HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-1981 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY of SArUnIOGA
P.3 =-A BILL 00.
DATE: 11/4/81
DEPAi:IT'IE'NT:Community Development
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE REQUEST AT CHATEAU DRIVE
--------- AND WOODMONT DRIVE
Issue Summary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
At your Octobet 21, 1981 meeting, you directed staff to prepare the appro-
priate resolution to create an all -way stop intersection at Chateau Drive
and Woodmont Drive. Attached is Resolution No. MV- , which, when adopted
and implemented, will create an all -way stop intersection.
Implementation of this action should be conditioned on citizen contribution
of costs. Total charge for purchase of materials and installation is $243.00.
Recommendation
Fiscal Impacts
No capital costs - only continued maintenance costs.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resolution No. MV- 150
Council Action
Jensen /Mallory moved adoption of.resolution with provision that charges for purchase of
materials and installation be covered by those who requested sign. Passed 5 -0.
,r
•
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
IN
RESOLUTION NO. MV-
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTION OF
CHATEAU DRIVE AND WOODMONT DRIVE AS A STOP INTERSECTION
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
-"
SECTION 1: The following intersection in the City of Saratoga is
hereby designated as a stop intersection:
NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION
Chateau Drive All vehicles traveling on Chateau Drive
eastbound and westbound shall stop before
entering or crossing the intersection
�.
thereof with Woodmont Drive.
Woodmont Drive All vehicles traveling on Woodmont Drive
' �i.
northbound or southbound shall stop be-
fore entering or crossing the intersection
thereof with Chateau Drive.
This section shall become effective at such time as the proper
signs and /or markers are installed.
SECTION 2: In order to implement regulations as set forth in
Section 1 of Resolution No. MV -112 (adopted 5/5/76)
and any other resolution in conflict with this resolution, are hereby
rescinded. The remainder of said resolutions not in conflict with this
resolution, shall remain in fullforce and effect. '
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the
day of , 1981, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
IN
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO: 14-b
Initial:
Dept. Head:
DATE: November 4, 1981 City Atty
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services City Mgr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
SUBJECT: Addition of Two Windows to the Community Center
Issue Summary
With the reorganization of the City's functions and operations it is necessary to make
certain modifications to the facilities. This, the first modification, will install
windows into two small areas which we are now utilizing as office space. These windows
will provide light and ventilation allowing the doors of this office to be closed in
order to shut out noises of the Community Center's activities and provide a better
work environment. Cost .estimates were obtained for the work to be performed, and the
best price was obtained from Christensen Construction Company in the amount of $1465.
Recommendation
Authorize letter of contract with Christensen Construction for $1,465 to provide
two windows in office areas of Community Center building.
Fiscal Impact
The written proposal from Christensen Construction Company is in the amount of $1,465
to perform the proposed installation. The fund balance of the Revenue Sharing
account as of July 1, 1981 was $415,289. The anticipated revenue to the fund this
fiscal year is $146,779. The proposed budget, nor this expenditure, will not over
expend this fund.
Exhibits /Attachments
Proposal from Christensen Construction Company.
Council Action
1.1/4: Jensen /Clevenger moved to award contract to lowest of three quotes. Passed 4 -1
Mallory opposed).
Page No. of Pages
7i R. Christensen Construction Co., Inc.
1161 Dell Ave. — - -
'CAMPBELL, CA 95008 N2 2180
(408) 374 -6840
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO
PHONE
DATE
City of saratoga
10/16/81
STREET
JOB NAME
13777 Fruitvale Av.
Saratoga Community Center
CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE
JOB LOCATION
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
ARCHITECT
DATE OF PLANS
JOB PHONE
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
Install two sliding aluminum sash. double glazed, 410" X 410" to match
t 6 exsisting sash.
Cut opening with new header, 4X6 ", after removing exterior plywood
to allow for a neat,cut at interior gypsum board.
Provide wood jambs, head, and sill at interior with trim at gypsum board
to match exsisting:
Provide exterior trim in redwood to match exsisting with 2X4" redwood trim
full height at each side of new sash.
Paint to match interior and exterior.
As per plans and specifications submitted.
lit FroposP hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of:
One Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Five and no /100 1,465.00 * **
dollars($
Payment to be made as follows:
Progress monthly
All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike
manner according to standard Any alteration or deviation from above specifica- Authorized���
practices.
become Signature
tions involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will an
extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents
or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. Note: This proposal may be 10
Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance. withdrawn by us if not accepted within days.
Araptantp of Fro ood —The above prices, specifications
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized Signature
to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Date of Acceptance:
Signature
FORM 110 COPYRIGHT 1960 - NEW ENGLAND BUSINESS SERVICE, INC., TOWNSEND. MASS. 01489
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO.
Dept. Hd.
DATE: Novpmher 4, 1981 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: SDR -1320 Alice Slegrist, Glen Una and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road-
----------------- Reversion to Acreage of Two Lots ------------
---------------- - - - - --
Issue Sunanary The applicant is requesting that two contiguous lots, both under her
ownership, be reverted to acreage (become one lot) at the corner of
Glen Una and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road in the R -1- 40,000 Zoning District.
She desires to receive back the bonds she posted for the improvement of
the two lots ($8,000 for street improvements) and is requesting the
same of the Sanitation District. Once the reversion is accomplished,
in order for the property to be developed, a new building site approval
would need to be approved which would include conditions for these
improvements.
Recommendation 1. Conduct a public hearing on.the reversion. to acreage.
2. Determine the merits of the request.
3. Staff recommends approval of the Reversion to Acreage subject
to the appropriate findings of Section 66499.16 of the Subdivision
Map Act.
Fiscal Impacts None noted.
Exhibits /Attachments 1. Proposed Parcel.Map
2. Staff Report dated July 22, 1977 as amended
3. Chapter 6 of the Subdivision Map Act relating to Reversion
to Acreage.
4. Letter of Request from Applicant.
Council Action
11/4: Jensen /Mallory moved to approve reversion to acreage. Passed 5 -0.
C
S
r 1', 1
iII:+LS 1. _- .I11.Y 22 1977
CITY 0: , .
SAR'+TOGA
STAFF REPORT
(Autended)
SDI: -1270 ".OI > > ? ?Y.1' ` C 11:1I i, Saraitocra -Los Gams Rd_ & M.en Una, Tcutative gildg_ Site. Approval -
2 lots
Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan and all require -
tuents of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga,
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara
Recorder's Office relative to thi, environmental impact of this project if approved,
under this npplication. Said determination dated: June 6, 1977
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDK -1320 (Exhibit "A"
filed l 6/3/77 ) subject to the following conditions:
I. GKNERAL CO':`DITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60,
including without limitation the submission of a Record of Survey or Parcel
Hap, payment of storm drainage fee nnd,park and recreation fee as established
by Ordinance. in effect at the time of " tentative. approval, submission of engineer-
ed improvement plans for any street work and compliance with -applicable Health
Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements
of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby trado to said Ordinance for further.
particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning
and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition
thereto, r.pplicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are
heresy required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
1I. SPECIFIC CMD7.TIOe1S - PUBLIC WOMS DEPARTMENT
A. Construct access road approach 18 -feet wide at property line flared to 24 feet
at street paving (Glen Una D•ri.ve). Use double coat oil and screening or better
on 6 -inch base rock.
B. Construct valley gutters across driveways.or pipe culverts under drivewIIys as
approved by Director of Public Works.
C. Const"rucL access road lb -feet. wide plus 1 -foot shoulders using double coat
oil and screening, or better on 6 -inch aggregate base from Glen Una Drive to
turnaround within 100 feet, of proposed dwelling on Parcel "A ".
D. Construct: turnaround having 32 -foot radius or approved equal using; double coat
oil and screeninh or better (2=" asphalt concrete) on 6-inch aggregate hale.
E. Provide adequate site - distance and remove obstructions of view as required.
r. Dedicate. nr.d 1uprove Glen Una Drive to provide for a 25 foot half - street with
13 feet of half - street: ir.,provements.
G. Convey drainage water to street, storm sewer or watercourse as approved by
Director of Public Works.
It. Obtain encroachment from (Al, /TRANS for work done within State right -of -way.
1. Eng;incer.ed irprovc:^ent plans required for street and access road construction.
J. Cond and inspection fee a;; (ir.telmtined from engineered pl.rns, to be posted and
Paid.
K. Direct access to Saratuga -Los Catos Road fr,rm Parcel "A" or "It" prohibited.
III. S1'liCl °'IC Cr)::D7.'1iQ:S - I1U11.D11:C DEPAWMEtiT
A. Surface drainage pattern to be short on plans, as approved by l;uildi.n Dr_partment.
1. ,
- - -- _ - -- OL 5!,1F'r R'.i'JRT - - July 22 1977 - -
1 Rh: SDR- 1320,, Robrrt 11cliain
IV, SPs.:C1:FIC COShITIONS - SA"TT."TION DISTRICT NO, 4 C
' * A. Sanitary sewers to be provided to both parcels in accordance with
requirement9
of Sanitation District No, 4 as outlined in letter dated July 21, 1977.
V. SPECIFIC CO::1 ?7770;;5 - IIF A1.171 Dlil`:1R1'aF27T
-- - - - --
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by
the developer to one of Like cxisting trunk sewers of the County Sanitation
i' District ^Io, 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted
with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned,
_
B. Domestic water to be provided.by San Jose hater Forks.
C. Existing septic tanks on this property are to be pumped and backfilled to'.
County standards. A bond in the amount of $500 shall be .posted with the
City of Saratoga to insure completion of work.
1 VI, SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Location and intended use of any existing wells to be shotm on 'plans submitted
to S,C.C,F,D. for approval. .
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PlANNNING DEPARTIE'N'f
** A. The house on Parcel "A" is Cp re. ^.pert a 70 fz)ot setback, as measured from
the Saratoga -Los Gatos Road right- of -caay, subject to any additional setback .
requirements of the State Department of Transportation.
t
L'. E�-asting non - conforming structures on Parcel. "B" to be removed.
C. As noted under Conditions II -C and K above, both lots are to obtain access
from a connuou "mi.ni.mum access road" connecting to Clen lic;a Drive. T'ne
"20 FL. Driveway Easement" shoran on the Tentative ;lap, Ethibi -t "A ", does C
not facilitate such an arrangement, and shall thercfure bu stricken from
the final map. Said acc:.ss road shall be designed to use .the existing curb
cut on Parcel "B ", and appropriate casements shall be pr.ovi.ded in conjunct -
ion with the placementof the access road and turnaround.
VIII. C.W.UI.NTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances.
Land Devc•lopmene ComlitLce Ageuda: __7/21/77
**Amended by L.D.C. at fleeting of 8 /4/77
Richard T. ].uew:u,- P.::ni:cr 1
the local agency for such guarantee and warranty period nor to costs
and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
The legislative body may authorize any of its public officers or
employees to authorize release or reduction of the security in ac-
cordance with the conditions liereinabove set forth and in accord-
ance with such rules as it may prescribe.
66499.8. In all cases where the performance of the obligation for
which the security is required is subject to the approval of another
agency, the local agency shall not release the security until the obli-
gation is perfor led to the satisfaction of such other agency. Such
agency shall have two months after completion of the performance of
the obligation to register its satisfaction or dissatisfaction. If at the
end of that period it has not registered its satisfaction or dissatisfac-
tion, it shall be conclusively deemed that the performance of the
obligation was done to its satisfaction.
66499.9. Any liability upon the security given for the faithful per-
formance of any act or agreement shall be limited to:
(a) The performance of the work covered by the agreement be-
tween the subdivider and the legislative body or the performance of
the required act.
(b) The performance of any changes or alterations in such work;
provided, that all such changes or alterations do not exceed 10 per-
cent of the original estimated cost of the improvement.
(c) The guarantee and warranty of the work, for a period of one
year following completion and acceptance thereof, against any defec-
tive work or labor done or defective materials furnished, in the per-
formance of the agreement with the legislative body or the perform-
ance of the act.
(d) Costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.
66499.10. Where the security is conditioned upon the payment
to 'the contractor, his subcontractors and to persons furnishing labor,
materials or equipment to them for the improvement or the perform-
ance of an act and takes the form of a deposit of money or negoti-
able bonds, a suit to recover the amount due the claimant may be
maintained against the holder of such deposit. Where the security
takes the form of a surety bond, or surety bonds, the right of recovery
shall be in a suit against the surety. Where the security takes the form
of an instrument of credit, the cause of action ' hall be against the
financial institution obligating itself on such instrument of credit.
CHAPTER 6. REVERSIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
ARTICLE I. REVERSION TO ACREAGE
66499.11. Subdivided real property may be reverted to acreage
pursuant to the provisions of this article.
—60—
66499.12. Proceedings for reversion to acreage may be initiated
by the legislative body on its own motion or by petition of all of the
owners of record of the real property within the subdivision.
66499.13. The petition shall be in a form prescribed by the local
agency and shall contain the following:
(a) Adequate evidence of title to the real property within the
subdivision.
(b) Sufficient data to enable the legislative body to make all of
the determinations and findings required by this article.
(c) A final map which delineates dedications which will not be
vacated and dedications which are a condition to reversion.
(d) Such other pertinent information as may be required by the
local agency.
66499.14. The legislative body may establish a fee for processing
reversions to acreage pursuant to this article in an amount which will
reimburse the local agency for all costs incurred in processing such
reversion to acreage. Such fee shall be paid by the owners at the time
of filing the petition for reversion to acreage, or if the proceedings
for reversion to acreage are initiated by the legislative body on its own
motion shall be paid by the person or persons requesting the legislative
body to proceed pursuant to this article before such initiation of pro -
ceedings.
66499.15. A public hearing shall be held on the proposed reversion
to acreage. Notice thereof shall be given in the time and manner pro-
vided in Section 66451.3.
66499.16: Subdivided real property may be reverted to acreage
only if the legislative body finds that:
(a) Dedications or offers of dedication to be vacated or abandoned
by the reversion to acreage are unnecessary for present or prospective
public purposes; and
(b) Either:
(1) All owners of an interest in the real property within the sub-
division have consented to reversion; or
(2) None of the improvements required to be made have been
made within two years from the date the final or parcel -. rap was filed
for record, or within the time allowed by agreement for :mipletion of
the improvements, whichever is the later; or
(3) No lots shown on the final map or parcel map have been sold
within :five years from the date such map was filed for record.
66499.17. As conditions of reversion the legislative body shall
require„
(a) Dedications or offers of dedication necessary for the purposes
specified by local ordinance following reversion.
(b) Retention of all previously paid fees if necessary to accomplish
the purposes of this division or local ordinance adopted pursuant
thereto.
—61—
(c) Retention of any portion of required improvement security or
deposits if necessary to accomplish the purposes of this division of
local ordinance adopted pursuant thereto.
66499.18. Reversion shall be effective upon the final map being
filed for record by the county recorder, and thereupon all dedications
and offers of dedication not shown thereon shall be of no further
force or effect.
66499.19. When a reversion is effective, all fees and deposits shall
be returned and all improvement security released, except those re-
tained pursuant to Section 66499.17.
66499.20. A tax bond shall not be required in reversion pro-
ceedings.
66499.20 %. A city or county may, by ordinance, authorize a
parcel map to be filed under the provisions of this chapter for
the purpose of reverting to acreage land previously subdivided and
consisting of four or less contiguous parcels under the same ownership.
Any nua.p so submitted shall be accompanied by evidence of title and
nonuse or lack of necessity of any streets or easements which are to
be vacated or abandoned. Any streets or easements to be left in effect
after the reversion shall be adequately delineated on the map. After
approval of the reversion by the governing body or advisory agency
the map shall be delivered to the county recorder. The filing of
the map shall constitute legal reversion to acreage of the land af-
fected thereby, and shall also constitute abandonment of all streets
and easements not shown on the map. The filing of the map shall
also constitute a merger of the separate parcels into one parcel for
purposes of this chapter and shall thereafter be shown as such on the
assessment roll subject to the provisions of Section 66445. Except as
provided in subdivision (f) of Section 66445, on any parcel map used
for reverting acreage, a certificate shall appear signed and acknow-
ledged by all parties having any record title interest in the land being
reverted, consenting to the preparation and filing of the parcel map.
[Amended, Chapter 862, Statutes of 1975]
66499.203/.1. Subdivided lands may be merged and resubdivided
without reverting to acreage by complying with all the applicable re-
quirements-for the subdivision of land as provided by this division and
any local ordinances adopted pursuant thereto. The filing of the final
map or parcel map shall constitute legal merging of the separate parcels
into one parcel and the resubdivision of such parcel, and the real prop-
erty shall thereafter be shown with the new lot or parcel boundaries on
the assessment roll. Any unused fees or deposits previously made pur-
suant to this division pertaining to the property shall be credited pro rata
towards any requirements for the same purposes which are applicable
at the time of resubdivision. Any streets or easements to be left in effect
after the resubdivision shall be adequately delineated on the map. After
approval of the merger and resubdivision by the governing body or
advisory agency the leap shall be delivered to the county recorder.
The filing of the map shall constitute legal merger and resubdivision of
the land affected tlicrcby, and shall also constitute abandonment of
all streets and easements not shown one the inap.
[Added, Chapter 234, Statutes of 1977]
ARTICLE 2. EXCLUSIONS
66499.21. The superior court of the county in which a subdivision
is situated may cause all or any portion of the real property included
within the boundaries of the subdivision to be excluded from such
subdivison and the recorded map to be altered or vacated, in ac-
cordarice with the procedures set forth in this article.
66499.22. A proceeding for exclusion shall be initiated by filing
a petition therefor in the offices of the county surveyor and county
clerk of the county in which the subdivision or the portion thereof
:;ought to be excluded is situated. Such petition shall accurately and
distinctly describe the real property sought to be excluded by reference
ito the recorded map or by any accurate survey, shall show the names
and addresses of all owners of real property in the subdivision or
iin the portion thereof sought to be excluded as far as the same
;ire kriown to the petitioners, and shall set forth the reasons for
the requested exclusion. The petition shall be signed and verified
by the owners of at least two- thirds of the total area of the real prop-
erty sought to be excluded.
66499.23. The petition shall be accompanied by a new reap show-
ing the boundaries of the subdivision as it appears after the exclusion
;and alteration, such new map to designate as numbered or lettered
parcels those; portions excluded and show the acreage of each such
Parcel. If such map can be compiled from data available, an actual
Field survey shall not be required. If such map meets with the ap-
proval of the county surveyor, a certificate by an engineer or surveyor
shall not be required.
66499.24. Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to this article,
I ny judge of. the superior court of the county in which the real prop -
.Arty is situated shall unake an order directing the clerk of the court
to give; notice of the filin=g of the petition. The notice shall be for once a
week for a period of not less than live consecutive weeks and shall be
;given by publication in sonic newspaper of general circulation within the
- county, or if there is no newspaper published therein, by posting in
three of the principal places in the county; provided, that if such real
.property or any portion thereof is situated within a city, the notice
shall be given by publication is some newspaper of general circulation
within the city, or if there is no newspaper published therein, by post-
ing in three of the principal places in the city. Such notice shall con-
tain a statement of the nature of the petition together with a direction
that any person may file his written objection to the petition at any time
]before the expiration of the time of publication or posting. Upon expira-
tion of the time of publication or posting, an affidavit showing such
publication or posting shall be filed with the clerk of the court.
62— —63—
ALICE P. SIEGRIST
COMMERCIAL 0 BUSINESS
• RESIDENTIAL
Z� �' 11 � �xx -
7 �
�--- - -' °�� �� '� -u—� —� c� � _ - •K�_ -� j --nom/
�c> / c_ /
i
i
c F N��.
,•vi -
BUILDING DEPARTMEN I
CITY OF SARATOGA
P.O. BOX 824 6 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 0 867 -1566 - 867 -1567
.o
Ali
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
November 9, 1981
Ms. Alice Siegrist
P. 0. Box 824
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Ms. Siegrist:
This is to inform you that the City Council considered your
request that two contiguous lots be reverted to acreage at
the corner of Glen Una and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road.
After conducting a public hearing at their meeting on November
4, 1981, the City Council moved to approve your request.
The Street Improvement Bond of $8,000 has been released and
the unused portion of fees will be returned as soon as possible.
Any development of this property will require Site Approval.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact our office at 867 -3438.
Si Acerely,
(.Robert Shook
Director of Community Development
RSS:cd
cc: Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. Initial: Dept. Hd. 4570
C. Att
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy Analysis C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Resolution Re: General Plan Changes
Issue Summa Under the provisions of Government Code, Section 65361 (a)
-Eh-eGeneral Plan can be amended only three times per calendar year. The
City has never had a problem regarding the nunber of General Plan changes,
but staff feels it is appropriate to establish by resolution the months
in which a General Plan change can occur. The proposed months for a
General Plan change will be April, September and December.
Under our current situation, if one were to apply for a
General Plan change, staff would be required to act on the item within
30 days of accepting the application.
Recommendation Adopt the attached Resolution
C.
Fiscal Im cts None
Exhibits /Attachments
Council Action
Resolution
r.'
11/18: Watson /Callon moved to adopt resolution as amended toat is applied in
April of 1982. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed).
10/13/81
h
i// -y
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF'
SARATOGA DESIGNATING THE MONTHS OF THE YEAR
DURING WHICH THE GENERAL PLAN MAY BE AMENDED
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga is
the legislative body of the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(a)
of the State of California, the legislative body of the City may
determine the three (3) times during any calendar year in which
the elements of the City's General Plan may be amended;
NOW, THEREFORE t y � the t ou c y g of the City of Saratoga
� -
does hereby resolve th fan elements of the General Plan for the
City of Saratoga may be amended only during the months of April,
September, and December of each calendar year. This restriction
on amending the General Plan shall apply equally to amendments
proposed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga and to amend-
ments proposed by applicants from the general public.
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true, full 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:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Clerk of the City of Saratoga
,1
t
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. '
DATE:
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy Analysis
SUBJECT: Fire Prevention Code
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Attv—
C. Mgr.
Issue Suiary The City is currently operating under the 1973 Uniform Fire
Code. The proposed Ordinance will adopt the 1979 Fire Code with Appendices
"A" through "I" by reference. The amendments noted in the Ordinance have
been worked out between the Central Fire District and Saratoga Fire District
in order to standardize requirements for fire protection.
Recommendation
1. Introduce the Ordinance by title and waive the first reading.
2. Conduct the second reading on December 2, 1981.
Fiscal Impacts
Exhibits /Attachments
Ordinance revised per 12/2 meeting and 12/16 meeting
Council Action
11/18: Introduced by title only for first reading. Editorial changes made.
12/2: Consensus to return ordinance to Fire Chief for study of amendment submitted
by Mr. Foote and above- ground storage issue.
12/16: Clevenger/Mallory moved to incorporate suggested amendments. Passed 5 -0.
ClevengerAlallory moved to introduce and read by title only. Passed 5 -0.
(nvar)
Mallory /Watson moved to read by title only and waive further reading. Passed 5 -0.
Jensen /Mallory moved to adopt. Passed 5 -0.
CITY OF SARIllIOGA
Initial:
AGL"�'D�'1 BILL NO. Dept. lid.
DATE: 11 -4 -81 C. Atty.
DEPARJ'j'IENrP: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUr: Anneal on Denial of a Variance for a Solar Rack at 18948 Camino Barco
(V -559) Apnellant /Applicant - E.A. and Suzanne Maas
----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue SLumazy
On September 23, 1981 the Planning Commission denied a variance-to
allow the construction of a 720 sq. ft., 6' high solar rack to maintain
a 9" sideyard where 20' is required. Staff-indicated two options for
the location of the rack which would not require a variance..
Recomnendation
1.) Conduct a public hearing on the appeal.
2.) Determine merits of appeal and approve or deny.,
3.) If the Council decides. -to approveSthe request,,positive findings
must be made instead of those in the staff report:
4.) Staff recommended denial to the Planning Commission.
Fiscal Imoacts
None anticipated.
E;fhibits /Attachments
1.) Appeal letter.
2.) Minutes for the September 23, 1981 Commission meeting.
3.) Staff Report dated September 16, 1981.
4.) Exhibits B and C.
Council Action
11 /4: Mallory /Clevencrer moved to deny appeal. Passed 5 -0.
- M
michael bh_ dillon
408.379 -0642
. i11�lS li r'tefti�y� ..
aX
DILLON / ®RUL1AS /ASSOCS.
landscape architects n0. 1910
� "n ftanilito hav Ared ._
93 SO. CENTRAL AVE. SUITE. 72. CAMPBELL. CA 95008
(] lahoe Area
P.O. BOX 2834. TRUCKEE. CA 95734 916,587-7306
Cli
j
REciz 1 V E0 0 C T 0 1 1-931
M
4 � 4w,
U3 �--
-q7a,4,1�
Planning Commission Meeting( ( Page 10
Minutes 9/23/81
V -558 ( \nt.) a revi ee situation in the future, to ensure that there are no
problem
Discussion fol owed on the possibility of moving the corral another 12 ft.
from the proper y line. Mrs. Sousa stated that this could be done; how-
ever, she pointe out that there is just an undeveloped field on that
corner. She indicated that the horse is now being boarded in a smaller area
than the proposed oiie; however, he is a show horse and they would like
enough room to exercise him within the corral.
Commissioner King state that, in view of the great deal of time spent on
a previous corral, he ha \difficulty in seeing how the Commission could
make the five findings to pprove this variance. Commissioner Crowther
disagreed, stating that helt he could make the five findings and feels
that the site is exceptional\\ because it is triangular. He added that he
thinks it is also a situation where others within the same neighborhood
enjoy similar privileges, so it is not a matter of a special privilege.
He moved to approve V -558, makin the five necessary findings. A time
period for review was discussed. Commissioner Monia stated that he would
like to put a timeframe on it, since \he felt it would be worthwhile review -
ing it in a year. Commissioner Crowther amended his motion to have a
Omotion, Staff after a one -year perio � Commissioner Monia seconded the
ich was carried, w ith Commissibper King dissenting.
10. Maas, Request for a Variance to allow the construction of solar
anels which would not meet ordinance requirements for side -yard
etbacks (0' where 20' is the minimum required) at 13948 Camino
arco
Staff described the proposal and clarified that the panels are 9" from
the property line. Staff noted that, in reviewing this request, they had
found that there are two alternate locations which do not require a vari-
ance, in the rear yard on either the north or south portion of the lot,
and are therefore recommending denial.
The public hearing was opened at 10:55 p.m.
Mike Dillon, the landscape architect, stated that there was extensive
planning on the project and _there was construction before the owner decided
to put in solar panels. He commented that these panels are located in the
most aesthetically pleasing location of the site, due to the circumstances
of the rear yard. He referenced letters from the owners on the north and
south side in favor of the project. Mr. Dillon indicated that the locations
recommended by Staff would be unsightly from the house and the yard. He
commented that he felt this was an unique situation because the owner
decided to put in the panels to save energy. He pointed out that solar
panels will be more pressing in the future because of solar consumption.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that the Commission has Teen very favor,
towards solar panels; however, these are only 9" from the property line.
The material of the panels was discussed, and the possibility of putting
them in the lower right corner of the lot within the setback area. Mr.
Dillon commented that the panels would then be about 6 ft. above the fence,
so the neighbor would be looking out their front door at these panels,
because of the slope. The height of the panels and the optimum angle was
discussed.
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Precedence concerning solar panels was discussed, and Commissioner Schaefer
commented that she felt that 2 ft. has been the closest to a fence on any
approved application. Commissioner Crowther stated that he felt the main
reason to maintain the side yard setbacks if because of the fire hazard,
and if the structure does not create such a hazard, it would seem to be
reasonable.
- 10
Planning Commission Meeting C Page 11.
Minutes 9/23/81 \ ,
V -559 (tong)
Commissioner Monia stated that these panels become storage areas, and they
therefore become fire hazards. He added that he is very concerned about
putting something this close to a fence.
Commissioner King commented that he had visited the site and would have to
question if the alternatives have been explored, including roof mounting
and the alternatives suggested by Staff. He added that Mr. Maas had
indicated to him that they had.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he finds this less obtrusive than roof
mounting, and it probably should be conditioned to close off the ends.
He added that he feels that it does not create a problem. Commissioner
Crowther moved to approve V -559, making the necessary findings, and added
the condition that the triangular ends of the panels supporting the struc-
ture be permanently closed off and that they be metal panels. The motion
failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner King moved to deny V -559, based on the inability to make the
findings. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried, with
Commissioner Crowther dissenting.
Staff was asked to give guidance to the applicant regarding moving the
structure further back from the fence; i.e., 2 -5 ft., considering the fire
concerns. Commissioner Monia suggested that the Commission consider a
basic short ordinance regarding solar. He added that the Commission would
like to encourage people to use solar, but the Fire Chief's inn_ut concerning
these large storage sheds should be received.
Mr. Dillon asked the City Attorney to read AB3250. The Deputy City Attorney
stated that they had reviewed the statutory provision referred by the appli-
cant and have concluded that the request for a variance is not in conflict
with this legislation.
The applicant was advised of the 10 -day appeal period.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written None
Oral
1. Vice - Chairman Schaefer thanked. the Good Government Group for
attending the meeting and serving coffee.
RSS:cd
Respecifull.y submitted,
o ert'S. Shoo
Secretary
6
C'
C-
R,EP®R,T_T® PLANNING COMMISSIO
.City of Saratoga i
APPROVED L"f V DATE: 9/16/81
DATt:� ���n ��' Commission Meeting: 9/23/81
IhlTtl -':tS: '
SUBJECT: V -559, E. A. + Suzanne Maas,
18948 Camino Barco
REQUEST: Allow the construction of a 720 sq. ft., 6' high solar rack to
maintain a 9" sideyard where 20' is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This project is a Class 5 Categorial Exemption
according to State E.I.R. guidelines.
PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been advertised by posting, publication
in the newspaper and by mailings to 14 nearby property owners.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: `Very Low Density Residential
ZONING: R -1 - 40,000
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential
SITE SIZE:. 40 2n5 .rn ft- ±
SITE SLOPE: Gentle
HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 6'
SETBACKS: Rear: N/A Left side: 9" Right side: N/A Front: N/A
Report to Planning Commission 9/16/81
V -559 Page .2
STAFF ANALYSIS: The purpose of the panels is to provide heated water for
a newly constructed swimming pool. The panels would be approximately 12' from
the northern side of the dwelling. This location would subject the panels
to extensive shading due to the shadows cast during the low winter sun
period. The applicant has indicated that the pool would only be used in
summer so that winter shading is of little concern.
The panels would be screened from view by the 6' high wooden fence along the
perimeter of the property. The applicant feels this location would be the
least visible from adjacent properties and would allow the development
of a formal garden in the rear yard.
The site complies with minimum lot width, depth, and size requirements of
the R -1 40,000 district. Site topography and shape do not constrain the
location of the panels.
There are two options available to the applicant which would not require
a variance:
OPTION #1:
The solar panels could be located near the southern edge of the
.rear lawn. This location has the advantage of not being shaded so as
to allow a winter time.use since there will be no shading structures.
OPTION #2:
The solar panels could be located on the northern side of the rear
lawn although the panels might have to be split into two sections so as
to maintain the minimum 25' rear yard setback for accessory structures.
This location also has the advantage of allowing winter time use.
FINDINGS:
1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship: As indicated
in the Staff Analysis section, there are no physical problems
associated with the site in terms of its shape, size, topography,
location or surroundings which would preclude compliance with the
ordinance. The options listed above may not be convenient or
aesthetically pleasing from the applicant's viewpoint but they are
viable options. A strict or literal interpretation of the ordinance
would not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance.
2. Exceptional Circumstance: The site complies with ordinance requirements
in terms,of minimum lot size, lot width, and lot depth. Therefore
there are no exceptional circumstances associated with the site which
warrant a variance.
Report to Planning Commission.
V -559
9/16/81
Page 3
3. Common Privilege: Denial of this variance application would not
deny the applicant the privilege of other property owners in the same
zoning district to reasonably develop the property since there are
options available to the applicant and significant development of
the property has already occured.
4. Special Privilege: Approval of this variance application would be a
grant of special privilege since there are no exceptional circum-
stances associated with the site which would warrant a variance.
Granting this variance would be inconsistent with the limitations on.
other properties classified in the same zoning district..
5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare: The granting of the variance will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny per Staff Report dated September 16, 1981 and
Exhibits "B" and "C ".
Approved:
P.C. Agenda 9/23/81
MF:lt
�C Flores
Assistant Planner
V, 5-
,5-q
777F..........
--T
Rz�
F
..LAWN
\14A I
q
7
CO N C R Eij�C-VR 1.)tEWA V
COG RUN / _ I
i L
G R
o1 0&MEUQ)(0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
November 9, 1981
Mr. and Mrs. E. A. Maas
18948 Camino Barco
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Maas:
This is to inform you that the City Council considered your
appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a Variance to allow
the construction of a 720 sq. ft., 6 ft. high solar rack to ,
maintain a 9 inch sideyard where 20 ft. is required, at 18948
Camino Barco.
After conducting a public hearing at their meeting on November
4, 1981, the City Council moved to deny your appeal, based on
the inability to make the necessary findings.
If you have any questions regarding the action of the City
Council, please feel free to contact the Department of Commun-
ity Development at 867 -3438.
S'nce ely,
Wayne De tz
City ManageM
JWD /RSS:cd
cc: Michael B. Dillon, 93 So. Central Ave., Suite 72, Campbell,
CA 95008
c
CITY OF SARAT!OGA
AGENDA BILL NO
DATE: November 4, 1981
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Modification to Site Development Plan of Lot 19, Tract 6326, Parker Ranch Road
SUB,7EXT: Applicant - Blackwell Homes
Issue S
On October 20, 1981, the Planning Commission decided to recommend to the City
Council that the C.C.& R's of Tract 6526 be amended to allow a pool to be located
on Lot 19. The slope beneath the pool is 17% and both the City Geologist and the
Inspection Services Division have indicated no problem with the proposed pool
` location.
Recommendation
1. Review the attached materials and determine the merits of the request.
2. Approve or deny the request.
3. A public hearing is not required.
4. Staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Applicant's letter dated September 21, 1981
2. Minutes for the October 20, 1981 Commission meeting
3. Staff Report dated October S, 1981
4. Exhibit B (Exh.i.bi.t A of Resolution)
S. Resolution
Council Action
11/4: Mallory /Watson moved adoption of resolution 1040. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed).
f
•1 ,
'"BRIACKWSIL HOMES
O P.O. BOX 817 1. EAST SUN11T IK AVENUE
6 C A M P B E L L, C A L I F. J5008 PH 378.5340
RECEIVED SEr 2 3 1981
September 21, 1981
Virginia Laden,
Chairperson
Saratoga Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: TRACT 6526 LOT NO. 19
Dear Mrs. Laden:
As a condition of approval of the Tentative
Map for Tracts 6526 and 6528, swimming pools were not
allowed on certain lots in order toavoid steeper
slopes and to minimize visual impacts.
Grading has been
house is under construc
spection of the lot has
-9i'apiiic 6-Ludy showing a
adjustments required to
copies enclosed.)
completed in Tract 6526 and a
tion on Lot 19. A visual in-
been made as well as a topo-
possibie pool location and the
construct such a pool. (Two
Blackwell Homes requests that the Planning
Commission consider dropping the restriction on Lot 19
since the slope at the pool site is not excessive-and
the pool improvements would not be visable from the
Valley floor due to the slopes below subject lot and the
number of trees surrounding the site.
Very truly yours,
BLACKI ELL HOMES j
Blackwell
DB:MV
Enc .
k
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 10/20/81
EP -18 (cont.)
as the fence.
orf qA�
Page 2
Commissi ner Monia moved to approve EP -18, with the proviso that the applicant
is willin to enter into an indemnity agreement with the City, taking all
responsibi ity should there be an accident on this property. Commissioner
Bolger sec ded the motion.
Commissioner Bolger stated that he feels that there is a good deal of difference
between EP -16 which was denied by the Commission and upheld by the Council,
and this application, primarily because of the fact that EP -16 was located on
a much more he oily traveled street and was at a corner. He added that he felt
this fence was n enhancement to the neighborhood.
The Deputy City ttorney commented-that, as part of the findings, it should be
included that the applicant did construct the fence based upon instructions
given to him by t e Planning Department.
Commissioner Monia stated that the fence appears to be professionally done. He
added that petition received by the Commission do have some impact, and quoted
a letter from one of the neighbors in favor of the fence.
The vote was taken on the motion to approve EP -18. The motion was carried,
with Commissioner Scha fer dissenting.
The 10 -day appeal perio was noted. The applicant was requested to call the
Deputy City Attorney's o ice regarding the indemnity agreement.
SDR -1344 - G. Kendall, Sob y Road, Modification to Site Development Plan;
continued from tober 14, 1981
"en;j �n �Rti
Staff gave the background of the project and described the current request.
Bill Heiss, the engineer, cla 'fied that they would like Condition II -E to
.. ..:...:..........
read "Improve access road from Sobey Road to turnaround on Lot 5 to Chester
Avenue....". Mr. Heiss describ d the existing road and the turnaround.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to a prove the request to revise Condition II -E,'
per the Staff Report dated Octobe 7, 1981, as amended. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion, which was car ied unanimously.
j Blackwell Homes, Tract 6526, Lot No. 19, Modification to Site Development Plan
and CCF,Rs for pool; continued from October 14, 1981
Staff explained that if the CC$Rs are amended, the City Council is the body
empowered to make the amendment. They indicated that the action for the Commis-
sion.at this time is to recommend or deny that amendment to the Council. They
reported that this site was specifically exempted when Parker Ranch was approved,
from having a pool, and since that time an available pool site has been located
.: 4•• ?:.i .:;!tr::
on the site. Staff noted that they were recommending that the Commission for -
ward a recommendation to the Council to amend the CC$Rs and allow the pool.
Bill Heiss, the engineer, described the site. Commissioner Zambetti moved
to recommend to the Council that the CC&,Rs for Tract 6526 be amended and the
modification to the Site Development Plan be approved, to allow a pool on Lot
19. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion.
Commissioner Bolger commented that he would be voting against the motion, since
he is concerned that there will be more requests for modification to the CC4Rs.
The vote was taken on the motion. It was carried, with Commissioner Bolger
dissenting.
Dr. John Zavoshy, 14081 Pike Road, Modification to Site Development Plan for
fence; continued from October 14, 1981
This item was continued to the meeting of November 17, 1981 at the request of
the applicant.
- 2 -
C rn ° ��C /A-\
.,: 'o ..
REPORT TO PLANNING. COMMISSION
DATE: 10/5/81
Commission Meeting: 10/14/81
SUBJECT Modification to Site Development Plan of Lot 19,
Tract 6526 (Parker Ranch), Blackwell Homes, Parker Ranch Road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
REQUEST: Allow the construction of a swimming pool on a lot that
was not previously approved for a swimming pool.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An E.I.R. for the subdivision has
already been approved.
PUBLIC NOTICING: A public hearing for this modification is not
required under current ordinances.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Slope Conservation /Specific Plan Area
ZONING: Currently HC -RD will change when Specific Plan Ordinances
are adopted.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Vacant Single- family residential land (Some
new construction in area)
SITE'SIZE: 44,692 sq. ft.
SITE .SLOPE:
20% (17% at pool site)
BACKGROUND: On September 13, 1978 the Planning Commission gra_ntar
tentative subdivision approval for SD -1339 (Tract 6526). Condition
IX. A. 1. required the applicant to submit.C.C. & R's which pro-
hibited location of a pool on Lot 19 as well as on other lots.
In order for the applicant to place a pool on Lot 19 the C.C. & R's
must be amended with the approval of the City Council per Con-
dition IX. A. 6. of SD -1339 and the Site Development Plan modified.
If the Commission determines that the pool is appropriate for the
site then they should forward this recommendation to the City
Council which will vote on amending the C.C. & R's to allow the
pool on Lot 19 ('Please see SD -1339 attached).
Report to Planning Commission 10/5/81 ,
Page 2
STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to locate the pool
approximately 19' east of the newly constructed dwelling. The
pool and deck area would be approximately 1,176 sq. ft. i -n
size and on a slope of 17 °0. A 5' wide deck would surround the
pool. A maximum cut depth of 3' and a maximum fill depth of 3'
would be required to accommodate the pool. The fill slope
would be at 3:1 which is somewhat steeper than the natural grade.
All fill grading would be required -to be contoured to blend in
with existing topography. A 3' high redwood retaining wall
will brace the slope being cut.
One newly planted oak tree would have to be transplanted for
the pool to be built.
The City Geologist has indicated that since the slope of the pool
site is only 17% a review by his office is not necessary. The
grading inspector has indicated that there should be no sig-
nificant grading problem if the pool were to be constructed.
The proposed pool complies with setback and impervious surface
limitations of the HC -RD Ordinance. It also appears not to
create any adverse topographical impacts or be subject to
significant geological hazard which were the purposes of p.ro --
hibiting pools on some lots.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend to the City Council that the
C:C. & R's for Tract 6526 be amended and the site development
plan be modified so that a pool be allowed on Lot 19 per
Exhibit B, this Staff report, and subject to the following
1 4
vi u I t ivi�S:
Prinr to icc it nnrn of kit iIAinn np—M4
A. All grading and construction plans are to be submitted to
the Community Development Department for review and ap"=
proval. Only approved plans shall be implemented during
..construction.
B. Erosion control landscaping plans shall be submitted.
to the Community Development Department for review
and approval.
/
Approved:
Michael Flores
Planning Assistant
M F : j
P.C. Agenda: 10 /14 /E1
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 5V OW 11; sq
A. Dedicate trail easements as shown on Tentative Map.
B. Equestrian trails to be a minimum of 8' wide with additional land if necessary
to go around obstructions. Other approved width to meet requirements of Parks
and Recreation Commmission. Trail grading to be done by developer prior to . ( .
issuance of building permit. Pathway to comparatively level from side to side
and unobstructed.
IX. SPECIFIC CONDITION - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. Prior to Final Approval, Submit CC & Rs which state:
1. No pools (excluding spas) are allowed on Lots 13 -15
18, 19, 25 -32, 34 -37, 55 -61, 63, 64, 66, 68 -73, 75 -82,
84 -87, & 91 -95. Pools on remaining lots are to be placed
on slopes of 200 or less and will be subject to City staff
design review to insure correct placement in relation to
trees and slope. Decisions are appealable to the Planning
Commission through the Design Review process.
2. No recreational courts are allowed on any lot.
3. Residences require Design Review Approval. Individual house
Design to be evaluated on the basis of'compatibility with the
physical environment and compliance with Site Development Plan.
Complete plans for all on -site grading to be included in evalua-
tion. All grading to be contoured so as to form smooth transi-
tions. All grading to be smooth transitions between natural and
man -made slopes.
4. Fences, walls and hedges are. allowed only per City of Saratoga's
HC -RD Zoning District Regulations - "proximate to the principal
structure and in no event to enclose or encompass an area in excess
of 4000 square feet ".
5. Scenic easement restrictions as shown on Final Map.
6. Mitigation Measures as stated on the Tentative Map. These CC & R's
are not to be amended without written consent of the City of Sara-
toga and are enforceable by the City.
B. Design Review Approval of all structures and landscaping required prior to
issuance of permits, per HC -RD Ordinance.
C. Design Review Approval for the following is required prior to Final Subdivision
Approval
a. Treatment of pedestrian / equestrian easement
b. Design of any retaining walls over 3 feet in
height
c. Eucalyptus area grove treatment in Right of Way (with
room for fire hydrants if necessary)
d. Treatment of emergency access road and barrier
e. Fencing for PGE transmission line
f. Landscaping for graded areas with slo es of 3:1 or flatter and
exceeding.20 ft. in height (toe to tops or with slopes steeper than
3:1 and exceeding 10 ft. in height (toe to top)
/r
a ,
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO MODIFICATION
OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
TRACT 6526 (PARKER RANCH)
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has previously approved an
application submitted by Blackwell Homes for approval of a Site
Development Plan, identified as SD -1339, pertaining to Tract 6526,
commonly known as the Parker Ranch; and
WHEREAS, approval of the Site Development Plan was
conditioned upon a restriction against the installation of swimming
pools on certain lots within the subdivision, and further required
such restriction be incorporated into the covenants, conditions
and restrictions for the subdivision, and prohibited any amendment
to such covenants, conditions and restrictions without the prior
consent of the City of Saratoga; and
WHEREAS, Blackwell Homes has requested the City to
modify the Site Development Plan and the covenants, conditions and
restrictions to allow the construction of a swimming pool on Lot
No. 19, which is presently one of the lots on which the construc-
tion of a swimming pool is prohibited; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on October 14, 1981, the
Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga considered the request
by Blackwell Homes for modification to the Site Development Plan
and consent by the City to amendment of the covenants, conditions
and restrictions to permit the construction of a swimming pool on
Lot No. 19, and the Planning Commission has recommended to the
City Council that such request be granted,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Saratoga that consent is hereby given for modification
of SD -1339 and amendment to the covenants, conditions and restric-
tions filed of record pertaining to Tract 6526, to permit the
construction of a swimming pool on Lot 19, as shown on Exhibit B
attached hereto and made a part hereof, subject to the condition
that prior to the issuance of any building permits:
1. All grading and construction plans shall be submitted
to the Community Development Department for review and approval,
and all construction shall be performed in accordance with the
approved plans.
2. Erosion control landscaping plans shall be submitted
to the Community Development Department for review and approval.
3. A copy of the amendment to the covenants, conditions
and restrictions for Tract 6526, permitting the construction of a
swimming pool on Lot 19, shall be furnished by Blackwell Homes to
the Community Development Department. The consent herein granted
by the City of Saratoga to such amendment shall not constitute a
consent to any further or other amendment to such covenants,
conditions and restrictions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HELD ON THE day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
, 1981, by the following vote:
2.
Mayor
1�0
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
November 13, 1981
Mr. Doug Blackwell
Blackwell Homes, Inc.
P. 0. Box 817
12S E. Sunnyoaks Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Mr. Blackwell:
This is to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting
on November 4, 1981, adopted Resolution No. 1040; granting their
consent for modification of the Site Development Plan and amend-
ment to the CC$Rs for Tract 6526, to permit the construction of
a swimming pool on Lot #19, as shown on Exhibit "B ". A copy.of
the resolution is attached for your file.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Bert S. Shoop
Director of Community Development
RSS:cd
Attachment
cc: Bill Heiss, Jennings-.McDermott- -Heiss, Inc., Suite 200, 925 Regent
St., San Jose, CA 95110
f Deputy City Clerk
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: November 4,- 1981-'
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SDR -1453 .Conn%Wellbeloved , Vaquero Court, Tentative Building Site
SUBJECT: Approval - 1 Lot; Appeal of Condition U.E. (Water for
______Fire ProtectionL_
----------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Summary Applicant received Tentative Building Site Approval on September 23, 1981
for a single lot of record on Vaquero Court in the Specific Plan Area.
Water available for fire protection has been measured as between 800 and
900 gpm by the San Jose Water Works. Condition V.E. requires 1,000 gpm
for 2 hours. San Jose Water Works has stated this-may only be accomplished
through the reconstruction of the system, to Pierce or further, with 8"
mains (6" mains presently exist). The other existing lots on Vaquero Ct.
have been developed. To Staff's knowledge since 1977, the City Council has
granted two appeals on this condition; one for a 50% Expansion on Glenmount
and one for a replacement home on Via Regina. No appeals have been granted
for construction of new homes.
Recommendation
Fiscal Impacts
1. Conduct a de novo public hearing.
2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny.
3. Staff recommended the subject condition per Subdivision Ordinance
requirements and conditioning by Saratoga Fire District.
None noted.
Exhibits /Attachments 1. Letter of Appeal
2. Staff Report dated September 18, 1981
3. Exhibits "B" and "C"
4.. Background Material from Applicant
Council Action
5. Planning Commission Minutes 9/23/81
11/4: Jensen /Mallory moved to deny without prejudice (per amendment by Callon /Tgatson which
passed 5 -0). Passed 5 -0.
3
x
a
To:
From:
4248 Lake Santa Clara Dr.
Santa Clara, CA 9.50'"0
October 7, 1931
City Council, City of Saratoga
M.L. Conn
,i
File #: SD.R 1453► Conn /Wellbeloved
Reference: (A) Letter from M.L. Conn to Planning Commission dated 9/23 81
(B) Revised Staff Report to Planning Commission dated 9/2
Condition: V.F (1,000 G.P.M. of Water for 2 Hours for Fire Protection
I. respectfully request that the above condition be waived based on the Saratoga City
Code Section 15.2, Exceptions To Design And Improvement Requirements --
"...ma rant such exceptions y g if it shall find there are
special circumstances or conditions affecting said prop-
erty, or that the exception is necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights
of the petitioner, and in either event that the granting
of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare or injurious to other
property in the territory in which said subdivision is
located.
New Information: As of last friday, October 2, 1981, The San ,Jose ?later
Works ran at my request a flow test on fire hydrant .#F -274" on Vaquero Ct.
This test demonstrated an average flow rate of 850 G.P.ii. with fluctua-
tiorns to 900 G,r.ii.. This data may be verified with .jen Danares of the
man ?'
oSe atE':" T''02IiS.
Thank ycu for your cone -zJ0 t . ra
< t, ion.
irceze
t�t'.�_c1ChIlC;::tr:: l
Y•
To:
From:
4248 Lake Santa Clara Dr.
Santa Clara, CA 9.50'"0
October 7, 1931
City Council, City of Saratoga
M.L. Conn
,i
File #: SD.R 1453► Conn /Wellbeloved
Reference: (A) Letter from M.L. Conn to Planning Commission dated 9/23 81
(B) Revised Staff Report to Planning Commission dated 9/2
Condition: V.F (1,000 G.P.M. of Water for 2 Hours for Fire Protection
I. respectfully request that the above condition be waived based on the Saratoga City
Code Section 15.2, Exceptions To Design And Improvement Requirements --
"...ma rant such exceptions y g if it shall find there are
special circumstances or conditions affecting said prop-
erty, or that the exception is necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights
of the petitioner, and in either event that the granting
of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare or injurious to other
property in the territory in which said subdivision is
located.
New Information: As of last friday, October 2, 1981, The San ,Jose ?later
Works ran at my request a flow test on fire hydrant .#F -274" on Vaquero Ct.
This test demonstrated an average flow rate of 850 G.P.ii. with fluctua-
tiorns to 900 G,r.ii.. This data may be verified with .jen Danares of the
man ?'
oSe atE':" T''02IiS.
Thank ycu for your cone -zJ0 t . ra
< t, ion.
irceze
t�t'.�_c1ChIlC;::tr:: l
1
C., -
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
'(amended 9/23/81).
DATE: 9/18/81
Commission Meeting: 9/23/81
SUBJECT SDR -1453 - Michael Conn & Carole Wellbeloved
Vaquero Court
-- �-----------=- - - - - -- uci ite Appxsi Al J_ .]at ------------------------
REMEST: Applicant requests tentative building site approval for a single lot
of record in the Measure A Area on Vaquero Court.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative declaration dated to be acted on prior to
action on the project.
PUBLIC NOTICING: The negative declaration has been advertised. Notice of this
application is not required by City.
('Z T- TT T1T WK7 Tl�.!'•Y/"� \TTmT/1A�_ l -__ .] _-- __... _1 G
�.71jLV�'im�L1LJ rJJC1.V "L1:1J113VL1L1VlY: -VCLY LUW- UG1151Ly d_' S i —1C; P1d11 Area.
r/. T:1tiTG: R-1-40,000, uv�dirir' (2 --i-Fi nl 7 T J-
t' 7 �+ -�iiy� u.ii uviaiiag u1.�4rIc
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential.
STmR CT7V. i 4 r_1 n =
SITE SLOPE: 37%
STAT7 ANALYSIS: The 1.6 acre site is a recorded lot of record (1968) and
therefore subject to the exemption provisions of the Specific Plan (p.3) and
the Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 3E -i9 (prohibiting uses within the Specific
Plan Area which may be in conflict with the proposed zoning ordinance modifi-
cations).
The applicant has submitted a site development plan and request for building
site approval for a moderately steep site showing a main residence, a detached
garage, and an approximate pool area. The nearby large oak cluster is to be
retained. The setbacks shown are those required by the R- 1- 40,000 zoning
district - 25' frontyard and 20' sideyard. The mein structure as shown on the
plan will require a public hearing Design Review. The Fire Chief has requested
that the proposed 2 story garage be attached to the main structure or moved so
as not to block emergency access to the main structure. And the pool as shown
will need to have a 20' side setback to conform to the current zoning district.
The proposed grading would remove 97 cubic yards for the residence, 94 cubic
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1453
l
9/18/81
Page 2
yards for the pool, and 18 cubic yards for the garage (which may be modified
to conform to the Fire District's requirements).
The City Geologist has reviewed the site and recommended tentative approval -
(see attached), stating that "No unusual geologic or soil conditions constrain
the intended use of the property." The major concern for development of the
site is obtaining the required amount of water for fire protection. The Staff
Report recommends the conditions for 1000 gallons per minute of water for two
hours as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Additionally, staff conditioning
recommends deferred improvements on Quarry Road.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General
Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City
of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa
Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if
approved under this application. Said determination date: August 26, 1981.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1453 (Exhibit
"B" filed August 11, 1981) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60,
including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel
map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established
by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered
iiiNrvvcaTrii�. p.icuiZD Lvi airy .�7l1CCl. wvrn; aiiu t:;�aupl.lculCC With applicaute Health
Department regulations and application Flood Control regulations and require-
ments of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for
further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's
Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In
addition hereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions
which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance
No. 60.
II. SprCrFrr C ONDITInNS - PUBLIC [ti70RICS DEPAR'T'MENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval
(Currently $1,100. /Lot).
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay required
Checking & Recordation Fees). (If Parcel is shwon on existing map of
record, submit three (3) to -scale prints).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to Provide 30 ft. Half- Street on
Quarry Road.
Report to Planning'Commission Page 3
SDR -1453 9/18/81
D. Enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement to improve Quarry Road to
City Standards, including the following:
E. Construct Storm Drainage System as shwon on the• "Master Drainage Plan".
and as directed by the Director of Public Works, as needed to convey
storm runoff'to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the
following:
1. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes. -
2 Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc..
F. Construct Standard Driveway Approach. _._.
G. Construction Driveway Approval 16 feet wide at property line flared to
24 feet at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or
better on 6 inch Aggregate Base..
H._ Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or
prevent flow.
I. No direct access allowed onto Quarry Road from lots.
J. Obtain Encroachment Per it from Cal -Trans for work to be done within State
Right -of- Way.
K. Enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement Engineered Improvement Plans
required for:
1. Street Improvements..
2. Storm Drain Construction.
L. Daly Plan /Ch k --nd -r..�.,-.eC1;..,-, Fees a � .. a L.0-ALL ` �..��./J1 111J�- V1 -1V11 cco 'uo uc�...c.Liiwicu ii�nu uuN�uvt1- itet7t Plans.
Ni. Faster into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required improvements
marked "D.I.A."
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional prior to
issuance of building permits for:
1. Geology
2. Soils
3. Foundation
B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit
being issued.
Report to Planning Commission 9/18/81
SDR -1453 Page 4
C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and
proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.).
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls
3 feet or higher.
4. Erosion control measures.
r D.` Structures shall include security and fire detection
equipment as specified by City.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT
T..
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with require-
ments of Cupertino Sanitary District as outlined in letter dated
August 25, 1981.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Property is located in a potentially hazardous fire area. Prior to
issuance of building permit „ remove combustive vegetation as specified.
Fire retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be
shown on the building plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire Code,
Appendix E).
B. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using
double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base fran
public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall
not exceed 122% without adhering to the following:
1. Driveways having slopes hetx #een 122% to 156 shall be surfaces using
22 inches of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base.
2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 17o'shall be surfaced using
4 inches of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 inch aggregate base
and shall not exceed 50 feet in length.
3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted.
C. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet.
D. Provide a parking are for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed building
site, or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building
plans.
E. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recognized water supply capable of
delivering 1000 gallons per minute for 2 hour(s). This is based upon the
Insurance Service Officer grade for determining a required Fire Flow to
maintain a Grade Five (5) rating. Minimum required fire flow for the
subject facility shall be 1000 gallons per minute from any three hydrants
flowing with 20 psi residual.
Report to Planning Commission 9 /18/81
SDR -1453 Page S
F. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to
building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - ,SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMaIr
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and
connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the
Cupertino Sanitary District. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond
shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as
planned...
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
VII. SPECIFIC OONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY 6MTER DISTRICT
A. Dedicate right -of -way along entire creek frontage to Santa Clara Valley
Water District.
B. All grading adjacent to the SCVWD right -of -way to be done in accordance
with sheets 20 -20B of said - agency. Details of grading to include the
cross - sectional view at the right -of -way and are to be shown on the
Improvement Plans. Plans to be submitted to SCVWD for review and permit
issuance prior to construction.
C. applicant snail, prior to Final reap Approval, submit plans showing the
location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review
aiid Certifications .
D. Comply with requirements of Santa Clara Valley Water. District.
'vlli. SYL•'l.:iT'DC CviVu1ii'v1N1a - rLAiJiViLVCa Dr.,rr- sc�titr��it
A. House locations and driveway designs to be reviewed and approved by
Saratoga Fire District prior to Design Review Approval.
B. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits.
C. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning
Commission approval.
D. Prior to Design Review Approval individual structures shall be reviewed
by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility.
The developer shall provide, to the - extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site.
Report to Planning Commission 9/18/81
SDR -1453 Page 6
*. E. All cut and fill slopes shall be of such material as
to fully support landscaping.
*' -F: No single retaining wall to be more than 5 feet in
exposed face height (existing not included.)
* G. Applicant shall comply with the following Mitigation
Measures:
1." Require that the keeping of horses be restricted
to lots which have one acre of level land (less
than 5% slope) and that paddock areas not be
traversed by water courses.
2. Limit construction to the hours between 8 a.m.
and 6 p.m.
3. Require the subdividers to contribute land and /or
money in proportion to the size of each subdivision
towards the expense of providing a new fire station.
4. In order to reduce erosion and consequent siltation
of the creeks, all grading should be done during the
May- September dry period. Revegetation of the site
should be initiated as soon as.possible following
grading on any portion. of the site but in no case
should unvegetated graded areas be left exposed to
the winter rains. The steeper surfaces should be
hydromulched, and all revegetation should be watered
regularly. A landscape architect should be retained
to plan arU >Upervise ail revegetation. Mn inspection
of the site by the landscape architect should be
made at periodic intervals up to one year following
grading to determine if the revegetation is sucessful
and to report to the City on same. The developer
should be required to post a bond with the City
to ensure that the above recommendations are carried
out. A detailed plan for this should be completed
prior to beginning construction.
S. Erosion control measures should be provided along
the creek channels where active scour of the channel
and banks is occurring.
Report to Planning Commission 9/23/81
SDR-1453 Conn/lVellbeloved
6. Halt all construction activity within a radius of
35 feet if grading reveals prehistoric artifacts, .
burned rocks, or human interments; and within 17 feet
if grading reveals any historic resources such as
bottles . trash piles, filled basements. A quali-,
fied archaeologist should be retained to evaluate
any such find and recommend any needed mitigation.
7. As a condition to approval require the developer
to join any such district if it should,be found to
be necessary.
8. Require the developers to participate on a pro-
rata basis in the capital cost of required major traf-*
fic, flood control or fire improvements (including
Pierce Road improvements, a new fire station,
drainage improvements for Calabazas Creek, water and
sewer improvements).
9. Require subdividers to contribute a proportional
share of the cost of making the recommended im-
provements at the Pierce Road/Route 85 intersection.
Ix. CDMMMTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances.
Approved
Kathy Kerdus,'Planning Assistant
P.C. Agenda: 9/23/81
*as amendcd. at . P.Tann.4--nia Commi.-s4 -n meeti n oTi 9/23/91.
_- _� _ � ` \� _ t- vim- � ,� •
• � '/ � ter'- �. I � s J' � '
,w
FA-
NO TL
60' /W l�fS
R
n, r
, ,j / s%� t -.. -� �� C G�cs� -. % c A cL nc vep n IcPV`•
y. T
ur
' � 4, Y. Et, / �•Y FA_r
OF F J / � � ,• � poi R, u co -0T Fl f, ��__ :.L:
�� -/ L.n� '- ,I.P.uFR.,.w .. aA._ O _. r.A ❑ CF H �F �-v
. P �
L � r
w
.. r:lizzr ;� .i .�.:.. , .a :4 - f�',(' .. 1 „�u ,7^Y¢¢a bw . i:i 1sh, 1. i °,�fb,f.�J r'i 1 ''p?i, �•ii:,V. a.�fylgk Y 1R�.r r.14 +,�e i.?�::t�:..... ',/,' �c�.._ � - / ..
\IAGVe m o
CnuFZT
c.v Re —
i
f
1
i
LAND of PACKARD
Ze FOOT
��� 56T8ACK
PROPERTY L1NE
S"/) ` ) ,
l l � J r/ scA LE ; %a" = 1 Foo-T
/t c (652. PHO- TOREBIJCT�ON)
REV \Ss-D LA`(0,7T FOR RESIDENCE
of M \CFI P.EL CONK
9DR- \453 %/=3/81
lyd
4248 Lake Santa Clara Dr.
Santa Clara, CA 95050
September 23, 1981
To: Planning Commission, City of Saratoga
Fm: M. L. Conn
Re: SDR -1453, Conn /Wellbeloved
Ref: (A) Staff Report to Planning Commission, dated 9/18/81 (Attachment 2)
(B) City of Saratoga letter of May 29, 1975, Marty VanDuyn, Planning Director,
to Michael L. Conn (Attachment 2)
have reviewed the reference (A) staff report and found some conditions that required clarifi-
cation.
Part I: At Kathy Kerdus's recommendation, a meeting was set up and held on Sept. 21, 1981,
wit-F—Fire Chief Ernie Kraule, City of Saratoga grading inspector Rich Harrison, soon to be
neighbor and Planning Commissioner Ed Bolger, Carole Wellbeloved and myself.
The report conditions were clarified and resolved as follows:
A. The original two -story garage was modified to an unoffensive one -story structure per
Ed Bolger's request.
B. The garage location was moved contingent to the house per Ed Bolger's request and
principally to provide safer access for fire equipment, per Chief Kraule's request.
C. The driveway was modified to provide a turn - around and parking space for emergency
vehicles, per Chief Kraule's request.
D. The swimming pool was modified to reflect the proper 20 -foot setback.
E. A supplemental site layout drawing was generated to reflect the above noted
changes (see Attachment 1) .
F. The original grading estimate of 18 cubic yards for the garage was modified to 192
cubic yards. This change in grading was deemed acceptable by Rich Harrison based
on the higher priority of improved fire safety afforded by the relocation of the garage.
i
Fm: M. L. Conn v
Pg: 2
The noted changes have been made in total cooperation with the preferences of contributors
to the staff report (ref. A) . Study of reference(B) will show that the original design had been
approved by unanimous vote of the Saratoga Planning Commission on May 28, 1975. 1 have
willingly made the noted changes because each one represented a sincere concern for either
safety or asthetic beauty.
Based on the prior Planning Commission approval and the above compliant changes, I respectfully
request that condition VIII.B (Design Review Approval) be waived.
Part II: There is one condition that is causing me undo hardship and denying me fair and
proper use of the subject homesite, i.e., condition V.E (1 000 GPM of water for 2 hours for.
fire protection) .
The following history and rationale supports my claim of undo hardship.
A. I purchased the lot on Vaquero Court in 1974.
B. I generated site and house plans and after approximately one year of discussions,
modifications, and coordination with the Saratoga Planning Commission, I was granted
Final Design Review Approval in May, 1975.
C. Financial setbacks then prevented me from expeditiously pursuing construction of my
home on Vaquero Court. `
D. When I tried to sell the lot in 1978 to recover much needed capital, I found that a new
ordinance specifying 1000 GPM of water for 2 hours for fire protection prevented sale of
the lot at fair market value, as the existing system fell short of this mark.
E. The City of Saratoga had initiated work towards the formation of a new water district
in August, 1978
F. Extensive investigation on my part in February, 1979, with the Saratoga Planning Com-
mission, the San Jose Water Works, and various engineering and legal firms employed as
consultants all indicated that designs had been formulated, a new water assessment
district would be formed in three to four months, and construction of a new water system
would be complete in 1 to 1 -1/2 years. At this point the new water assessment district
had already been favored by a 4 to 1 vote of the Saratoga City Council.
G. With the advent of the moratorium imposed in April, 1980, by passage of Measure A,
the new water system was postponed and the property retained its "unsel lable" status
H. The latest flow data for the Vaquero Court water supply system indicates a 750 GPM
rate of flow.
r
To: Saratoga Planning Commission
Fm: M. L. Conn
Pg: 3
I. Vaquero Court is outside the boundaries of the potential new water assessment
district, and I therefore cannot control the future of that district.
J. No physical piping changes could be made in the Vaquero Court area at any cost
that would allow the existing water system to meet the new requirement.
K. If the new water district is formed and allowed to proceed, the Vaquero Court water
system will meet the 1000 GPM rate with no changes at all (per San Jose Water Works
Engineering Planning and Design Manager, Norman New, and also Chief Kroule).
L. The subject homesite is the last vacant lot in the 8 -lot Vaquero Court development,
is completely improved with pavement, sewers, storm drains, and all utilities installed
underground and available at the site, and is totally surrounded (360 °) with other
homes.
have invested substantial time and money over a period of several years in attempts to build
a home on the subject lot. I have been totally compliant with all city ordinances that are
possible to meet. Correction of the defined inadequacy of the water system is not within my
power and has rested in the hands of the City of Saratoga for several years. Action in the
near future is inevitable for either upgrading of the system for existing resident safety, or
improvement of the system through expansion by new developers. Either of these avenues of
change will allow the Vaquero Court system to meet fhe 1000 GPM requirement without
changing any of that system directly.
By the time house construction would be completed on the subject lot, a new or upgraded water
system would probably be underway.
The past seven years of effort, expense delays, and frustration represent undo hardship and
have certainly not provided the land use and enjoyment expected from a fully pre - developed
homesite. I therefore respectfully request that staff report item V.E be waived as a condition
for a building permit in accordance with the power of the Planning Commission to grant such
waivers per section 15, paragraphs 15. 1 and /or 15.2 of the Saratoga Subdivision Ordinance
NS -60 (see Attachment 3). The 1000 GPM requirement is identified in section 14.4 -2 of
NS -60 and is titled "Water -Fire Protection and Hazardous Fire Areas."
Michael L. Conn
Attachments: 1,2,&3
- o���•me t��" 2 � °`� e 1 d-� 3
City of Saratoga May 22, 1975
STAFF REPORT
FILE NO: A -474 ,
APPLICANT: Michael Conn
LOCATION: Vaquero Court
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant requests Final Design Review Approval for a two -
story home to be located off of Vaquero Court as shown on Exhibit
Access to the lot is to be taken through a 20 -foot wide corridor
connecting to Vaquero Court. The house is to be situated in the
front portion of the property, as prohibitive slopes and unstable
soil conditions exist generally in the rear two - thirds of the site.
Said house incorporates a stepped foundation and is to be nestled
back adjacent to several groupings of large trees. A detached
garage is proposed at a location closer to the street in order to
minimize pavement and grading.,.,
Exterior elevation materials include textured plywood with an applied
wood sealer to prevent sun - bleaching, used on all elevations. A
shake roof is used in all but one bevel area, where a built -up roof
has been specified. The gravel used on this built -up roof section
is to be of an earth -tone color.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve as per Staff Report dated May 22, 1975 and Exhibit "A -1 ".
CONCLUDING COMMENTS: (1) Reviewed by Design Review Committee on May 6, 1975 and
May 20, 1975.
(2) Said proposed house and garage comply fully with all
applicable provisions of Zoning Ordinance NS -3.
Approved:
Planning Commission Agenda: 5/28/75
Richard T. Loewke, Jr.
Planner I
� q
" 1A
E cy
INCORPOFti1ED 195E
Michael L. Conn
3969 Freed Avenue
San Jose, CA. 95117
Dear Mr. Conn:
?ate- 2 oN 3
city of SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
May 29, 1975
RE: A -474
At the meeting of May 28, 1975 the City of Saratoga Planning Commission gave
consideration to your request for Final Design Review Approval for a single -
family residence to be constructed on your lot "located on Vaquero Court.
After careful review of this matter and the exhibit received, the Planning
Commission voted to grant Final Design Review Approval as per the enclosed Staff
Report dated May 22, 1975 and Exhibit 'A -1 ".
C
Also enclosed for your information and files is a copy of the Resolution No. A: 474 -1.
MVD / kf c
Enclosures
Si4cerely yours,
Marty VanDuyn
Planning Direc
Bale 3o33
DESIGN REVIEW FILE N(. A_g7a
PLANNING C012USSION RESOLUTION N0. A -474 -1
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning-Commission has received an ap-
plication for Design Review Approval of a s;ngtP_fam;1- rnrp lnratPrL
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) (44XR)A R) 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 plan and other exhibits
submitted in connection with this matter, the application of
Michael-Conn
for Design Review Approval, be and the same is hereby (granted) jcftq &q I)
subject to the following conditions:
As per Staff Report dated May 22, 1975 and Exhibit "A -1"
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Cc mlisaion. State
of California. this ___Z 8±J1_ day of May 19 75 •, by the
following vote: '
AYES: COMMISSIONERS BELANGER, CALLON, LUSTIG, WOODWARD AND ZAMBETTI
NOES! NONE
ABSENT: CODQIISSIONERS MARSHALL AND MARTIN e
C ircnu of the Planning Comission
t
Attachment 3, pg. 1 of 1
Excerpt frorn Saratoga Subdivision Ordinance NS -60
15. Exceptions to Design and Improvement Requirements
15. 1 Exception -- Matter of Grace
The exceptions hereinafter set forth are a matter of grace and not a matter
of right.
15.2 Power to Grant Exceptions
The Planning Commission shall have power to authorize conditional exceptions
to any of the design requirements of section 13 hereof and the improvement requirements
of section 14 hereof. Any subdivider seeking such exception shall file a written request
therefor with the planning director at any time prior to the action of the advisory agency
on the tentative map and at any time up to 15 days after the approval of disapproval of
the tentative map. The request shall fully state all grounds of the application and all
facts relied on. The Planning Commission may grant such exceptions if it shall find
that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property or that the
exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property
rights of the petitioner and, in either event, that the granting of the exception will
not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to
other property in the territory in which said subdivision is located. In granting such
exceptions, the commission may designate such conditions in connection therewith of
will, in its opinion, substantially secure the objectives of the regulations to which the
exceptions are granted.
CITY OF SARATOGA PLAiViliING COMMISSTON
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, September 23, 1981 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Monia and Schaefer
(Commissioner Crowther arrived at 9:00 p.m.)
Absent: Commissioners Laden and Zambetti
Minutes
The following change was made to the minutes of the September 9, 1981 regular
meeting: On page 3, the last sentence in the third paragraph should read: "She
added that the\37o bonus that the applicant had been given was for giving the
senior citizens an opportunity." With that change, Commissioner King moved to
waive the reading and approve the minutes of September 9, 1981 as distributed.
Commissioner Mon'ia seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner
Bolger abstaining since he was not present at the meeting. The following change
was made to the minutes of the September 1S, 1981 regular adjourned meeting: The
last sentence on page 2 under SDR -1015 should read: "Commissioner Monia pointed
out to the applicant that he could run into a problem if someone does appeal the
decision of the Commission".;' -which would delay the project." With that change,
'si x Commissioner King moved to waive the reading of. the minutes of September 15, 1981
and approve as distributed. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was
carried, with Commissioner Schaefer abstaining since she was not present at the
meeting. \
CONSENT CALENDAR
I. SDR -1396 - G. Bottom (Mauldin), Bohlman Road - 1 lot, Request for One -Year
extension ,
2. SDR -1492 - Ed Holbrook, Canyon View - 1 lot, Final Building Site Approval
Commissioner King moved, seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to approve the above
items on the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried unanimously.
BUILDING SITES
3a. Nega-tive.Declarati.on - SDR -1453 - M. Conn /Wellbeloved
3b'. SDR -1453 -IM. Conn /Wellbeloved, Vaquero Court - 1. lot, Tentative Buildin;,4
rovaI
It was reported that Commissioner Bolger would abstain from this matter,
since he lives on the same street. Staff pointed out that his abstension
would result in there not being a quorum of the Commission to make a decision
OP tliiS matter and the matter could be continued to the next mecting, at
which time there i he
ao:,. � a realer numher of Cuiiini.is, Toners present The
applicant commented that,, while Commissioner Bolger lived immediately adjacent
to the site, he would request that he participate in th^ discussion to allow
a decision to be made at this time. The Deputy City Attorney stated that
Commissioner Bol.ger's ahstension, aside from something that he melt i:as
appropriate on this own initiative, had been recotantcnded by the Attorn^ to
avoid any possible conflict of interest. However, if the applicant h -'� po
object.i.on and is aware of the fact that. Commissioner Boger lives ncx2 'oor,
the Denutv City Attorney stated that that situation could be waived. T;1 C,
applicant stated that lie had no objection and asked that the Commission pro-
ceed with the matter.
- 1 -
Planning Commission Meeting C Page 2
Minutes 9/23/81 \
SDR -1453 (cont.)
Staff gave a report on the proje(ft. They indicated that the developments
in this area have all been conditioned for the 1,000 g.p.m. fire flow, and
that has been a consistent recommendation and is in the City code. They
explained that, to bring the flow up to 1,000 g.p.m., it would require a
supplemental capacity being brought from the tanks at the top of Pike Road
to this area. Discussion followed on this subject.
Mr. Conn, the applicant, submitted a letter, asking for a waiver of the
1,000 g.p.m. condition. lie stated that there is a provision in the ordi-
nance for an exception, and he felt that it applied in this case, since it
was causing him undue hardship and is denying him fair and proper use of the
subject site. He explained the history of this lot, stating that he had
cancelled final building site approval plans when he had run into financial
difficulty, not realizing the implications of that cancellation. He stated
that he later found that a new ordinance specifying the 1,000 g.p.m. had
been passed. The formation of the proposed water district was discussed,
and Mr. Conn stated that if this district were formed it had been determined
that the 1,000 g.p.m. would be met with no changes whatever in the physical
piping of Vaquero Court. Mr. Conn indicated that there is a flow of approxi-
mately 750 g.p.m. in that area, and it is inevitable that, from the stand-
point of the safety of the residents, either a petition is going to be
generated or new development will occur after the moratorium. He stated that
if he is allowed to proceed with the other conditions, by the time he could
start construction the 1,000 g.p.m. flow would be in that area. Mr. Conn
added that he is completely surrounded by residences and his is the only lot
in that development with no house.
Staff clarifiedrthat there is currently no positive activity moving forward
relative to that water district. They stated that the Specific Plan for
the Measure 'A' area does encourage the water district being put in as a
single unit rather than piecemeal by the development. However, they added,
until such time as the property owners who will. pay for that under the
assessment proceedings petition the City Council and the Council moves
forward in that area, it is still in limbo, even though there is encourage-
ment from the Specific Plan. The conditions of the Staff Report were dis-
cussed, and Staff indicated that there are additional conditions that are
being imposed on this project relating to cut, fill. and erosion control,
since the lot is in the Measure 'A' area.
Saratoga Fire Chief Kraule discussed the possible consideration of the use.
of a swimmirr'g pool as a reservoir. lie stated that .the Insurance Service
Organization that grades fire departments to determine what their capa-
bilities are does not recognize a swimming pool as a water source. He dis-
cussed the problems associated with the use of a pool, and stated that -tile
fire district has determined that a fire hydrant that is. governed by the
PUC should lie used.
Mr. Conn explained that the pool would be elevated, and there would be a
retaining wall on the turnaround provision, such that a pipe from the bottom
end of the pool could be brought out. He stated that, since it is on a hill -
ton, he felt that the Pround water nrohlem would not he experienced.
Commissioner King moved to approve SDR -1453, subject: to the condition of
the Staff Report dated Septeriher 18, 1981 and the add:i.tional conditions of
September ), 1981, and s121,ested that the applicant appeal to the Cite
Council if he wishes to appeal the 1,000 g.p.m. condition.
Commissioner Monia stated that lie would Support the motion becauso he does
not believe that the Commission should change ordinances that are safet.v
oriented, lie added that there obviously has hcon the need established for
the higher rate per minute flow in the hillside areas, and even though
this item may he appealed to the City Council, he would hope that the
COUn Ci:I Wou]d fol l.Ow the Safety ordinance to its fuIl es 1.
Since the Negative Declaration for this project needed to he approved
first, 'Commissioner King withdrow his motion for approval of SDR -1453.
2
i
Planning Commission Meetink
Minutes 91123/81
C Page 3
SDR -1453 (cont.)
Commissioner Monia moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR -]453:
Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner King then restated his motion to approve.SDR -1453. Commissioner
Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Vice- Chairman explained to the applicant that the Commission is very concern-
ed about setting a precedence at this level for safety conditions that can.
come about. She notified the applicant of the 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4a. Negative De laration - SD -1505 - Wilson Development Corporation
4b. SD -1505 - Wi son Development Corp., Request for Tentative Subdivision
Approval for 10 lots on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Staff described the current proposal, stating that the project had been
before the Commission and appealed to the City Council for a 10 -lot sub -
division with access off of Tricia Way; the current proposal is for access
off of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. They indicated that Staff still feels
that the safest access is from Tricia Way; however, the access out to Sara-
toga- Sunnyvale Road should be such that the site problems and access diffi-
culties are minimized.
The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m.
1\
Dave Wilson, the applicant, pointed out that the Staff Report states that
the present application meets Suhdivision and Zoning Ordinance criteria.
He commented that they felt the best way to develop these lots would be
with access off of Tricia Way; however, they have listened to the neighbors,
the Commission and the City Council, and this proposal is a compromise of
their wishes. He noted that they have discussed the access with CalTrans,
and have received a letter stating that this current proposal is acceptable
to them. Mr. Wilson stated that this area is zoned R- 1- 12,500, and the
subdivision has an avcrage'lot size of 15,560 sq. ft. He pointed out that
if only eight lots were approved, they would increase in size to over a
I and that is nut compatible with all the other houses in that area.
Dick Kier, the engineer, discussed the intersection of the proposed street
and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, including the treatment of the existing path.
He noted that Condition 11 -B should read "Street improvements on 45 ft. of
right -of -way to be 30 feet."
Bob Saxe, the attorney for the applicant, stated that the project meets all
City requirements. He discussed the access and the visual. aspects. Ile
commented that this subdivision has been studied, designed, and redesigned
in a way to accommodate every concern that was raised.
�x� -,E> •:••_:.: Bob Granum, 20421 Tricia Way, addressed the Commission, st.atino that the
proposal does not address good solid consistent planning principles. He
commented tliat lie feels this is not the only alternative plan and does not
eliminate the temporary easement that exists in front of his home. Air.
Granum indicated that the City street is on 9 feet of his property, and it
was always intended to he removed. He stated that Lot !12 hacks up into his
front: yard, into his neighbor's front yard, and is vio ed by the people on
'Tricia Wny. Mr. Granum stated that he did not knot: of any instance where
a back . vard i.c nn72tig"r— to the front yard of another home in Saratn a, lie
suhmitted an alternative plan, which (1) eliminated the temporary cul-de -sac
and temporary easement; (2) adheres to the findings of the Commission and
City Council; and (3) eliminates the poor principle of having rear yards
face front yards.
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Staff commented that, while it is true that it is not common practice to have I
3
i
142-
�3 x9 '. n • �, te�5 ..
rti :
Y a
OTTE O 2 O&M&
�
r
i
1 aY
=a'`'�' 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
R
;35 0 0 5s (408) 887 -3438
NO
November 9, 1981
Mr. Michael L. Conn
4248 Lake Santa Clara Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Dear Mr. Conn:
This is to inform you that the City Council considered your,
appeal of Condition V.E. of the Staff Report dated September
231 1981 for-Tentative Building Site Approval for SDR- 1453.
After conducting a public hearing at their meeting on November
4, 1981, the City Council moved to deny your appeal without
prejudice.
If you have any questions regarding the action of the City
Council, please feel free to contact the Department of Commun-
ity Development at 867 -3438.
e-re 1 y ,
Wayne Der" tz
City Manager
JWD /RSS:cd
cc: Mrs. Carole Wellbeloved, 1171 Capri Drive, Campbell, CA 95008