4
1,157
21
30
73
6
242
1,162
0
3
0
77
387
739
0
106
0
124
18
331
108
108
23
22
20
17
28
31
586
3
0
438
112
0
0
0
1
1
9
35
839
3
0
0
0
0
800
0
Table A -2
R MME 85 sromam, axum -- PM Peak Hour
No.
Intersection
LT
North
TH
RT
LT
East
TH
Approaches
RT LT
South
TH
RT
ILT
West
TH
RT
1
Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd.
& Saratoga Ave.
113
1,296
186
176
373
70
170
469
83
180
201
8
2
Saratoga Ave. & Herriman
Ave.
0
412
98
0
0
0
15
289
0
99
.0
23
3
Saratoga Ave. &
Fruitvale Ave.
596
600
0
143
0
247
0
269
74
0
0
0
4
Saratoga Ave. &
Scotland Dr.
0
823
223
0
0
0
312
540
0
31
0
121
5
Saratoga Ave. & Via
Monte Dr.
0
926
62
0
0
0
28
617
0
17
0
23
6
Saratoga Ave. &
Ranfre Lane
22
1,141
0
11
0
9
0
677
0
0
0
0
7
Saratoga Ave. &
Dagmar Dr.
147
892
0
20
0
53
0
574
18
0
0
0
8
Saratoga Ave. &
McFarland Ave.
71
1,002
0
23
0
36
0
677
15
0
0
0
9
Saratoga Ave. & Cox
Ave.
140
895
266
128
189
96
153
609
101
178
364
199
10
Saratoga Ave. &
Bucknall Rd.
153
1,124
2
18
1
77
15
755
51
2
2
4
11
Saratoga Ave. &
Westview Dr.
0
11363
20
0
0
0
9
912
0
14
0
19
12
Lawrence Expy /Quito Rd.
& Saratoga Rd.
138
1,141
368
324
727
20
169
571
311
220
460
46
13
Quito Rd. & Bucknall Rd.
302
1,803
8
161
100
227
5
682
49
48
255
12
14
Quito Rd. & Cox Ave.
0
1,332
38
0
0
0
106
613
0
10
0
192
15
Quito Rd. & Allendale
Ave.
0
660
184
0
0
0
280
292
0
104
0
160
16
Fruitvale Ave. &
Allendale Ave.
214
412
73
62
19
130
24
281
87
100
44
22
17
Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd.
& Fruitvale Ave.
328
0
17
14
632
153
3
3
5
9
1,210
0
18
Quito Rd. & Pollard Rd.
741
385
0
107
0
471
0
187
92
0
0
0
19
Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd.
& Austin Way
0
0
23
17
783
2
3
1
3
46
1,529
7
20
Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd.
& Quito Rd.
173
0
6
0
850
213
0
0
0
0
1,547
0
(Continued on following page)
VEHICLE VOLUME SUMMARY
j,()CjkjFI()?j #54 Quito NIO Allendale DI R I,- CT 10 N—LOTAL
2
010-1
87
OVID
29
0150
19
0` v �0
22
0 5 0
2
0 6 0
138
0 T 0 = =1
588
0 T 0 1
1477
_;_Q "D,
16 15
897
957
1 =
10 5,,---;
1
111
1
1500
1065
985
1 e N-11
12 0 -ED
P
1
1572
1 '_
11, 7 6.
1 - �3
477
23 0 =1
1118
2 1 W;:D
7--
- 2 0
6 3'
2 10
Mr]i
4 OS
201
19242 T
7
22 20
7
6
7
5 7
2 4
4
4
5 6
6 9
44 5
1 1S
ts
1 2
1 7
365
- 73 58' 4 7
4 73 5
73 -9 5 7--
2 9
4-
S
19
2 6 4
227 244
244
L2 7 4 2 -;
1
251
— JL-
7.1
2-.-.-.'
S
251 2:- 0
-:4
242
24 ---
4L
5
7 :`5
- -
4 0 C.
- 7 6 73 0, 7
211J 2
17 73 1 7
-�jL
194 146
7
9 2
4::,
5 G. 41
VEHICLE VOLUME SUMMARY
LOCATJON#56 Quito SIO Allendale DJ RECTION -LOTAL
DATE
OlOO
0400
050@
rl F1
O -7
cl r--: cl 0
0900
1280
ISOO
1800
C,
2000
2100
22@0
171
24Q@
COC
J9
1090
13 gG
18 gl
i --j c—
A CA
4
171
LL
84
123
175
223
cr
324
395
4
412
463
4 0
204
259
233
230
120
3G0
-7
324
3OG
225
344
302
2KR
223
`?2
22C
342
203
334
224
250
22!
250
255
2G4
7c
275
2G2
312
243
2@@
14G
177
71
g3
7 g
GS
G1
GS
42
42
24
Zo 5
VEHICLE VOLUM E SUMMARY
LOCATION #24 Quito S10 Cox DIRECTION —!B & SB
NB SB
0 10 F-1
14
95
0 2 0 0
0 2 0 10
34
0 10
7
0,00
14
0100
1 -3
0 10 i--1
17
0 5 0 -_-i
19
0600
245
0600
2 .8
0 • 0 C,
862
0700
15 73,
0 G ;:-,.
1474
Moci
4 3 �D,
0 9 0
12 4 73'
0900
b''.. - 9
......
z; -Z.
1 G G=_
764
1 G CHID,
41 7 -
—br—
6
11 W-i
6 61":1
110 0
495
1100
7 _=
12 0 10
5 6 0
110
684
110 Cl
624
1 --
605
1 a M-D
59i
15 0
6 45
150"D.
732
6-
16 0 F-i
6 7 -7 '
16 00
0 3 2
D
1700
642
1700 -------
1296
------
107-,e5
1800
759
1600
1:322
C- r-
1'_00
635
--- I Si 0 0
-
115.,:-,
D-Z:
21 G j 01
4 5 0
2100
602
220C,
375
2200
502
21013
191
2100
334
2 a W-D
11 I-S,
2400
17 7;
12507
T
12018
T
9,
7
=
1 Cl
--2
29
1_9
15
5
2
1;
5
=
12
U
7--l..
3
1
5
3
5
3
3
4
4
3
2
2
4`_t
5
14
i Ci
2
3
3
_8
46
72
99
3
7
G.
i2
j62
175
260
265
5
27
77
74
-'l
3 -1
G. C
3 6 4
379
6:3
9-9
115
156
352
2 3
246
I F i 7
S G.
134
'52
1
2 0 -'R
211
1 G-
17 G,
12 0
142
105
103
z--6,
174
1 0
1 G-8
_2_1
12
2
_'_1.`_
1 9,
G.
1
12 6.
16 9
154
C11
6 2
G.
1 E-3
1 Fi2
1 61U
156
15 6
64
1 5:-D
15 0i
133
A
A 0
f 46
154
158
15 7
164
17 12,
j t:3
157
2 0 5
207
I
I . * .7
151
17 4
1 71
73
247
2 5 .7
2_'--'
1 r.;7
150
177
11 5 -c-
1
34,
319
337
5
209
19 5
-11 - 1
7C
F--; 7
33c
301
326
19C
141
134
0
, 7
1 S
-
1 , 1
i44
17*3
1 C14
112
1C,1
F. i 5
14.1
1r.1
145
i'5
94
122
34
c*.2
126
125
109
6 7
42
39
47
0e.
95
71
G. 2
-�?4
29
25
33
4i
corridor but it is not known when the State will have sufficient
funds to acquire the remaining parcels to complete the right -of -way.
Some communities such as Los Gatos have allowed development on
parcels designated as part of the corridor. It is possible
Saratoga might also allow, or be compelled to allow by the courts,
development of parcels within the proposed corridor. Such actions
would make acquisition more difficult and thus delay any use of the
corridor. The Environmental Impact Report for the project was
completed in 1980. At that time, it was reaffirmed by Saratoga that
the corridor right -of -way should be preserved.
The Lawrence Expressway extends from Highway 101 to the intersection
of Saratoga Avenue and Quito Road providing a major access to the
northeast portion of the City. The expressway terminates at this
intersection and through traffic continues on Quito Road to Route 9.
Arterials
The City of Saratoga is served by nine arterial roads. Arterials
are major traffic carriers which. take cars through the City to and
from the major traffic generators in the City. Three of these
arterials are State highways; Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road (Route 851,
Big Basin Way (Route 9) and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (Route 9).
These State highways radiate from a hub, the intersection of Route
85 and 9 and continue through. the adjacent communities to the
freeway system. Saratoga Avenue, a local arterial, bisects the
area between the State highways. Quito Road and Fruitvale Avenue
serve as arterials for north -south traffic wanting to avoid the
Route 85 -9 intersection. Pierce Road is currently designated as an
arterial north of Arroyo de Arguello for residents living in the
westerly section of the City and -in the Sphere of Influence
beyond, who want to avoid the intersection of Route 85 and 9. Mt.
Eden Road is a designated arterial off Pierce Road which provides
access to the Cupertino Sphere of Influence, particularly Stevens
Creek Park. Cox Avenue provides an east -west arterial in the City.
It connects the major radiating arterials in the City, Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga -Los Gatos /Quito Road.
Available 1979 -81 traffic counts indicate that the most heavily
traveled arterials are Saratoga Avenue north of Cox Avenue (ADT
27,537), Saratoga Avenue south of Cox (ADT 20,218)_, Quito Road
which carries 24,000 ADT near Lawrence Expressway dissipating to
12,000 ADT near Allendale, Saratoga- Sunnyvale which carries 20,000
ADT at the junction with Highway 9 and 29,000 ADT at its junction
near Prospect Road, and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road which carries
21,300 ADT at the junction with Highway 85 and 30,500 ADT at its
junction with Quito Road.
EXCERPT FROM
THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT
3 -7
State highway projections for 1990 indicate increases on the City's
arterials, particularly at the intersection of Saratoga- Sunnyvale
(Route 85) and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road from the intersection with
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road (Route 85) to Quito Road. Traffic volumes
through the Village on Big Basin Way would not be appreciably
affected by a Freeway's presence in the Corridor.
Traffic count projections are not available for local arterials in
Saratoga. However, Cox Avenue, Fruitvale Avenue and Quito Road can
be expected to carry increased traffic volumes with increases in
County population.
One of the major traffic generators in Saratoga is West Valley
Community College. The College, located at the intersection of
Fruitvale and Allendale Roads, stimulates heavy volumes of traffic
on Saratoga Avenue to Fruitvale, and Quito Road to Allendale, and
across Allendale from Quito to Fruitvale. Intersection and street
improvements at Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale have relieved some of
this pressure. Better use of the Lawrence Expressway will depend
upon the improvement of Quito Road and upgrading of Allendale to
an arterial. It is currently anticipated that the enrollment of
the College will stabilize. As a result, these improvements are
anticipated to be adequate for the foreseeable future.
Collector Streets
Collector streets serve an important function in residential
Saratoga. They provide access from residential areas to local
traffic generators such as schools, local shopping centers or
community centers, as well as safe connections to the City's
arterial system.
Citizen complaints, accident reports, and traffic counts indicate
that the major problem on existing City collector streets in most
cases is not volume but speed control. In a "few isolated cases
where neighborhood collector streets aid in filling in for the
inadequacies of the City's arterial system or provide the only
access to a relatively large area, the collector may carry as many
as 2,000 to 3,000 cars. In most.cases, the average ADT is well
below this. Disregard for speed limits by many City residents, how-
ever, creates safety problems on almost all the City's collector
streets.
Future traffic volumes on the majority of the City's existing
collector streets is dependent upon the number of trips by home-
owners. There are, of course, some exceptions in the City where
the collector streets are so constructed that they have the poten-
tial of serving as through routes for other City residents. For
example, the wide spread between Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga
Avenue-has generated some pressure on Miller Avenue, Titus Avenue and
Homes /Brookglen Drive for an intermediate through route.
on
AREA K, SUNLAND PARK
The Sunland Park area includes an area of approximately 53 acres
bounded on the west by Quito Road, on the south by McCoy Avenue,
on the east by Villanova, and on the north by the rear lines of
properties on the north side of Baylor Avenue. The area bears
the residential designation of Medium Density Residential (M -10).
Sunland Park is a neighborhood of 200 single - family homes built
in the 19501s. Homes and landscaping are mostly well maintained.
Being relatively moderately priced, the area's homes offer
affordable housing for families, senior citizens, young couples,
divorced and single people. Because the homes are very moderately
priced for Saratoga, approximately 15% of the homes are rental
homes.
Although completely developed, the Sunland Park area contains
some planning problems. These problems include evidence of declining
maintenance in a few of the homes and some code violations. These
problems are not by any means unique to the rental homes, but such
problems are more common to them. Most of the homes have been
well maintained and the owners of these homes feel very strongly
that every home should show a reasonable degree of maintenance
and care.
The owners of the few homes that do not exhibit a reasonable
degree of maintenance, care, and appeance should take steps to
make the improvements. Recognizing that some owners need encourage-
ment to take these steps the neighborhood organization must remain
strong and continue its thus far successful efforts in improving
the neighborhood association as it has all along, toward achieving
this end. The City and the neighborhood organization working
as partners have already produced substantial area improvement,
but more remains to be done.
The neighborhood association may not be successful in bringing all
the homes up to a level of reasonable maintenance, care and appearance
despite its best efforts. When this occurs, the City should take
appropriate measures against any owners of homes exhibiting a callous
neighborhood disregard for a reasonable degree of maintenance, care,
and appearance. If such actions are not taken the area will decline
and eventually show evidence of blight.
Open space and developed recreation areas are non - existent in
this area. It is therefore essential that a pedestrian pathway
and bicycle path be developed across Quito Road from this area
into the center of Saratoga. This would allow access to El Quito
Park, the library, Montalvo and other recreation available in
Saratoga.
AREA, PLAN FROM
THE SARATOGA GENERAL PLAN
AREA K - GUIDELINES FOR AREA DEVELOPMENT
1. The City should restripe the crosswalks at McCoy and
Quito and Paseo Lado and Quito.
2. The City should study the feasibility of painting a center
turn lane down Quito Road through this area. If it is
determined that such a center turn lane will indeed increase
traffic flow and safety on Quito, such a lane should be
installed. Staff should study the feasibility of a left
hand turn lane on Quito for left hand turns on to Paseo Lado.
This will eliminate the present safety hazards and bottlenecks
that now exist when such turns are made.
3. The side of Quito Road should be beautified through regular
maintenance of the existing landscaping and the addition of
new landscaping. The present bicycle path should be repaved.
Quito Road should be designated as a heritage lane from
approximately Saratoga -Los Gatos Road to Pollard Road. No
major improvements (street widening) to Quito Road from Sara-
toga Avenue to Pollard Road should be allowed except for
alterations needed for public safety.
4. The feasibility of designating Baylor Avenue and McCoy
Avenue as City arterials or local collectors should be studied.
5. Sunland Park's existing neighborhood association should con-
tinue to be encouraged in its efforts to upgrade and maintain
neighborhood appearance. The City should pursue strict code
enforcement and improve public facilities in this area.
4 -35
AREA K, SUNLAND PARK
The major traffic carriers in the Sunland Park area form its
boundaries. The most critical of these is Quito Road. Quito
Road is heavily used by commuters and students driving to West
Valley College. A center turn lane (third lane) on Quito Road
from Cox Avenue to McCoy Avenue should increase the flow of traffic
and safety through the area. Newly painted crosswalks at McCoy
and Quito and Paseo Lado and Quito would facilitate bicycle and
pedestrian crossings of Quito Road.
The side of Quito Road should be beautified to upgrade the
present appearance of this portion of the road. The trees and
pyracantha adjacent to the "Quito" fence should be trimmed on a
regular basis with the fence repaired where needed. The present
bicycle path should be repaved. Appropriate new landscaping
should also be put in on the side of the road. Quito Road should
be designated as a Heritage Lane to permanently retain its unique
and scenic qualities.
4 -34