HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-1981 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAInitial:
ZX ��JA BILL NO.1 Dept. Hd. 17
DATE: May 6, 1981 C. Atty.
Public Works C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: SDR 755 (Piedmont Rd.) Release of Surety Bond
Issue Sumnary An $1,800.00 Surety Bond was posted to guarantee improvements
to Peach Hill and Piedmont Roads, as conditioned by Building Site Approval.
The new owner of the property has requested that the Surety Bond be replaced
with a Deferred Improvement Agreement. Both roads will most likely be identi-
fied as Heritage Lanes.
Recommendation
•
Fiscal Impacts
It is recommended that Council'take the following actions:
1. Authorize Mayor to execute Deferred Improvement Agreement
with Mr. & Mrs. Timothy Sherer
2. Authorize release of Surety Bond
None
Exhibits /Attachments
Council Action
is
A. Memo describing bond
B. Deferred Improvement Agreement
1.1I E11(��F'Z:�ti Dt1 �I
EXHIBIT "A"
10,97f @:T O&M&KOO&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Release of Surety Bond - SDR 755
DATE: 4/21/81
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bond for: SDR 755 Improvements
Posted by: Millard H. Smith
Address: 1500 Westlake Dr., Kelseyville, Ca. 95451
Surety Cc: Western Surety Co.
Amount: $1,800.00 Bond No. 2126080 -01
Address:
Type of Bonds: Faithful Performance& Improvement Bond and
Labor and MatCrials Bond
The above referenced bond is being replaced by a "Deferred Improvement
Agreement."
Robert S. Shook
RSS /dsc
•
ri
LJ
•
DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BY OWNER OR HIS
SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO CONSTRUCT LAND
DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS
Project identification: SDR 755 (Millard H. Smith)
This agreement between the CITY OF SARATOGA, hereinafter referred
to as CITY, and Timothy J. and Theresa Sherer
hereinafter referred to as 'Owner ".
WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property described in Exhibit
"A" but wishes to defer construction of permanent improvements beyond the
time limits otherwise required and City agrees to such deferment provided
Owner agrees to construct improvements as herein provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
I. AGREEMENT BINDING ON SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST
This agreement is an instrument affecting the title and posses-
sion of the real property described in Exhibit "A ". All the terms, cove-
nants and conditions herein imposed shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the successors in interest of Owner. Upon any sale or division
of the property described in Exhibit "A ", the terms of this agreement shall
apply separately to each parcel and the owner of each parcel shall succeed
to the obligations imposed on Owner by this agreement.
II. STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
A. City and Owner agree that the improvements set forth in this
section may be deferred because: An area —wide street improvement
project would better perform them.
B. Owner agrees to construct the following improvements on the pro-
perty described in Exhibit "A" as well as required off site improvements in
the manner set forth in this agreement:
Improvements required by City Department of Public Works are �;en-
erally described on Exhibit "B ". (Cross out improvements that are not re-
quired.)
x1110 ,�i�1V34yA
12. Payment of a pro rata share of
the costs as determined by the
Dept. of Public Works of a storm
drainage or street improvement
which has been, or is to be,
provided by others or jointly
provided by owner and others
where such facility benefits the
property described in Exhibit "A"
C. When the Director of Public Works determines that the reasons
for the deferment of the improvements as set forth in Section II no longer
1 exist, he shall notify Owner in writing to commence their installation and
construction. The notice shall be mailed to the current owner or owners
of the land as shown on the latest adopted county assessment roll. The
notice shall describe the work to be done by owners, the time within which
the work shall commence and the time within which it shall be completed.
All or any portion of said improvements may be required at a specified
time. Each Owner shall participate on a pro rata basis in the cost of the
improvements to be installed. If Owner is obligated to pay a pro rata
share of a cost of a facility provided by others, the notice shall include
the amount to be paid and the time when payment must be made.
III. PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK
Owner agrees to perform the work and make the payments required by
City as set forth herein or as modified by the City Council. Owner shall
cause plans and specifications for the improvements to be prepared by com-
petent persons legally qualified to do the work and to submit said improve-
ment plans and specifications for approval prior to commencement of the
work described in the notice, and to pay City inspection fees. The work
shall be done in accordance with City standards in effect at the time the
improvement plans are submitted for approval. Owner agrees to commence
and complete the work within the time specified in the notice given by the
Director Of Public Works and to notify the City at least 48 hours prior to
start of work. In the event Owner fails to construct any improvements re-
quired under this agreement, City may, at its option do the work and collect
all the costs from Owner, which costs shall be a lien on all the property
described in Exhibit "A" hereof. Permission to enter onto the property
of the Owner is granted to City or its contractor as may be necessary to
construct such improvements.
IV. JOINT COOPERATIVE PLAN
Owner agrees to cooperate upon notice by City with other property
owners, the City and other public agencies to provide the improvements
set forth herein under a joint cooperative plan including the formation
of a local improvement district, if this method is feasible to secure the
installation and construction of the improvements.
V REVIEW OF REOUIREMENTS
If Owner disagrees with the requirements set forth in any notice
to commence installation of improvements he shall, within 30 days of the
date the notice was mailed, request a review of the requirements by the
City Council. The decision of this Council shall be binding upon both
the City and the Owner.
VI MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS
City agrees to accept for maintenance those improvements specified
in Section II which are constructed and completed in accordance with City
standards and requirements and.are installed within rights -of -way or ease-
ments dedicated and accepted by resolution of the City, after the expira-
tion of one year from date of satisfactory completion, Owner to maintain
said improvements at Owner's sole cost and expense at all times prior to
such acceptance by City.
Owner agrees to provide any necessary temporary drainage facilities,
access road or other required improvements, to assume responsibility for
the proper functioning thereof, to submit plans to the appropriate City
agency for review, if required, and to maintain said improvements and
facilities in a manner which will preclude any hazard to life or health
or damage to adjoining property.
1
U
y['Su:�biisYci ».;w?ri•srY�;•���c ,
UJ
•
-Z.r �<-
VII. BONDS
Prior to approval of improvement plans by the City, Owner may be
required to execute and deliver to City a faithful performance bond and
a labor and materials bond in an amount and form acceptable to City, to
be released by City Council in whole or in part upon completion of the
work required and payment of all persons furnishing labor and materials
in the performance of the work.
VIII. INSURANCE
Omer shall maintain or shall require any contractor engaged to
perform the work to maintain, at all times during the performance of the
work called for herein, a separate policy of insurance in a form and
amount acceptable to City.
IX.. INDEMNITY
The Owner shall assume the defense and indemnify and save harmless
the City, its officers, agents and employees, from every expense, liability
or payment by reason of injury, including death, to persons, or damage to
property suffered through any act or omission, including passive negligence
or act of negligence, or both, of the Owner, his employees, agents, con-
tractors, subcontractors, or his employees, agents, contractors, subcontrac-
tors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them, or
arising in any way from the work called for by this agreement, or any part
of the premises, including those matters arising out of the deferment of
permanent drainage facilities or the adequacy, safety, use or non -use of
temporary drainage facilities, the performance or non - performance of the
work.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has executed this agreement as of
CITY OF SARATOGA
MAYOR
i
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this agreement as of
State of
SS.
County of
On this the :,5;Z day of ��% n� 19 9/ , before me,
the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared — "—
EQNOTARY OPPICTAI,'.P,AL known to me to be the persons) whose name(s) c -u subscribed
PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA to the within instrument and acknowledged that
SArJA C�RA COUPITY executed the same for the purposes therein contained.
Ply comm. expires JUL 15, 19 "-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
.-1—L Mbn Ltal,tmtM1 runm
6
EXHIBIT "A"
That certain 0.918 acre net parcel, designated as Parcel "A ",
as shown on the "Record of Survey" recorded July 24, 1969, is
Book 256 of Maps at Page 39, in the Office of the Santa Clara
County Recorder
I
•
•
•
•
•
i
F.
Z_�(N /,B/ T
\ R /I
A. Construct driveway approach 16 -feet wide at property line flared
to 24 -feet at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screen-
in,:, or better on 6 -inch base rock.
B. Construct valley.gutter (asphalt) across driveway.
D. Improve Piedmont Road to provide 13 -foot half - street improvements
using 22 -inch A.C. on 6 -inch base rock, along the entire frontage
of the property, as per specifications of City Engineer. (Distance
approximately 235 - feet.)
F. Improve Peach Hill Road to provide a 130-foot half- street improve-
ment, using 22 -inch A.C. on 6 -inch base rock, alon- the entire
frontage of the property, as per specifications of City Engineer.
(Distance approximately 294 - feet.)
0. Provide underground utilities.
M
BILL NO. %
DATE.— May 6 , 1981
DEPAIZIII=: Public Works
- -- ---------------------------------------------
Cr: Final Building Site Approval, SDR 1420
Carroll,- Biy Basin Way
--- - - - - -- ------- - - - - --
Dept. Fk;
C. Atty.
f
C. Mgr.
Issue Summary
1. This is an expansion of two commercial buildings to existing bank building. All off -site
improvements were done under Bank Building Site Approval. Plans for private parking lot
have been completed.
2. Requirements of City departments and other agencies have been met.
3. Fill fees have been paid.
4. Notice of Determination was filed November 21, 1979 with the County of Santa Clara. .
Final map filings are exempt under existing CEQA Provisions.
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolut..;.on No. 1420 -02, attached, approving the building site of subject SDR.
Authorize execu�:aon of Building Site Approval Agreement.
•
Fiscal Impacts None
Exhibits/Attachments
A. Building Site Approval Agreement
B. Copy of Tentative Map Approval
C. Status Report for Building Site Approval
D. Resolution No. 1420 -02
Council Action
r1
U
Z
• b,
CITY OF SARATOGA
BUILDING SITE APPROVAL AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT MADE AND ENTERED INTO this 20th day of
April 19 81 by and between the CITY OF
SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California, herein-
after called "City ", and Stanley Carroll hereinafter
called "Owner."
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City.of.Saratoga on
September 26., 1979 gave tentative building site approval
to Owner's property located on Big Basin Way subject
to certain conditions, and
WHEREAS, -in order to obtain final building site approval, Owner is
desirous of entering into an agreement with City concerning the perfor-
mance of certain of said conditions,
NOW, TIiEREFORE, it is hereby agreed as follows: OWNER SHALL,
WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM DATE:
1. Construct private parking lot per approved plans.
IN WITNESS THEREFORE, the parties hereto have executed this agree-
ment the day and year first written above.
CITY OF SARATOGA, A Municipal Corporation
BY: _
MAYOR
BY:
O1�2:1:R"
KI
•
•
•
.•
.— .......... .... �......— �� .............. ...�•...........�.�r.w:r....... w:n , •:..r:. .i...'iu.uuau•.w•.••www.•.•�.�r .. .v u•nnr. �,r:.a r•rr. Yarn t�9.:� .L�._.... .. .nr.9{:. YfS1C r:LYLL
ADDENDA TO IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
SDR NO. 1420
Reference is hereby made to that certain Improvement Agreement between the
CITY OF SARATOGA, A Municipal corporation, hereinafter called "CITY ", And
STANLEY CARROLL, hereinafter called "SUBDIVIDER ", Which Improvement Agreement
is dated the '77 day of JWV4V4 , 19a(. The following additional providions
are hereby added to said Improvement Agreement:
(A) Included within the conditions of tentative map approval was and is
the requirement that SUBDIVIDER, Being unable to otherwise provide the required
minimum number of on -site vehicle parking spaces in order to accommodate the
proposed use for said property, will in lieu thereof provide such required
parking by consenting to, and aiding in the formation of, the creation of an
off - street parking assessment district;
SUBDIVIDER therefore agrees to sign the requisite petition for, to join in,
and to affirmately participate in the formation of an assessment District No.
3, which when completed will complete the developer's off - street parking re-
quirements as required for SUBDIVIDER'S proposed development.
(B) This Agreement shall constitute an Addenda to the hereinabove refer-
erenced Agreement, and except as modified herein, said Improvement Agreement
shall be and remain in full force and effect.
Executed this )0: day of4mw- , 19 0 .
CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal corporation
By
CITY
ATTEST:
By -
SUBDIVID - Stanley Carroll
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
""O:
A
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY COUNCIL
i
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR
1420 , Stanley Carroll
(have) (4a(7W/ 0,t) been met as listed on the
Planning Commission Report dated September 19, 1979 Listed below are
the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items:
Offer of Dedication N/A Date Submitted N/A
Record of Survey or Parcel Map Existing Date Submitted 7124/80
Storm Drainage Fee $1,197.60 Date Submitted 2/17/81 Receipt # 55951
All Required Improvement Bonds N/A Date Submitted N/A Receipt #�:
All Required Inspection Fees $3,700.00 Date .Submitted 4/23/81 Receipt #x56521
Building Site Approval Agreement Yes Date.Signed
Park and Recreation Fee N/A Date Submitted N/A Receipt # N/A
It is, therefore, the Public Works Department recommendation that (hz�rid/5l�
t✓ildr &M (Final) Building Site Approval for Stanley Carroll SDR 1420
be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Conditions)
Reason for Non - Compliance.
.�
ROBERT S_ SHOOK
is
0
RESOLUTION NO. 1420 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Stanley Carroll
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1: .The 1.074 acre parcel shown on the Parcel Map preapred
by Larry L. Lewis and recorded in Book 336 of Maps at Page 54 and sub-
mitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as.one (1)
individual building site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and
passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held
on the day of , 19 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
•
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
AGENDA BILL NO. 3
DATE May 6, 1981
.PAS:. Public Works
0:1'1'1 ut' 6Ai,LZW -LiA
SUaJECr: Landscaping and Light District LLA -1
Initial
Dept. F
C. Atty
C. Mgr.
Issue Sc=ary
At your April 15, 1981 meeting, you adopted Resolution No. 1004, a resolution
describing the improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer's Report
for fiscal year 1981 -82 for the continuation of the Landscaping and Lighting
District'LLA -1. Additional Council action is required for this district to
proceed.
Recommendation
Resolution No.
Resolution No.
Adopt the following:
1004 -A, "A Resolution Appointing Attorneys"
1004 -B, "A Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's
Report"
Resolution No. 1004 -C, "A Resolution of Intention Setting and Time and Place
of the Public Hearing for said District"
Fiscal Impacts
The costs for the administration, maintenance and servicing, and lighting
costs are charged to the various zones within the district based on benefit
received. The Santa Clara County Assessor's Office will collect the amounts
through the taxes and, in turn, send to'the City.
Exhibits /Attachments
Engineer's Report
Resolution No. 1004 -A
Resolution No. 1004 -B
Resolution No. 1004 -C
Council Action
is
ENGINEER'S REPORT
FOR
CITY OF SARATOGA
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLq -1
CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
ENGINEER OF 1ORK
CITY ENGINEER
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVER
SARATOGA, CA. 90570
4-
•
•
0
CITY OF SARATOGA
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
TABLE OF CONTENTS m.
ENGINEERS REPORT
ASSESSMENT
✓ RULES FOR SPREADING ASSESSMENT
✓ COST ESTIMATE
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
ASSESSMENT ROLL
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
CITY OF SARATOGA
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
-RULES FOR SPREADING ASSESSMENT-
I. Administrative Costs
The assessment for administrative
be spread equally among all of the
land located and benefited in each
shown on the Assessment Diagram.
II. Assessment by Zone
costs for this district shall
lots, pieces and parcels of
zone of the district and as
A. Zone 1: The assessment for cost of repairs, maintenance and
services in Zone 1, as described in Resolution No.1004, shall
be spread equally among all of the lots, pieces and parcels
of land located and benefited within said Zone 1 of this dis-
trict and as shown on the Assessment Diagram.
B. Zone 2: The assessment for cost of repairs, maintenance and
services in Zone 2, as described in Resolution No.1004, shall
be spread equally among all of the lots, pieces and parcels
of land located and benefited within said Zone 2 of this dis-
trict and as shown on the Assessment Diagram.
0
C. Zone 3: The assessment for cost of repairs, maintenance and •
services in Zone 3, as described in Resolution No.1004, shall
be spread equally among all of the lots, pieces and parcels
of land located and benefited within said Zone 3 of this dis-
trict and as shown on the Assessment Diagram.
D. Zone 4: The assessment for cost of repairs, maintenance and
services for street lighting in Zone 4, as described in Reso-
lution No.1004, shall be spread equally among all of the lots,
pieces and parcels of land located and benefited within said
Zone 4 of this district and as shown on the Assessment Diagram.
E. Zone 5: The assessment for cost of repairs, maintenance and
services for street lighting in Zone 5, as described in Reso-
lution No.1004, shall be spread equally among all of the lots,
pieces and parcels of land located and benefited within said
Zone 5 of this district and as shown on the Assessment Diagram.
F. Zone 6: The assessment for cost of repairs, maintenance and
services for street lighting in Zone 6, as described in Reso-
lution No.1004, shall be spread equally among all of the lots,
pieces and parcels of land located and benefited within said
Zone 6 of this district and as shown on the Assessment Diagram.
G. Zone 7: The assessment for the cost of repairs, maintenance
and service for street lighting in the commercial area of •
Zone 7, as described in Resolution No,.1004 shall be spread
equally among all of the lots, pieces and parcels of landlo-
cated and benefited within said commercial area of Zone 7 of
this district and as shown on the Assessment Diagram.
• The assessment for the cost of repairs, maintenance and services
for street lighting in the residential area of Zone 7, as de-
scribed in Resolution No.1004 shall be spread equally among all
of the lots, pieces, and parcels of land located and benefited
within said residential area of Zone 7 of this district and as
shown on the Assessment Diagram.
H. Zone 8: The assessment for cost of repairs, maintenance and
services in Zone 8, as described in Resolution No.1004, shall
be spread equally among all of the lots, pieces and parcels
of land located and benefited within said Zone 8 of this dis-
trict and as shown on the Assessment Diagram.
•
0
•
-2-
CITY OF SARATOGA
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
COST ESTIMATE
FISCAL YEAR 1981 -82
I. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
A. Attorney's Fee:
B. Engineering:
C. Legal Notices and Incidentals:
TOTAL:
II. COST BY ZONE
$ 1,200.00
2,000.00
800.00
$ 4,000.00
A. Zone l (25 parcels - 1.280)
1. Administrative Costs: $4,000 x 1.280 = $ 51.20
2. Maintenance and Servicing:. 500.00
3. Amount of Surplus in fund: - 287.81
TOTAL $ 263.39
4. 'Assessment per parcel /year: .
$263.39 = $ 10.54
25 parcels is
B. Zone 2 (85 parcels - 4.34 %)
1.
Administrative Costs: $4,000 x 4.34%
_ $
173.60
2.
Maintenance and Servicing:
450.00
3.
Amount of Surplus /in fund:
-
145.11
TOTAL
$
478.49
4.
Assessment per parcel /year:
$478.49
85 parcels -
$
5.62
C. Zone 3 (167 parcels - 8.530)
1.
Administrative Costs: $4,000 x 8.530 =
$
341.20
2.
Maintenance and Servicing:
800.00
3.
Amount of Surplus in fund:
-
395.73
TOTAL
$
745.47
4.
Assessment per parcel /year:
- $745.47
167 parcels =
$
4.46
II. 'COST BY ZONE (continued)
D. Zone 4 (677 parcels - 34.590)
• 1. Administrative Costs: $4,000 x 34.590 =
2. Service Charges for Street Lights
Under P.G.& E. LS -1 schedule
a.) 93 - 70 W - HPSV @ $34.42 =
b.) 11 - 100 W - HPSV @ $96.37 =
c.) 4 - 200 W - HPSV @ $134.33 =
3. Amount of Deficit in fund:
•
•
TOTAL
$ 1,383.60
$ 7,851.06
$ 1,060.07
$ 537.32
+$ 1,719.92
$12,551.97
4.
Assessment per parcel /year:
Costs: $4,000 x 3.320
= $
132.80
$12,551.97
Service Charges
for Street Lights
677 parcels
= $
18.54
E. Zone 5 (107 parcels - 5.470)
1.
Administrative Costs: $4,000 x 5.470
= $
218.80
2.
Service Charges for Street Lights
Amount of Deficit
in fund:
+$
Under P.G.& E. LS -1 schedule
TOTAL
a.) 19 - 70 W - HPSV @ $84.42
= $
1,603.98
Assessment per
b.) 2 - 100 W - HPSV @ $96.37
= $
192.74
3.
Amount of Deficit in fund:
+$
261.56
TOTAL:
$
2,277.08
4.
Assessment per parcel /year:
$2,277.08
107 parcels =
$
21.28
F. Zone 6 (65 parcels- 3.42 %)
1.
Administrative
Costs: $4,000 x 3.320
= $
132.80
2.
Service Charges
for Street Lights
Under P.G.& E.
LS -1 schedule
a.) 26 - 70 W -
HPSV @ $84.42
= $
2,194.92
3.
Amount of Deficit
in fund:
+$
57.12
TOTAL
$
2,384.84
4.
Assessment per
parcel /year:
$2,384.84
65 parcels
= $
36.68
II. COST BY ZONE (continued)
G. Zone 7
(816 parcels - 41.70 %)
1. Commercial Area (77 parcels
- 3.94 %)
a.)
Administrative Costs:
$4,000 x 3.94%
_ $
157.60
b.,)
Service Charges for
Street Lights
a.) Administrative Costs:.$4,000 x 37.76% =
$
1,510.40
Under P.G.& E. LS- l.schedule
b.) Service Charges for Street Lights
1.) 60 - 70W - HPSV
@ $84.42
= $
5,065.20
1.) 45 - 70W - HPSV @ $84.42 =
2.) 3 - 100W- HPSV
@ $96.37
= $
289.11
+$
3.) 11 - 200W- HPSV
@ $134.33
= $
1,477.63
c.)
Amount of Deficit in
fund:
+
132.36
TOTAL $ 7,121.90
n
U
U
i�
U
d.) Assessment per parcel /year:
$7,121.90
77 parcels
$
92.50
2.
Residential Area (739 parcels - 37.76 %)
a.) Administrative Costs:.$4,000 x 37.76% =
$
1,510.40
b.) Service Charges for Street Lights
Under P.G.& E. LS -1 schedule
1.) 45 - 70W - HPSV @ $84.42 =
$
3,798.90
c.) Amount of Deficit in fund:
+$
1,269.80
TOTAL
$
6,579.10
d.) Assessment per parcel /year:
$6,579.10 =
$
8.90
739 parcels
H. Zone 8 (15 parcels - 0.77 %)
1.
Administrative Costs: $4,000 x 0.770 =
$
30.80
2.
Maintenance and Servicing:
$
3,500.00
3.
Lighting:
$
275.00
4.
Amount of Surplus in fund:
-$
3,081.83
TOTAL
$
723.97
5.
Assessment per parcel /year:
$ 723.97
15 parcels =
$
48.26
n
U
U
i�
U
•
•
LJ
III. Summary
ASSESSMENT
ZONE
NO. OF
PARCELS
% OF
TOTAL
S PRELIMINARIL
APPROVED
AS CC}NFIR;�)IED
1
25
1.280
$ 263.39
$
2
85
4.340
$ 478.49
$
3
167
8.53%.
$ 745.47
$
4
677
34.59%
$ 12,551.97
$
5
107
5.470
$ 2,277.08
$
6
6.5
3.32%
$ 2,384.84
$
7
77 (can)
3.94%
$ 7,121.90
$
7
739 (res)
37.76%
$ 6,579.10
$
8.
15
0.77%
$ 723.97
$
TOTALS: 1,957 100.00% $ 33,126.21 $
CITY OF SA,,
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTI :: II'T LI.A -1
DESCRIPTION
a) The construction or installaticI-,
,ing the main —aanee or
servicing, or- both, thereof, wi 1 . i ,
!s 1, 2 and :i as here ir-
after described, of landscapinc;; :;
ag ,trees, shru'os,
grass, or other ornamental vege _ . ..
statuary, founlair..s
other ornamental structures and :' ..
..es, including tt�i^ cc -L
L
of repair, removal or replacemc :'
or any dart iereo`,
providing for the life, groat "h, '.;:.
:.,u01 beauty of la;,d --
scaping, including cultivation,
on, trimming,
fertilizing or treating for di :, = .,
njuryq thn r �mava.l
trimmings, rubbish, debris and
i w6t -5te, aZte. o ;-
•
irrigation of any .landscaping,
ti.on of any fc:Latai:.:
or the maintenance of any othe)
;cn::s.
b1 The construction or install.a'.;ir :.
ng irc.. rnaintenz_nce e ::
cery �. i.ng, or. both, thereof, t1 .'... ;
s J 5, 6 and i, as
her:e-�.I;�,,fter described, of publ. *..
-Iq fa Iit_cs_ f01: tbC.
lighti. ig of any public places, ... _.
Ij ornU;ae iltal ^t4rcas�d s,
luminaAres, poles, supports,
ant,ol.es, vaults,
condui3:s, pipes, wires, condu:,
:, stubs, platfor:rus.
braces, transformers, insul:ato
.:ts, swltc; r_
-c,
capacitors, meters, coramunica�;.,
t s . appli.anc. s,
attachmentr> and appurtenance z,
cosc of rc :ni_,
removal, of replacement of Iq11. ..
art t he eof,
current or energy, gas or ot:h
:i :.ny agent for any
Public Lighting facilities'6i
inq o.; c�rr t.ic;
any other improvements.
4
C) The construction or'installation, including the maintenance or
•
servicing, or both, thereof, within Tone 8 as hereinafter
described,
of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or
other ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other
ornamental structures and facilities and public lighting
facilities for the.lighting of any public places, including
ornamental standards, luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels,
manholes, vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys,
stubs,<,platforms, braces, transformers, insulators, contacts,
switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits,
'9 Iappiicances, attachments and appurtenances, including the cost
of repair, "removal or replacement of all or any part thereof,
providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of land-
scaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying,
fertilizing or treating for disease or injury, the removal of
trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste, electric
current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any
.
public liq kiting fadi:lities or for the lighting or operation of
any other improvements, water for the irrigation of any
landscaping, the operation of any fountains, or the maintenance
of any other improvements.
cii�
C17-Y OF S,4.,Z?,4 7-OG,4
zz.4-1
ZO CA 77/0" M-4,0
j:
r
/-A
L
6/
L
tj /volov&
iL
Y
X
rl
X,
�l 1
,z —_ --j Ll
4�
FL
M-1 IL
�Jr7-
Zs
Q
X rZ.
It
all
el b j
Fr
1�o
,I 4372A -169a WMAM:JEB:om 04/27/81 12c
i
RESOLUTION NO. 1004 -A
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ATTORNEYS
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
. RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
California, that
WHEREAS, this Council has determined to undertake proceedings
for the levy and collection of assessments upon the several lots or
parcels of land in City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District
LLA -1 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the
construction or installation of improvements, including the maintenance
or servicing, or both, thereof for the fiscal year 1981 -1982; and
WHEREAS, the public interest and general welfare will be served
by appointing and employing attorneys for the preparation and conduct
of said proceedings;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, as follows:
1. That the law firm of WILSON MORTON ASSAF & McELLIGOTT, San
Mateo, California, be, and'it is hereby, appointed and employed to do
and perform all legal services required in the conduct of said
proceedings, and that its compensation be, and it is hereby fixed at
not to exceed $1.200.
I.. •. �: A( +n nary `.` ;.: /.!� }'...
I hereby certify that the foregoing
is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the
day of 1981, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmen:
NOES, Councilmen:
ABSENT, Councilmen:
•
9.1
•
4415A -174a
WMAM:JEB:om 04/27/81 12c
RESOLUTION NO. 1004 -B
A RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
FISCAL YEAR 1981 -1982
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
California, that
WHEREAS, on the 15th day of April, 1981, said Council did adopt
its Resolution No. 1004, Describing Improvements and Directing
Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1981 -1982 pursuant to
the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, for the City of Saratoga
Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 in said City and did refer the
proposed improvements to the Director of Public Works, and did therein
direct said Director of Public Works prepare and file with the Clerk
of said City a report, in writing, all as therein more particularly
described, under and pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972;
WHEREAS, said Director of Public Works prepared and filed with
the Clerk of said City a report in writing as called for in said
Resolution No. 1004 and under and pursuant to said Act, which report
has been presented to this Council for consideration;
WHEREAS, said Council has duly considered said report and each
and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said
report is sufficient, and that neither said report, nor any part
thereof should be modified in any respect;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED and ORDERED, as
follows:
1. That the plans and specifications for the existing improve-
ments and the proposed new improvements to be made within the
assessment district or within any zone thereof, contained in said
report, be, and they are hereby, preliminarily approved.
2. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total
costs and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing
thereof, and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith,
contained in said report, be, and each of them are hereby, prelimi-
narily approved.
3. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the
assessment district referred to and described in said Resolution
No. 1004 and also the boundaries of any zones therein and the lines
and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said district as
such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for
the fiscal year to which the report applies, each of which lot or
parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as
contained in said report, be, and it is hereby, preliminarily approved.
4. That the proposed assessment of the total amount of the
estimated costs and expenses of the proposed improvements upon the
several lots or parcels of land A n said district in proportion to the
estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respec-
tively, from said improvements including the maintenance or servicing,
or both, thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto, as contained
in said report, be, and they are hereby, preliminarily approved.
5. That said report shall stand as the Engineer's report for
the purpose of all subsequent proceedings to be had pursuant to said
Resolution No. 1004.
* * * * *
-2-
'
,
,
,
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a cull, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the
day of 1981, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmen:
mooa, Councilmen:
'
ABSENT, Councilmen:
City Clerk of the City of Saratoga
U Appnovoo;
—~^
Mayor
/
(aoxuL)
`
`
'
- �
�
697OA -279a :.. ,
WMAM:JEB:om 04/27/81 12c
RESOLUTION NO. 1004 —C -'
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE
LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
FISCAL YEAR 1981 - 1982
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
ro x• SL -
t
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
rK
California, as follows:
-
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 1004, Describing
Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal
._
Year 1981 -1982 for City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District
LLA -1, adopted on April 15, 1981, by the City Council of said City,
pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the Director of
Public Works of said City has prepared and filed with the Clerk of
this City the written report called for under said Act and by said
Resolution No. 1004, which said report has been submitted and
preliminarily approved by this Council in accordance with said Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED and 'ORDERED, as
follows:
1.. In its opinion the public interest and convenience require
and it is the intention of this Council to order the levy and
collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 1981 -1982 pursuant to the
provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2,
Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
€".;.
California, for the construction or installation of the improvements,
.4
_
including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more
particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto attached and by reference
incorporated herein.
•
2. The cost and expenses of said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are to be made chargeable
upon the assessment district designated as "City of Saratoga
Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 ", the exterior boundaries of
which district are the composite and consolidated area as more
particularly described on a map thereof on file in the office of the
Clerk of said City, to which reference is hereby made for further
particulars. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the
territory included in the district and of any zone thereof and the
general location of said district.
3. Said Engineer's Report prepared by the Director of Public
Worksof said City, preliminarily approved by this Council, and on file
with the Clerk of this City is hereby referred to for a full and
detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the
assessment district and any zones therein, and the proposed
assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the
district.
4. Notice is hereby giv n that Wednesday, the 3rd day of
June, 1981, at the hour f 7:30 o'clock p.m. in the regular meeting
place of said Council, City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga,
California 95070, be and the same are hereby appointed and fixed as
the time and place for a hearing by this Council on the question of
the levy and collection of the proposed assessment for the con-
struction or installation of said improvements, including the main-
tenance and servicing, or both, thereof, and when and where it will
consider all oral statements and all written protests made or filed by
any interested person at or before the conclusion of said hearing,
against said improvements, the boundaries of the proposed assessment
district and any zone therein, the proposed diagram or the proposed
assessment, to the Engineer's estimate of the cost thereof, and when
and where it will consider and finally act upon the Engineer's Report.
u;I:....
•
-2-
•
5. The Clerk of said City be, and is hereby, directed to give
notice of said hearing by causing a copy of this Resolution to be
published once in the Saratoga News, a newspaper published and
circulated in said City, and by conspicuously posting a copy thereof
upon the official bulletin board customarily used by the City Council
for the posting of notices, said posting and publication to be had and
completed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing
specified herein..
6. The office of Director of Public Works of said City be, and
is hereby designated as the office to answer inquiries regarding any
protest proceedings to be had herein, and may be contacted during
regular office hours at the City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, California. 95070 or by calling (408) 867 -3438.
MZ
t
Y RX-a' j'._'.' 1 '- YCL�'(�...`.'r�'!-?M^lvvrr..s ;ei• +�.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct
COPY of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the
day of , 1981, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmen:
NOES, Councilmen:
ABSENT, Councilmen:
APPROVED:
City Clerk of the City of Saratoga
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF SARATOGA
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1
a)
The construction or installation, including the maintenance or
servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 1, 2 and 3 as herein-
after described, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass,
or other ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other
ornamental structures and facilities, including the cost of
repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof,
providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of land-
scaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying,
fertilizing or treating for disease or injury, the removal of
trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste, water for the
irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains or
the maintenance of any other improvements.
b)
The construction or installation, including the maintenance or
servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 4, 5, 6 and 7, as
hereinafter described, of public lighting facilities for the
lighting of any public places, including ornamental standards,
luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits,
pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces,
transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters,
communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances,
including the cost of repair, removal, or replacement of all or
any part thereof, electric current or energy, gas or other
illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the
lighting or operation of any other improvements.
c)
The construction or installation, including the maintenance or
servicing, or both, thereof, within Zone 8 as hereinafter
described, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other
ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other ornamental
structures and facilities and public lighting facilities for the
lighting of any public places, including ornamental standards,
luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits,
pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces,
transformers, insulators, cop'tacts, switches, capacitors, meters,
communication circuits, applicances, attachments and
appurtenances, including the cost of repair, removal or
replacement of all or any part thereof, providing for the life,
growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation,
irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for
disease or injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and
other solid waste, electric current or energy, gas or other
illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the
lighting or operation of any other improvements, water for the
irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains, or
the maintenance of any other improvements.
EXHIBIT "A"
. CITY OF SARRIOGA
AC,, NDA BILL NO. Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: May 6, 1981
OPARnZ :. Public Works
SUBJECT: SARATOGA /SUNNYVALE ROAD BIKE LANE
Issue Summary
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Caltrans is in the process of designing a striped bike lane along both sides of Saratoga/
Sunnyvale Rd. from Prospect Rd. to Big Basin. Their design is complete except for a portion
from Marion Ave. to Brookwood Ln. Several meetings have been held with staff and Council.
Caltrans has studied many alternatives and has proposed two alternatives; 1.) terminate the
biek- lane at Marion Ave.; 2.) remove the 36" oak tree in front of Mr. Neale's property and
continue path to Saratoga Ave. This also involves removal of the most southerly oak tree in
divider. We will try to contact Mr. Neale prior to the meeting to get his feeling about the
removal of the oak tree on his frontage.. Caltrans has informed us that these are the only
viable alternatives and strongly recommends alternate #2. Caltrans would like a letter from
City Council stating their approval of one of the options Caltrans is offering.
Recommendation
Council approve alternate #2 and direct staff to notify Caltrans.
•
Fiscal Impacts None
i
Exhibits /Attachments
Cross section at Neale's 36" oak tree
Background Report
Council Action
c^�c7 So ZJ7W ,e a uN 0
!! A.I
NE ALE
xoUn/D SLOFot
G f,UUn t
EXPOSE'D' Roo TS
: ( ' t .• -, IN � .; tf � �' {� 7,.i ,� 5 it ...,,Nair jr .. ;1•a.. 'i:'f:' t,`�`,FIr�T+� r�.. : V. 1 1 r :�.�', t �- t,. . >r'� A 1 c. P
5T,a. 4 Q4 I STA. 4 -I-i4
{ i
�'1c15iln�'G 62055 - .5C -CT /ON
j
LOO k W G N6f <7.' -i
EYIST. IIt IjII
/ LV
NEALF- I RE 7,11 N, WAt.G
i {
t
! t
_ 1
I2 LAn 11,5 L A/� -
• 4 ,�; � -- ? I I 4, . it
. r —� rte; Y i i
A5PNALT CC Nt .� t
A.
oposc I _C .5S SEC "l %4/�l I i
I t
SCA
I, � I
LAND'
.. Ij I'i i.ti�;�•j !j;l';;;.;
DWG Ale) . ,?07541 -G
I. I 1 I I Ilili q
I i j I t, ; I i I! '.! i• i I� ± i j' {•I I I {! I i I I j( i 1 I + j , i
4/29/81
BACKGROUND REPORT - 460 - SARATOGA /SUNNYVALE RD. BIKE LANE
• Caltrans has prepared plans for installing a Class II bicycle lane along
Saratoga /Sunnyvale Rd. from Prospect Rd. southerly to Saratoga Ave. This
project extends beyond the Demonstration Bike Route System developed by
Saratoga in 1973.
The project engineer from Caltrans has identified problems in the design
of a Class II bicycle path on the westerly side of Saratoga /Sunnyvale Rd.
between Marion Rd. to Brookwood Ln. due to inadequate pavement width.
Their original plans indicated the removal of five to six oak trees si-
tuated in the median island would be necessary for the installation. Cal-
trans indicated if the trees were not removed, they would be forced to
terminate the Class II bicycle lane at Reid Ln. due to the earth bank along
the westerly edge of pavement.
Brian Gage, who has previously been Saratoga's horticulturist, was asked
to inspect the condition of the trees requested to be removed. He stated
several specimans had large cavities, bark damage, die back and one tree
had its roots exposed. Despite the condition mentioned, in his opinion,
the poorest tree will live at least ten years and the better specimans will
have a life expectancy of fifty years.
When Caltrans initially widened Saratoga /Sunnyvale Rd. to four lanes, the
City Council of Saratoga restricted Caltrans from removing the trees which
they now recommend removing.
A meeting with Council, Caltrans and staff from Public Works was held at
• the site. It was agreed that the oak tree in the median island nearest
Brookwood Ln. would have to be removed-if any improvements were to be done.
During this meeting, it was suggested that a Class I bicycle path be con-
structed on Mr. Neale's property between the oak tree on his frontage and
his patio. Richard Green, the design engineer for Caltrans, stated if
Saratoga acquired right -of -way from Mr. Neale, Caltrans would design a
Class I bicycle path. Councilwoman Jensen arranged a meeting between Mr.
Neale and Public Work ;,..!'which she attended. The proposal was presented to
Mr. Neale and he stated he would be willing to give Saratoga the necessary
right -of -way. Furthermore, Mr. Neale stated if a bicycle facility required
the removal of the oak tree, he would permit the oak tree to be removed.
Staff from Public Works informed Caltrans of the outcome of the meeting with
Mr. Neale and Caltrans proceeded to design a Class I bicycle path. After
several reviews and recommendations by staff, Caltrans submitted a final
design for our review. At this time, Mr. Green was transferred and a new
design engineer, Mr. Hensley, filled the position. After Mr. Hensley re-
viewed the project, he decided the Class I bicycle path was unacceptable
for the following reasons:
°Many bicyclists would not utilize the bicycle path, thus compete
with vehicles in the substandard thru lane.
°Bicycles using the,.path would re -enter the bicycle lane from behind
the embankment causing the vehicles in the outside lane to swerve
toward the inside lane in reaction to the sight of bicycles.
• Caltrans is now offering Saratoga two proposals. They are:
°Remove Mr. Neale's oak tree, trim back bank, widen the pavement.
Page 2.
BACKGROUND REPORT - 460 - SARATOGA /SUNNYVALE RD. BIKE LANE
*Do nothing in this area and terminate the bicycle lane between •
Reid Ln. and Brookwood Ln.
Both Caltrans and Public Works recommends the first proposal. We are
attempting to contact Mr. Neale to see if he still agrees to the re-
moval of the oak tree along the frontage of his property.
i
•
0
r
r
AC`'ENDA BILL NO. J
DATE: May 6, 1981
41P=4ENT: Public Works
CITY OF SARATOGA
SUBJECT: QUITO ROAD - ALLENDALE AVENUE BICYCLE FACILITY
Initial:
Dept. Hd. ,
C. Atty. 5
C 4#
C. Mgr.
Issue StmnnaYy
Plans, specifications and engineer's estimate have been prepared for the Quito Road Bicycle
Facility. A portion of the project is to install a bike lane on the northerly side of Allen-
dale Ave. from Quito Rd. to Vasonna Creek. There are two options Saratoga can choose from;
one is to follow Caltrans' guidelines and stripe a four foot lane prohibiting parking; the
other'is to implement a Bike - Route - Stripe which is a striped lane that does not prohibit
parking. The Bike Route - Stripe was developed by the Committee for Review of Demonstration
Bicycle Route System.
Public Works prefers Caltrans' bike lane for several reasons. When a car is parked in a
Bike Route - Striped, the protection the stripe is designed to provide diminishes. Also, in
order to collect TDA funds for the stripe lane, Caltrans guidelines must be met.
Recommendation
Council authorize the advertisement for bids and determine the type of striped lane, Bike
Lane or Bike Route - Stripe, on Allendale Ave.
Fiscal Impacts
Saratoga is funded $14,300
The engineer's estimate is
$14,300. The bid proposal
the option to award any coi
through two articles of the Transportation Development Act (TDA).
$15,100. Saratoga must pay the difference between low bid and
has split the project in three (3) phases. This allows Saratoga
nbination of phases to stay within the $14,300 budgeted.
Exhibits /Attachments
A. Map of project
B. Definition of phases
C. Bid proposal with cost estimate
Council Action
•
Q v/ f-o Fc/ -,q / /e�ldb/e A v ZlcJe /e F cell; ,I .
0
�3ikE �fh
f Q ►/el7 Woos/ Ur-
r
c
I
0
r,
Qvi fo /1 7 -mil / (617c/G /e Y �cyC /e /,Cc
0
1 �P4;M-C T44 P. t: E� �^ /r(e
`
Alle- 1-7dI /e A v^
�PHAs%-FTWO
1{
O
Bike F�;ffi
�
Bike f�;dl� I I
'PHASE ONE
I
1 �
Ao ve/) woocl Ur
I) Phase I - Ravenwood Drive to STA 3 +88 on Allendale Avenue
ITEM
CONTRACT
UNIT
ITEM WITH PRICE WRITTEN
UNIT
AMOUNT
1
QUANTITY
L.S.
IN WORDS
PRICE
AMOUNT
1
2
1225
Clearing and Grubbing
Const. Asphalt Bike Path
@ $ /S.F
�2)000
.1
L.S'.
L.S.
@ $ /L.S.
2. .)00O
u°i o, =9
2
4
Ea.
Const. Handicap Ramps
@
-$ C100
Ea.
@ Reflective Markers
$ /Ea.
`j,00
45-0,00
$ /Ea.
3,(000
Six inch solid & six inch
1765
L.F.
Const. Asphalt Bike Path
X1,55
1059.00
3
3260
S.F.
@ $ /S.F.
'
5053
Remove aHd Rep ace V-
4
54
L.F.
Curb and Gutter
}!I
p
@ white stripe $ /L.F
Painted Messages & Painted
+ ,UU ..
110:00
@
TOTAL
I I) h I.Oo
II) Phase II - Allendale Avenue from STA 4 +24 to STA 7 +00
ITEM
CONTRACT
QUANTITY
UNIT
ITEM WITH PRICE WRITTEN
IN WORDS
UNIT
PRICE
AMOUNT
1
L.S.
L.S.
Clearing and Grubbing
@ $ /L.S
.)
I)UOp
AMOUNT
1
2
1225
S.F.
Const. Asphalt Bike Path
@ $ /S.F
;
2,20
?w=1:i
1195
TOTAL
yellow barrier stripe
$ /L.F
III) Phase III - Striping of Allendale Avenue from STA 0 +35
to STA 11 +60
t
IT111
CONTRACT
UNIT
ITEM WITH PRICE WRITTEN
UNIT
QUANTITY
IN.WORDS ;,..
: PRICE.
AMOUNT
1
Remove & Replace Double
�,
1195
L.F.
yellow barrier stripe
$ /L.F
i 5 ..
u°i o, =9
Remove & Replace Type D
2
90
Ea.
@ Reflective Markers
$ /Ea.
`j,00
45-0,00
3
Six inch solid & six inch
1765
L.F.
dashed white stripe
tO
1059.00
@ $ /L.F
'
4
Remove & Replace 8" solid
140
L.F.
@ white stripe $ /L.F
Painted Messages & Painted
+ ,UU ..
110:00
5
L.S.
L.S.
@ ArrowsI
$ /L.S
6
10.5
Ton
Asphalt Concrete Conforms
@ $
7-97,S7-)
/Ton
TOTAL
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
TOTAL - Phase I $ Z1,fZ1ZJ
TOTAL - Phase II $ 3 6,9S00
TOTAL - Phase III $
GRAN TOTAT, n P, 74A, J:J
it � `. � . '+t .i ae Y i�• � _ :1;St.3'` "
v
i
AGENDA BILL NO. 6
DATE: May 6, 1981
01' 111
Public Works
CITY OF SAIUUIXA i
Initial:
Dept. Hd . §ti •
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECr: Traffic Signal Request at Prospect/Lyle,
Issue Stnnary On the evening of March 25, 1981, a Prospect High School student was struck
and killed while crossing Prospect Road and English Drive. This tragedy has resulted in a
request to the Council to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Prospect Road/
Lyle Drive /Prospect High School parking lot entrance.
In 1975, City of Saratoga staff was prepared to support the installation of a traffic.signal
at this location if the school district would participate in accordance with the condition of
the site approval for Prospect High School, i.e., pay a proportional share of such installation.
They would not. The City of San Jose was also prepared to participate.
Recommendation Council reaffirm the City position to participate to the extent of its
proportional share of the cost of this installation, if the Campbell Union High School Dis-
trict and the City of San Jose do likewise. Direct staff to so inform those jurisdictions.
•
Fiscal Impacts $100,000+ Total Cost
$ 25,000+ (25 %) City 9), Saratoga
$ 25,000+ (25 %) Campbell School District
$ 50,000+ (50 %) City of San Jose
E-hibits /Attachments
Background report with attachments relative to school site approval conditions.
Council Action
•
r
n
r,
0.
Q1 0&MIZUQX5&0
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 4/8/81
COUNCIL MEETING: 4/15/81
SUBJECT * Prospect /Lyle Traffic Signal
Background:
In March, 1967, Prospect High School was given Tentative Site Approval by
the City with a condition to "Pay proportional cost of signal installation
on Prospect Avenue, opposite Lyle Drive, if shown to be necessary by En-
gineering Traffic Study and required by Director of Public Works." This
condition was appealed and upheld by the City Council in April, 1967. Fina�
Site Approval was given in May, 1967 including this condition.
The School District, in January, 1968, exempted itself from the City's Zoning
Ordinances (see attached correspondence). As a result of litigation, the
School District conformed to all conditions other than the above and one other.
In 1973, a warrant study was made by the City of San Jose and transmitted to
me with the indication that the City of San Jose questioned the installation
of signals. Saratoga staff also questioned such installation.
In January, 1975, a new warrant study was made showing essentially the same
data as in 1973. The City of San Jose submitted a cooperative agreement for
our approval. After several discussions with the City of San Jose, Saratoga
staff agreed to support Saratoga's participation in the signal if the School
District would pay their proportional share in accordance with the site appro-
val conditions, even though the signal was not substantially warranted. In
April, 1975, the School District was advised of this position. It was not
until March of 1977 that the School District Attorney, Wade Hover, trans-
mitted a copy of the District's January 12, 1968 letter advising the City.
that the District had exempted themselves from these requirements.
There has been no further activity or discussion of signalization of the inter-
section of Prospect and Lyle since that date, until the fatal pedestrian acci-
dent which recently occurred at the intersection of Prospect and English.
•
Robe t S. Shook
Director of Public Works
RSS /dsc
El
•
L'
WADE H. HOVER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Kam.: ? :; 3 .T.- �_ � . C".•-�.; F -•a 7
•,: _� ,�_.:.k is }�•� f��
r;�iYr Zr „ti;ti:i!�
Mr. Greg Moeller
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
1605 THE ALAMEDA
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95126
(408) 297 -4731
March 10, 1977
RE: Campbell Union High School District
Dear Greg:
Please find enclosed a copy of the notification
letter delivered to the City of Saratoga on January 12,
1968.-
It is my understanding that the City of Saratoga
and the District thereupon entered into certain litigation
processes regarding item B of the Building Site Committee
Report which was settled when the State of California
offered to advance funds for construction. That litigation
did not affect the District's determination that item J and
item -K were unacceptable.
`:
Very truly yours,
Wad��Hov� er''”
WHH:lgm
cc .. James K. Gillespie,
Assistant Superintendent,
Campbell Union High School District
V CUBILL NOR HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
LAURANCE J. HILL, o1[rR1aTw►[wlN�atao[Nr
C7.1 —
E. M. ARENDS. PR[.IoaNr
W.L. MURPHY, CLaRR .
DOROTHYGOBLE
W.N. LLOYD
V.R. RUTLEN
J=uary 12, 1%0
City Camcil
City of 13 L=toga
3arato a, Callrorrda
Cantlem It
BLACKFORD HIGH SCHOOL
VIMOUN ►. ROME R. PRINCIPAL
BRANHAM HIGH SCHOOL
•UNL 161.0[. PRINCIPAL
CAMDEN HIGH SCHOOL
JANaa M, CNAw /ORD. PRINCIPAL
CAMPBELL HIGH SCHOOL
0009MT M. CULP. PRINCIPAL
DEL MAR HIGH SCHOOL
OIOROI MI[RULIN. PRINCIPAL
LEIGH HIGH SCHOOL
•Taw ART FOWLER. PRINCIPAL
WESTMONT HIGH SCHOOL
C. WARREN CONRAD, PRINCIPAL
WILLIAMS HIGH SCHOOL
WARM OUIRRA. PRINCIPAL
octrt� �-
,,W�M M /_
Ploz � oo bo Mzod that at u o;xci:Z. moti of
J. nu zy 2, ] ;'GAL, the I o,—d of iyu:.t,ms of t!io
Url as I'_i Zh School District lrj m;-- L-mu: vot'o pi col a
Rcr.alul.im o.��c�_�t:iii t?iv school c:i.c►tHict A= the City
os Sarno a l s zor_in c:-,U anco.
Tliia action wao takan in accor' Taco id.th C::LUorrdA
C�nrc=rx--'t Codo S ccticn 53094, tl:o 1�cx=d ra a=- -L-Z tho
City or Saratoga l c Lc..`xLii ; ord.1 m::nco to tha
pro, -=ol us-o of tho cchool +iiotrictic p.mpa ry loc.Aod
at the
, eoTuth�- �+��:+tx.,z -n cor:,,c: or tho Sntc=^ Lion o�^ ttwnect
II ejul "-.- �. a I"r azi as the .FtEoc"�C?C� t IIj,Ch
Schoa alit*, y=E 'pprm -q 0 UP- 122.
Sincem-ly,
It= awm J. IMU
Di; trict Suporintaideat
M
cc: Mr. Stephenson, County Counsel
Delivered in hand on January 12, 3.968
by S
r--v I
�C
n
LJ
sl ��
Witness •
BUSINESS OFFICE: ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE: WAREHOUSE . CORP. YARD
275 E. CAMPBELL AVENUE 1224 DEL MAR AVENUE 80 W. LATIMER AVENUE
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
PLEASE ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO 275 E. CAMPBELL AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
FA
May 5, 1967 .
Mr. Laurance J. dill
District Superintendent
Campbell Union High School District
1945 Winchester Blvd.
Campbell, California
Dear Mr. Hill:
Please be advised that the City Council of Saratoga, at the
meeting; of May 3, 1967, granted your request for final siSht
approval subject to the conditions imposed by the Planning
Commission and enumerated in the Building Site Comnittee
Report of starch 13, 1967.
We are enclosing four copies of the Building Site Approval
Agreement for execution upon authorization of your Board of
Trustees.
Please sign and -return three copies to this office.
Very truly yours,
JAMBS R. HUFF
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
JRH /myr
cc: Slade Hover, The Alameda Bldg., 1541 The Alameda
Faber L. Johnston, Jr., First National Bank Bldg., San Jose
0
April 18, 1967
Mr. Laurance J. Hill
D'st_ =c'_ Superintendent
Caa lobell Union High School District
1545 Y11in chester Blvd.
C- i"ZIPbell, California.
Re: SDR -675
Dear ?�.r. Hill:
Please be advised a.f:at the City Coll nc? 1 -of SaraL.oga, at its
mee -ing Of A3:)'-4 -1 5, 1967, affirmed "i.h2 conditions o'f anpLOVal
of your tentative map as imposed by the Planning c=,.:.ission on
mare=. 13, 1567, including cond -tions 21 -B. II -J, and i% -IC
C risag_eerzrW_th h-Lch you registered spe ci i in your letter
of iezrucry 27,.1967.
1 = ::aS C0 1e to our at -e ,tJLc n ti at you are now cdvert si_-ig for
bids _Or Coast - suction on the s:,'`e • �- We are very glad to v e
J
iY?i s eV=.C;E._ce Of vo3 Y conce rn to Cxo^u+te 1-his CoiiStrilc'Ci o:.,
so this facility clill� i e available to serve the cox„-nuni-y Gt
the l%4_"i1l°_St possli ble time.
In an effort. to do everything Wit -hi.n our power to insure expe-
ditious co,m encement a::,d subsequent- comp? etior of this _oro j ect,
we wish to advise that final site apprOV2.l required by our Sub -
divis:ion ordinance is a neces azy prerequisite to b: ginning
cc::struction on the site.
To assist L's in processing your application for
approval, please affirm by letter, on or before
your intent- to _eauest final site approval from
^i:is ti:-� i:g of your request Wilt per;,jit us to -
cation for final site approval on the agenda of
ing on may 4, 1967.
final Site
April 28, 1967,
our City Council.
zclude your appli-
the Council meet-
Very truly yours-,
JRr/g /J. R. IiJF'r ,i
City AG:;ii nistrator.
a
•
�i
:XCJRPJRATE.D 1956 \`.Y1i /�
13777 FRUITVALE.
AVENUE,
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
April 18, 1967
Mr. Laurance J. Hill
D'st_ =c'_ Superintendent
Caa lobell Union High School District
1545 Y11in chester Blvd.
C- i"ZIPbell, California.
Re: SDR -675
Dear ?�.r. Hill:
Please be advised a.f:at the City Coll nc? 1 -of SaraL.oga, at its
mee -ing Of A3:)'-4 -1 5, 1967, affirmed "i.h2 conditions o'f anpLOVal
of your tentative map as imposed by the Planning c=,.:.ission on
mare=. 13, 1567, including cond -tions 21 -B. II -J, and i% -IC
C risag_eerzrW_th h-Lch you registered spe ci i in your letter
of iezrucry 27,.1967.
1 = ::aS C0 1e to our at -e ,tJLc n ti at you are now cdvert si_-ig for
bids _Or Coast - suction on the s:,'`e • �- We are very glad to v e
J
iY?i s eV=.C;E._ce Of vo3 Y conce rn to Cxo^u+te 1-his CoiiStrilc'Ci o:.,
so this facility clill� i e available to serve the cox„-nuni-y Gt
the l%4_"i1l°_St possli ble time.
In an effort. to do everything Wit -hi.n our power to insure expe-
ditious co,m encement a::,d subsequent- comp? etior of this _oro j ect,
we wish to advise that final site apprOV2.l required by our Sub -
divis:ion ordinance is a neces azy prerequisite to b: ginning
cc::struction on the site.
To assist L's in processing your application for
approval, please affirm by letter, on or before
your intent- to _eauest final site approval from
^i:is ti:-� i:g of your request Wilt per;,jit us to -
cation for final site approval on the agenda of
ing on may 4, 1967.
final Site
April 28, 1967,
our City Council.
zclude your appli-
the Council meet-
Very truly yours-,
JRr/g /J. R. IiJF'r ,i
City AG:;ii nistrator.
a
•
�i
•
13 March 1967
BUILDING SITE COMMITTEE REPORT
SDR 7675 - Campbell Union H.S. District - 1 Lot - Prospect Road
The Building Site Committee recommends approval of the tentative map for
SDR -675 (Exhibit "A ", filed 7 February 1967) subject to the conditions set
forth below:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance
NS -5, including without limitation the submission of a Record of Survey
or a Parcel Map, payment of storm drainage fee as established by ordi-
nance in effect at the time of tentative approval, submission of engi-
neered improvement plans for any street work and compliance with appli-
cable Health Department and Flood Control District regulations. Reference
is hereby made to said ordinance for further particulars. Site approval
in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordi-
nances, nor with any other ordinance of the City. In addition thereto,
applicant shall comply with the following specific conditions which are
hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 5.1, Part Three, of
Ordinance NS -5.
SII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee of $600.00 per gross acre before time of final
approval.
B. Dedicate and improve Prospect Road to provide for a 60 -foot half- street.
C. Access allowed across median shall be limited to one opening opposite
Lyle Drive with turning radii and drive approach as approved by Director
of Public Works.
D. Move utilities (poles, pipes, etc.) as may be required.
E. Provide underground utilities.
F. Convey drainage water'-to street, storm sewer or watercourse in accord with
Storm Drain Master Plan.
G. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or
prevent flow.
H. Subject to Design Review..: .:::.::::r.ra
I. Bond and inspection fee to be determined from Engineered Improvement
• Plans.
J. Provide turnaround at end of Saratoga Creek Drive and Doyle Road as
approved by the Director of Public Works.
K. Pay proportional cost of signal installation on Prospect Avenue,
opposite Lyle Drive, if shown to be necessary by Engineering Traffic
Studv and required by Director of Puhlir_ Works_
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial
AGENDA BILL NO. 117 Dept. Head:
• DATE OF MEETING: May 6, 1981 City Atty.:
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation Commission City Mgr.
Community Services Department
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Gift of Senior Citizen Fitness Course for E1 Quito Park
Issue Summary
The City of Saratoga has been offered, by The Los Gatos Community Hospital and The
Gamefield Concept, a gift of a 15 station Senior Citizen "Conversation Pace" Fitness
Course to be placed in El Quito Park. The offer represents a value of $7,000
including costs of the equipment, delivery and pre- assembly of the units.
i
Recommendation
Accept the gift of a Conversation Pace Course, acknowledge donors, direct Community
Services Department to implement installation.
• Fiscal Impact
The initial cost to the City will be staff time to coordinate installation of the
pre- assembled units and preparation of several "pads" for individual locations. This
can be done within the current City budget. Estimated cost of maintenance should
not exceed $500 per year and any programs offered to use the course will be
coordinated by the present Community Center staff.
Exhibits /Attachments
Background of donation, description of Conversation Pace Course, action of the Parks
and Recreation Commission, per Commission minutes.
Council Action
•
REPORT
o1
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: GIFT OF CONVERSATION PACE COURSE
BACKGROUND OF DONATION: f
DATE: April 23, 1981
COUNCIL MEETING: May 6, 1981
Several months ago City staff were contacted by representatives of the Los
Gatos Community Hospital regarding placement of a Senior. Citizens Fitness Course
in connection with the Senior Citizens Addition to the Community Center.
• Since there is not sufficient space for this type of facility in the area of
the Community Center, staff recommended that E1 Quito Park be considered since
it not only has available space but a great number of Senior Citizens are and
will be living in the immediate vLcinity. The Los Gatos Community Hospital staff
explained they are working with cities in the area and The Gamefield Concept
Company to place this type of.fitness course in various cities and they would
be very interested in locating a facility in Saratoga. They then reviewed the
El Quito Park area and considered it an acceptable location. The City was.again
contacted and a verbal proposal was made. The staff then presented the proposal
to the Parks and Recreation Commission and received initial approval from the
Commission to continue negotiations.with the Hospital and Gamefield. This was
done .and the City has now received an official proposal from the Los Gatos
Community Hospital and The Gamefield Concept.
DESCRIPTION OF COURSE:
The Conversation Pace Course is a 15 station fitness course geared for Senior
Citizens. It is called Conversation Pace because it is designed to be a healthy
physical experience to be used on a regular basis while renewing old friendships
and cultivating new ones. The purpose is to walk, talk and enjoy fresh air while
obtaining physical benefits. Attached is a picture description outlining each
station. It is designed so that the first through fifth stations are warm -up,
station numbers six through ten are the most strenous and stations eleven through
fifteen are for slow down and cool off purposes. Each individual may participate
at their own pace and as many repetitions as they would like. The course includes
Report to Mayor and City Council
Council Meeting: May 6, 1981
Page Two
a sign giving overall instructions at the start as well as instruction signs
at each station. Several pictures are attached to show you the appearance
of the equipment and several of the stations. Each sign will contain the name
of Los Gatos Community Hospital and The Gamefield logo, no other advertising
will be allowed.
The Hospital and Gamefield staff will provide the curriculum prepared by
Stanford University, as well as a fitness package to assist Seniors using the
course. They will also provide initial training sessions to which Seniors,
hospital and City staff will be invited to attend. Each participant may obtain
an individual fitness package with instructions, measurement and progress card.
It is staff's intention that following the initial training programs this
individual packet will be available for people at the Community Center.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ACTION
i;
The Parks and Recreation Commission was informed of this potential proposal
at their meeting in February, 1981 and they were highly in favor of staff
continuing negotiations._ Following receipt of a.letter from The Gamefield
Concept in late March informing the City ..that the site of El Quito Park had
been approved and that Los Gatos Community Hospital had been able to raise
the necessary funds, the entire concept was again presented to the Parks and
Recreation Commission at their meeting in April 1981.
The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that the City accept the
donation of the Fitness Course and that the City staff work with Gamefield
Concept people to determine location prior to presenting a recommendation to
City Council. This has been accomplished and the Commission will at their
meeting on May 4th, determine and approve the location for each fitness station
and a diagram showing this will be available for your review at the Council
Meeting. The Commission also had questions about the maintenance of the
individual stations, the potential for vandalism and the cost of replacement.
Staff has carefully reviewed with Gamefield the manner in which the courses are
put together and are satisfied that the vandalism should not be a tremendous
factor. As you can see from the attached pictures, the items are made in a
very sturdy fashion.
Staff and members of the Commission will be available at your meeting to answer
any questions you might have on this subject.
•
Barbara Sampson •
Director of Community Services
Secretary to Parks and Recreation Commission
Walking for daily activity is
the theme of the Conversa-
tion Pace Gamefield. It was
designed for senior citizens,
and in this context it offers
not only a major attraction
for an entirely overlooked
segment of our society, but
a pleasant experience to
be used on a regular basis
while building old friend-
ships and cultivating
new ones.
Exercise is not the focus
of this circuit, conversation
is!! We feel that the spirit of
this program provides its
character and the physio-
logical and psychological
benefits to some extent,
are a byproduct of its main
thrust, which is simply
WALKING AND TALKING
while enjoying the fresh air,
the outdoors, and good
company.
This program will also have
tremendous application in a
variety of novel settings. So
look for Conversation Pace
Gamefields to relieve stress
from business, to provide a
diversion for visitors and
kids waiting around hospi-
tals, and for your road to
recovery after illness.
STRESS RELEASE
PREVIEW
Begins periferal
blood circulation,
relaxes the muscles,
and provides a base
for the workout to
follow.
1`
CHAIR UPS
Abdominal game.
STRESS RELEASE
CLOSING
The last game
quiets the system
after the exertion,
and provides a
moments relaxation.
Page 14
I M . J
SLALOM REACH
Here the muscles
begin to receive oxy-
gen and light activ-
ity to warm the body
up. The oblique
muscles are also
stretched and toned
here.
SIDE JUMP
Coordination and
agility game.
Thanks for playing
the Gamefield.
HALF SQUAT
This game stretches
the leg muscles and
Improves lower
body flexibility.
PUSH UPS
Builds upper arm
and chest muscles.
SIDE TWIST
The twisting action
stretches the trunk
muscles.
FREE HANG
Full body stretch.
(ALTERNATE)
KNEE UPS
Abdominal and
breathing game.
I�
FINGER WALK
Provides a complete
body stretch.
(ALTERNATE)
ACHILLES
STRETCH
Provides an achllles
stretch.
BLOCK WALK
Balance game.
Page 15
DOUBLE STEP
This game works
the leg muscles and
strengthens the
heart.
HEEL AND TOE
WALK
Foot flexibility and
strengthening
game.
4*J
CIRCLE HURDLES
Coordination and
knee -up game.
l,. - .
POLE CLIMB
Trunk stretch.
. r
Pater. �- R ec.Q�arau �J+�M�ss�a►►� u►►�.��s
A Pa%L vu AA100?0V190)
B. REVIEW OF THE GAMEFIELD CONCEPT PROPOSAL FOR CONVERSATION PACE
FITNESS COURSE-TO..BE-BUILT IN EL QUITO PARK
A donation of this recreational walking circuit is being offered by
The Gamefield Concept through the Los Gatos Community Hospital. The
FITNESS COURSE
$7000 gift includes the $5000 price, tax, delivery, and preassembly of
EL QUITO PARK
the course. After discussion, the Commission consensus was that this
will be a desirable addition. Staff will convey to Gamefield the Com-
mission's interest, and will ask Gamefield representatives to come to
Saratoga to meet with staff and walk the area to determine the partic-
ular location. Chairman Terry felt that the proposal should be presente(
to City Council based on a specific location, and the Commissioners will
participate in this meeting if possible. This will also be an opportun-
ity to learn how substantial the construction would be, and if it would
constitute a maintenance problem.
C. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL RE: JAPAN BAMBOO SOCIETY OF SARATOGA FOR
BAMBOO GROVE AT HAKONE GARDENS
The Commission toured the area and saw the proposed site for the bamboo
JAPAN BAMBOO
grove on March 14. There was some discussion of this proposal, and the
SOCIETY PROPOSAL
Commission consensus was to recommend.that City Council consider the
proposal for the i ni ti al area. It will take about two years to get a
bamboo stand established, and during this time the Commission can deter-
mine whether the Bamboo Society can continue the maintenance activities.
After a few years the question of possible expansion of the grove can
be considered.
•
COMMISSION AND STAFF REPORTS
A. REPORT FROM REPRESENTATIVES ATTEND.I.NG;GENERAL PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEETINGS
Commissioners Price and Buchan reported on the meeting for Area F,
Kentfield, which they attended. The feeling which came across at this
meeting was that people were not in favor of parks. Dogs in all the
parks is a major problem. There was a suggestion that Gardiner Park
GENERAL PLAN
be closed at sunset, and that a park rules sign be reinstalled. Chair -
REVIEW COMMITTEE
man Terry attended the Area G, Sobey Road, meeting. Trials were briefly
MEETINGS
discussed but were not a major issue at this meeting. Chairman Terry
also reported on the Area B, Congress Springs- Pierce Road, meeting.
Wildwood Park was recognized as a problem area in the past, and there
was a comment that the park should be turned into a parking lot. He felt
that on the whole, however, there was support for Wildwood Park. The
future and the zoning of the Saratoga Horticultural Foundation site was
discussed. Councilmember Clevenger commented about the Area J, Village,
meeting. She felt that despite complaints about Wildwood Park, there is
support for it but no interest in expanding the park.
B. REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTION RE: JOHNSTON PARCEL ADJACENT TO WILDWOOD PARK
Several months ago the Planning Commission had recommended that the
Johnston parcel be considered for a General Plan change; Council denied '
JOHNSTON PARCEL
the request and referred it to the General Plan Review Committee. A
representative for Mr. Johnston wrote to Council requesting reconsidera-
tion based upon an item in the property deed that it would not become
•
y CITY OF SAIZATOGA
j --
AGENDA BILL NO. %, Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: May 6, 1981
SPEPAM=: Public Works
----------------------------------------------------------
SUB, =: Petition re: Fruitvale Ave. at Alondra
C.
C. Mgr.
Issue Summary
Residents of Fruitvale Ave. and Alondra Lane have petitioned to have the
vertical alignment of Fruitvale Ave. changed to improve sight distance.
Recommendation
Refer to Public Works staff to review and report back to Council relative
to complying with request and the associated costs.
Fiscal Impacts
Unknown at this time
E: chibi is /Attachrrents
Petition
Council Action
i
/I
U i�:.c- Wiz-..,
TO: CITY OF SARATOGA
FROM: RESIDENTS OF FRUITVALE AVENUE AND ALONDRA LANE
r UP
if "IF
We would like to bring to the attention of the city d1~ Saratoga our concern
because of the vertical alignment of the road of Fruitvale Avenue causing a sight
distance problem_.at the location of Fruitvale Avenue and Alondra Lane. It is very
difficult to see any cars coming up Fruitvale Avenue toward Los Gatos — Saratoga Rd.
at this location causing property owners leaving their driveways on Fruitvale
Avenue as well as all cars entering Fruitvale Avenue from Alondra Lane a sight
distance problem. We have many children living in these locations crossing the
street and this we feel is of great concern unless extreme caution is taken.
We would like for city officials to count the traffic from West Valley College
day and night which uses Fruitvale Avenue and also to consider the additional
traffic- the post office when completed will impose upon Fruitvale. Fruitvale Ave. 0
has become a very, very busy streeto Valley Vista Dr. is also affected by a sight
problem.
We feel the vertical grade of Fruitvale Avenue at this location should be
corrected so the slope of the grade will allow those people leaving their driveways
from Fruitvale Avenue as well as those people entering Fruitvale Avenue from Alondra
Lane to be able to see cars coming up the grade towards Saratoga —Los Gatos Road.
The city of Saratoga's prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated!
KI
ZZ
7 �
y4
.r y - �• -
J
c f.
•
AGENDA BILL NO:
CITY OF SARATOGA
A
Initial:
Dept. Head: yam.
DATE: May 6, 1981 City Atty
DEPARTMENT': Community Services City Mgr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -'
SUBJECT: Re-Roofing of the Civic Theatre
Issue Summar
At the April lst meeting Council authorized the call for bids for the re- roofing of
the Civic Theatre Building. The project was appropriately advertised, contractors
notified and four contractors checked out bid specification's'./-Only one contractor,
California Roofing, submitted the necessary Affirmative Action Program and bid.
Recommendation
Approve supplemental appropriation of $3,173 from Revenue Sharing Fund for the re-
0 Roofing Project.
Award contract for Proposal I, complete re- roofing of the Civic Theatre, to California
Roofing Company in the amount of $20,173.
Fiscal Impact
The 1980 -1981 Capital Improvement Program allocates $17,000 in Revenue Sharing for this
Project. The difference between the estimate and bid amount can be attributed to
inflation that has occurred since the estimate was completed in April 1980 and further
deterioration of the roof which took place during the rainy season during this last
winter.
Exhibits /Attachments
Background report on need for roofing, cost estimates and bid process.
Council Action
is
•
Yx 4 w
R7' s
s O ` f
�47
M
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT Re-Roofing of The Civic Theatre
Need For Roofing Project
DATE:
COUNCIL MEETING
April 30, 1981
May 6, 1981
The roof of the Civic Theatre is the original roof, done when the building was
constructed in 1964. It has been patched on.many occasions and has deteriorated
to the point where it is no longer possible to simply repair certain areas.
Because the roof is in such bad condition, staff requested the bidders to present
two proposals, one for complete replacement of the roof and a second proposal to
place a new roof over the old.
Cost Estimates
In February or March 1980, when staff were preparing estimates for the Capital
Improvement Program of the 80 -81 budget, several roofing companies were contacted
regarding estimates for the re- roofing project for the Civic Theatre. The
estimates were submitted by several companies and the City determined the appropriate
amount necessary to re —roof the building.would.be in the neighborhood of $15,000.
An inflation factor was added since it was determined the project would not be
put to bid before the Fall.1.9.80.
The difference between the final estimate and the actual bid can be attributed to
inflation, further deterioration of the roof caused during the winter, and a
delay in the bidding process created by the time of budget approval, a vacancy
in the Government Buildings Foreman Position and re- prioritizing the projects of
the.Director of Community Services during the absence of a City Manager.
Bid Process
Bid specifications were complete immediately following Council approval of the
bidding process and the Department of Community Services submitted the appropriate
legal advertising, notified the Roofing Contractors Association and sent letters
inviting bid to roofing companies who had done work for the City before and those
• recommended by the Architect and Building Department.
Four roofing contractors took out specifications. Only California Roofing Company
submitted the required Affirmative Action Program by April 24th and submitted
Apri 1 30, 1981
Re-Roofing of The Civic Theatre
Page Two
a bid by the deadline of April 30th. Since only one bid was submitted and it
is 18.6% above the final estimate, the Council has. several options they may
wish to consider:
1) Require the Project to be completely re -bid.
2) Extend the bid deadline and inform the companies who had taken out
specifications that bids will be accepted until a later date.
3) Award contract to California Roofing as per their bid.
The Director of Community Services would not recommend Options 1 or 2.
Any further delay in this Project will undoubtedly cause a higher bid and
re- bidding will consume more staff time further increasing the City's cost.
The Director of Community Services does not hesitate in recommending that
California Roofing Company be awarded the Contract for bid of this re- roofing
project. The California Roofing Company did',Ae re- roofing project of the
Community Center three years ago, and they have helped us with several roofing
problems since. In addition, California Roofing,was one of the companies who
took the time to provide us.with estimate for this roof project.
•
The Director will be available at the meeting to answer any questions you might
have on this matter. •
Barbara Sampson, Director
Community Services Department
•
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA^ BILL NO. /, Dept. Hd . --- -
DATE: May 6, 1981 C. Att
DEPARTMENT =_ Code Enforcement 1 C. Mgr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECr: 69th Annual Memorial Day Parade
Issue Summary
The City has received written application from the Saratoga Foothill Club to hold the annual
"Foothill Club Memorial Day Parade." The parade is to be held on May 22, 1931, beginning at
9:30 a.m. at the Memorial Arch adjacent to Blaney Plaza.
There is to be a brief ceremony at the Memorial Arch and then a march /parade up Oak Street to
Madronia Cemetery. The Foothill Club requests the services of two (2) traffic control officers
for this parade. This is necessary so that the parade can safely cross State Highway #9 and
proceed up Oak Street. The Foothill Club also requests that Oak Street be closed to traffic
until after the parade has left the area. It is anticipated that the march /parade will be
completed by 10:00 a.m. when the memorial ceremony continues at the cemetery.
Reconmendation
I recommend the City Council approve this application by minute action and authorize two
Sheriff traffic units to work the parade for traffic control. City staff should then be directed
to notify applicant, in writing, of this approval.
Fiscal Impacts
The Foothill Club has requested
hour period. This is too short
minimum of three hours service.
in to work the parade. The cos
twenty cents ($29.20). In the
Exhibits /Attachments
SEE ATTACHED SHEET.
Council Action
two (2) traffic control units monitor the parade for a one -half
a time period for special reserve deputies, which require a
In the past the City has pulled the two traffic control units
t to the City for this service is twenty -nine dollars and
past the City has absorbed this expense.
Approved for 5/25, 5 -0.
vl
D
0
� A
r,
�P
N
s
_5�r4-ro % w
/9 Va- ✓7L/ e,
) 13475
P
P
�' a
Ri610 APR 22 1981
Saratoga, California
April 20, 1981
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Members of the Council:
The Memorial Day Committee of the Saratoga Foothill Club requests:
(1) permission for a "parade" which will march from the Memorial
Arch in the downtown area to Madronia Cemetery between 9:30 and
10:00 o'clock on Monday, May 22, 1981 (the new legal Memorial Day),
and (2) traffic control for this parade.
The parade will consist of representatives from the Veterans of
Foreign ears and their Ladies Auxiliary, the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts,
Campfire Girls, 4 -H Club and a band or other musical group from one
of the local schools (usually from Saratoga High School).
The ceremony at the Memorial Arch includes the placing of a symbolic
laurel wreath at its base in commeration of Saratoga's World War II
heroes whose names are engraved thereon. Fitting ceremonies will
begin at Madronia Cemetery when the "parade" reaches there -- approximately
ten o'clock, and will include the placing of laurel wreaths by the
Girl Scouts on the graves of all who have served in the defense of our
country and are buried there and an address will be given by a Captain
(Retired) from the U. S. Navy.
This Memorial Day Activity has been sponsored and coordinated by the
Saratoga Foothill Club every year since 1922. This will be the 69th
year.
We of the Committee thank you in advance for your consideration of
these requests, and will be anticipating your reply.
Yours truly,
.rs. Virgil Campbell
(member of the committee)
Mrs. Virgil Campbell
P. 0. Box 145
Saratoga, CA 95070
�1,�,�/ ��hv
� � n��
S -6
CITY OF SARATOGA
.• Initial:
AGGENDA BILL NO. �p Dept. Hd
DATE: May 8, 1981 C. Atty. �j
DEPARTMWr: City Manager C. Mgr. T
------------------------------------------ - - - - --
SUBJECT.. Modification of requirement of submittal of contractor's
Affirmative Action Plan
Issue Summary
City awarded contracts in excess of $5,000. require a bidder to submit an
Affirmative Action Plan "... no less than one week before the bid opening..."
This procedure may deter a qualified bidder from participating. It is
proposed that this requirement be modified such that the Lowest Responsible
Bidder be required to submit an acceptable Affirmative Action Plan no later
than one week subsequent to his selection as the LRB. In the event that
the original LRB cannot or will not comply, the next LRB will be selected
and given one week to submit an acceptable Affirmative Action Plan.
Reconmendation
Z
Adopt City of Saratoga Resolution No. 494 -�, amending Resolution No. 494,
and modifying City of Saratoga Affirmative Action Guidelines, as per Issue
Summary above.
Fiscal Impacts
A Reduction of time expended in the review of Affirmative Action Plans will
occur. Additionally, a greater number of bidders may participate.
Exhibits /Attachments
Council Action
Passed 4 -1 (Callon opposed).
0•'
RESOLUTION NO. 494.1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA AMENDING RESOLUTION 494, RELATIVE TO
CONTRACTOR SUBMITTAL OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PRO-
GRAM /PLAN
WHEREAS, the Saratoga City Council did on April 16, 1969, adopt
the report of the Public Welfare Committee recommending enactment of
a Saratoga Affirmative Action Fair Employment Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did on August 6, 1969, adopt Ordinance
38.31, amending the City Code by the addition of Chapter 15, relating
to Public Works contractors and non - discrimination in the performance
thereof; and
WHEREAS, said Ordinance 38.31, known as the Affirmative Action
Ordinance permits the City Council to adopt a resolution establishing
guidelines identifying the nature and scope of affirmative action de-
sired by the City, and on September 17, 1969, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 494, establishing such guidelines;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Saratoga City Council
does hereby amend those guidelines by requiring that for contracts
which shall be in excess of five thousand ($5,000.00) dollars, the
contractor determined to be the Lowest Responsible Bidder (LRB) shall
be given one week subsequent to such determination, to provide the
City Manager with an acceptable Affirmative Action Program /Plan; and,
• BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should the initially selected LRB
not provide the City Manager with an acceptable Affirmative Action
Program /Plan, within one week of such determination, then the next
lowest LRB shall be determined and given one week to submit an
acceptable Program /Plan;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that no Lowest Responsible Bidder (LRB)
will be selected and no contract will be let by the City unless an
acceptable Affirmative Action Program /Plan is submitted as outlined
herein, or on appeal, by the City Council, prior to the expiration of
one week subsequent to the selection of an LRB.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced
and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular
meeting held on the 20th day of May, 1981, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
•
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
CITY OF SARAPOGA
X!M- MA.IBILL NO. _1
DATE: May 8, 1981
:Planning
Initial: /
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBjEcr: Appeal on Approval -of Two -Story Structure at 13687 Quito Road (A -759),
-------- Appellant - Cheriel -- - - Jensen; Applicant_- Danny Ray__ __
----------- - -- ------------------- - - - - --
Issue Su mTery
On April 22, 1981, the Planning Commission granted approval for a 26' high two -story
structure after the applicant agreed to increase the side yard to 16' and reduced the
size of the structure X767 sq. ft.
Following is a brief summary of appellant's letter:
(1) Structure is incompatible with the neighborhood;
(2) Concern with reduced setbacks and question regarding Article
3.7 and 3.7 -2;
(3) Size and volume of structure
(4) General Plan objectives being violated, page 3;
�F�ar�donn,s of Urgency Ordinance not being met.
It is recommended that the City Council:
(1) Conduct a public hearing on the appeal
(2) Determine merits of appeal and approve or deny
103) Staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated.
Exhibits /Attachments
(1) Appeal Letter
(2) Minutes for the March 11, 1981 and April
(3) Staff Report dated March 6, 1981
(4) Addendum dated April 16, 1981
(5) Exhibits B, C, D and E
Council Action
14 and Sections
22, 1981 Commission meetings
• ✓'� GyN A4
8 U /�L� -.
6_20
i
April 28, 1981
• 13737 Quito Road
Saratoga, California
City Council
City of Saratoga
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to appeal the decision *of the Planning Com-
mission of April 22, 1981 on the Danny Ray:.house, A -759.
I ask the Council to deny this design review.
The side yard of my home is adjacent to this house with
a 15 foot setback (10 required), and is about 5 feet below
the elevation of the Ray lot. This house would tower
over mine blocking virtually all my view of the north and
north -west sky. A normal sized house of normal single
story height would have none of these effects.
This house is 26 feet tall, is two story next to single.
story homes on two sides and contains the volume of a
house with 5100 square feet of living space and a three
car garage. They agreed to reduce the interior living
space by about 700 square feet but_-..d:eclined-to reduce the
• external volume claiming that they would "wall off "a•por -
tion of the upstairs floor.
The upstairs contains a full.kitchen. The house appears
to be a duplex.in a single family residential neighborhood.
(There are only three people in this family.).
They have claimed the right to use a portion of the Zoning
Ordinance which provides for reduced rear yard setbacks
and altered side yard setbacks when a lot is non - conforming
as to size, width, depth,or.frontage because the depth of
the lot is 106 feet-where 115 feet is normally required,
even though the lot is well over the 20,000 square feet
required and is large enough to do a very fine design'of
considerable size without imposing in any unusual way on
the rural character of the existing neighborhood or the
light and air of the neighbors.
They would ordinarily be required to provide a 35 foot
setback if indeed they would be allowed at all to build
a two story house next to at least two - single story homes.
(See Section 3.7 -2.7 A multi -story structure must provide
a minimum rear yard of 35 feet and not more than 20o site
coverage. Also.this ordinance states " where a single -
story residential structure already exists on a lot or site,
no new multi -story structure shall be allowed opposite to
Sor contiguous to the same. The above regulations shall be
I
-2- Ray house appeal
applicable regardless of whether or not the lots, sites
or structures in question are within the same subdivision
or development, or opposite and /or contiguous to each other
but in separate or distinct developments."
The rays have interpreted their lot to fall within the
provisions of Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance as to
setbacks, due to substandard depth of their lot. This
phovision.of the Zoning Ordinance is a whole section. If
ey are allowed to use it they must adhere to all its
provisions. Side yard setbacks would thus have to be in-
creased to about 23 feet to compensate for the shortened
rear setbacks. The Rays have finally agreed to set the
house back 16 feet but had wanted to provide only a ten
foot sideyard setback.
There is substantial question within .the Zoning Code as
to which provision supersedes which other provision as to
setbacks. It is clear that Section 3.7 -2 supersedes Section
3.7. It is not clear that either are superseded, as to set-
backs by Article 14: though they apparently are superseded
as to uses. Within Article 14 itself there is conflict
regarding which provisions of the code sKpersede each other.
I have enclosed a copy of Section 14.2 and Section 14.3
for your comparison. It appears that the strength lies
with Section 3.7 -29 requiring a rear setback of 35 feet
for a multi -story structure.
This house is too large for its setting, its placement on
the site and too large,in relationship to its neighboring
structures. It is more than 3 -112 times the size of its
nearest neighboring house, 2 -1/2 times the volume of my
home and the other home directly behind it and over two
times the volume of the two story house opposite it across
the private lane.
The large homes in the vicinity are not nearly as large
as this home. The nearest large home is a single story
carefully hidden within its setting. No one would judge
this single story home to be a large home it is so carefully
sited. The Ray home is totally out of character with the
eyd sting neighborhood and placed so that it is even more
awkward than it would be if it were more considerately
located.
This home would even be cut of character with the R1- 20,000
zoning district. There itwould be allowed to cover only
17 of the site, rear setbacks would be 45 feet, front
setbacks 30 feet and side yard setbacks 15 feet.
•
e
•
-3- Ray house appeal
The General Plan sets the following objectives:
Maintain the rural,,,residential' character of Saratoga.
Protect the rural atmosphere of Saratoga by consid-
ering the visual impact of new development.
and policy.for the Quito - Kentfield area:
Remaining vacant parcels in the Quito = Kentfield area
should be developed in the same single family densities `
as the existing adjacent development.
This proposal changes the residential character of this
area of modest homes on generous lots. It violates the
General Plan.
Fast growing vegetation was promised the Brighams in return
for their cooperation. This vegetation to be effective
would have to be placed very near the ancient oak. Watering
near this oak could kill it. As this is half my oak I ask
that it be specified that watering shall not take place
within the drip line of this large oak tree.
• The Cittas were promised that some of the redwood grove
next to their property could remain to screen this house
somewhat from their view. While all the redwoods should
rerrain in any sensitive design surely a house that does
not need such intense .screening would be more appropriate.
I also request that the fill that has been placed around
the base of the oak in the past five years be removed as
a condition of this application so as to prevent the loss
in the future of the oak tree.
Please accept this appeal based on the General Plan, in-
terpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and /or the policies
and findings of the Urgency Ordinance (attached).
If it is the pleasure of the Council to deny my appeal
please condition this design review to require that the
high roof be removed from.the area to be walled off.
Thank you for your kind consideration,
Yours truly,
Cheriel Jense
Attachments
,t
ORDINANCE NO.
AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF _
SARATOGA IMPOSING A MORATORIUM UPON THE
ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS WITHOUT PRIOR
DESIGN REVIEW FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES PENDING REVIEW AND AMENDMENT OF
HEIGHT LIMITATIONS AND OTHER BUILDING
RESTRICTIONS PERTAINING THERETO
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby
ordain as follows:
Section l: Fiiidlings and D4claration of Intent.
It is'the policy of the City of Saratoga to restrict
the construction of one - family detached residential structures
under circumstances where such structures would constitute an
invasion of privacy, unreasonable interference with views, light
and air, and create adverse impact upon the aesthetic character
of neighboring residential structures. It is also the policy of
the City of Saratoga to preserve natural topography, promote the
construction of energy efficient residential structures, and to
minimize the coverage of residential structures upon building
sites.
The City Council finds that effective implementation
of these policies requires review and revision of existing zoning
ordinances regulating the height and location of one - family
detached main structures and accessory structures and revision
of the existing procedures for design review of such structures
prior to the issuance of a building permit. The City Council
further finds that an urgency now exists for imposition of a
moratorium upon the issuance of building permits for certain
-" -`'_' "" .•'-" ^`t ^° :rte structures without prior design review and public hearing thereon,
and unless such a moratorium is declared, the present zoning
ordinances could allow the construction of one - family detached
main structures or accessory structures which are not in accordance
with the foregoing policies of the City of Saratoga.
r*Z �'•�`a� isv:.� y'. '1 M,..:rY�• ��r' • � `' . '- .. � at.. .. ..� a. ..= :.e::.
.i..y`.i,:'.`�•. }.0D•i'r:Y`.. �
�. -�..�. ...-w .�y :. -
...
•FiNitrtl+l G�
- -- - -• -;
It is the intention of the City Council to study and
review the ordinance in question and to instruct the Planning
Commission and the planning staff to submit to the City Council
within a reasonable time their recommendations as to the manner
in which such ordinances should be reviewed. In order to insure
that the declared policies of the City of Saratoga are not
violated, and in order to protect the public safety, health and
welfare, the Council finds that it is necessary to adopt the
regulations set forth in this Ordinance.
Section 2: Purpose.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to prohibit for a
period of four (4) months the issuance of any building permit
for construction of a one - family detached main structure or any
accessory structure in an R -1 district having a height in excess
•
of twenty- two :(22') without prior design review and a noticed
public hearing thereon, except as expressly permitted under
Section 8 of this Ordinance.
Section 3: Definitions.
_
For purposes of this ordinance, the terms "main
structure" and "accessory structure ", shall have the meanings
as set forth in Section 1.5 of Ordinance NS -3. The height of
:.
a structure shall be measured vertically from the average eleva-
tion of the finished grade of that portion of the site covered
' -
by the structure to the highest point of the roofline; provided,
' _ ^:-= - -s•.:•. w,. -; - „�� ..
however, that chimneys, flagpoles, radio and television aerials,
-
and necessary mechanical appurtenances may be erected to a
height not more than twenty -five feet (25') above the highest
_ -
point of the roofline.
_ .
Section 4: Prohibition.
No building permit shall be issued for the construction
of a one - family detached main structure or any accessory structure
in an R -1 district, where the proposed structure will exceed
-2-
r
twenty -two feet (22') in height, unless the design of the
proposed structure shall have been approved by the Planning
-
Commission following a noticed public hearing thereon.
Section 5: .Notice of Public Hearing.
,' ..
Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less
than five (5) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the
date of the hearing by mail, postage prepaid, a notice of the
time and place of the hearing to all persons whose names appear
on the latest adopted tax roll of Santa Clara County as owning
property within five hundred fee`t (�00') of the boundaries of
the property upon which the structure is to be constructed.
Notice of the public hearing shall also be published in a news-
paper having general circulation in the City of Saratoga not
'`': "^.,
•;
later than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing.
^- _
Section 6• Action by the Planning Commission.
Design Review by the Planning Commission, pursuant to
this Ordinance, shall include consideration of the site plan,
grading plan, architectural design and elevations and landscape
plan for the proposed improvements. The Planning Commission shall
be guided by the following criteria in rendering its decision:
-
(a) The proposed structure shall not significantly
impair the present or future ability or an adjacent property
to utilize solar energy.
(b) The proposed structure shall not constitute an
_
unreasonable invasion of the privacy of adjacent property owners.
(c) The proposed structure shall not unreasonably
interfere with the views of adjacent properties.
(d) The proposed structure shall minimize disruption
to natural topography, the natural drainage system, and existing
" -
vegetation.
(e) The proposed structure shall not be out of character
with the existing structures of the neighborhood.
_
-
-3-
During the period this Ordinance is in effect, the
Planning Commission may be guided by, but shall have the discre-
tion to set aside, the restrictions or requirements of Section
3.7 -2 of Ordinance NS -3, commonly known as the "Multi -Story
Ordinance." In the event of any conflict between this Ordinance
and the Multi -Story Ordinance, the provisions of this Ordinance
shall be controlling.
Section 7: Appeal to the City Council.
Upon the.granting or denial of design approval by the
i �
Planning Commission, either the applicant or any other interested
person shallhave the right to appeal such decision to the City
Council, and a noticed public hearing de novo shall be conducted
on such appeal by the City Council.
The appeal shall be taken by filing with the City
Clerk a written notice thereof within ten (10) days from the •
granting or denial of design review by the Planning Commission.
The notice of appeal shall be signed by the appellant and shall
set forth all of the grounds for the appeal, and shall be accom-
panied by a filing fee to cover the administrative cost of
handling the appeal. Upon receipt of a notice of appeal and
filing fee, the City Clerk shall set the appeal for hearing before
the City Council at its next regular meeting that falls not less
than ten (10) days after the date of filing the notice of appeal.
The City Clerk shall give notice of the appeal in the same manner
as provided in Section 5 of this Ordinance.
The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the
decision of the Planning Commission, and may refer the matter back
to the Planning Commission for further action as may be directed
by the City Council.
Section 8: Exceptions.
This Ordinance shall not apply to any main or accessory •
structure to be constructed in an HC -RD district, or any one - family
-4-
t iaw.: 2% wfa'. i•' r' ��civ -•y- ::9'��?frY:*��%7:�::uy/�
f
detached main structure to be constructed on a site having an
✓ average grade in excess of ten percent (102) as calculated in
accordance with the provisions of Section 13.9 -2(c) of Ordinance
NS -60, nor shall this Ordinance apply to the issuance of conver-
sion permits pursuant to Section 16.15 of Ordinance NS -3. This
Ordinance shall not be deemed to have revoked or modified any
existing procedures and .requirements for site approval, design
review and building permits for structures to be constructed in
an HC -RD district, or on sites having an average grade in excess
f
of ten percent (.10%), or 'any existing procedures and requirements
for. issuance of conversion permits.
Section 9: Proceedings Affected.
During the period this Ordinance is in effect, the
processing of any application for a building permit for the
construction of a main or accessory structure to which this
Ordinance applies shall be suspended until the applicant shall
have received design approval pursuant to the requirements of
this Ordinance.
Section 10: Effective Period of Interim Moratorium.
This Ordinance shall be of no further force and effect
four (4) months from the date of adoption hereof. However, this
Ordinance may be extended in the manner provided in Government
Code Section 65858 for additional periods of time.
Section 11: Urgency of Taking Effect.
This Ordinance is an urgency ordinance and is for the
immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare
by prohibiting the construction of improvements which may be in
conflict with contemplated changes in the zoning laws which the
City Council intends to study and adopt within a reasonable time.
This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to Government Code Section
65858.
-5-
Section 12: Partial Invalidity.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City
Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence,
clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may
be held invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 13: Effective Date.
This Ordinance takes effect immediately upon its
passage and adoption.
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at
a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga
held on the 3rd day of September, 1980, by the following vote,
which vote constitutes no less than a four - fifths (4/5) vote _
of the entire City Council of the City of Saratoga.
AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers: Clevenger, Jensen,
Mallory, Watson, Mayor Callon.
NOES, Councilmembers: None.
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None.
v
MAYOR
ATTEST:
d
Appx. B, § 3.2
Zoning Regulations
Sec. ' 3. 2. Permitted uses.
a. One - family dwellings.
Appx. B, § 3.2
b. Raising of fruit and nut trees, vegetables and horticultural specialties
not including nurseries, greenhouses, or storage of landscaping equipment,
products or supplies for commercial uses.
c. Home occupations conducted in accord with the regulations prescribed in
article 12.
d. Subject to the regulations and prohibitions of section 3. 7 -1, accessory
structures located on the same site with a permitted use, including private garages
and carports, limited to one guest house or accessory living quarters without a
kitchen, and including storehouses and sheds, garden and shade structures, non-
commercial greenhouses, recreation rooms, home hobby shops, cabanas and
structures for housing swimming pool equipment.
e. Private stables for the keeping of, or the keeping of, one horse for each
40, 000 square feet of site area, subject to the regulations and license provisions
of division 5, article 1 of chapter 1 of the Saratoga City Code, provided that no
stable or corral shall be located closer than 50 feet to any property line of the
site or to any dwelling or swimming pool, on the site, nor closer than 100 feet to
any dwelling not on the site, except that a corral may be located no less than 30
feet from the right of way of any side or rear street bordering on the site; and pro-
vided further, in equestrian zone (1) only, that one additional horse may be per-
mitted on the first 40, 000 square feet of site area, and an additional horse for
each additional 40, 000 square feet of site area, upon the obtaining of a horse
license therefor in accord with the above - referred to provisions of the Saratoga
City Code.
f. Swimming pools used solely by persons resident on the site and their
guests; provided, that no swimming pool or accessory mechanical equipment
shall be located in a required front yard or in a required side yard or less than
six feet from a property line.
g. The keeping of not to exceed the following numbers and hinds of birds,
reptiles, fish and small mammals on each site, as pets only, and not for sale,
experimental, breeding or commercial purposes:
Domestic dogs and domestic cats, in reasonable numbers, to be confined to
the premises occupied by the owner or person having custody or control, unless
such animal is restrained by a leash or chain or at "heel" beside a competent
person and obedient to that person's command. All clogs kept within the city
limits shall be licensed in accordance with section 8. 18 of the City Code unless
specifically exempted by section 8. 19 there,-,f.
Domestic monkeys, in reasonable numbers, at all times on leash or chain or
fully confined in a cage or other enclosure.
233
_.::. Supp. #13, 7 -78
Appx. B, § 3.3
Saratoga City Code
Appx. B, § 3.3
Rodentia family (rabbits, hamsters, squirrels, mice, rats, guinea pigs,
etc.) in reasonable numbers, at all times on leash or chain-or -fully confined
in a cage or other enclosure.
Birds and fowl, excluding peafowl, turkeys, chickens, ducks, geese,
roosters, and any other species capable of raucous outcry, in reasonable num-
bers, at all times to be fully confined in a cage or other enclosure.
Reptiles and fish, excluding any poisonous species and excluding all
species of crocodilians, in reasonable numbers and at all times to be fully con-
fined in a suitable enclosure.
The keeping of any other species of animal, or any of the above- enumerat-
ed permitted animals which are vicious or dangerous, or constitute a public
health hazard, or the keeping of any animal which by sound or outcry shall
.disturb the peace and comfort of any neighborhood or interfere with any per-
son in the reasonable and comfortable enjoyment of his property, is hereby
prohibited and declared to be a public nuisance; ,such animals may be re-
moved by the planning director or his authorized representative and taken to
Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley Animal Shelter to be held subject to
the rates and conditions contemporaneously prevailing at that facility.
h. Unless combined with a PC or PD district or on hillside lots where
the average slope of the site exceeds 10% recreational courts used solely by per-
sons resident on the site and their guests, where such court (a) does not ex-
ceed 7200 sq. ft_. in area, (b) has no_ outdoor or other exterior lighting, (c)
has no direct opaque screening, (d) does not encroach upon any required front
.or side yard nor within 15 ft. of any property line, (e) has no fencing in ex-
cess of 10 ft. in height, and (f) is landscaped in accord with a plan approved
by the zoning administrator so as to create a complete landscaping buffer from
adjoining properties within two (2) years from planting. A building permit
is required for each recreational court, and prior to issuance thereof a bond
in reasonable amount to be. set by the zoning administrator shall be furnished
to city to guarantee the installation of landscaping improvements in accord
with the approved plan. (Ord. No. NS-3.12, § 7; Ord. No. NS-3.15, § 1;
Ord. No. NS -3.22, § 3; Ord. No. NS -3.28, § 1; Ord. No. NS -3.38, §§ 2 -3.)
Sec. 3.3. Conditional uses
The following conditional uses shall be permitted upon the granting of a
use permit, in accord with the provisions of article 16.
a. Community facilities and institutions including public and parochial
elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools and colleges; nursery
schools; private nonprofit schools and colleges, not including art, craft, music
or dancing schools or business, professional or trade schools and colleges;
Public playgrounds, parks, community centers, libraries, museums, art gal-
leries, police and fire stations and other public buildings, structures and fa-
234
-78
Supp . #13, 7
.:a
110 : Y±
0 Ulf I
Appx. B, § 3.5 Zoning Regulations Appx. B, § 3.7
the required front yard; except, that in an R -1 district other than the R -1-
40,000 district, within fifty feet of a street intersection,-no fence, wall or hedge
shall exceed three feet in height above the established grade of any adjoining
street.
Sec . 3 . 5 . Site area, frontage , width and depth.
The minimum site area, frontage, width and depth in each R -1 district
shall be as prescribed in the following table, subject to the exceptions listed
below:
Site Area . Site Site Site
District Interior Lot Corner Lot Width Frontal Depth
R -1- 10,000 10,000 square feet 11,500 square feet 85 feet 60 feet 115 feet
R -1- 12,500 12,500 square feet 14,000 square feet 90 feet 65 feet 120 feet
R -1 -15 , 000 15,000 square feet 15,000 square feet 100 feet 70 feet 125 feet
R-1-20,000 20,000 square feet 20,000 square feet .:11¢ feet 80 feet 140 feet
R -1- 40,000 40,000 square feet 40,000 square feet '15dfeet 100 feet 150 feet
The width of a corner lot shall not be less than one hundred feet.
The minimum frontage on a cul -de -sac turnaround shall be sixty feet
= 1' ^: where seventy -five percent or more of the frontage adjoins to the turnaround.
The minimum site area for a corridor lot in a R -1- 10,000, R -1- 12,500 or
R -1 -15,000 zoning district and the minimum site area for any lot in the above
zoning districts which has its sole access to a public street by means of a mini-
mum access street, which minimum access street is established or created after
the effective date of this ordinance , shall be 20, 000 square feet, exclusive of the
area of the corridor or minimum access street. (Ord . No NS -3.11, § 1; Ord.
No. NS -3.17, § 1.)
Sec . 3 . 6 . One dwelling unit per site .
Not more than one dwelling unit shall be locates on each
Sec. Coverame front and side
o y yards, rear yard.
7T7
maximum site area covered by structures and the minimum front
yar, yards and rear yard in each R -1 district shall be as prescribed in
the following table, subject to the exceptions listed below.
Appx. B, § 3. 7. 1 Zoning Regulations Appx. B, § 3. 7. 1
District Coverage Front. Yard Side Yards Rear Yard
R -1 -10, 000 35 per cent 25 feet - - 10 feet 25 feet
R -1 -12, 500 35 per cent 25 feet 10 feet 25 feet
R -1 -15, 000 30 per cent 25 feet; 12 feet 30 feet
R -1 -20, 000 30 per cent 30 feet 15 feet 35 feet
R -1 -40, 000 25 per cent 30 feet 20 feet 50 feet
On the street side of a corner- lot the side yard shall be not less than twenty-
five feet. One foot shall be added to an interior side yard for each two feet of
height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within thirtv feet ofthe
nearest side property line exceeds fourteen feet in height; provided, that a
side yard of more than twenty -five feet shall not be required.
On a corner lot a rear yard equal to the required minimum side yard shall
be permitted; provided, that a yard space equal to twenty -five per cent of the
area of the site shall be provided adjoining the rear property line.
On a corridor access lot with an average width that exceeds its average
depth, the longer dimension may be considered the depth for the purposes of
measuring front, side and rear yards.
Accessory structures not attached in any way to the main structure and not
`= exceeding fourteen feet in height may be located in the required rear yard; pro -
vided, that no more than five hundred square feet or ten per cent of the area of the
required rear yard, whichever is the greater, shall be covered by such structures,
and provided further, that on a reversed corner lot no such detached accessory
structure shall be located closer to the rear property line than the required side
yard on the adjoining key lot. (Ord. No. NS -3. 7, § 2; Ord. No. NS -3. 22, § 1.)
Sec. 3. 7. 1. Accessory structures in rear yards.
(a) No accessory structure located in a rear yard shall exceed twelve feet in
height. Except as otherwise permitted by subsection (b), no accessory structure
or fence shall be located in the required rear yard of any lot or site.
(b) Accessory structures and fences may be located in the required rear yard
of a site subject to the following requirements:
(1) A use permit shall first be obtained under. article 16 of this ordinance
for any accessory structure over six feet in height and any fence over six feet in
height.
(2) Except as hereafter provided, the setback of the accessory structure
from the rear property line shall be a minimum of twenty -five feet, and setback
from the side property line shall- be the same distance as the minimum required
side yard of the zoning district classification of the site. On a reversed corner
Jot, no accessory structure shall be located closer to the rear property line than
the distance equal to the required side yard of the adjoining key lot.
235
:: Supp. #10, 9 -75
•
r1
LJ
LJ
Appx. B, § 14. 1 -1 Zoning Regulations Appx. B, § 14.3
h. That the use will not create any hazard of fire or explosion.
When a use has been added to a list of permitted uses'in accord with the
procedure prescribed in this section, the use shall be deemed to be listed as.
a permitted use in the appropriate section and shall be added to the list of that
section of this ordinance when it is next published, with a notation of the date
when the use was added to the list. (Ord. No. NS -3. 6, § 3.)
Sec. 14. 1 -1. Same- -Uses permitted in conditional reclas
-
sification.
Upon application, the city planning commission may add additional permitted
uses to the uses permitted under conditions imposed in a conditional reclassifica-
tion ordinance adopted pursuant to section 18. 11 of this ordinance, so long as such
additional uses are otherwise listed as permitted uses in the district classification
to which the property has been conditionally reclassified. Application shall be
made by owner or owners of the property affected and. shall be on such forms and
shall be accompanied by such data and informatfon as prescribed by the planning
commission. (Ord. No. NS -3.5, § 1 )
Sec. 14.2. Conformity with district regulations
. No site or structure shall be used or designated for use for any purpose
or in any manner other than in conformity with the regulations for the district
in which the site or structure is located.
No structure shall be erected and no existing structure or use shall be
moved, altered or enlarged, except in conformity with the regulations for
the district in which the structure or use is located.
No yard or other open space surrounding any structure or use shall be
used, encroached upon or reduced in any manner except in conformity with the
regulations for the district in which the yard or open space is located.
No site held in a single ownership at the time of the adoption of this ordi-
ON nance or at any time thereafter shall be reduced in any manner below the inini-
mum area, frontage, width or depth prescribed for the district in which the site
is located.
Scc. 14.3. Use of nonconforming; sites.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, a site having an area, fron-
tage, width or depth less than the minimums prescribed for the district in
which the site is located, which is shown on a duly approved tentative subdivi-
sion map for which a final subdivision map is recorded prior to the expiration
of one year from the date of said-tentative approval, or for which tentative
building site approval has been obtained and final site approval is secured
within one year from date of said tentative approval, or for which a deed or
282.1
Supp. 12 -64
Appx. B, § 14.3 Saratoga City Code Appx. B, § 14.3
valid contract of sale was a record prior to the effective date of this ordinance,
and which had a legal area, frontage, width and depth at the time that the tenta-
tive map was approved, or'the deed or contract of sale was recorded, may be
used for a permitted use, but shall be subject to all other regulations for the
district in which the site is located; except, that the minimum width of side yards
shall be as follows:
a. Side yards adjoining interior lot lines shall be not less than ten
per cent of the width of the site or six feet, whichever is greater.
b. A side yard on the street side of a corner lot shall be not less than
twenty per cent of the width of the site or fifteen feet, whichever is greater.
Appx. B, § 14.4 Zoning Regulations Appx. B, § 14,6
}
Where the depth of a nonconforming site is less than the minimum pre-
scribed, the rear yard shall be twenty per cent of. the depth of the site or twenty
feet, whichever is the_..gr_eater__4Ord_.No _ i.,- § 6.
Sec. 14.4. Yard suaces.
No yard space provided about any structure in compliance with the regu-
lations for the district in which it is located shall be deemed to provide a yard
space for any other structure, andnoyard on one site shall be deemed to provide
a yard space for a structure on any other site.
Sec. 14.5. Coverage -- Measurement:
To determine the per cent of the site area covered by structures, the num-
ber of square feet of horizontal area covered by structures, open or enclosed,
and by projections of structures, except those prescribed as exceptions to yard
requirements in section 14. 7, shall be divided by the total horizontal area with-
in the property lines of the site, f. /.
Sec. 14.6. Yard requirements -- Measurement.
Required yards shall be measured as the minimum horizontal distance
3 < from the property line of the site or street line to a line parallel thereto on
4Y=
the site; provided, that where a precise street plan has been adopted by the
city council, required yards shall be measured from the plan line, and no pro-
vision of this ordinance shall be construed to permit a structure or use to ex-
tend beyond such line; and provided further, that where a site abuts on a street
having only a portion of its required width offered, dedicated or reserved for
street purposes, required yards shall be measured from the line established by
the planning; commission upon an existing or proposed site bordering a public
street, which line, in the opinion of the planning commission, will be the future
proposed precise street plan line where such precise plan line is not yet established.
On a site which is not rectangular or approximately rectangular in shape,
required yards shall be measured in the manner prescribed by the city planning
,-� commission.
Anything hereinabove in this section or in subsection (hhh) of section 1.5 here-
of notwithstanding, in any areas of the city located within an officially approved
program area of the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program
(SHARP), and where the public street right -of -way contiguous to the lot or site in
question is equal to or exceeds 60 ft. in width, the front yard shall be measured
as the minimum horizontal distance from back of curb at street pavement, to a
line parallel thereto on the site at the closest front building line. (Ord. No. NS-
3. 30, § 1. )
282. 2a
Supp. #13, 7 -78
Mrs. Barrie stated that the location she has chosen is good land, but
poss.ihly she could move it back a little. She explained that the engineer
divided the lot incorrectly and Shc has more land in front of her own home
than she had intended.
It was the consensus that Staff would determine whether the building
should be mo••'ed back to the extent of. SO ft. Commissi -)nor King seconded
ti" m� ion for amendment. The vote was taken on the motion for approval
ol; A1� 6 as amended, and it was carried unanimously,
4. A 759 Dan Ray, 13687 Quito Road, Request for Design Review Approval for
a two- story, single- family dwelling that would be over 22' in
height (maximum 261) on a lot with an average slope less than
10. in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district
Staff described the proposal. They commented that the lot is nonconforming
from the standpoint of the dclith of the lot. It was noted that there is
an existing well in the backyard which can be used for irrigation purposes;
- 2
"
• ..
v,. w. +��- a.�.VV t•w. ,..Ii�r .-1 . • N' �I�Uw+ 1+: i... �X+ .' �•' w: Y1tiaCWJVl<•- i,r!Yw.7n•�4r.,io-
. .. .,�h! �lHlw .�ti: �!1:(ilt :%.A�GV+��'ih11�11a.'\ ter•. -.i'�
•
Planning Commission page 2
Meeting Minutes - 3/11/81
A -756 (coat.)
""= " <'"`=�`- :x "- t;`•= '= '•' = =�=
and the applicant has submitted the requested information.
The public hearing was reopened at 7:45 p.m.
Robert Bostedt, 12890 Pierce Road, stated that he cannot agree that a
single -story structure in the same vicinity would have the same privacy
impact.. The fill that Mr. Bostedt had previously stated had been put
on the property was discussed. lie stated that he disagreed with the
statement by the applicant that there will be no fill. underneath the area
of the proposed building. Mr. Bostedt commented that this.fill has raised
the elevation of the property there and will. make the building even higher
than the natural contours were. The drainage situation was discussed.
It was pointed out. to Mr. Bostedt that there is a condition in the report
stating that detailed drainage and grading plans would have to be reviewed
and approved by the City before the structure can be built. Mr. Bostedt
commented that a similar condition was also put in SDR -1262 on the house
previously built, and it was never done; the land was al.l graded toward his
home.
Mrs. Barrie, the applicant, stated she had not done any cut and fill. She
explained that she had ordered four truckloads of top soil, and the firm
_
had given her five by mistake. Mrs.. Barric stated that she had paid to
have the one load taken out. She commented that she had lost her financing
'
and probably would not be able to build.
-
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner llonia
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Crowther commented that he believes the overall situation,
both in terms Of the value of the house and the effects on the neighboring
property, would be .improved if the house were moved back about SO ft. lie
explaincd that moving it 50 ft. down the lot would give a larger front
yard and possibly some large trees could be saved.
Commissioner Monia moved to approve A -756 per the Staff Report.. Conunis -
sioner King seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther moved to amend the
motion to make it dependent on evaluation of whether it is feasible to
move the house back approximately 50 ft. on the lot.
Commissioner Mon.i.a stated that he was concerned that if the house were
moved back, it starts to have impact on the. other residence on the right-
hand side of the drive. lie added that t•.he slope starts getting larger,
and he thinks that we would end up grading more and creating more of a
problem with the drainage in that area, as well as an impact on the exist -
*
in,, house on the right -hand side.
Commissioner Crowther noted that the lot is flat for approximately 100 ft.
back, and then drops off after that.
Mrs. Barrie stated that the location she has chosen is good land, but
poss.ihly she could move it back a little. She explained that the engineer
divided the lot incorrectly and Shc has more land in front of her own home
than she had intended.
It was the consensus that Staff would determine whether the building
should be mo••'ed back to the extent of. SO ft. Commissi -)nor King seconded
ti" m� ion for amendment. The vote was taken on the motion for approval
ol; A1� 6 as amended, and it was carried unanimously,
4. A 759 Dan Ray, 13687 Quito Road, Request for Design Review Approval for
a two- story, single- family dwelling that would be over 22' in
height (maximum 261) on a lot with an average slope less than
10. in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district
Staff described the proposal. They commented that the lot is nonconforming
from the standpoint of the dclith of the lot. It was noted that there is
an existing well in the backyard which can be used for irrigation purposes;
- 2
. .;i::...�.,,'i.;W.e.i- +v -•..- .r.:�:...tscw+":4...., ,:>,.or . r. r.+: Y�. c• V• �: i:.:+:�Ji�ur..ivv).'.r.':..`w: ..... .... .. ups• .w.nt - r.r. �. ..,c..
Planning Commission Pagc 3
Meeting Minutes - 3 /11 /St
A -759 (cont.)
however, it is not a pump for the pool. Staff stated that the issues
before the Commission are: (1) the appropriateness of a two -story in this
location, (2) the privacy factor as it relates to the adjoining properties,
and (3) the issue of whether or not a variance would be required for the -
Structure in front of the pad. It was noted that numerous letters have
been received in opposition to this application.. Staff suggested taking
public testimony and continuing the .item to a study session.
The public hearing; was opened at 8:10 p.m.
Gordon Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, stated that his objection centers on the
size of the house and the two- story design. lie stated that Ile feels the
house is inappropriate for the present location. Mr. .Jensen commented
that the lot is only 106 ft. deep and it is in a R -1- 70,000 zoning. He
also commented that either the front and side yard setbacks should be
increased in line with the house, or the house size should be reduced in
line with the zoning. Mr. ,Jensen stated that his property is 5 to 6 ft.
lower than the Ray lot and they would stiffer a complete loss of privacy
in their backvard with this proposal. He added that it is about three
times the hei.gitt of the house next door, which is only 8 ft. from the
property line. - --
Staff explained the coverage factor. They stated that there is no ordi-
nance that puts a limit on the square footage, only on the percent of
coverage.
Mr. Ray, the applicant, stated that his lot is 24,000 sq. ft. and only
coi-crs 1.7yt7, of the lot, as opposed to 35o' allowed under ordinance. He
stated that Mr. Jensen can now see over into his yard, since it appears
that his house is a two -story from the basic height.
Dr. Riggle, 18040 Aspesi Court, stated that the petition received by the
Commission had been circulated in their area against the relatively high
rise structure in their area.
Marcia Citta, 13695 Quito Road, concurred with the Jensens about the fact
that a two -Story home would be very devastating to her home. She stated
that they are concerned that Mr. Ray wi1.1 be building within 10 ft. of
his side setback. Mrs. Citta added that she recognized that Mr. Ray is
trying to work around an existing swimming pool, which she doubts is worth
saving, and feels it would be best if he could just remove it and then
move his house to a more central location. She stated that she is also
concerned about trees that give them privacy, since Mr. Ray has indicated -
- that he will pro1) ahIy have to remove them. -
Pat Brigham stated that they were directly behind the proposed house. She
commented that it would be horrible to have a two -story there.
Mr. Ray, responded to the letters and petition received by the Commission
in opposition. He Submitted a letter to the Commission, listing these
responses. lie pointed out that their proposed home is designed to blend
With the newer existing homes in the neighborhood, and the preservation
of large trees and natural surroundings were given priority.
Chairman Laden suggested that the Connnission try to gi:e some direction to
- the applicant tonight, and then agendi_e this matter l.or a Study SOSSion.
Commissionc'r Monia stated than he has a lot of serious reservations about
the home which he is not sure can he resolved in a study session. Ile
explained that this is an odd Situation where the lot is 24,000 sq. ft.
in a R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. lie stated that, since most of the
neighbors in the back are single- story, a single -story house would be more
appropriate. lie indicated that he is also concerned abort the size of the
" houSC, and feels the Commission has to look at the intent of the zoning
area. Commissioner Monia Stated that he would like to sec the house in
3 --
•
Planning Commission
Mccting Minutes - 3/1.1/81.
Page 4
A -759 (coat.)
more concert with the neighborhood, say a 3500 sq. ft. home.
Commissioner Bolger agreed stating that the homes in the immediate vicinity
were much smaller, i.e., 1800 -2700 sq. ft. Ile commented that he feels
the size of this dwelling is much larger than the rest of the neighborhood,
and lie is concerned about a two -story design from the privacy aspect.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that the size was her main concern. Silo
indicated that it was a very nicely designed home, :.but questioned whether
it belongs on that lot. Commissioner Schaefer suggested perhaps a second
story of sonic kind could he worked out.
Commissioner Crowther agreed that the house is too large. lie indicated
that he was concerned about the setbacks and the pool structure that is
there, which seems to be dictating a lot of the consideration with regard
to location of the house.
Conunissioncr King stated that lie feels continuing the matter to a study
session is a good idea. lie commented that Mr. Ray might consider sonic of
the su;,gestions the neighbors have raised concerning the location of one
end of the lot, and he would have some question about the value of the.
existing pool structure as it relates to the siting of the house.
Commissioner Zambctti stated that his concern was that the neighborhood
work in harmony with the applicant. He added that he feels it is important
that this item he continued so the neighborhood can talk among themselves,
and then come to a study session, in order to reach a compromise.
Mr. Ray stated that lie feels it would be to everyone's advantage if we
• do have a study session. Ile pointed out that he would like to emphasize
that, regardless of whether the house is one or two - story, he can coyer
much more square footage of the lot if it is one - story, without having to
appear before the Commission, per ordinance. Ile indicated that the pool
is of great value to them.
The Following were summarized as concerns of the Commission:
(1) Concern for the two -story house by neighbors and sonic of the
Commission. Perhaps sonic kind of compromise can be reached;
sonic portion might he two-story that wouldn't impact the rest
of the neighborhood. It might be a possibility that perhaps
only a single story home would he desirable.
(2) Concern in the placement of the house to the easterly property
line
( 3 ) The S i Z e 01 tile h o u s e
It was directed that this item be continued to a study session on April 14,
1981 and the regular meeting on April 22, 1981.
S. UP -479 - Immanuel Lutheran Church, 14103 Saratoga Avenue, Request for a
Use Permit for the jiarki.ng lot lightin _erog_am -__ -_ _
Staff explained that the original use. pernii.t for the expansion had a con -
dition that the lighting program must he submitted for review through the
_ use permit procedure. Staff described tile. proposal.
The public he;iring was opened at 8:S2 p.m.
Since no one appeared, Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hear
ing. Commissioner Zamhetti seconded the motion, which was carried unani-
mousll'.
•' "' Commissioner (:rowther moved to '- '
approve 111 479 per the Staff Report.
rya,:.
A-1 s�
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ni rNn1111nc
DATE: Wednesday, April 22, 1981 -.7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
:-:ii
---------------------------------------------------------- -- ---- ----- --- - --
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther (arrived at 8:35 p.m.), King
Laden, Monia, Schaefer (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), and Zambetti
Absent: None
Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Monia to waive the reading of the minutes of
April 8, 1981 and approve as distributed. The motion was seconded by Commis-
sioner Zambetti and was carried unanimously.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. SDR -1377 - William Clark, Walnut Avenue - 1 Lot, Final Building Site
Approval
Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to approve
the above item on the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried unani-
mously.
PUB Hl?TL INGS
2 A 759 - Dan Ray, 13687 Quito Road, Request for Design Review Approval
for a two- story, single- family dwelling that would be over 22'
in height (maximum 261) on a lot with an average slope less than
10' in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district; continued from March 11,
1981
Staff explained that this item had been continued and reviewed at the
Committee -of- the -Whole on April 14, 1981. Staff described the proposal.
The correspondence previously received from the neighbors was noted.
"
Staff reported that the applicant, has met with the Brighams regarding
-
landscaping to mitigate the impact of the house. It was noted that a
petition in favor of the dwelling had been received from some of the
adjacent neighbors.
The public hearing was reopened at 7:40 p.m.
c_,r; _ ''�•
Gordon Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, reiterated his objections. He pointed
out that this is still an extremely large house for the neighborhood,
and particularly for this lot. Ile stated concern that the house is
being pushed to one side with the idea of a future division. Mr. Jensen
stated that his particular concern is that his house is lower. He added
that it is important that the Commission has not seen any perspectus as
r'
to how this house will look on the lot. Chairman Laden noted that the.
"': +�',`: "."
lots there had been developed as they are because the Water District had
put some easements across a great portion of that land, so future sub-
division is not possible.
-
\. ..
Mr. Ray, the applicant, described the sizes of the homes in the neighbor-
hood. He indicated that he has reached an agreement with the Cittas,
and the side yard will be increased by 6 feet to a 16 foot setback.
He added that the trees that are too close to the proposed house will
be moved at their expense.
Planning Commission
Minutes - Meeting 4 /22/81
A -759 (cont.)
Mrs. Ray discussed the trees
the trees in the rear of the
fere with the structure woul�
they had.researched this and
Cittas are in agreement with
Page 2
in question. She stated that they will leave
lot and three of the trees that would inter -
I be transplanted. Mrs. Ray commented that
it appears feasible. She stated that the
this.
Mr. Ray discussed the following changes to their plans: (1) elimination
of the library and the windows overlooking the Jensen's home; (2) reduc-
tion of the house to allow for a 16 ft. side yard setback; (3) transplant
of the redwoods as necessary; (4) reduction of the home by a total of
767 sq. ft.; (S) planting of some additional vegetation, per agreement
with the Brighams; and (6) a wall will be placed at the end of the
recreational room that will not be used. Mr. Ray explained that the roof
line will stay as it is except for the dormer windows.
Dr. Allen Riggle, 18640 Aspesi Court, stated that he had never had an
opportunity to say anything about the Jean's two -story home which is
directly behind him. He commented that he can see the Ray's structure
clearly from his back yard, and he considers this a multiple invasion of
his privacy. Dr. Riggle indicated that another second story is going to
add to the light and noise at night.
Mrs. Ray stated that she did not feel Dr. Riggle could see their home from
his yard, since the view is obstructed by two other buildings.
Mr. Ray described the reduction of the house. He stated that the size of
the house on the exterior will remain the same, except for a reduction of
6 ft. in total length. The outside impression will not be changed except
for -the elimination of two dormer windows.
Marsha Ci.tta, 13695 Quito, stated that they have discussed the revised
proposal with the Rays, and they have come to a compromise that they can
live with. She pointed out that the address assigned to this house is
the wrong one and should be corrected.
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
The exact size of the structure, after the reduction, was discussed.
Mr. Ray clarified that the 767 sq. ft. reduction includes the library,
and the library area is still going to be under the roof. He stated that
the total length of the house was reduced by 6 ft. and the reduction of
the outside dimensions is approximately 180 -200 sq. ft. It was noted
that the square footage of the living space of the home will now be
4,032 sq. ft.
Commissioner Zambetti stated that he felt the neighbors and owner have
worked hard to come to a compromise. He discussed the removal of trees
of less than 12" in diameter, and it was determined that No. 4 under the
criteria in the Staff Report should be amended to read that the small
redwood trees on the eastern side of the site cannot be removed without
issuance of a tree removal permit. fie also noted that.'the pool and
pump equipment room will be a nonconforming structure and should be enclosed
with a gazebo. At Staff's suggestion, it was determined that the applicant
should submit a bond in an amount suitable to cover the replacement of the
three existing redwoo& trees.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A -7S9, per the amended Addendum
dated April 16, 1981 and the amended Staff Report dated March 6, 1981,
making the findings. Commissioner King seconded the motion, with the
stipulation that Condition 2 of the Staff Report be amended to read:
"Approval of this Design Review request does not constitute approval of
the proposed pump and pool equipment enclosure. Design of the pad
enclosure shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval."
- 2 -
Planning Commission
Minutes - Meeting 4/22/81.
Page 3
;f .l rY•.
A -7S9 (coat.)
Commissioner Bolger stated that he would have difficulty making Finding
No. 5 regarding the size of the other homes in the neighborhood. He
commented that the majority of the homes in the neighborhood are in the
mid -2,000 sq. ft. range.
Commissioner Monia agreed regarding Finding No. S. He stated that he
also has some difficulty making Finding No. 3. He explained that, because
of the fact that the property is somewhat higher than the Jensen property,
lie feels the 26 ft. high elevation would be increased by an extra 4 or
S ft. difference between the two properties. He indicated that he felt
the matter should be continued, so that a drawing could be submitted by
the applicant showing exactly the right locations and the changes, to
allow the Commission to more properly understand it.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she thought the applicant had tried to
work with the neighbors; however, she still has concern about the size
of the house, since basically most of the outside visual impact remains.
The vote was taken on the motion to' approve A -759. The motion failed, with
Commissioners Bolger, Monia and Schaefer dissenting.
Chairman Laden stated that she felt the applicant has met the conditions
requested by the Commission at the study sessions, and that the Commission
should give direction to the applicant at this point.
t•...-...
Commissioner King agreed, stating that he felt it would be unfair to the
him to what might change the vote in
applicant not to give specifics as
a positive direction. He noted that the applicant has invested quite a
bit of study and time with the Commission and has responded to the Commis-
si„on's _requests, particularly that they work with the neighbors.
Commissioner Schaefer indicated that her own concern would be the square
footage of the home; she feels the other conditions have been met.
Commissioner Monia commented that lie has problems with trying to make the
findings on the size of this home being within character of this neighbor-
hood. tie added that if the size of the structure were to be reduced, then
he feels it would be in character.
Chairman Laden commented that the living space, as written and voted upon
on other applications, has not included any space under the roof. She
stated that she felt to add air space in as footage would be inappropriate.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would reconsider her vote because,
although she feels that attic space should definitely be included in any
of the calculations, if it has never been before, then she does not think
it would be fair to the applicant to start including it now.
.i
Commissioner Bolger commented that his interpretation to make Finding No. S
-
would be that, whether living space or air space is being considered, when
the Commission is reviewing a dwelling that is going to be in an existing
neighborhood, it should be compatible with the site and neighbors that
are going to be seeing i.t.
The Deputy City Attorney clarified that a motion could be made to reconsider
the vote on the matter. Commissioner King moved to reconsider the vote
on A -759. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion. It was carried, with
Commissioner Monia and Bolger dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer requested
that a bond be requiring for the planting of the additional vegetation,
l•
in addition to the redwood trees. It was determined that this would be
added to Condition No. 1 -E of the Addendum dated April 16, 1981.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A -759, per the amended Addendum
dated April 16, 1981 and the amended Staff Report dated March 6, 1981,
_
making the necessary findings. Commissioner King seconded the motion,
;f .l rY•.
Planning Commission Page 4
Minutes - Meeting 4/22/81
A -7S9 (cont.)
with the stipulation that the applicant bring in revised plans showing the
changes. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Bolger and Monia
dissentinz.
3. A -764 -
Butler and Wilson, Request for Design R•eview'"Approval for a
two -story single- family dwelling that would be over 22' in
height (23.5' max.) on a lot with an average slope of less than
10% in the R -1- 10,000 district, at 18500 Ravenwood Drive
Chairman Laden abstained from the discussion and voting on this item
Staff described the proposal, stating that they were recommending approval.
The public hearing was opened at 8:26 p.m.
Mark Lages, the architect, stated that this is compatible with the two -
story design next door. He stated that they have tried to lower the one
side of the house near the two -story home. The setbacks and materials
used were discussed.
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
4.
The findings were discussed. Commissioner King moved to approve A -764,
per the Staff Report, making the findings. Commissioner Monia seconded
the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Laden abstaining.
A -765 - Caleb Properties, Request for Design Review Approval for eight
single - family dwellings, four of which would be two -story
structures over 22' in height (max. heights range from 25' to
27') on lots with average slopes less than 10% in the R -1- 10,000
district, at the southern terminus of Ted Avenue
The proposal was described by Staff. Staff clarified that the only access
to this subdivision will be along the extension of Ted Avenue or Wilson
Lane. The grading and pad elevations were discussed, along with the land-
scaping strip between the sound wall and the curb along the railroad track
side of the Wilson Lane extension.
The public hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m.
-?
Mike Lorimer, the architect, discussed the pool sizes. The size and style
of the homes were also discussed. Commissioner Crowther commented that
he felt Lot #1 was too small for the home shown on it. The size of Lot #2
and the plans for it were discussed. The easement on Lot #2 was questioned
by Commissioner Crowther, and it was clarified that it is a storm drain
-
easement for Rodeo Creek.
- - - _
Mr. Lorimer commented that since the plans were submitted, the owner has
_ -
directed them to change Lot 03 from a two -story home to one- story. He
-
discussed the three lots at the end of the cul -de -sac, and commented that
they have peculiar shapes, are larger, and adjoin commercial, and he did
_
-
not believe that they will have a significant impact.
•
"`s':`' ?•'?'`,' - ="
Ken Howden, 20282 Zorka, stated that Lot #3 was directly behind him. He
expressed his objection to a two -story structure there. It was explained
to Mr. Howden that the architect had just indicated that there will be a
single -story home on that lot.
Martha Cosera, 20294 Zorka, stated that she would like to make sure that
the will be
plans not changed later and one of the two -story houses moved,
-
because it would block their view.
Winston Chew, 12501 DeSanka, expressed his concern about the possibility
of a two -story structure being built on Lot w2 at 'a later date. Chairman
'
tF'
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Ctfy of Sarc=oga
APPi`..' P_, 'Y= Q/ *(amended 4/22/81)
DATE: 3/6/81
Commission Meeting: 3/11/81
_
SUBJECT = A -759 Danny and Georgia Ray
13687 Quito Road, (SDR -1327)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
:EQUEST: Design Review approval for a two -story dwelling.
Ot-W--
24,567 sq. ft.
R -1- 10,000
'ROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Size of Structure: Lower Level: 3,926 sq. ft. (including garage)
Upper Level: 1,222.sq. ft.
2. Site Coverage by Structure: 17.5%
3. Site Slope: 2 %+ Slope at Building Footprint: 2 %+ .
4. Height of Structure: Maximum: 26'
At Mid -Point of Roof: 21'
5. Pad Elevation(s): (almost same height as natural grade).
6. Exterior Facade: Materials- Brick in front elevation. Stucco or
horizontal wood siding on other elevations.
Color: White with black trim or beige with brown trim.
7. Roof Materials: Wood shakes or asphalt shingles (charcoal)
8.,A1,Grading Required: Cut: - yds.3 Fill: -- yds.3
Cut Depth: -- ft. Fill Depth: -- ft.
Minimal grading required to accommodate the structure.
Laff Report
- 759
9. Design:
C 3 /11/81
Page 2
A. Number of Stories: Two.
•
B.
Setbacks:
Front: 25 ft. Rear: 26
ft.
Sides: 10 & 94 ft.
C.
Compatible
with Existing Structures:
Yes,
see comments.
D. Compatible with Natural Setting: Yes, see comments
E. Visibility /Screening: The structure will be screened from
the rear by oak trees.
F. Driveway Configuration: Straight, front facing garage.
G. Accessory Structures: Pool equipment enclosures; . see comments.
H. Existing Vegetation: Oak and Bay trees.
I. Solar: 1. Building. Configuration: Large portion of roof faces
south; good orientation.
2. Roof Angle: 37, degrees; good for low winter sun.
3. Passive System; Some passive heating due to
south facing windows.
4. Active System; Solar panels for cgmestic Jot water
and pool heating. Some panels will be roo mount
J. Comments: It should be noted that the subject property is
.nonconforming in that lot depth is 106' where 115'
is required. Under Section 14.3 of the zoning ordinance this
allows any main structure proposed for the site to maintain
a rear yard of 20% of the depth of the site or 21.2'. Normally
a 35' rear yard would be required for a two -story dwelling.
The proposed dwelling would maintain a minimum 26' rear
yard for.the single -story master bedroom wing of the proposed
dwelling. The bulk of the structure, including the second -
story, will be about 37' or more from the rear property line.
The proposed dwelling will comply with all other setback
requirements.
The applicants are proposing to enclose an existing pad
supporting pump and pool equipment (for an existing pool)
within a detached accessory structure. This structure would
be only 8' from the front property line where a setback of 25'
is normally required. A design for the accessory structure
has not been submitted. If the Commission wishes to interpret
the pad as an existing nonconforming structure it can be
enclosed if the nonconformity is not increased. Otherwise,
the applicant will have to apply for a variance.
There are two existing two -story structures across the street
from the subject site. This site received Final Building Sit
Approval on June 25, 1980. — 0
The applicant has indicated two possible choices for exterior
materials for the dwelling. Staff has no problem with
either choice since both materials are commonly used.
-Report to Planning Commis_ on 3/6/81
A -i55 Page 3
• Under Ordinance 3E -16, five criteria must be addressed in
deciding to approve Design Review request. .for a structure over
22' in height on an R -1 lot with a slope less than 10 %. These
criteria and the Staff Analysis are as follows:
1. The proposed structure shall not significantly impair the
present or future ability of an adjacent property to utilize
solar energy: Staff prepared a shadow map for the proposed
structure and has determined that a portion of the north-
western corner of the,adjacent property to the east would
be shaded between the hours for 2 p:m. and 3 p.m. However,
the bulk of the adjacent eastern site.would have its
southern exposure unimpaired and the shaded portion of the
adjacent lot is shaded only one hour in the afternoon.
2. The proposed structure shall not constitute an unreasonable
invasion of the privacy of adjacent property owners: The
two eastern rear dormer windows of the second -story of the
structure could adversely impact the privacy of properties
to the southeast. This impact can be mitigated by removal
of these windows or by the planting of fast growing land-
scaping or mature trees.to provide additional privacy
screening. The structure will be screened by a large
mature evergreen oak tree and a smaller oak.
• �� 3. The proposed structure shall not unreasonably interfere
with the views of adjacent properties: On site inspection
has revealed that no significant viewsheds will be adversely
impacted by construction of the 26' high dwelling.
* .4. The proposed structure shall-minimize disruption to natural
topography, the natural drainage system, and existing
vegetation: Due to the gentle slope ot the site no
significant disruption to natural topography will be
required to accommodate the proposed dwelling. Drainage
plans must be reviewed and approved by the Department
of Inspection Services. No major trees will be removed
due to construction of the dwelling but some small redwood
trees on the eastern side of the site could be removed due
to construction. However, they cannot be removed by the
applicant without issuance of a tree removal permit. The
large'Bay tree will have to be pruned to accommodate the
roof of the structure but no adverse impacts are antici-
pated.
5. The proposed structure shall not be out of character with
t e existing structures o .the neighborhood: As mentioned
before, there are two other two -story structures across
the street from the site. One is of similar height and
• design. The structure will be compatible with the
neighborhood.
K. Environmental Assessment: This project is considered categor-
ically exempt per Section 15103 of the State E.I.R. Guidelines.
-Report to Planning Commi (, .on l.i 3/6/81,
A -759 Page 4 '
L. Public Hearing: Notice of this public hearing was advertised •
in the newspaper and by mailings to 86 nearby property owners.
Two letters have been received by nearby property owners
concerned with the proposed dwelling.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per Staff Report dated March 6, 1981 and Exhibits
"C ", and "D" subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of building permits:
A. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Department of Inspection Services. Only these approved plans shall
be implemented during construction.
B. Any modifications to the proposed site development plan or elevations
shall require Planning Department review and approval.
C. Landscaping plans showing how the privacy of adjacent properties will
be preserved shall be submitted for Planning Department review and
approval.
2. Approval of this Design Review request does not constitute approval of
the proposed pump and pool equipment enclosure. Design of the pad
enclosure shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval. •
Approved:
MF /clh
P. C. Agenda: 3/11/81
Michael Fl6re -s, Assistant Planner
*as amended at the Planning Commission meeting on 4/22/81.
•
A1't'; 1D LD _,Y: C111:20
ID
90
2t
. r
0 :
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
*(amended 4/22/81)
DATE: 4/16/81
Commission Meeting: 4/22/81
ADDENDUM TO:
SUBJECT A -759 Danny and Georgia Ray
13687 Quito Road
This was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of March 11,
1981. At that time the Commission indicated there were concerns with
the size of the proposed dwelling and the appropriateness of a two -
story design. The project was reviewed at the Committee -of- the -Whole
meeting of April 14, 1981. The applicant indicated that he would
install fast growing landscaping and windows which would use an obscur-
ing or stained glass to eliminate privacy impacts (see letter dated
April 3, 1981) .
The applicant has also submitted a letter (received April 13, 1981) from
neighboring property owners indicating support for the proposed struc-
ture. The Rays. have also worked out an agreement with the property
owners to the rear (the Brigham's) to plant additional landscaping
(see letter dated April 12, 1981). These proposals would comply with
Staff concerns outlined in the Staff Report dated March 6, 1981.
At its Committee -of- the -Whole meeting of April 14, 1981 the Commissioners
present indicated there were concerns with the size of the proposed
dwelling and its nearness to the adjacent property to the east (Citta).
Some of the Commissioners indicated that the structure should be moved
further west or reduced in size to preserve the small grove of young
redwoods on the eastern side of the site. If the full Commission
agrees to this modification then the condition under the Recommended
Action section of this report should be adopted.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per this addendum, the Staff Report and
conditions'.dated March 6, 1981 and Exhibits "B ",
"C ", and "D ". If the Commission wishes to relocate the proposed dwelling
then the following condition should be added.
• l.D. The proposed site development plan shall be modified to relocate
the dwelling or reduce the size of the dwelling so that the
structure will not encroach into the drip line area of the
existing redwoods on the eastern side of the property when they
reach maturity. A qualified horticulturist or tree surgeon
Report to Planning` -'mmission �. 4/16/81
A -759 Page 2
shall determine the extent of the drip line area for the
purposes of this modification.
* I.E. The applicant shall submit a bond in an amount suitable to
cover the replacement of three existing redwood trees and
additional landscaping for screening.
* 1.F. Applicant shall submit revised plans showing the 16 ft. side
yard setback, the reduction of 767 sq. ft. in the size of the
structure, and the removal of the dormer windows in the rear
elevation.
Approved: %ate
MF /clh
P. C. Agenda: 4/22/81
Michael Flores, 'Assistant Planner
*as modified at the Planning Commission meeting 4/22/81.
•
W�]
- _.. Ir
•
MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY MR. RAY
5J15J81
•
LJ
r�
u
May 15, 1981
City Council Members
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Re: Application A -759
Danny and Georgia Ray
Approved April 22, 1981 - Design Review Planning Commission
Dear Council Members:
On April 22, 1981, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, after
careful review of application A -759, approved by majority the home
design. This approval was granted after extensive and careful
review by the Planning Staff and Design Review Commission and
A -759 is totally in compliance with all general plan and Saratoga
ordinances.
The appeal letter by Mrs. Jensen is misleading and inaccurate and
for this reason I am presenting the following facts:
1. The home size is approximately 4,051 square feet of
living space plus a three car garage.. The nearby
homes are similar; for instance, Mr. Hassan's home
is 3,600 square feet plus an enclosed two car garage.
(See attached plot plan showing other sizes of homes.)
2. There is a small wet bar sink on the second floor.
There is no kitchen as alleged by Mrs. Jensen.
3. This lot is zoned R- 1- 10,000 and comes under the
zoning ordinance for reduced rear yard setbacks
as a non - conforming lot. This was approved by the
Planning Staff and the Design Review Commission
(see attached Resolution A- 759 -1).
This home covers only 17 per cent of the lot area and
is precisely oriented to the most optimum location
City Council Members
City of Saratoga •
May 15, 1981
Page 2
minimizing view interference while totally complying
with all Saratoga design and planning criteria.
4. Screening vegetation acceptable to design review and
the adjacent neighbors (Cittas, Brighams) is on the
attached plot plan.
5. The home design is totally compliant with the
general plan and ordinances as regularly and
routinely applied to similar projects in this area.
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION A -759 MEETS THE CRITERIA
OF SECTION 3.7, 3.7 -2, SECTION 14 AND URGENCY
ORDINANCE 3E -16 OF SARATOGA PLANNING ORDINANCES
AND THE CAREFUL REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMISSION SHOULD BE APPROVED AND THE APPEAL BY
MRS. JENSEN DISMISSED.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration.
Very truly yours,
cmj Danny Ray
Enc .
•
.....`. A 1A.
1 �
RESOLUTION ti0. A - 7 5 9 - ].
CITY OF SAMTOGA PL)kNNING CCY MISSIaN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
__hIiEREaS, the City of Saratoga Planning CoTmission has rec6ived an application
:..for Design Review Approval of a two- story, single - family dwelling that
would be over 22' in height (maximum 26') on a lot with an average ; and
slope less than o in the R-I-iU,000 zoning district
—1�1i 1S, the applicant (has) (hasxaot) met the burden of proof required to
support his said application,
NOW, Th'EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that.after careful consideration of the site
—plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits submitted in connec-
- tion with this matter, the application of DAN RAY
for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (granted) (d6A`e63 subject to
e following conditions:
Per Exhibits "B", "C" and "D ", the amended Addendum dated
.April 16, 1981 and the amended Staff Report. dated 'March.6, 1981.
Revised plans must be submitted to reflect the 16 ft. side yard
setback, the reduction of 767 sq. ft. in the size of the
structure, and the removal of the dormer windows in the rear
elevation.
`PASSIM A,ND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Ca=Tission, State of
California, this 22nd
following roll call vote:
day of AT) r i. I.
AYES: Commissioners King, Laden, Schaefer and Zambetti
19 s1 by the
_?per• Commissioners Bolger and Monia
\7: Commissioner Crowther
ainr WU-dng Uomnlssion
retary, arulint" o;lnussio
May 15, 1981
City Council Members
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Re: Application A -759
Danny and Georgia Ray
Approved April 22, 1981 - Design Review Planning Commission
Dear Council Members:
On April 22, 1981, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, after
careful review of application A -759, approved by majority the home
design. This approval was granted after extensive and careful
review by the Planning Staff and Design Review Commission and
A -759 is totally in compliance with all general plan and Saratoga
ordinances.
The appeal letter by Mrs. Jensen is misleading and inaccurate and
for this reason I am presenting the following facts:
1. The home size is approximately 4,051 square feet of
living space plus a three car garage. The nearby
homes are similar; for instance, Mr. Hassan's home
is 3,600 square feet plus an enclosed two car garage.
(See attached plot plan showing other sizes of homes.)
2. There is a small wet bar sink on the second floor.
There is no kitchen as alleged by Mrs. Jensen.
3. This lot is zoned R -1- 10,000 and comes under the
zoning ordinance for reduced rear yard setbacks
as a non - conforming lot._ This was approved by the
Planning Staff and the Design Review Commission
(see attached Resolution A- 759 -1).
This home covers only 17 per cent of the lot area and
is precisely oriented to the most optimum location
City Council Members
City of Saratoga
May 15, 1981
Page 2
minimizing view interference while totally complying
with all Saratoga design and planning criteria.
4. Screening vegetation acceptable to design review and
the adjacent neighbors (Cittas, Brighams) is on the
attached plot plan.
5. The home design is totally compliant with the
general plan and ordinances as regularly and
routinely applied to similar projects in this area.
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION A -759 MEETS THE CRITERIA
OF SECTION 3.7, 3.7 -2, SECTION 14 AND URGENCY
ORDINANCE 3E -16 OF SARATOGA PLANNING ORDINANCES
AND THE CAREFUL REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMISSION SHOULD BE APPROVED AND THE APPEAL BY
MRS. JENSEN DISMISSED.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration.
Very truly yours,
cmj Danny Ray
Enc.
saw
MONSON
Ila
0
• r
MEN ui
������ of ����
J .:.� .. I o c *�'c� / ice„' -� � M � i? S N A L L � . ^ ...... ..... ::� �f �- - - • - - --
u1..- ��.u�r awrtL�r
RESOLUTI ON NO. A - 7 5 9 -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANING CMMISSICIN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7.TTZ 1M�i i-7
. EREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application
:for Design Review Approval of a two- story, single- family dwelling that
would be over 22' in height (maximum 26') on a lot with an average ; and
slope less than o in the ' R-1-10,0U0 zoning district
hHERFAS, the applicant (has) (mss met the burden of proof required to
—support his said application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site
--plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits submitted ' cennec-
-.tion with this matter, the application of DAN RAY
for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (granted) (�1eAM13) subject to
the following conditions:
Per Exhibits "B", "C" and "D ", the amended Addendum dated
- April. 16, 1981 and the amended Staff Report dated March.6, 1981.
Revised plans must be submitted to reflect the 16 ft. side yard
setback, the reduction of 767 sq. ft. in the size of the
structure, and the removal of the dormer windows in the rear
elevation.
'-PASSED MID ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Cam. fission, State of
- California, this 22nd day of Apr i l
following roll call vote:
.AYES: Commissioners King, Laden, Schaefer and Zambetti
_MFS: Commissioners Bolger and Monia
;ABSENT : Commissioner Crowther
Se�rctary, Wlann 1111; ollrlilsslo
1981 by the
L-7
Chainv, Plaiuung Comnlssion
A
ILJ
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
*(amended 4/22/81)
DATE: 4/16/81
Commission Meeting: 4/ 22 / 81
ADDENDUM TO:
SUBJECT A -759 Danny and Georgia Ray
13687 Quito Road
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of March 11,
1981. At that time the Commission indicated there were concerns with
thn size of the proposed dwelling and the appropriateness of a two -
story design. The project was reviewed at the Committee -of- the -Whole
meeting of April 14, 1981. The applicant indicated that he would
install fast growing landscaping and windows which would use an obscur-
ing or stained glass to eliminate privacy impacts (see letter dated
April 3, 1981) .
The applicant has also submitted a letter (received April 13, 1981) from
neighboring property owners indicating support for the proposed struc-
ture. The Rays.- have also worked out an agreement with the property
owners to the rear (the Brigham's) to plant additional landscaping
(see letter dated April 12, 1981). These proposals would comply with
Staff concerns outlined in the Staff Report dated March 6, 1981.
At its Committee -of- the- l-Thole meeting of April 14, 1981 the Commissioners
present indicated there were concerns with the size of the proposed
dwelling and its nearness to the adjacent property to the east (Citta).
Some of the Commissioners indicated that the structure should be moved
further west or reduced in size to preserve the small grove of young
redwoods on the eastern side of the site. If the full Commission
agrees to this modification then the condition under the Recommended
Action section of this report should be adopted.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per this addendum, the Staff Report and
conditions dated March 6, 1981 and Exhibits "B ",
"C", and "D ". If the Commission wishes to relocate the proposed dwelling
then the following condition should be added.
l.D. The proposed site development plan shall be modified to relocate
the dwelling or reduce the size of the dwelling so that the
structure will not encroach into the drip line area of the
existing redwoods on the eastern side of the property when they
reach maturity. A qualified horticulturist or tree surgeon
oo Planning Commission
�f rt t
- 759
4/16/81
Page 2
shall determine the extent of the drip line area for the
purposes of this modification.
* 1.F. The applicant shall submit a bond in an amount suitable to
cover the replacement of three existing redwood trees and
additional landscaping for screening.
* 1.F. Applicant shall submit revised plans showing the 16 ft. side
yard setback, the reduction of 767 sq. ft. in the size of the
structure, and the removal of the dormer windows in the rear
elevation.
Approved:
MF /clh
P. C. Agenda: 4/22/81
Michael Flores, ssistant Planner
*as modified at the Planning Commission meeting 4/22/81.
i
;11��iikTE ON
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Ci�I of SarC:'Cgc:
AP ?„�:;:.`r�h. *(amended 4/22/81)
DATE: 3/6/81
Commission Meeting: 3/11/81
SUBJECT : A -759 Danny and Georgia Ray
13687 Quito Road, (SDR -1327)
:QUEST: Design Review approval for a two -story dwelling.
:TE SIZE: 24,567 sq. ft.
VING: R -1- 10,000
:OJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
Size of Structure: Lower Level: 3,926 sq. ft. (including garage)
Upper Level: 1,222 sq. ft.
Site Coverage by Structure: 17.5%
Site Slope: 2 %+ Slope at Building Footprint: 2 %+
Height of Structure: Maximum: 26'
At Mid -Point of Roof: 21'
Pad Elevation(s): (almost same height as natural grade).
Exterior Facade:
Roof Materials:
Materials: Brick in front elevation. Stucco or
horizontal wood siding on other elevations.
Color: White with black trim or beige with brown trim.
Wood shakes or asphalt shingles (charcoal)
Grading Required: Cut: -- yds.3 Fill: -- yds.3
Cut Depth: -- ft. Fill Depth: -- ft.
Minimal grading required to accommodate the structure.
Q 3 /11/81
Page 2,
Design: A. Number of Stories: Two.
B.
Setbacks:
Front: 25 ft. Rear: 26 ft.
Sides: 10 & 94 ft.
C.
Compatible
with Existing Structures: Yes,
see comments.
D.
Compatible
with Natural Setting: Yes, see
comments
E. visibility /Screening: The structure will be screened from
the rear by oak trees.
F.
Driveway
Configuration: Straight, front facing
garage.
G.
Accessory
Structures: Pool equipment enclosures;
see comments.
H. Existing vegetation: Oak and Bay trees.
I. Solar: 1. Building Configuration: Large portion of roof faces
south; good orientation.
2. Roof Angle: 37. degrees; good for low winter sun.
3. Passive System; Some passive heating due to
south facing windows'.
4. Active System; Solar panels for ddgmestic of water
and pool heating. Some panels wily be roo mounted.
J. Comments: It should be noted that the subject property is
nonconforming in that lot depth is 106' where 115'
is required. Under Section 14.3 of the zoning ordinance this
allows any main structure proposed for the site to maintain
a rear yard of 20% of the depth of the site or 21.2'. Normally
a 35' rear yard would be required for a two -story dwelling.
The proposed dwelling would maintain a minimum 26' rear
yard for the single -story master bedroom wing of the proposed
dwelling. The bulk of the structure, including the second -
story, will be about 37' or more from the rear property line.
The proposed dwelling will comply with all other setback
requirements.
The applicants are proposing to enclose an existing pad
supporting pump and pool equipment (for an existing pool)
within a detached accessory structure. This structure would
be only 8' from the front property line where a setback of 25'
is normally required. A design for the accessory structure
has not been submitted. If the Commission wishes to interpret
the pad as an existing nonconforming structure it can be
enclosed if the nonconformity is not increased. Otherwise,
the applicant will have to apply for a variance.
There are two existing two -story structures across the street
from the subject site. This site received Final Building Site
Approval on June 25, 1980.
The applicant has indicated two possible choices for exterior
materials for the dwelling. Staff has no problem with
either choice since both materials are commonly used.
Planning Commis_ in 3/6/81
�9 Page 3
Under Ordinance 3E -16, five criteria must be addressed in
deciding to approve Design Review request.for a structure over
22' it height on an R -1 lot with a slope less than 10 %. These
criteria and the Staff Analysis are as follows:
1. The proposed structure shall not significantly impair the
present or future ability of an adjacent property to utilize:
solar energy: Staff prepared a shadow map for the proposed
structure and has determined that a portion of the north-
western corner of the adjacent property to the east would
be shaded between the hours for 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. However,
the bulk of the.adjacent eastern site.would have its
southern exposure unimpair.ed and the shaded portion of the
adjacent lot is shaded only one hour in the afternoon.
2. The nroDosed structure shall not constitute an unreasonable
invasion of the privacy of adjacent property owners: The
two eastern rear dormer windows of the second -story of the
structure could adversely impact the privacy of properties
to the southeast. This impact can be mitigated by removal
of these windows or by the planting of fast growing land-
scaping or mature trees to provide additional privacy
screening. The structure will be screened by a large
mature evergreen oak tree and a smaller oak.
3. The proposed structure shall not unreasonably interfere
with the views of adjacent properties: On site inspection
has revealed that no significant viewsheds will be adversel
impacted by construction of the 26' high dwelling.
* 4. The proposed structure shall .minimize disruption to natural
topography, the natural drainage system, and existing
vegetation: Due to the gentle slope of the site no
significant disruption to natural topography will be
required to accommodate the proposed dwelling. Drainage
plans must be reviewed and approved by the Department
of Inspection Services. No major trees will be removed
due to construction of the dwelling but some small redwood
trees on the eastern side of the site could be removed due
to construction. Flowever, their cannot be removed by the
applicant ig1thout issuance of a tree removal permit. The
large Bay tree will have to be pruned to accommodate the
roof of the structure but no adverse impacts are anti.ci.-
nated.
5. The proposed structure shall not be out of character with
t e existing structures o .the nei hborhood: As mentioned
be ore, there are two other two -story structures across
the street from the site. One is of similar height and
design. The structure will be compatible with the
neighborhood.
K. Environmental Assessment: This project is considered categor-
ically exempt per Section 15103 of the State E.I.R. Guidelines.
Lng Commis', on 3/6/81
Page 4
Public Hearing: Notice of this public hearing was advertised
in the newspaper and by mailings to 86 nearby property owners.
Two letters have been received by nearby property owners
concerned with the proposed dwelling.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve per Staff Report dated March 6, 1981 and Exhibits
"B ", "C ", and "D" subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of building permits:
A. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Department of Inspection Services. Only these approved plans shall
be implemented during construction.
B. Any modifications to the proposed site development plan or elevations
shall require Planning Department review and approval.
C. Landscaping plans showing how the privacy of adjacent properties will
be preserved shall be submitted for Planning Department review and
approval.
2. Approval of this Design Review request does not constitute approval of
the proposed pump and pool equipment enclosure. Design of the pad
enclosure shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval.
Approved:
MF /clh
P. C. Agenda: 3/11/81
f
Michael Fl re., Assistant Planner
*as amended at the Planning Commission meeting on 4/22/81.
May 19, 1981
City Council Members
City of Saratoga
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
RE: Application A -759
Danny and Georgia Ray
Dear Council Members:
I wish to express my approval of the Ray's building plans.
Having looked over the current plans, I feel that the home
will be an attractive addition to our neighborhood. The style
and size of the home will blend nicely with the newer existing:
homes in our area.
Sincerely,
/t w�
Nur Hassan
Ll
0
hf\m, iRo,19 % 1
U
A�159�
fAA. � rAX4. .
CITY OF SARATUM
� Q
f ' A A � BILL NO. IS
DATE: May 8, 1981
Planning
r:�
SUBJECT: Appeal on Condition of Approval for Two -Story Single Family Dwelling
----- - - - -at -20105 -Mendelsohn ---- Lane, Appellant /Applicant - Nino-Gallo (A -761)
- ------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Sunnary
On April 8, 1981, the Commission granted conditional Design Review Approval
for a two -story structure by reducing its height from 30' to 261. The
applicant feels this reduction would not allow an authentic ren_roduction
of the desired English Tudor style.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council:
(1) Conduct a public hearing on the appeal
(2) Determine merits of appeal and approve or deny
• (3) Staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated.
Exhibits /Attachments
(1) Appeal letter
(2) Minutes for the March 25, 1981 and April 8, 1981 Commission meetings
(3) Staff Report dated March 18, 1981
(4) Exhibits B, C, D and E
Council Acticn
•
7
U
NINO GALLO CONSTRUCTION
13165 VIA RANCHER DR.
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Attention: Saratoga City Council
Gentlemen:
April 17, 1981
Re: Design Review Application A -761
On April 8, 1981 the City of Saratoga Planning Commission
• considered our request for Final Design Review Approval of a two- story,
single - family dwelling that would be over 22' in height (30' maximum)
on a lot with an average slope less than 10% on Mendelsohn Lane, Tract
6531, Lot #15. The Commission granted approval to our application, but
amended to include a condition that the structure be reduced in height
to a maximum of 26t.
At first glance a reduction of four feet does not seem to be
an unreasumable request, however, to effectively accomplish an authentic
reproduction of an English'Tudor home the height of the structure is
extremely important. This lot was selected for this style home because
the building pad is already three feet below the street level and we plan
to have a 45' setback, instead of the standard 35' setback, to situate
It correctly under the existing trees and enhance it's appearance from the
street. By this placement there should be no impaired view to any of
the surrounding homes, but rather a beautiful addition to 'Mendelsohn Lane.
We are making every effort to give very careful consideration to
the design and placement of every home in this subdivision, so that it
becomes a blend of an interesting variety of styles and one of the most
beautiful sections of Saratoga. I believe that the homes that have been
constructed already reflect this effort, therefore, I would like to request
that you reconsider thi s reduction in height and allow us to build this
home as it should be built.
• Very truly yours,
;
X'1 � G
NI NO GA
..+- iw�- #N'Ad:��Uy+..1�wi+'1 Y1�::. +�• .�� +iv.,i��•..1.Wriw:.:�.�...� ti..w..... .. .... .': .. .� � �ti.'k .. . - ....... .�.�_ - .r -.4r. �w..•��i:.aTl�rwWOaYK� I
•
1'I:innin." Couunissio,l
Mi,rutcs - Meeting 3/25/31
Page 4
V sal (coat.)
Ross Maddalena, owner of the restaurant, stated that it was never his
intention to operntc a restaurant, lie explained that he applied for a
business license to open a teahouse which would serve light tea, cakes,
and have retail. lie stated tliat he also applied for a beer and wine
liccnso which was approved by the City. Mr. Maddaicna indicated that he
thought it was unfair to put the use in the category of a restaurant. Ile
commented that there was a tremendous demand for this use in the Village.
it was directed that this item be continued to May 13, 1981.
2. V -S43 - Kernel Spiro, 19753 Minoqua Court, Request for a Variance to allow
the construction of a 416 sq. ft. solar accessory structure ( about.
3.S' high) to maintain a 3' rear yard where 25' is required; con-
, - tiIlLICd from February 25, 1981___
Staff dcscribcd the proposal., stating that the Land Use Committee had met on
site. Staff. indicated that they can make the findings for approval.
The public hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m.
David Joincr, from the solar boating company, stated that the proposed loca-
tion for the structure is the best one, and they arc happy to see that Staff
agrees with them.
Commissioner =amhctti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King
• seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Conmissioi:er Bolger gave a report on the on -site visit. He described tho
other altern-itives, but agreed that the proposed location is the best one
for the panels.
Commissioner ?amhctti moved to approve V -543, per Exhibits "B" and "C ",
makin_; the findings. Commissioner Crowther seconded tile motion, which was
carried unanimously. The applicant was informed of the toll-day appeal
perio
3 A -761 Nino Callo, Request for Finat Design Review Approval for a two-
story, single - family dwelling that would be over 22' in height
(30' max.) on a lot with an average slope less than 10% in the
R -1- 20,000 district on- Mendelsohn Lane_Trac.t 653]., Lot 915
Staff dcscribcd the current proposal, stating that it complies with the
criteria of the urgency ordinance.
*q
The public hearing teas opened at 8:40 p.m.
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. _Commissioner 2mnhetti
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
'fhe Commission reopened the public hearing to allow Lynn Bell, 20090 Men-
delsohn, to address the Commission. She stated that she is directly facing
the property. Mrs. Bell indicated that her main concern, and that of her
neighbors in the back, is the height of the entire home. -Staff explained
that 30 ft. is the maximum height of the structure, but not. of the entire
structure itself. Dlrs. Bell Mated tliat site felt so much of the property
has been taken up by these mammoth homes that few trees arc left, and she
asked what trees are being removed if this home is approved. it was explained
that four trees are scheduled to he removed for this building, and the build
ing onvelopcs were established to keep as many trccs as possible. The trees
were pointed out on the map to Mrs. Bell.
The map was also shown to Mrs. Sherman, 20015 Bonnie Brac, who lives directly
a.russ the street from this home. She stated that she was concerned about
the trees being removed ' because site did not wane to look out at a 2 -story
home.
;..:.:.:�...:_nr:+ sin...._- s.=.•' sti,. �.... :.:_.�...w:::...::i.....»..... :.:'..:.._ ....., _. .''..: .. _.......�.. ::.�..,�:.�..,...: ..:.:......w.....,.. ..
Planning Commission
Minutes - Meeting 3 /2S /81
A -761 (cont.)
Page S
Milo Gallo, the developer, stated that from the street the roof top or the
second story ol` the house will not he seen. lie indicated that they have
a tree surgeon who will. trim the existing trees on the property.
Commissioner Schaefer commented on the height of the other homes in the
neighhorhood, stating that she felt a two- st.or} home is appropriate here,
but she thought this design was too high; a 25 or 26 ft. height would be
much more appropriate.
Staff commented that this structure maintai;ts a 45 ft. front yard, which is
about 15 ft. greater than the standard front yard in that area. They
indicated that this also has some mitigation on the impact.
Commissioner Monia commented that the City Council has requested from the
City Attorney an emergency ordinance concerning both the two -story and
single - store relationship of building site-to impervious area. He then
suggcstcd that this item be postponed, since it was 5LIpposed to be drafted
and presented to the City Council next week.
Councilperson Jensen commented that the City Council has been very con-
cerned during the last six months over the size and height of structures
and also setbacks. Silo indicated that they have requested the City Attorney
to draft an ordinance to be used in t interim, while the Design Review
Ordinance is being developed. 1
�'..` Chairman Laden commented that she thought the consensus among the Commission
at a study session had been that it was not in a form that was acceptable
for use in determining any of the criteria for the sizes of homes and set -
backs.
Councilperson Jensen stated that apparently the urgency ordinance now being
used has not really done the whole joh. Silo stated that the City Council
is concerned also about the variances that have been given for the height
Of bui-ldings. She added that they are concerned that the setbacks are not
clear in the ordinance, and they feel it is time now that they look at all
of those issues and have an ordinance to use in the interim.
The Deputy City Attorney commented that commercial structures are not covered
under the present urgency ordinance; therefore it sounds like there is a
desire by the City Council to expand the scope of the ordinance to include
that type of improvement.
Councilperson Jensen Stated that it was not the intention of the.Council
to usurp the ability of the Commission to work out a smooth ordinance, one
^"=�= that really fulfills the goals of the General Plan, but to get something
to use in the interim while the Commission makes the ordinance changes that
they feel would be appropriate.
Commissioner Monia stated that he felt it would he appropriate to postpone
this particular item for two weeks, to sec what is proposed as far as an
emergency ordinance is concerned, and also in light of the fact that there
are sonic other concerns about the height of the structure.
Commissioner Zamhetti. discussed the current Emergency Ordinance and the five
criteria in it. Ile stated that this is the. ordinance under which the
applicant has submitted his application, and it has hcen legally noticed.
Ile added that the five criteria have been met, and he has a problem with
changing the criteria at this time.
Commissioner Crowther stated that the comments from the residents in the
area and Commissioner Schaefer were directed primarily toward Criteria 05,
lie added that he feels there is a question about whether that criteria has
been met.
Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she had stated it was out of character
because of the height. She stated that there is disagreement in -
- S -
i ( l
C�
• 1.
�..:w.,. :��a..: -ti :..ors• ..w... .......�• _..
Planning Commission
Dlinutcs - Dlccting 3/?5/31
A-7761 (coat.)
Page G
the neighhorhood; sonic feel that a two -story design is appropriate; some
do not.
Commissioner Zambctti stated that lie would like to continue the matter;
however, he felt that the decision has to he made on the present urgency
ordinance and the criteria listed in that.
Commissioner Monia stated that lie felt it is the Commission's responsibility
to recognize that there are prohlems, and if the City Council is going to
take specific action on an interim ordinance within the next several weeks,
he feels the Commission should postpone this item to see what their guidance
might he..
Chairman Laden stated that she agreed with Commissioner Zambctti in the
fact that the criteria have been established and the Commission has a
responsibility to work within what is a present ordinance and not what may
happen in the future. She stated that she felt the Commission has the
ability !ropefully to make the decision to approve or deny this building, or
to make recommendations to the applicant of those things we feel need to
be changed about the architectural style of the building.
Con;nissioner King commented that lie feels there is a problG�m in assumin;
that there will be a quick resolution. He stated that he felt the issue
Would drag on for months, since there are a lot of concerns with the
Design Review Ordinance.
• The height of the trees on the site were discussed. Commissioner Mania
moved to continue .a -761 until April 8, 1981, at which time, if a new
emergency ordinance has not been issued by the City Council referencing
the size aura impervious surface areas allowed on lots, the Commission
will tjke action on this application under the present 3E -16 Ordinance.
Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion.
It was determined that some direction should be given to the applicant as to .
whether this structure is going to meet the criteria under the present
ordinance, if that is in existence at the next meeting.
Commissioner King commented that he would deal with the proposed
design very positively. lie stated that he thinks the intent of a
lot of the Commission's concern about large homes is the home in
the G,OUO -7,000 sq. ft. area jammed on a small lot. He added
" than he felt this was a well designed home in a very attractive
neighborhood.
> ! Commissioner Monla stated that he agreed with Commissioner Schaefer
Oil the height of the bu.iLding and would like to scc, in addition
to the footprint of the huilding, the inclusion of a pool site
and the amount of the area of impervious surface coverage
that the builder would be planning on this lot.
Commissioners Bolger, Cro�.ther and Schaefer all agreed that they
would like the height reduced between 3 and •i ft.
Commissioner Zambctti stated he has no prohlcros with the proposed
plan.
The vote was tzken on the: motion to continue. this item for two weeks. The
motion was carricd,with Comiiiissioners Laden and �amhetti dissenting. It
wars directed that thi; item be continued to April 8, 1981. Regarding the
pool location, Mr. Gallo commented that there. is a subdivision lavout for
pools, and there is no pool allowed on this lot; it is in the CCf,Rs.
:. : ;A
n
r
CITY 01: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
M1NI TI:S
DATE: Wednesday, April 8, 1981' - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Frui.tvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
------------------------------------"-------------------------
ROUI'INIi ORGAN'I_ATION
Roll Call .
Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Laden, Nloni.a, Schaefer and
Zambctti (Commissioner Crowther arrived at 8:15 p.m.)
Absent: None
Minutes
Commissioner Zambctti. moved, seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to waive the
reading of the minutes of March 2S, 1981 and approve them as distributed.
The motion was carried unanimously.
PWl"IC LG:-ARINGS
;I. A -761 - ::Nino Gallo, Reducst for Final Design Review Approval for a two -
l�_ story, single - family dwelling that would be over 22' in height
(30' max.) on a lot with an average slope less than 10% in the
R -1- 20,000 district on Mendelsohn Lane, Tract 6531, Lot #IS;
Continued from March 25, 1981
It was reported that there has not been a new interim Urgency Ordinance
adopted by the City Council; therefore, this application will be considered
under the present ordinance.
Tlie, puh-]ic hearing was reopened at 7:40 p.m.
Shclby Christian, 20230 Bonnie Brae Way, stated that. they arc part of the
Mendelsohn - Montalvo Homeowners Association, and they arc concerned about
the height of this house. She commented that they were also concerned
about the old trees on the site, and believe the), are not being treated
properly in the building of these houses. It was clarified to Mrs.
Christian that the ordinance-does permit a 30 ft. structure, and the pro-
posed one is 30 ft. at maximum and 27 ft. at mid- point. Staff also noted
that there will be four trees removed for this particular building, and
the ot:rcr trees arc being cared for and pruned by a landscape person.
Mrs. Christian asked if an environmental report had been done, and it was
reported that a Negative Declaration was approved when the subdivision was
approved. It was pointed out that at that time there was a great deal of
work done by the homeowners association. Mrs. Christian commented that one
of their major concerns was the grove of trees on the right as you face
the property. Couunissioncr Schaefer Stated that she had also heard con-
cerns rc,ti;rrdi.ng this grove, and suggested that perhaps this could he dis-
cussed with the developer. She indicated that there had been mixed feelings
in the neighborhood about the trio -story structure, and they felt it l.as
too lri.gh and Would like to reach a compromise.
Dave Call, who works for the developer, stated he had discussed the proposal
With one of the neighbors who had attended the last meeting. Ile commented
that he i'clt that the neighbors had not been aware of some of the efforts
and study that have been d"nc regarding the trees. Ile stated that he had
explained the project-to her. Mr. Call commented that he felt the site is
an excellent one for a'two- story, since it is not directly across from any
home. Ile also added that the home has been set hack 4S ft., which has
saved three trees.
Chairman Laden indicated that when the subdivision had been originally
planned, all of the trees wore appraised 1)), Brian Gage, the Citv's consul
- 1 -
Planning Commission
Electing Minutes - 4/3/31
A -761 (coat.)
Page 2
tant, and a study was done regarding which ones should be removed. A
great deal of consideration had been given to saving the vast majority of
trees and those which were the healthiest. It was noted that the City has
been monitoring the tree removal on this site as the subdivision develops.
Since no one else appeared, Commissioner Dlonia moved to close the public
hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Zambetti commented that this lot is an appropriate lot for a
two story. He stated that he is in favor of the proposal, since it meets
the criteria set forth in the Emergency Ordinance and has a 45 ft. setback.
Commissioner Bolger stated that he agrees that a two -story would be appro-
priate, but feels that the structure is too hic1h. He commented that he
felt that the 30 ft. height is not compatible with the existing neighbor-
hood, and it should be reduced in height at least to 26 ft. Commissioner
Schaefer agreed.
Commissioner King stated that he had a problem with arbitrary height
reduction regarding the architectural appearance of homes. He stated that
he t:as not disagreeing with the concern over the height, but would like
to discuss it further before the Commission gets into truncating the
design.
Dave Call commented that the trees that stand in front of this home range
from 40 to 60 ft. in height and arc heavy.with foilage• therefore, there
will not be a visual impact. He stated that some concern should be given
to the style of the house whon reduction is considered. Mr. Call stated
that this is an excellent site for this style of home.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A -761, per the Staff Report and
making the findings of the Emergency Ordinance. Commissioner King seconded
'the. motion.
Discussion followed on the height of the structure. Commissioner Monia
moved to amend the motion for approval, to include the stipulation that
the structure be reduced to a maximum height of 26 ft. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the amendment. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Ring
dissenting. It. was determined that a condition should be added to the
Staff Report to read: "The height Of the structure will be reduced to a
maximum of 26 ft. Revised plans are to be submitted to the PLanning Depart-
ment for review and approval."
The vote was taken on the motion to approve A -76L at a maximum height of
26 ft., per the amended Staff Report. The motion was carried unanimously.
Marty Oakle,y, the architect, stetted that the roof pitch is based on the.
living room area of the house. lie indicated that they could not maintain
the same roof pitch if reduced by 4 ft.
Chairman Laden stated that the Commission had previously asked the appli-
cant to consider reducing the height of the home, and it iS the consensus
OF the Commission that it is too high. It was noted that there is a 10 -dav
appeal period.
2. SDR -1486 - Tor Larsen, Rec{ucst for '1'entatit-c Building Sitc Approval for
3 lots, Pierce Road; Continued from Land Development Committee
Mccting of I-'.-arch 19, 1931
Staff explained that this item is_ a continuccl,pnl1lic hearing from the Land
Development Committee. Staff explained that the Suhdivision Ordinance
requires that when there is a minimum access or driveway access off of a
cul -de -sac, it requires an exception from the Planning Commission. It was
- 2 -
(t
0
City of Sarctoga
C~ APP?OVED EY: C�
DA'f E:
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
*(amended 4/8/81)
DATE: 3/18/81
Commission Meeting: 3/25/81-
SUBJECT A -761 Mendelsohn Lane Development Co.
20105 Mendelsohn Lane (Lot 15, Tract 6531)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
'EQUEST: Design Review Approval for a two -story single family dwelling.
;ITE SIZE: 20,083 sq. ft.
R -1- 20,000
'ROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Size of Structure: Lower Level: 2,876 sq. ft. (including garage)
Upper Level: 1,830 sq. ft.
2. Site Coverage by Structure: 14.3%
3. Site Slope: 3.5% - Slope at Building Footprint: 3%
4. Height of Structure: Maximum: 30'
5. Pad Elevation(s):
6. Exterior Facade:
At Mid -Point of Roof: 27'
515.00+
Materials: Brick, half timber,- Stucco
Color: Beige (stucco)
7. Roof Materials: Cedar shakes.
8•Grading Required: Cut: yds.3 Fill: yds.3
Cut Depth: ft. Fill Depth: ft.
Minimal grading will be required to accommodate proposed dwelling.
taff Report �.. ( : C. 3 /18/81
- 1. 761 Page 2
9. Design: A. Number of Stories: Two
B. Setbacks: Front: 45 ft. Rear: 63 ft. Sides: 18
r:
& 30 ft.
C. Compatible with Existing Structures: Yes, see comments.
D. Compatible with Natural Setting: Yes, see comments.
E. Visibility /Screening: Due to trees on site, the proposed
residence is partially screened on the front, left and rear
sides of the property.
F. Driveway Configuration: Curved "L "shaped; side facing garage.
G. Accessory Structures: None proposed.
H. Existing Vegetation: grasses, oaks and firs.
I. Solar: 1. Building. Configuration: Portion of the roof faces
south; acceptable but may not be large enough for adequate heating.
2. Roof Angle: 45 degrees; OK
3. Passive System None proposed
4. Active System: None proposed. .
J. Comments: As per Ordinance 3E -16, any structure over 22' in
height (measured to peak of roof) on an R -1 lot
less than 10% in average slope must be reviewed under a
Design Review public hearing.
Approximately 60 sq. ft. of the northern side of the proposed
structure is outside the approved building envelope for
lot 15. No adverse impacts are associated with this encroach-
ment since no major trees will be adversely impacted and
setback and coverage requirements will be complied with.
It should be noted that this is the fifth modification to
the building envelopes approved by the Planning Commission
(Exhibit "A -7 ", SD- 1341). The proposed modification is a
minor one which should have no adverse impacts on adjacent _
properties and conforms to the City's goal of preserving
as many trees on the site as possible.
The applicant has submitted a revised site development
plan for the proposed subdivision, as required by the
Commission, to show the location of the modified building
envelope relative to other approved structures and building
envelopes.
According to Ordinance 3E -16, five criteria must be
addressed in deciding to approve or deny a Design Review •
request for a structure over 22' in height. The criteria -
and the Staff Analysis are as follows:
Staff Report C 3/18/81
A. -�61' Page 3
1. The proposed structure shall not significantly impair
the present or uture ability of an adjacent property
to utilize solar energy.
Staff prepared•a shadow map for the proposed structure
and determined that there would be no substantial
adverse shading on the adjacent northern property
due to structure height.
2. The proposed structure shall not constitute an
unreasonable invasion of the privacy of adjacent
property owners.
The windows of the second -story contained in the rear
elevation will be partially screened by scattered
mature oak trees on the subject parcel and neighboring
parcel to the rear.. However it'is appropriate that
additional evergreens._ be planted in the rear yard to
further protect the privacy of the adjacent property.
The proposed 63' rear yard setback will also help to
mitigate potential privacy impacts.
3. The proposed structure shall not unreasonablv interfere
with the views of adjacent properties.
SSite inspection of the subject parcel has revealed
that although the structure is 30' in height, viewshed
areas will not be adversely.impacted. Many of the
trees contained in the subdivision are taller than the
proposed dwelling.
4. The proposed structure shall minimize disruption to
natural topography, the natural drainage system, and
existing vegetation.
Due to the nearly level nature of the site, no significant
disruption to the topography will be required to
accommodate the proposed dwelling. Natural drainage
will only be disrupted by the increase in impervious
surface. This disruption will be minimal since coverage
of the site will be minimized with the two -story
structure. Drainage for the site must be approved by
the Department of Inspection Services. Four ordinance
size trees are scheduled to be removed which are located
in the building envelope approved by the Planning
Commission under Exhibit "A -7 ". All other ordinance
sized trees on the subject parcel will be preserved.
It should be noted that the northern side of the struc-
ture will be closer to a 12" fir tree. The foundation
should be designed to minimize damage to the tree's
• root system.
5. The proposed structure shall not be out of character
with the existing structures of the neighborhood.
Staff Report
A -761
(1. C...r
3/18/31 -
Page 4
This structure will be the second two -story of the •
subdivision which, according to Ordinance NS -3.31
(the Multi-Story Ordinance), is allowed to have 50%
of its lots occupied by two -story structures. The
proposed structure complies with ordinance require-
ments and would be compatible with the height of
other two -story structures across the street and with
other adjacent structures within the tract on lots
11 and 13 (28' +).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per Staff Report dated March 18, 1981 and _
Exhibits "B ", "C ", "D ", and "E" subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of building permits:
A. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Department of Inspection Services. Only these approved plans
shall be implemented during construction.
B. Any modifications to the proposed site development plan or elevations
..shall require Planning Department review and approval.
C. A landscape plan shall be submitted for Planning Department review
and approval which illustrates how privacy of adjoining lots will
be protected. Landscaping shall be planted prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
D. The proposed dwelling's foundation shall be designed to minimize
damage to the root system of the 12" fir tree near the northern
side of the dwelling.
E. The height of the structure will be reduced to a maximum of 26 ft.
Revised plans are to be submitted to the Planning Department for
review and approval.
Approved:
� 2—
SL /clh
P. C. AGENDA: 3/25/81
/rte ,L ,
- "( Sharon Leste P anning Aide
*As amended at thr- Planning Commission meeting on 4/8/81.,
•
a
J
S.
2-
N
( J
�Y
l�
May 9, 1981
PETITION TO SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
We, the undersigned residents of Saratoga, have
examined the two sets of plans for Mendelsohn Lane
Subdivision lot #15; one where the height is 26'
and the other where the height is 30'. We urge
the Council to approve the 30' height plans.
2
ZO F Lfn
%�F� E �'O -F % �2 P cy f 6 d" �C S /►t e, C 4
'7 4I
� f,
/7
CPO
au
May 9, 1981
PETITION TO SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
0
We, the undersigned residents of Saratoga, have
examined the two sets of plans for Mendelsohn Lane
Subdivision lot p15; one where the height is 26'
and the other where.the height is 30'. We urge
the Council to approve the 30' height plans.
r7- Sel
a3 �
f 'll- /
LIN
as
�,w