Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-1993 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAEXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO D AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 2, 1993 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk SUBJECT: Resolutions regarding Leonard Road Improvement District Recommended Motion: Adopt resolutions. Report summary: Two resolutions are suggested.for adoption on the Consent Calendar to begin the process of creating the financing and accounting for the costs of establishing the Improvement District to improve Leonard Road and accept it for dedication to the city. The first resolution names an underwriter to create the financing through the Marks -Roos Bond Pooling Act of 1985. This will allow the city to set up bond financing to refinance the bonds on Parking District Number 3 and at the same time provide financing for the Leonard Road Improvement District at the least cost to the property owners. The second resolution establishes a revolving fund so the city may begin work on the Leonard Road project and the costs associated thereto can later be charged to the District. This is a routine procedure to allow work to take place on the District immediately and still have it be eligible for reimbursement through the formation of the District. This is the same procedure which was followed in the creation of Parking District Number 3. Fiscal Impacts: $5,000 loan. p �L SAR2ATOG1A CITY COUNCIL Q EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. C� 2 °2'` AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 2, 1993 CITY MGR. 1W��f4 0 f, ORIGINATING DEPT. City Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution Ordering Abatement of a Public Nuisance by Removal of Hazardous Weeds and Brush Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution ordering abatement. Report Summary: The attached resolution represents the second step in the weed and brush abatement process for this season. The County has sent the owners of the parcels requiring weed and brush abatement notices informing them that the weeds and brush must be abated, either by the owners or by the County. The notice also informed them that they may present objections at tonight's public hearing. Fiscal Impacts: None to City. County recovers costs from administrative portion of fee charged. Attachments.: Resolution. (List of parcels requiring weed and brush abatement is available at City Clerk's office.). o l,- r SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. n ?, AGENDA ITEM v MEETING DATE: June 2, 1993 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager SUBJECT: Personnel Resolutions for Fiscal Year 1993/94: 1. Resolution-Authorizing Permanent Positions in City Service 2. Resolution Revising Management Compensation System and Incorporating Fringe Benefits for Management Employees Recommended Motion(s 1. Approve Resolution No. Authorizing Permanent Positions in City Service for fiscal year 93/94 2. Approve Resolution No. Revising Management Compensation System and Incorporating Fringe Benefits for Management Employees Report Summary: 1. The Resolution authorizing permanent positions in City service reflects the reorganization which creates a Public Works Department and a Community Development Department, eliminates the Maintenance Department, and transfers the Community Service Officer program to the Community Development Department. Revised job descriptions are attached for Clerk Typist and Senior Clerk Typist.- They include reclassification of the Switchboard Operator /Receptionist to the Clerk Typist series._. The Community Service Officer /Emergency Preparedness - Coordinator position has been reclassified to Public Services Assistant and stays in the City Manager's Office. The new job description is attached. None of these changes result in changes in salary range. 2. The resolution revising the management compensation system and incorporating. fringe benefits for management employees adopts a merit increase pool system where management employees are evaluated at a focal point and rank ordered. Any merit increases given will vary by rank order but the total will equal the designated pool amount. Fiscal Impacts: Wage and salary . costs are included in the proposed 93/94 budget. Follow Up Actions: Direct staff to implement changes in personnel system. Conseauences of Not Actina on the Recommended Motions: Changes will not be made, and staffing will not be as authorized. Attachments 1. Resolution Authorizing Permanent Positions in City Service 2. Resolution Revising Management Compensation System and Incorporating Fringe Benefits for Management Employees O: \exec.sum (rev.2 -3 -93) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2663, AS AMENDED, AUTHORIZING PERMANENT POSITIONS IN CITY SERVICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993/94 The City Council of.the City of Saratoga resolves as follows: The full -time and part -time positions listed below are hereby authorized for the fiscal year 1993/94. Department Number of Positions City Manager City Manager /City Clerk 1 Deputy City Clerk 1 Assistant to the City Manager 0.6 Secretary to the City Manager 0.9 Administrative Assistant 1 Public Services Assistant 1 Clerk Typist (Reception) 1 Recreation Recreation Director 0.75 Recreation Supervisor 1 Recreation Program Coordinator 2 Volunteer Program Coordinator 0.6 Clerk Typist 1.75 6.10 Finance- Finance Director 1 Accountant 1 Account Clerk 2 4 Community Development Community,Development Director 1 Associate,Planner 2 Assistant Planner 2.8 Administrative Secretary 0.9 City Codes Administrator 1 Plans Examiner 0.95 Building Inspector 2.85 Secretary 0.9 Community Services Officer 2 Clerk Typist 0.9 .. 15.3 Public Works Public Works Dir /City Engineer 1 Assistant Engineer 1 Sr. Engineering Technician 1 Administrative Secretary 0.9 Clerk Typist 0.9 Environmental Programs Manager 1 Maintenance Superintendent 2 Japanese Garden Specialist 1 Street Maintenance Leadworker 1 Park Maintenance Leadworker 1 Facility Mtc. Leadworker 1 Irrigation Specialist 1 Street Maintenance Specialist 1 Street Maintenance I /II 4 Park Maintenance I /II 4 Japanese Garden Caretaker 1 Custodian 2 24.8. The above -and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: ' NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk. c:\vp \budget \persnl.rsl(p.l -2) I March 16,1993 To: City Manager From: Assistant to the City Manager Subject: Reclassification of Receptionist The job descriptions for. the Switchboard Operator /Receptionist and the Clerk Typist are very similar, and both are in range 56. With the shifting of some of the Receptionists' job duties in the last year, I believe that this is an appropriate time to combine the classifications. The reclassification of the Receptionists would not have any effect upon their part -time status, which is 60% of full time. We currently have-Clerk Typists who work 75% and 80 %, so the only real difference is in the schedule which is worked and the. duties specific to their department. The change would allow us to be more flexible in staffing. 1. All Clerk Typists would be required to learn and be able to operate the switchboard 2.. Proficiency in using the network and .appropriate software would be part of the requirement for advancement to Senior Clerk Typist 3. The Clerk Typists who work as the central receptionists would have an incentive to remain in the position and improve their skills in order to advance to Senior Clerk Typist The reclassification would send the message that with limited resources available to us it is important that employees are trained to use the resources we have. The central switchboard provides support to all departments; therefore all departments should share responsibility for running it effectively and efficiently to ensure good customer service. Caikolyn King cc: Karen Campbell t CLERK TYPIST DEFINITION Positions in the ' classification of Clerk Typist perform intermediate -level clerical tasks involving word processing, filing and providing information and assistance to interested parties. Incumbents who serve as central receptionist operate a switchboard. Work is normally performed under general supervision. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS This is the journey -level classification in the Clerk Typist series. It is distinguished from the next higher level of Senior Clerk Typist in that the latter is required to have and exercise greater technical job knowledges, perform duties with greater independence and /or direct the work of others. EXAMPLES OF WORK (The duties listed below represent examples of work performed and are not all- inclusive of duties which are or may be assigned this classification.) o Types a variety 'of correspondence, forms, reports and financial or statistical statements from clear copy, draft, marginal notes or verbal instructions. o Provides information and assistance to interested parties. This information can cover a variety of subjects which may entail some interpretation and the exercise of judgment on the incumbent's part. o Receives incoming calls to City departments and refers calls to the proper party or agency. o Researches records for information and prepares summaries and tabulations. o Receives monies and records payments as appropriate.. May periodically prepare summaries of transactions. o Performs general office duties such as maintaining files and records and opening and routing mail. o Operates a variety of office equipment including calculators and personal computers with applicable software. QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of: Office practices and procedures including proper telephone and reception techniques; basic mathematics; correspondence forms and correct punctuation, spelling, grammar and vocabulary; and basic records retention systems. Ability to: Operate a variety of office equipment; acquire a working knowledge of department operations and a general knowledge J of City operations; follow written and verbal instructions; properly operate a telephone switchboard and effectively screen and refer calls; type at a speed of not less than 50 net words per minute from clear copy; operate personal computers and applicable software; and work effectively with other staff and the public. Education and Experience: Sufficient education and experience to satisfactorily perform the duties of this classification. A typical qualifying background would be graduation from high school and one year of experience in general clerical work and operating personal computers with applicable software. City of Saratoga Revised April 1993 SENIOR CLERK TYPIST DEFINITION Positions in the classification of Senior Clerk Typist perform complex clerics/ tasks involving word processing, filing and providing varied information and assistance to interested parties. Depending upon assignment, work is performed under general supervision or with considerable independence. Incumbents may regularly.direct the work of lower -level clerical personnel. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS This is the highest level classification in the Clerk Typist series. It is distinguished from*the class of Secretary through the lack of any significant amount of secretarial responsibilities involving relieving managers and staff of administrative detail. It differs from the next lower class of Clerk Typist.through the greater technical job knowledges possessed and exercised, the greater independence with which work is performed and /or the direction of work of lower -level clerical employees. Positions in this class are flexibly staffed and are normally filled. by advancement from the Clerk Typist level. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES (The duties listed below represent examples of work performed and are not all- inclusive of.duties which are or may be assigned this classification.) o Types a variety of correspondence, forms, reports and financial or statistical statements from clear copy, draft, marginal notes or verbal instructions. o Provides a variety of information and assistance to interested parties. This includes explanations of department and City procedures and policies and furnishing technical information such as code requirements. o Reviews reports, records, applications and other data for accuracy, completeness and compliance with established standards. Researches records for information and compiles summaries and tabulations which may be submitted directly to the requesting individual or agency. o Receives monies and records payment as appropriate. Periodically prepares detailed summaries of transactions which may entail the refinement of conversion of data into account numbers, activities and programs. o Establishes and maintains basic filing systems. As necessary, develops and maintains comprehensive records systems regarding activity costs, program usage and revenue, materials usage, incidence of vehicle repair and other matters. 0 Receives and screens incoming telephone calls and visitors; may arrange appointments and meetings for staff. o Prepares purchase requisitions, expense statements and related transactions. o Operates a variety of office equipment, calculators and personal computers with applicable software. OUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of: Principles of office management; basic mathematics; correspondence forms and correct punctuation, spelling, grammar and vocabulary; and comprehensive records retention systems. Ability to: Coordinate office clerical functions; acquire a thorough knowledge of the functions, procedures and policies of the department and a working knowledge of City operations; make decisions on procedural matters without immediate supervision; prepare.. and maintain accurate and complete records and reports; operate a variety of office equipment; follow written and verbal instructions; type at a speed of not less than 50 net words per minute from clear copy; operate personal computers and applicable software; use computer network and network wordprocessing program proficiently; and work effectively with other staff and the public. Education and Experience: Completion of three years experience as a Clerk Typist for the City of Saratoga, or four years of comparable experience. at least two of which have been with the City._ City of Saratoga Revised.April 1993 I DEFINITION Under the general supervision of the Assistant to. the City Manager, performs a variety of administrative and analytical staff work related to public safety and general administration. This is an entry level professional classification in the Office of the City Manager. The primary responsibility of the Public Services Assistant is the coordination of the City's Emergency Preparedness program which involves developing, implementing, and monitoring emergency procedures and conducting applicable training. EXAMPLES OF WORK (The duties listed below represent examples of work performed and are not all - inclusive of duties which are or may be assigned this classification.) o Plans, coordinates, and conducts'emergency exercises. o Coordinates on -going training programs for City departments and City.: staff related to the Emergency Plan and their responsibilities as emergency service workers. o Coordinates the .purchase, maintenance, and operation of equipment needed for the Emergency Preparedness program. o Coordinates the work of the Ham Radio operators and of other emergency volunteers. o Serves as the staff representative at meetings with the State Office of Emergency Services, the Santa Clara County Emergency Manager's Association, the Santa Clara Valley Red Cross, and other related agencies. o Conducts public presentations related to the City's Emergency Preparedness program. o Administers and enforces a variety of programs related to City and State codes including but not limited to garbage, trash, water pollution, animal control, and business licenses and. permits. o Reviews applications for a variety. of permits and licenses, issues and monitors permits, and conducts administrative review of appeals. o Analyzes and interprets relevant data from legislative codes and case files. o Writes reports and correspondence, maintains records, and performs incidental clerical duties. v QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge Of: Development and administration of a municipal program; and basic functions and operations of municipal government. Ability To: Plan and.. effectively implement programs meeting community needs; work effectively with a wide variety of individuals and groups; acquire a thorough knowledge of applicable codes and regulations and effectively enforce them;-effectively communicate orally and in.writing; and operate personal computers and applicable software. Education and Experience:. Sufficient education and experience to satisfactorily perform the duties of this classification. A typical qualifying background would be possession of a bachelor's degree and one year of program coordination experience for a municipality or other public agency. Driver's License Possession of a valid State of California driver's license. c: \wp51 \kc \spec \psc.cs City of Saratoga- -May 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY.OF SARATOGA AMENDING RESOLUTION 85 -9, AS AMENDED, TO REVISE-- COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION SYSTEM AND AMENDING RESOLUTION 85 -9, AS AMENDED, INCORPORATING FRINGE BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES - SECTION 1. Resolution 85 -9.69, as amended, is further amended to read as follows: 1. Job Market Survey Each year a salary survey for management benchmark positions will be conducted in the four surrounding counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara. The fourteen cities nearest in population to Saratoga will be used, the seven next smallest and the seven next largest, with the exception that the West Valley cities of Campbell, Cupertino, and Los Gatos will always be part of the fourteen cities surveyed regardless of relative population. The top of the range, or actual salary if no salary range is given, will be used for benchmark positions. The number equal to.. the mean of. -the tops_ of the salary ranges of cities surveyed will be used as a guideline in setting new salary ranges. New salary ranges go into effect on July 1 of each year through. adoption of a resolution passed by the City Council. 2. Salary Ranges The top of the range will be used to calculate entry level salary for new management employees and to determine internal relationships. All management personnel will be hired in at a salary set at 80% of the established top of the range. 3. Internal Relationships A system of internal relationships shall be maintained and reviewed periodically, but no less frequently than every three years, to set forth the salary relationships between the various management positions and the positions they supervise based on the comparable duties, responsibilities and authorities of each position. As a general rule,- the salary differentials between the positions in the superior - subordinate relationship shall not be less than 15 %. City Manager and Public Works Director; at least 15 %, but not more than 25% City Manager and Community Development Director, at s least 20 %, but not more than 30% City Manager and Finance Director; at least 25 %, but not more than 35% City Manager and Assistant to the City Manager; at least 30 %, but not more than 40% City Manager and Recreation Director;.at least 40 %, but not more than 50% Public Works Director and Environmental Programs Manager; at least 20% but not more than 30% Public Works Director and Street Maintenance Superintendant; at least 35%, but not more than 45% Public Works Director and Parks and Building Maintenance . Superintendant, at least 35 %, but not more than 45% Community Development Director and- City Codes Administrator; at least 15% but not more than 25% 4. Merit Increase Pool Annual salary increases are based on a merit increase pool, consisting of a percentage of total base management salaries. The City Council sets the pool amount each year following a recommendation by the City Manager. There are two separate pools: one for Department Heads (who are evaluated directly by the City Manager) , and one for the Middle Managers ( who are evaluated by their Department Heads). Increases given will vary by rank order but the total will equal the pool amount. 5. Focal Point Evaluations Performance evaluations are conducted at a focal point annually, using a standardized rating format. Based upon performance, all management employees will receive a numerical score and be rank ordered by the City Manager. The two groups of management employees are rank ordered separately. Depending upon when a new employee is hired,.he or she will receive a performance evaluation after six months, and again at-the focal point. During the first year this plan is in place, and for subsequent new hires, salary adjustments will be prorated to bring all employees to the focal point for evaluations. SECTION 2. Fringe Benefits Health Insurance: Management employees' contribution to the cost of health insurance will continue to be equal to that of the City's non - management employees. N I 1 Dental Insurance: The City contributes $40 per month per management employee for dental insurance. The amount of contribution for dental insurance in the future will be increased or decreased in order to remain equal to the City contribution for non - management employees. . Life Insurance: The City will contribute the full cost of premium for all management employees for life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance in an amount equal to two times the employee's annual salary. Long Term Disability Insurance: The City will provide the same plan for long term disability benefits as the plan adopted by.:the non - management employees in the Memorandum of Understanding dated August 1, 1989. Annual Leave: Effective January 1, 1990, accrued vacation, sick and management leave time will.be combined. All leave time will accrue at a rate of 18 hours per month during the first 60 months of continuous service, 22 hours per month during the 61st through 120th month of continuous service, and 26 hours a month during the 121st month of continuous service. and thereafter. Leave time may only be accumulated to a maximum of 720 hours. Hours earned beyond 720 shall be paid out to the employee at one -half the employee's rate of pay at the end of each calendar year, beginning with the end of calendar year 1989. Other conditions of use of leave and payment upon termination or retirement will be the same as the plan adopted by the non - management employees in the Memorandum of Understanding dated August 1, 1989. Effective July 1, 1993, annual leave time for new management employees will accrue at a rate of 16 hours per month (24 days per year). There shall be no deductions from a management employee's accrued leave time for any period of absence that is less than the employee's regular work day. Management Expense Allowance Effective July 1, 1993, a monthly management expense allowance will replace car allowances, funds for individual memberships in professional organizations, and professional development funds for attendance at training workshops, seminars, meetings and conferences. Any expenses which are incurred by a management employee which are in excess of the monthly allowance will not be reimbursed. To offset income taxes on the allowance, a manager must submit documentation in a form acceptable to the Finance Director for business - related costs. 3 � + u J� !, The amount of the allowance for Department Heads (Public Works Director, Community Development Director, Finance Director, Assistant to the City Manager and Recreation Director) will be $350 per month. The allowance for Middle Management employees will be $300' per month for the positions of City Codes Administrator and Environmental Programs Manager, and $100.per month for the Street Maintenance Superintendant and Parks and Buildings Superintendant as long as they are assigned City -owned vehicles. Allowances will be pro -rated for positions which are less.than full time. This resolution replaces all previous amendments to Resolution 85 -9 pertaining to management employee salaries and fringe benefits, and all such amendments are hereby repealed. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT:: 'ATTEST: DEPUTY CITY CLERK c: \93"et \agaa1ary.r81 4 MAYOR SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 19, 1993 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING.DEPT. Engineering SUBJECT: Warner Hutton House Accessibility Improvements - Authorization to Solicit Bids Recommended Motion(s): Move to authorize staff to solicit bids for the project. Report Summary: Engineering staff has completed the preparation of plans, specifications and bidding documents for the installation of disabled access restrooms at the Warner Hutton House. Consequently, authorization to solicit construction bids for the work is requested. The new restrooms, along with the replacement of the side entry door into the house, are mandated under the public access requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and will be funded through the City's CDBG program. The project has also been reviewed for heritage preservation requirements by the State Historic Preservation Office. The plans, if anyone wishes to see them, are available in the Engineering Dep't. office. Fiscal Impacts: None directly. The cost of the project, estimated at $25,000, will be funded through the City's CDBG program. Follow Up Actions: Engineering staff will solicit construction bids and will return to you in June with a recommendation for award of a construction contract. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Staff will not solicit bids for the project and the house will not meet ADA access requirements. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. of % AGENDA ITEM tSJ MEETING DATE: May 19, 1993 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. Engineering SUBJECT: Saratoga Ave. Sidewalks, Capital Project No. 961 - Award of Construction Contract Recommended Motion(s): Move to 1) Declare Joseph J. Albanese, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder on the project. 2) Award the attached construction contract for the project to Joseph J. Albanese, Inc. 3) Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $ 10,000. Report Summary: Sealed bids for the Saratoga Ave. Sidewalk Project, Capital Project No. 961, were opened yesterday afternoon. Seven contractors submitted bids for the project and a summary of the bids is attached. Joseph J. Albanese, Inc. of Santa Clara submitted the low bid of $ 66,758.50 which is 20% below the Engineer's Estimate of $ 83,800. Staff has carefully checked the low bid and has determined that it is responsive to the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids for the project dated April 22. Consequently, it is recommended that the Council declare Joseph J. Albanese, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder on the project and award the attached construction contract to them in the amount of $ 66,758.50. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to execute up to $ 10,000 in change orders to the contract to cover any unforeseen circumstances which may arise during the construction. The recommended contract award amount of $ 66,758.50 is actually for an alternate design that will allow the sidewalk to be extended slightly into Saratoga Ave. between Wood Dell Ct. and Westview Dr. to avoid conflicts with the properties at 12511 and 12537 Saratoga Ave. The owners of these two properties have voiced concerns about the effects of the sidewalk across their properties and the alternate design is an attempt to alleviate those concerns. However, to maintain suitable traffic and bicycle lanes along this stretch of Saratoga Ave., it will also be necessary to prohibit on street parking between Wood Dell Ct. and Westview Dr., something which neither staff nor the property owners believe will cause any problems. Fiscal Impacts: Sufficient funds are budgeted in Capital Project No. 961, Account No. 4510 to cover the recommended contract award amount plus the requested change order authority. The complete project cost will be recovered from a TDA grant which the City will receive shortly after the project is completed. Follow Up Actions: The contract documents will be signed and the Notice to Proceed will be issued to the contractor. Construction is expected to last for approximately four weeks. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The contract will not be awarded and the Council must either reject all bids or defer making a decision until your June 2 meeting. Either of these scenarios would jeopardize approximately 25% of the available TDA grant. CITY OF SARATOGA BID SUMMARY PROJECT: SARATOGA AVENUE SIDEWALK PROJECT, CAPITAL PROJECT NO. 961 BID DATE: MAY 13, 1993 ALTERNATE BID #1 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE JOS. J. ALBANESE, INC. ITEM # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1. CLEARING, GRUBBING, AND CONCRETE REMOVAL 1 LS - $3,500.00 - $6,806.00 2. SUBGRADE PREPARATION 11,250 SF $0.20 $2,250.00 $0.58 $6,525.00 3. P.C.C. SIDEWALK 11,250 SF $5.00 $56,250.00 $2.63 $29,587.50 4. P.C.C. CURB & GUTTER 980 LF $10.00 $9,800.00 $18.85 $18,473.00 5. P.C.C. HANDICAP RAMPS 9 EA $1,200.00 $10,800.00 $463.00 $4,167.00 6. A.C. PAVEMENT REPAIR 400 SF $3.00 $1,200.00 $3.00 $1,200.00 GRAND TOTAL $83,800.00 GRAND TOTAL $66,758.50 GOLDEN BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC. P & F CONSTRUCTION, INC. RH WEHNER CONSTRUCTION, INC. AMBO ENGINEERING INC. UNIT PRICE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL - $11,250.00 - $17,000.00 - $23,718.00 - $8,700.00 $0.10 $1,125.00 $1.20 $13,500.00 $1.65 $18,562.50 $0.90 $10,125.00 $3.50 $39,375.00 $2.28 $25,650.00 $2.10 $23,625.00 $4.24 $47,700.00 $16.00 $15,680.00 $15.00 $14,700.00 $10.00 $9,800.00 $12.95 $12,691.00 $600.00 $5,400.00 $400.00 $3,600.00 $325.00 $2,925.00 $224.00 $2,016.00 $5.00 $2,000.00 $5.15 $2,060.00 $5.00 $2,000.00 $4.35 $1,740.00 GRAND TOTAL $74,830.00 GRAND TOTAL $76,510.00 GRAND TOTAL $80,630.50 GRAND TOTAL $82,972.00 B & B CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION O'GRADY PAVING, INC. UNIT PRICE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL - $23,000.00 - $60,000.00 $0.65 $7,312.50 $0.75 $8,437.50 $4.78 $53,775.00 $3.45 $38,812.50 $20.00 $19,600.00 $14.00 $13,720.00 $800.00 $7,200.00 $600.00 $5,400.00 $5.00 $2,000.00 $11.00 $4,400.00 GRAND TOTAL $112,887.50 GRAND TOTAL $130,770.00 SSATOGA.CITY COUNCIL / E%ECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. � 3 I� AGENDA ITEM: dti MEETING DATE: May 19, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planninc k& CITY MGR. APPROVAL 1 SUBJECT: V -93 -002 & DR -93 -005 GUGLIELMI; 20440 Montalvo Heights Dr. Appeal of Planning Commission denial of a request to exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area of 6,000 sq. ft. by 307 sq. ft. to allow the construction . of a 700 sq. ft. pool house. Design Review approval is also necessary to allow the site Is gross floor area-to--exceed- 6,000 sq. ft. Recommended Motion: Deny the appellant's request -and uphold the Planning Commission's action to deny the Variance and Design Review request.- Report Summary: On April 14, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's variance request to exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area to allow the construction of a pool house. The Planning Commission accepted the staff report analysis; opened the public hearing to take testimony and then deliberated on the request: As the attached minutes from the meeting indicate, the Commissioners did not feel that the variance findings could be made. The Commissioners also felt that approval of the variance would be a grant of special privilege. The Planning Commission unanimously denied Resolution V -93 -002 and DR -93- 005. The Planning Commission did offer the-applicant the option to continue the application to allow him time to redesign the, structure so it was less than 400 sq. ft., which would not require variance approval. The applicant was not in. favor of the continuance and requested that the Commission take - action on his submitted application. Fiscal Impacts: None Follow Up Actions: None Consecuences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Approval of the Variance would allow the applicant to construct the pool house as submitted. Attachments: 1. Resolution V -93 -002 2, Planning. Commission 3. Staff Report, dated 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" s, A-fPe,z & DR -93 -005 Minutes, dated 4/14/93 4/14/93 RESOLUTION NO. 16-93 -002 9 DR -93 -005 CITY OF SARATO® PLANNING CONKISSION STATE Or CALIFORNIA Guglielmi; 20440 Montalvo Heights Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance approval to exceed the site's max'mum allowable floor area of 6,000 sq. ft. by 307 sq. ft. to allow the construction of a 700 sq. ft. pool house. Design review approval is also necessary to allow the site's gross floor area to exceed 6,000 square feet. 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 request for Design Review approval is contingent on the approval of the Variance application; and WHEREAS., the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said Variance application, and the Planning Commission makes the following findings: (a) That there are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surround- ings, in that the site has a slope of less than 10 percent and does not have an irregular shape for a cul -de -sac lot; and that strict enforcement of the specified regulations will not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district, in that there are some homes in the area on. similar sites with larger homes than permitted by the current zoning- ordinance; however, these were either approved prior to the City's ordinance amendments which made .the maximum allowable floor area standards more restrictive, or these property owners were able to demonstrate the existence of special circumstances applicable to the property to support exceeding the allowable floor area. (b) That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of- special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and',classified in the same zoning district, in that there are no special circumstances which constitute the granting of a variance and the applicant's proposal would exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area permitted under the current zoning ordinance. (c) That without approval of the Variance application, the applicatibn for Design Review approval must be denied, without prejudice. STOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of 'the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: File Nos. V -93 -002 and DR -93 -005; y 20440 Montalvo Heights Drive section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Guglielmi for Variance and Design Review approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within thirty (30) days of the passage of this resolu- tion or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall become effective fifteen- (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 14th day of April 1993, by the following vote: AYES: ASFOUR, CALDWELL# JACOBS# XORAN, MURAXANI, WOLFE NOES: none ABSENT: BOGOSIAN Chairperson,.Planning C mmission ATTEST: Secretary, Plan ing Commission 0 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of April 14, 1993 Page 13 Jack rown, 20369 Park ace, applicant, spoke in favor of e application an presented a model of the home including the proposed addition. Gary Schloh, project architect, spoke in favor of the project and answered questions from the Commissioner with regard to the design. SINCE THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK, WOLFE /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:0.8 P.M. PASSED 6-0. Commissioners Murakami and Caldwell expressed their support for the application. CALDWELL /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE V -93 -001. PASSED 6 -0. CALDWELL /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE- DR -93 -004. PASSED 6-0 1-931-002- Guglielmi; 20440 Montaivo Heights Dr., DR -93 -005 - request for Variance approval to exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area of 6,000 sq. ft. by 307 sq. ft. to allow the construction of a 700 sq. ft. pool house. Design Review approval is also necessary to allow the site's gross floor area to exceed 6,000 sq. ft. per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 39,640 sq. ft. and, is located within an R -1- 40,000 zone district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated April 14, 1993, and answered questions from the Commission with regard to the application. Commissioner Caldwell noted that the foundation for the project has been poured and inquired about the status of this work prior to project approval. - Planner Walgren explained that the applicants had an alternative plan to construct an open trellis -like structure that would not need Planning Commission approval, but after pouring the foundation had decided to enclose the structure which would then need Planning Commission approval. Commissioner Jacobs inquired whether the other homes in the area are subject to the same floor area ratio regulations and if the homes appearing on the list (which denotes other properties with similar structures) submitted by the applicant, exceed this restriction. Planner Walgren indicated that the other homes are .subject to the same restriction, but without a study of each of the listed properties, he could not determine if their floor areas exceed the restriction which was imposed in 1987. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of April 14, 1993 Page 14 Commissioner our asked about the possibility of an open structure being enclosed at a later date. Mr. Guglielmi, 20440 Montalvo Heights Drive, applicant, spoke in favor of the application and explained that his family had recently moved to the area and since purchasing the home his mother -in -law has come to live with them. He reported that due to the added family member an additional structure was needed to move some of the activity out of the house. He explained that the proposed structure had been located in an area which would be least impactful to the neighbors and their views. He noted that similar structures exist on other properties and construction of the proposed structure would cause his property to be compatible with. the other properties in the area. He also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the project. ASFOUR /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:25 P.M. PASSED 6-0. In response to Commissioner Caldwell's question regarding the percentage of homes in the area which exceed the floor area ratio regulations, Planner Walgren indicated that he was unsure of the percentage exceeding this regulation, but stated that such cases may exist. Chairperson Moran stated that she was having trouble making the findings to support the variance. She explained that by approving this variance a precedent may be set for other similar applications. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she also was having difficulty making the necessary findings and feels that by approving the variance the Commission would be granting a special privilege to the applicant. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he felt the design was acceptable; but could not support approval of the variance. He explained that he felt that a 400 square foot structure, which would be allowed without a variance,, would provide sufficient room for the applicants expressed needs. Commissioner Asfour concurred with the comments of the other Commissioners and indicated that he too would have difficulty making the findings to support the variance request. Commissioner Murakami indicated that he could not make the variance findings. There was discussion among the Commissioners with regard to the option to continue the application to allow the applicant time to redesign the structure not to exceed 400 - square feet. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of April 14, 1993 Page 15 Mr. Gugfiellmll indicated a desire to speak. ASFOUR /JACOBS MOVED TO RE -OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:35 P.M. PASSED 6-0. Mr. Guglielmi, applicant, referred to the Morrison application (DR- 92-038 & UP- 92 -011) which was approved at the March 24, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. He also referred to a resolution acted on by the City Council in September of 1989, which approved a variance of the exact nature as the variance for which he is requesting approval. He stated that this application was very similar to his applications, therefore, precedent has been set and his application should be approved. He stated he would not be in favor of continuing his application for redesign. There was discussion regarding the aspects of the Morrison application. It was determined that the Morrison application was not a variance application, but a use permit application. Planner Walgren explained that a conditional use is a permitted use versus a variance. He noted that the use permit findings are much less restrictive than the variance findings. He also pointed out that the Morrison parcel was not limited to 6,000 square feet of floor area where the Guglielmi property is limited to 6,000 square feet of floor area. It was °.determined that the two applications involved different issues and were not comparable. CALDWELL /JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:43 P.M. PASSED 6-0. JACOBS/WOLFE MOVED TO DENY V- 93-002 AND DR- 93 -005. COMMISSIONER CALDWELL SUGGESTED THE FOLLOWING MODIFIED LANGUAGE FOR SUBSECTION B OF THE RESOLUTION: 'THAT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL CONSTITUTE A GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE INCONSISTENT WITH THE LIMITATIONS ON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY AND CLASSIFIED IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, IN THAT OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE EXCEED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA." THE AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER OF THE MOTION AND THE, MOTION PASSED 6 -0. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. -Application No. /Location: V -93 -002 &- DR -93 -005; 20440 Montalvo Heights Dr. Applicant /Owner: Guglielmi Staff. Planner: Lynette Dias Date: April 14, 1993 APN: 517 -18-050 Director Approval: 20440 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DRIVE File Nos. V -93 -002 and DR -93 -005; 20440 Montalvo Heights Drive gXZCDTrVB 8II88ARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 02/08/93 Application complete: 03/05/93 Notice published: 03/31/93 Mailing completed: 04/01/93 Posting completed: 03/25/93 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Variance approval__ to exceed the site's maximum . allowable floor area of 6,000 sq. ft. by 307 sq. ft. to allow the construction of a 700 sq. ft. pool house. Design Review approval is also necessary to allow the site's gross floor area to exceed 6,000 sq. ft. per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 39,640 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zone district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the request by adopting the attached Variance and Design Review resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2 -. Resolution V -93 -002 & DR -93 -005 3. Correspondence from applicant, dated April 6, 1993 3. Plans, Exhibit "A" File Nos. V -93 -002 and DR -93 -005; 20440 Montalvo Heights Drive STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential PARCEL SIZE: 39,640 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9.92% MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Stucco painted to match the existing main residence. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE LOT COVERAGE: .26 %(10,437 sq. ft.) 30% HEIGHT: 14 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing Main Residence: 5,607 sq. ft. Pool Accessory Structure: 700 sq. ft. TOTAL 6,307 sq. ft. SETBACKS: Front: NA Front: Rear: >60 ft. Rear: Right Side: 20 ft. Right Side: Left Side: NA Left Side: 15 ft.* 6,000 sq. ft. 30 ft. 50 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. * 12 ft. is permitted with administrative approval and 15 ft. is permitted with Planning Commission approval per Section 15- 12.100 of the City Code. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting a Variance to the allowable floor area to allow the construction of a 700 sq. ft. pool house. The subject property has an existing 5,607 sq. ft. two -story residence with an attached garage, which received Design Review approval in August 1989. The Variance would permit the applicant to exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area of 6,000 sq. ft. by 307 sq. ft. Variance Findings: Staff is unable to make the required Variance findings contained in Section 15- 70.060 of the Zoning Ordinance to recommend approval of this request. A review of the site's characteristics revealed no special circumstances that would deprive the applicant' of privileges File Nos. v -93 -002 and DR -93 -005; 20440 Montalvo Heights Drive enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity or same zone district. The site is not unusually shaped for a cul -de -sac lot and has 'an average slope of just less than 10 percent. Although there are some homes in the neighborhood that are larger than the applicant's proposal, these homes were constructed prior to the City adopting its current allowable floor area standards. Design Review: Design Review approval is also requested for the following: 1. To-allow the gross floor area of all structures on the site-to exceed 6,000 square feet (per Section 15.45.060); and 2. To allow the maximum building height of the pool house to exceed. the 12 ft. accessory structure height requirement by three feet (per Section 15.12.100). The proposed structure has a service room with a wet bar, a recreation room with a fireplace, a storage and changing room, and a bathroom. The structure is designed with the same architectural style and details as the main house and is compatible in terms of bulk and height with the structures in the surrounding area. If the Variance is granted and the structure is approved for construc- tion, staff does feel the extra height would be necessary to establish architectural compatibility with the main residence. Bummarv: Since all of the required Variance findings cannot be made, staff recommends denial of both the Variance and Design Review requests. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution V -93 -002 and DR -93 -005 denying the applicant's request. April 6, 1993 Mr.. Paul Curtis Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Curtis: Subject: V -93 -002 & DR 93 -005 20440 Montalvo Heights Drive We request your support and the support of the Planning Commission for the plans we have submitted to construct an accessory pool structure on our lot in the Montalvo Heights area. The requested structure will store pool equipment and provide a bathroom, changing room and recreation area near our pool. The facility will give our large family (two adults, three children, and a dependent elderly parent living with us) the needed space for recreation activity away from the main house. We request the Planning Commission to consider the following in support of our request: 1. The structure has been designed to be fully compatible with the architecture of the main house and enhances the beauty and privacy of our yard and the neighborhood. It is consistent with the City of Saratoga Residential Design Handbook. 2. Homes in the immediate neighborhood have approved cabana structures, and the requested plans are consistent with the character of the neighborhood. As such, the requested structure . would not be considered unusual or special in the area. In fact, other homes and facilities in the area were constructed prior to the current building ordinances and are larger in size. 3. The proposed site has been selected to service the pool, enhance the privacy of our neighborhood, and the building is designed to be significantly lower than our existing structure to ensure that our neighbors' views are not obstructed. Mr. Paul Curtis April 6, 1993 Page 2 4. The proposed site is also located adjacent to a large property (7+ acres) owned by Mike and Josephine Olivarri, who fully support the application. 5. The requested structure is the final-phase of a significant landscaping project which has been designed to be drought tolerant and which. will result in the planting of some-45 native large trees to enhance the beauty and privacy of our lot and the neighborhood. 6. The proposed project is fully supported by all our neighbors in the area as being entirely consistent with the architecture and character of other homes and structures in our unique area. (see attached letters) Having recently relocated our family to California from Connecticut, we fully appreciate the important role the Saratoga Planning Commission plays in preserving the character of the area. We believe our request is consistent with the intent of the ordinances in place and with the neighborhood and community we live in. Thank you for your consideration. We are ready to meet with you and your staff to provide any additional information required. D----A- Barbara E. Guglielmi cc: Ms. Lynette Dias -- Staff Planning Mr. Robert Rockwood -- Rockwood Design Mr. Robert Emami -- ROEM Development Corp. Mr. Gerald Butler -- Montalvo Heights Architectural Committee ATTACHMENT A 20440 Montalvo Heights Drive Saratoga, California 95070 March 8, 1993 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale'Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Planning Commission Members: 7 have reviewed the plans the Guglielmi Family has submitted for the pool accessory structure they wish to construct.. I have also made a visual inspection_ from my yard and the proposed site. They have made substantial investments,in their landscaping and pool designs which has' added to the beauty and value of the area-. The improvements and pool accessory structure will not obstruct my-view, improves the privacy of our lots and are consistent with other hones in this area. I do not oppose the request and encourage the Commission to approve -the plan as requested. Sincerely, X d Judy Butler David and Anne Noller /,-`l O15 Vickery Avenue 15243 Montalvo Heights Court Richard and Ruth Mattern Michael and Josephine Olavarri 20460 Montalvo Heights Drive 20520 Montalvo Heights Drive William and Marianne McDonnal 15201 Montlavo Road' Ron. and Sharron Hendry 20480 Montalve Heights D=ive Harry and Susan Robbins 15244 Montalvo sleights Court Paul and Helga Hulr.e JS222 Montalvo Heights Drive Paul a Judy Ma usoW. 204450 Montalvo.Road Michael and Donna Butcher (r. 20433 Montalvo Road ATTACHMENT B Other homes that have cabana-like structures: Montalvo Heights Court -15243 Montalvo Road - 20433, 15252, 15107,15555, 14903, 14768 Hill Road - 20301, 20400, 20411, 20252, 20120, 20080 Vickery Lane - 14941, 15615, 20643 Bonnie Brae Way -14900 Montalvo Heights Drive - 20480, 20520 Mendelsohn Lane - 20200, 20127 Piedmont Road -15176 Madrone Hill Road - 15315, 15255 Farwell Road - 14911, 14855 Horseshoe Drive - 14702, 14655, 14671, 14690, 14600 Date Received: 7 07 0 Jr Hearing Date: 54 q A- Fee:_ $161.00 Receipt No.: ' t' ),. 7 -;�' APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: .1©5�pe -{ � 1,�}�°9 (Ftl qL / LM / Address: Z a /�pn9LyQ61 �/I Telephone: C)1462 Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: cY�►7G� Project File Number and Address: Decision Being Appealed: JkGx/'sgr; ;=6&- 4;4A9 11'�7WG'67- U, Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): -f-J-: Aio- No: i�Ii�1"ZI-5- Af�o ,.I, 115-'� Ac Appellant's gn ure *Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you Wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. 'i May 13, 1993 To: Saratoga City Council: Karen Anderson, Mayor ✓ Karen Tucker, Vice Mayor Dear council member: IFJ Ann Marie Burger, Council Member Wilhelm Kohler, Council Member Victor Monia, Council Member Your support is requested for our plans to construct a 700 sq. ft. accessory pool structure on our property located in Montalvo Heights. Since we are allowed a 400 sq. ft. structure under existing ordinances, a variance is required for the additional 300 sq. ft. The project represents the final phase of a landscaping project designed to give our large family (two adults, three children and a dependent elderly parent) needed facilities for recreational activities in our backyard and around our pool. We have worked closely with the Planning staff on all phases of the project and believe that the following should be considered in support of our request: Requirement and Practical Need The pool house has been designed to allow our family and guests to use the pool and backyard area without requiring heavy traffic through the house. It provides required support facilities including bathroom, changing room, pool equipment storage and recreation space directly adjacent to the pool. Without these facilities bathers including our children and their friends would have to use the bath and bedroom changing facilities in the main area of the house. The increased outdoor recreation space reduces the heavy traffic pattern, provides a quiet environment in the house for our elderly dependent parent and allows a more practical use of our backyard facilities. 2. Request is consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. The structure has been designed to minimize the appearance of mass and bulk; construction requires no significant topology changes; does not exceed the allowable impervious coverage allowance; and enhances the beauty and privacy of our lot and the neighborhood. 9 3. Physical circumstances that effect the intended use of the proper: The one acre lot is relatively flat and irregularly shaped. The lot also has a unique physical characteristic in that it is located in a low area surrounded by home sites built above it which look down directly onto the backyard. Careful planning incorporating arbors and landscaping combined with the location of the existing house structure will provide the necessary screening on three sides. The proposed structure will be located on the fourth side, adjacent to a large, open (7+ acre) site with an approved 4+ acre lot which will position a new home, when developed, high on the hill looking directly down on the pool and backyard area. The unique position of my lot in the area makes providing privacy for backyard activities extremely difficult. The pool accessory structure will provide a buffer area and privacy screen to permit the practical use of my backyard as a recreation area without obstructing any views of my neighbors. In effect, it will enhance significantly the privacy of both sites and is a practical means of allowing us to fully utilize our property without having to erect unsightly solid fencing. 4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege. Montalvo is a unique area within Saratoga and has many large estate properties. Homes in the immediate area have approved cabana and recreational facilities with combined house and accessory structure areas larger in size than the plans we are proposing. Some were constructed prior to the current ordinances but several have been developed in the last several years. The allowance of our pool accessory structure would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and would not constitute the granting of a special privilege. A visual inspection of the neighborhood would confirm the uniqueness of the area and the existence of other accessory structures (see attached list). 5. Proposed structure has been through the design process The proposed design and location has been reviewed by the staff and is supported, pending approval of the requested variance. A permit has been granted for a pad and the base has been constructed to allow for the development of a 400 sq. ft. pool house with open arbors. Pending final design review, a pool house as allowed will be constructed. Our request for expanding the enclosed area will not introduce any new or additional issues. It does however, significantly enhance the practical use of our property by providing much needed privacy and required bath, changing room and recreation facilities to allow us to utilize our property in a manner consistent with our neighbors. 6. Neighborhood support The proposed project has been approved by our neighbors and is fully supported as being consistent with the architecture and character of other homes and structures in the area. Our neighbors do not view this as a special or unique privilege and believe that it will enhance the beauty and privacy of our area (see attached letters from neighbors). In summary, we have worked closely with the planning staff on all phases of our project to ensure that it conforms to all ordinances. The variance process can be painful at times, but we feel strongly that our request is consistent with the intent of the ordinances in place and will allow us the same privileges and use of our property as others in our neighborhood. Thank you for considering our request. We are ready to discuss the project in more detail at the council meeting and to provide any additional information as required. Sincerely, 09a LOSS= Jo JMG/bjc /attachments cc: Mr. Gerald Butler - Montalvo Heights Architecture Committee Ms. Lynette Dias - Staff Planning Mr. Robert Emami - ROEM Development Corp. Ms. Virginia Fanelli - Fanelli Consulting Mr. Robert Rockwood - Rockwood Design April 6, 1993 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 1.3777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Planning Commission Members: I have reviewed r.he plans the Guglielmi. Family ..as si-Lbmitted for the pc;cl accessory structure. they wish to construct. T have also made a visual inspection from my yard and the proposed site. They have made substantial investnients in their landscaping and pool design which has added to the beauty and value of the area. The improvements and pool accessory structure will not obstruct n:y view, improves the privacy of our lots and are consistent with other homes in this area. I do riot oppose the request and encourage tha Commission to approve the plan as requested., Sincerely, fames and Claire Marino Montalvo Road ATTACHMENT A 20440 Montalvo Heights Drive Saratoga, California 95070 March 8, 1993 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Planning Commission Members: I have reviewed the plans the Guglielmi Family has submitted for the pool accessory structure they wish to construct. I have also made a visual inspection from my yard and the proposed site. They have made substantial investments in their landscaping and pool design which has added to the beauty and value of the area. The improvements and pool accessory structure will not obstruct my view, improves the privacy'of our lots and are consistent with other homes in this area. I do not oppose the request and encourage the Commission to approve the plan as requested. G Judy Butler 1 015 Vickery Avenue Richard and Ruth Mattern 20460 Montalvo heights Drive William and Marianne McDonnal 15201 Montlavo Road Ror_ and Sharron Hendry 20480 Montalvo heights Drive Harry and Susan Robbins 15244 Montalvo heights Court .Sincerely, David and Anne Noller 15243 Montalvo �Heights Court Michael and Sosephine Olavarri 20520 Montalvo Heights Drive dl� Q, •�7� Paul and Helga Hulme 1597 Montalvo Heights Drive Paul a Judy Ma usen'. 204450.Montalvo,Road Micnael and Donna Butcher 20433 Montalvo Road ATTACHMENT B Other homes that have cabana -like structures: Montalvo Heights Court - 15243 Montalvo Road - 20433, 15252, 15107, 15555, 14903, 14768 Hill Road - 20301, 20400, 20411, 20252, 20120, 20080 Vickery Lane - 14941, 15615, 20643 Montalvo Heights Drive - 20480, 20520