HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-1988 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: 10/19/88
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVA /' -j /- �
SUBJECT: UP -88 -010 - Primary Plus, 12211 Titus Ave., Appeal of Planning
Commission approval of use permit to operate a day care center
Recommended Motion: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning
Commission.
Report Summary: On August 10th and 16th and again on September 14, 1988,
the Planning Commission held public hearings and approved a conditional use
permit for Primary Plus to provide child care services for up to 175
preschool and school age children at the former Hansen School site. The
Commission conditioned the use permit to be reviewed four months from the
opening and annually thereafter in order to monitor the traffic.
On September 23, 1988, Mr. Taafee appealed the decision citing increased
traffic and noise and lack of safety per the attached letter.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Motion and Vote
A:agenbill
Memorandum to City Council
Planning Commission Minutes dated 8/10, 8/16, 9/14/88
Resolution UP -88 -010
Traffic Report and Planning Commission record
Staff reports to the Planning Commission
Information from Primary Plus received 9/14/88
Appeal letter
Plans
X11111
I
111 11111 PAP W-Mr
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE: 10/19/88
FROM: Kathryn Caldwell, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: UP -88 -010 - Primary Plus, 12211 Titus Ave., Appeal of
Planning Commission Decision
------------------------
Backaround /Description
Cupertino Union School District and Primary Plus submitted an application
to allow 350 students to attend day care between 6:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, at the Hansen School site. During the course of the
hearings, the applicant reduced the request from 350 to 175 students and
the Planning Commission conditioned the use permit for review, four (4)
months from the opening and annually thereafter. These changes were made
to monitor possibile problems with traffic that the residents on Titus were
concerned about.
Merits of the Appeal
The following are comments from the appellant's letter to the City:
1. The traffic study was conducted during the summer months when many
residents who use Titus Avenue are on vacation.
Response: The study does not estimate how many residents are on
vacation. However, even with a maximum enrollment of 550 children the
level of service is not significantly effected (A to B). Furthermore,
the Commission has acknowledged the need to carefully evaluate the
traffic situation and conditioned the use permit for review in four (4)
months.
2. The study was not done when the school was in session.
Response: The traffic report admits this condition ( "Level of
Service ", pg. 11, paragraph 4). The Commission recognized this and
conditioned the project for review four (4) months from opening
specifically for the purpose of re- evaluating the traffic situation.
3. Validity of the traffic study is unreliable because it accounted for
150 children, based upon the school district's information re:
carpooling and so on.
000002
Memorandum to City Council
Re: UP -88 -010, Primary Plus, 12211 Titus Ave.
Response: The traffic report analyzed two situations: (1) "project -
maximum condition" with 200 + 350 (alternative + Primary Plus), and
(2); "Realistic Project" - 200 + 175 (alternative + Primary Plus). In
both scenarios, 3.6 trips /child was used to calculate the traffic
impacts. The 3.6 trips /child is based upon two (2) trips in the A.M.
and two (2) trips in the P.M. less 20% for carpooling, in order to
calculate the worst case situation.
4. Parking will be a problem.
Response: The on -site parking spaces meet the City Code requirements.
In addition, the Planning Commission directed staff to monitor the
traffic impacts on an on -going basis and amended the use permit
conditions to require review after four (4) months of operation.
5. The increase of 175 cars will be a horrid and offensive increase in
noise level, between 6:30 - 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 - 6:30 p.m.
Response: The Commission considered the noise levels from slamming
doors and motors running and the hours of operation. The condition
that the use permit would. be reviewed in four (4) months allows the
Commission to re- evaluate the hours of operation, based upon the needs
of the neighbors and the school.
6. "...The Planning Commission has rolled over and played dead for the
benefit of Cupertino Union School District... to the detriment of many
residents of the City... helping to undermine the character of what has
been a quiet residential neighborhood up until now."
Response: The Planning Commission held lengthy public hearings and
readvertised the project to give the neighborhood more opportunity to
respond. In an attempt to respond to the input, the Commission
required additional studies of access off Melinda and Prospect Roads.
In the final analysis, in an attempt to place some controls over the
site (there would be none if the school district reopened the school at
maximum capacity of 690 + / -), the Commission limited the number of
students and restricted the use to four (4) months operating time.
After four (4) months the Commission would review the project and amend
or revoke the use permit as necessary. The evidence before the
Commission supported approval of the conditional use permit.
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning
Commission. 'They considered the possible impacts and made the required
findings cited in the resolution. The conditions placed on the use and the
issuance of a use permit gives the City some authority to lessen the
000003
Memorandum to City Council
Re: UP -88 -010, Primary Plus, 12211 Titus Ave.
impacts than if the entire site was reopened as an alternative school at
capacity. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Council
policy (set in June, 1987) for Alternative Uses for School Sites.
AVA
Kathryn Caldwell
Associate Planner
KC /dsc
PLANNING COMMISSION MEE'T'ING
AUGUST 10. 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 4
E. T. Barco, Camino Barco, Saratoga. commented as follows:
seated a copy of the Zoning Map for review and concurred with the Apl
1 to the near was (zoned in one manner while a commercial and quasi public
uses on another
No the noise impacts from the quasi public zoning; examples were cited ofi
Kati
- Felt that sawing of Monterey Pines would not _ 'mn'gatc the fight
Mr. Rich Lohr, of St. Art.haugel, Michael. commrnted Va�D�bee
- Wished
to in a good weds fge the Applicant; they had the 7 ft fence
requested
- Surprised were held
to complaints about noise however, he confirmed various activities
- Noted efforts to 1 noise and stated that trees were plant and east property
lines
- Noted the presence of Church for over 20 years and their good neighbors
- Floodlights were install at the request of Pareau without gghht of these poles
was less than 30 ft and 1 than the height of the teleephone he street
- Reviewed the site plan stated that 18930 Allaadale a home purchased by the
Church
- Confirmed that the Church w look into the all that floodlights were on till 3
A.M.
In response to Commissions Burger. Barr stated
they had omtanve laodscapiag per,
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO E C HEARINGS AT 8:29 PAL Passed 6-
0.
Commissioner Burger questi oned whether foot exoenaion an the fence height would
have any impact on the 000cerna rained. y, vaadalism and light MMUMML
Commissioner Siegfried oriBiaally with tall Raw IM - eadadoa; however, a 7 fL
fear would deter vandalism, He no unique in that a residential lot abutted a
quasi public use,
Chairwoman Guch suggested the pplipnt and Church out an agreement on lighting
since the fence proposed would t prevent lighting ' she concurred that a ao* ue
situation existed. While she y had reservations the exception, she agreed petltat
imps would result from paridng area and suggested Applicant install laadsca
Ong along the fence.
Commissioner Hams that originally she could not make the ' gs; the only iostaace
she had been able to the such findings was is the case of very traffic. The City
AttaaeY responded the current use was not inconsistent with cYaractaiudon and
activities ot'tbe property.
C mmusioner continued stating that the fence did not address the lem; she had
reservations It the malting of the required findings
SIEG URGER MOVED APPROVAL OF V- 88-026 ALLOWING FENCE IN
'� OR SIDE YARD ALONG ALLENDALE AVENUE, 24 FT. OM THE
PRO LINE AND TO ALLOW A 7 FT. FENCE IN THE REAR YARD G
THE INGS THAT THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE THREE RESIDENTIAL, TO
THE CH PROPERTY AND TO ALLENDALE AVE. WAS A UNIQUE SITU ON.
THE FENCE WOULD NOT IMPACT OTi 1 m RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS
T THERE WAS A HIGH TRAFFIC AREA WHICH REQUIRED ADDMO
CURTTY MEASURES. THE GRANTING) OF THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT
PECIAL PRIVILEGE NOR PRECEDENT SETTING. Passed 6-0.
11. UP -88-010 Cupertino Union School I?ISMMIPrimary Pha, 12211 Titus Avenue,
mq for use appxoval of laps to provide child pre services to
a1��Y sw c n at the Flaasea School Site located is the R-
1- 10.000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. A Negative
Declaration has been prepared tined from July 13, 1988.
000005
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page S
AUGUST 10, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 10, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:45 P.M.
Mr. George Plumleifh, Director of Asset Management, Cupertino Union School District,
stated that this Application was part of a district wide plan to upgrade some schools, sell
surplus sites and designate others as reserve schools for future needs. He answered questions
addressed by the Commission.
Mr. David Burke, 12176 Titus Ave., Saratoga, read into the record a petition and commented
as follows:
- Stated that he represented a number of households in the area
- Residents were excited to see the school used for educational purposes; however, their
concern was that school was designed as a neighborhood facility with very little traffic
impact
- Plan would significantly increase traffic on Titus Ave. (2.6 per child/1350 trips per day)
- TrafficAnalX3 R.= Level of Service Ratings, Peak Hour Volumes were cited
Conclusion that there would be no adverse impacts from this proposal was refuted
- Residents wished an agreement wherein the site would be utilized while traffic impacts
were mitigated
- Specific concerns included the Titus AvcJProspect Rd intersection at peak commuter
hours and that traffic would be diverted onto adjacent residential streets
- Saff parking requirements; existing on -site parking would be filled with the overflow on
Titus Ave.
- Parking would be required for parents dropping off small children for the day care
opezation,
- A parking prohibition an Titus Ave. would inversely impact residents
- Suggested standards for any new sign to be posted with a prohibition of signage on Titus
- Asked that d prohibition of left hand turns on Prospect Ave. during specified hours be
- Suggested a second attest to the site be provided on Mdinda Circle to promote traffic flow
Mr. Gene Craig, 12123 Titus Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows:
- Was ha for the proposed use of the Hansen School site
- Stated MTV, had not received notification of this hearing
- Noted existing traffic impacts on Prospect RdJfitus Ave. intersection which were
hazardous
Proposed use would magnify the existing traffic problems contrary to Traffic Resort
Conclusion
Suggested installation of a stop sign and consideration of a limitation of 175 students at the
site
Ms. Shiela Goldstein, Country Squire Ln., Saratoga, commented that while favorable to an
alternative school, she objected to day care due to noise from 6 A.M. to dinner- time and traffic
safety hazards to the children; cited accidents at Prospect RdJI'mtus Rd. intersection
Mr. Andy Bougard, Titus AveJProspect. Rd., Saratoga, reemphasized the existing traffic
problems, reviewed the history of the site and compared the previous use of Hansen School
with the proposed use. He favored the use of Melinda Circle to provide egress for the site.
Mr. Chris Hague, 12198 Titus Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows:
- Favored reopening the school with an alternative program and noted the importance of day
cam
- Asked that the City approach this Application with reason, sense and responsibility to allow
the school to perform a necessary and vital function while protecting the residents from
undue impacts
- Noted previous traffic impacts on rainy days when children were driven to school
- Citing the increased student number, stated that parking impacts would have to be
- Residents wished to have ingress/egress to their driveways with panting on Titus Ave;
objected to the suggestion to a no-parking zone on Titus Ave. which would hurt the
residents
Mr. Frank Leonardo, Saratoga, suggested use of a school bus to transport the children.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING pap 6
AUGUST 10, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Franklyn Clerk, 12584 Titus Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows:
- Compared the previous hours of operation with the proposed extended hours from 6 A.M.
to 6 P.M.
- Noted the exhaust fumes resulting from traffic
Mr. Plumleigh responded as follows:
- Introduced Mr. Pang who prepared the Traffic Anal)Wt
- The School District did not anticipate reaching the maximum number of students at this time
- Noted the requirement to have a directory in front of the school for emergency purposes
- Provided additional information on the alternative school and the Primary Plus program
- Compared previous use of Hansen School site with the proposed use
Commissioner Siegfried noted the increased traffic from a day care center as opposed to a
grade school.
Commissioner Harris questioned the use of car pools to transport children; such may not be
practical.
Mr. Plumleigh stated that the District was concerned regarding malting more than one
application in order to increase the number of students allowed; thus they petitioned the
maximum number to be allowed even though they did not intend to implement such in the
immediate future.
Commissioner Kolstad questioned whether consideration had been given to access off of
Prospect Rd
Commissioner Tappen asked the Applicants to address the concern of noise from the children.
Mr. Pang, Pang & Associates Traffic Consultants. reviewed the Traffic Analvc_;e Rcl=.
Ms. Geraldine Cockahaw, Saratoga, cited the children's noise from early morning till evening;
while residents were familiar with school children on -site, they were not prepared for a 365
day operation. She questioned the projected number of students and noted the impacts from
this increase; in addition, there were traffic, parking and safety impacts to consider.
An unidentified speaker questioned the origin of the influx of can and suggested consideration
of a traffic signal at the Prospect Rd./Titus Ave. interchange. He noted potential traffic
circulation patterns.
Mr. Burke asked that traffic impacts be shared by residents on Melinda CSrcle. He reiterated
the request to initially limit the number of students to 175 children and noted that Primary Plus
anticipated a 5 year period to reach the anticipated number of students; he questioned the
request for 350 students at this time.
Ms. Kathleen C Broadyke. 12037 County Squire Ln., Saratoga. noted the need for traffic
crossing guards-, the area did not have sidewalks nor a traffic signal at the adjacent intersection.
Mr. Plumleigh noted the time constraints in order to open in September. Applicants were
willing w accept a condition requiring a review of the use at an appropriate time; he
acknowledged the resident's concern about traffic impacts and would meet with the neighbors
on this issue. He urged the Commission to make a decision at the hearing.
Ms. Nancy Criepm, Titus Ave.. Saratoga. commented as follows:
- Cited traffic impacts from a small day care operation in an adjacent home
- While she understood the need for day cars, she questioned the location of such a facility
Questioned the potential economic impacts of the proposed operation on adjacent
- Asked that the Sheriffs Department be consulted for potential traffic impacts
- Noted that Titus Ave, was not safe for children at the present time
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 10:01 P.M. Passed
6-0.
Commissioner Siegfried noted the unfortunate timing of this request in view of serious traffic
concerns; he felt that 3.3-4 trips would be required per day for each child. He noted the change
in the nature of the school and stated that he could not vote in favor of this application at this
time.
00000'7
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
AUGUST 10, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Kolstad commented as follows:
- Concurred that he could not vote in favor of this Application at this time
- Noted surprise that an ingress/egress off of Prospect Rd. had not been considered; nothing
had been presented to sfiow why such an access should/should not be used
- Was unfavorable to consideration of access off of Melinda Circle
- Noted the change in the mode of transportation; Applicant should not be penalized for such
Commissioner Burger stated she would not vote at this time; she was concerned regarding the
number of children and significant traffic impacts. She asked that alternative traffic circulation
Patterns be Presented
Ms. Geri Steinberg, Property Consultant, Cupertino Union School District, offered to accept a
limitation of 175 students as requested by the neighbors; she noted that income must be
generated during the com- ing year in order for the school to remain open. Mr. Plumleigh
thought that submitting an application in April would be sufficient time; the application was
delayed a month due to the requited traffic study.
Commissioner Harris questioned whether limiting the number of students addressed the
concern; she was unable to vote on the Application at the time and suggested the District and
residents meet.
Commissioner Tappen concurred with comments of Commissioner Burger and felt that he
could not vote on the Application at this time pending further study.
Chairwoman Guch was concerned regarding traffic impacts and felt that Titus Ave. could not
bear the whole of traffic generated. The proposed use was very different the previous one on
this site and such would impact the neighborhood.
Ms. Steinberg reiterated the length of time for Primary Plus to reach enrollment of 175
children; she asked that an accommodation be made to allow the income to be maintained at this
site during the coming year.
Consensus reached to Continue the Application to an Adjourned Regular Meeting.
KOLSTAD/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE UP -88 -010 TO AN ADJOURNED
REGULAR MEET- ING AUGUST 16, 1988, AND THEN TO AUGUST 24, 1988. Passed
6-0.
None
1. Minutes of Heritage scion Commission of July 88, - Noted and filed.
2. Committee- of- tho-Whole - July 19, 1988 oted and filed.
3. City Council Meeting Schedule - 198 oted and filed.
Oral ky omrnitsion•
1. City Council Report.
Commissioner B reported on the City Council Meeting oaf Au '1988.
Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:25 P.M.
Respectfully su
Probst- Caughey
I11'11•
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Tuesday, August 16, 1988 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave.
TYPE: Regular Adourndd Planning Commission Meeting
------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Guch, Burger, Harris, Tappan,
Kolstad (arrived 7:25 p.m.)
Absent: Commissioners Tucker, Siegfried
------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. UP -88 -010 - Cupertino Union School District /Primary Plus, 12211
Titus Avenue, request for use permit approval of
plans to provide child care services 'to
approximately 350 children at the Hansen School site
located in the R- 1- 101000 zoning district per
Chapter 15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration
has been prepared (cont. from the 8/10/88 Planning
Commission Meeting).
Planner Caldwell reviewed the status of the application. The public
hearing was still open.
Carol Freitas, Primary Plus, stated that as a result of a meeting of
the neighbors, the following amendments were proposed to the
application:
1. Number of children reduced from 350 to 175,
2. No red curbs on Titus to restrict parking,
3. One large identification sign and one directory,
4. Cupertino School District, Primary Plus, and neighbors
would form an advisory committee to. maintain a dialogue
regarding problems and solutions,
5. Parents and staff would be discouraged from turning left
onto Prospect,
6. An additional parking lot off Melinda would be
constructed,
7. No through access from Melinda to Titus would be allowed.
Geraldine Steinberg, property consultant for the school district,
reviewed the parking situation. She estimated a maximum of 960
trips per day spread throughout the day, 6:30 -9:30 a.m. and 2:30-
6:00 p.m.
Larry Smith, Melinda Circle, was concerned about the additional
traffic onto Melinda. The neighbors didn't know of the proposal.
Kathy Brondike asked for clarification of the parking lot and
circulation.
1
000009
Regular Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting Page 2
Minutes
George Plumly stated that the alternative school could expand to
240 students.
David Burke, Titus Avenue, stated that the major concern is traffic.
He suggested an alternate access be added so that the entire
neighborhood could share the impacts. The maximum enrollment should
be 175 students; he favored the meetings with the district and the
new sign not to exceed the size of the existing sign.
Don Brondike, Country Squire Lane, wanted a driveway off Prospect.
Fred Cole stated that the Primary Plus at Bucknall has five outlets;
Hansen School has only one.
Ed Hayes, Country Squire Lane, proposed closing the access on Titus
Avenue.
Sheila Goldstein opposed the commercial day care; it should serve
only students at the school.
Andy Bogard' reviewed the conditions at other schools in the
Cupertino district (Luther, Sarah, Happy Day Care Center). His
concern was with safety of children walking in the area. Kathy
Brondike agreed; there are no sidewalks for the children.
Rich Hall, Kristy Lane, supported the access off Prospect, not from
Melinda, Miller, or Kristy.
Joan Moe was concerned with traffic.
Dennis Ryan, Country Squire Lane, supported day care at Hansen.
Jerry Steinberg, property consultant, summarized the school
districts situation:
1. The neighbors supported reopening of the school.
2. Hansen needed additional revenues to stay open.
3. Primary Plus, nine years in operation, had no complaints
from other locations.
4. Traffic is the major concern; there is a sidewalk on Titus;
the school would post "no left turn" onto Prospect and
reduce the number of students to 175.
S. They would coordinate a neighborhood committee.
Public hearing closed 8:25 p.m.
Commissioner Tappan confirmed that the neighbors along Melinda would
have to be notified of a new parking lot off their street. He
noted that a one year review could be a condition of the project, but
the school should address ingress - egress off Prospect.
2
000010
Regular Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes Page 3
Commission Kolstad agreed. The reduction in the number of students
to 175 was positive but-the traffic concerns persisted.
Commissioner Burger was not reception to a parking lot off Melinda.
Prospect Avenue should be used for day care students and Titus used
for the school access.
Commissioner Harris expressed concern with the traffic and noise
from car doors slamming and motors running. Hansen was developed as
a neighborhood school, not for use as early as 6:00 -7:00 ' a.m.
Cupertino School District was not being creative in their approach
to support the school financially. A better use could be found.
The neighbors would lose, even if a use permit was approved with a
limit on the duration. the proposal to have Primary Plus would not
serve the immediate community as intended. In addition, the
preschool hours were problematic.
Chairperson Guch supported the reduction in the number of students
and the idea of a neighborhood committee. She opposed the access
off Melinda Circle. She suggested that the City should retain
control over traffic, allow the district and Primary Plus to work
out problems, evaluate access onto Prospect and condition the use
permit for periodic review to address the traffic.
M/S KOLSTAD /BURGER to continue the item to September 14, 1988, for
renoticing the reduced enrollment and revised access. Carried 5/0.
M/S HARRIS /TAPPAN to adjourn 9:10 p.m. Carried 5/0.
A: pcminute
Respe tively Submitted,
Ka hryn Caldwell
Associate Planner
3
000011
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEP'T'EMBER 14, 1988
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
DR -88 -052 Pan Cal Development, 12419 Cmyside La., Resolution DR-8A-165'2
approving design review of plans to construct a new 4,784 two-
story home in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the C'
Chairperson h noted that Public Hearings Consent Calendar Items I Continued
W. Jim Zeid ted removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar I 3.
BURGERMARRIS VED APPROVAL OF CONSENT C AR 1TEMS 4 AND 5.
Passed 7 -0.
3. DR -88 -128 Hao, 21 Heber Way, reques os design review approval of a new
SM -88 -016 5,615 sq. ft o-story home a 1.8 acre site in the NHR district per
Chapter 15 of City Also consider granting site modification
approval for the 1 f the proposed pool.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the o the g Commission, September 14, 1988. - - -'
The Public Hearing was 7:40
Mr. Jim Zeid, 4795 La rl5r., Saratoga, was concerneci-abkut height of the one story element
of the Applicant's h - such block the view at his ve home and he asked that
the height be red
Mr. G ee house wo lock the view of the
pro hbor; the footprint was not lare and th was an 8 ft. nce in elevation.
available to Mr. Zeid far review.
The Public Hearing remained open.
P )B .I - HEARING-Re
7 6. UP -88 -010 Cupertino Union School District/Primary Plus, 12211 Titus Avenue,
request for Use Permit approval of plans to provide child care services to
ap�wamately 175 children (reduced from 350 originally requested) at the
H sea School site. The Commission will consider a new, secondary
access off Prospect Road, west of the playing field Property is zoned
R- 1- 10.000 General Plan CFS.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, September 14, 1988.
Correspondence from the following individuals was noted:
- Mr. George Plumleiggh' Cupertino Union School District. September 12, 1988
- W. Terence Ward. Chairman, Parks and Recreation Commission, September 13, 1988
Ms. Carole J. Fnitas, Primary Plus, September 9. 1988
- Signed petition opposing the granting of the Use Permit, September 10, 1988
Mc Auliffe (formerly Hansen) School Area Residents, September 10, 1988, Re: Res>mnse
Presented by Primary
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M.
W. George Plumleigh, Assets Manager, commented as follows:
- Reviewed the project's history and noted that the school had become an attractive nuisance
- Primary Plus was selected as the best choice for the District as well as the community
Reviewed the Traffic Study, traffic circulation patterns, parking, safety and noise impacts
Applicants had cooperated fully with the City and had improved the school
- Proposal was the best balance of community needs and a wise use of tax dollars
- Reiterated that the District would use this facility even if the Use Permit was denied
Mr. Pang, Traffic Consultant, commented as follows:
Reviewed the Traffic Report Level of Service (LOS) Ratings
- Discussed the excellent safety record at the Prospect Rd4 Titus Ave. intersection
- Stated that traffic speed on Prospect Rd was approximately 44 mph.
- Access on Prospect Rd would be unsafe and would not provide an adequate sight line
0000.2
PLANNING COMMISSION FETING Page 3
SEPTEMBER 14, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Ms. Carole Freitas, Primary Plus. reviewed the booklet showing their operation and noted the
changing Patterns of school activity; Primary Plus served many children of working parents.
She presented a chart entitled Hansen School Traffic Projection
Ms. Nancy White, 1446 Glenmoor Way, San Jose, encouraged the City to grant the Use
Permit and deny the secondary access proposed She noted the benefits from high quality child
care and the maintenance and use of the site; the Traffic Study reported a worse case event.
Mr. Fred Cole, 12091 Country Squire Ln., Saratoga, counted traffic on September 6th which
showed 230 cars in 33-40 minutes; he asked for consideration for residents of the area.
Ms. Carol Pavlovas, Primary Plus, stated that she planned to open an office in the school to
tutor students; she reviewed the benefits of one -no-one services offered.
Mr. Lois Olsen, Teacher for Academic Excellence, reviewed the program benefits.
Mr. Jerry Feroliola, President, Blue Hills School, added that there was a need for the operation
proposed; he recommended that the Use Permit be granted.
W. Dave Evans, 12088 Kristy Ln., Saratoga, referenced his September 10, 1988, letter.
Mr. Tom Deinch, Saratoga Soccer Club, noted that all schools had students who commuted; he
urged that the recreational facilities on site be preserved and utilized.
Mr. Bill Moir. 12211 Country Squire La., Saratoga, commented as followed:
- No one objected to use of the school or the recreational/sports facilities on -site
Residents were concerned about noise, pollution, traffic
- They were concerned about a commercial operation in their residential neighborhood
If the facility served the citizens of Saratoga and/or the people who lived in the community
that would be one thing; a commercial operation would change the community's outlook
- Noted on -site improvements already made; in addition, Primary Plus advertised services
Mr. Gene Cniig, Titus Ave., commented as follows:
- Six families would be directly impacted by this proposal
- Objected to teachers comer ted with the operation who testified on the operation
- Cited a recent, serious traffic accident at the Prospect Rd4 Titus Ave. intersection
- Noted traffic congestion from parked trucks which were blocking the local streets
- . Had no objection to a traditional operation of a school
Mr. Earl Johns, 12070 Kristy Ln., Saratoga, noted that Proposition 13 had kept the com-
munity very stable over the years; he cited the recent changes in the neighborhood. He
suggested that the need for a neighborhood school may be nearer than shown in studies.
Ms. Jean Shiles, Saratoga. spoke on behalf of the working parents. It would be ideal to have
public systems which provided extended child care; if such operations were not welcome in the
neighborhood, where should such services be provided.
Ms. Vicki Evans, 12088 Kristy Ln., Saratoga, considered the school proposal a commercial
enterprise; she questioned whether such should be allowed in Saratoga.
Ms. Sheila Goldstein, 12041 Country Squire La., Saratoga, commented as follows:
- Did not question the quality of Primary Plus nor the need for such services
- However, residents did not want a day care operation at the times proposed, in their area;
such was an entirely different operation than a school operation
- Previous petition signers had been rescinded by many who signed it
- A commercial day care center for infants/small children would greatly increase the noise in a
residential are; suggested a commercial area be utilized for such an operation
- Suggested that the school be left vacant until neighborhood children could utilize it
Ms. Janet Clinton. San Jose, stated that statements contained misinfarmadon; examples cited.
Ms. Vivian Euzent, 1502 Dominion Ave., Sunnyvale, provided information on the Alternative
School and noted that a number of children could walk, take public transportation or car pool
after completion of a study to determine whether a crossing guard was needed
000013
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
SEPTEMBER 14, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Ms. Kathleen Brondyke, 15957 Country Squire LA., Saratoga, commented as follows:
- The neighborhood did not object to the Alternative School
- Questioned whether other Primary Plus sites were comparable this arse; examples cited
- Summa and that everyone benefited but the residents of this area
Ms. Margaret Laycock, 10090 Byrne Ave., Cupertino, commented as follows:
- So called commercial operation served the needs of families, especially working parents
Questioned the appropriateness of hours proposed and noted the commute time required in
Santa Clara Valley; suggested that a 6:30 A.M. - 6:00 P.M. operation was not unreasonable
Ms. Jerri Steinberg, Property Consultant, Cupertino School District, commented as follows:
- The School District had made every effort to follow the rules set by the City
It was the need for open space that was the driving farce in retaining the Hansen School site
- The Distna participated with the City in setting the criteria for an acceptable tenant
- Community meetings held had raised no resistance to this proposal; Applicants were willing
to work with the neighborhood on the issues of traffic, noise and safety
tra
- District favored a community based committee the to address any concerns
- Requested approval of the Use Permit requested
Mr. Edward Hages, 12030 Country Squire Ln., Saratoga, commented as follows:
- Felt that the economics of the School District should not have any bearing on the decision
- Hazardous conditions would not be remedied by shifting the traffic hazard onto Titus Ave.
- Any control retained by the City in approving the Use Permit would be limited to a one year
period of time since the School District had a cancellation clause with any lease agreement
- Residents would accept a neighborhood school when such reopened
Ms. Louise Shaeffer, 19844 Park Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows:
Day cars center would op== 12 months of the year and have extended hours of operation
- Such was primarily due toe in � of their homes— appnoodmately 26% since January
reputation of excellence in education
- In addition, trends in education had changed; children were driven to school
- When public programs wen closed during August, parents had to utilize private services
- Primary Plus had outreach residents of other areas to work out difficulties and had crated an
exceptional program for children
W. Frank Ptiscam 534 Bevans Dr., San Jose, commented as follows:
- While he sympathized with residents, the days of the neighborhood school were over
- Cupertino Union School District was asked to do more services with less money every year
- Cted the crises in child care and the economics of families requiring both parents to work
SIEGFRIED/ MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 932 P.M. Passed 7 -0.
Commissioner Siegfried commented as follow::
- Concurred with the above speaker on the dramatic demographic changes
Any school with full enrollment would have a and is impact similar or equal to this proposal
- Noted his concern regIdng the imposition on this residential neighborhood of a use which
exceeded the hours of �eratiou and traffic generated by a traditional neighborhood school
Commissioner Harris commented as follow:
Expressed surprise at the suggestion that neighborhood school no longer existed.: felt that
both Saratoga and Cupertino continued to have such
While it was realistic to assume that more traffic would be generated than in the past, she
objected to an assumption that the City could never ream tD typical neighborhood schools
If the District felt it was worth reopening and improving the facility, she hoped that they
could find a way to make this facility a neighborhood school at some time in the future and
not so detrimental to the mWential neighborhood
- A recent letter the $chool 1 had not addressed the concerns regarding noise
- Noise impacts OOalr 8:00 M. was unreasonable for this neighborhood area
- If only 3% of the children amNed between 6:00 -6:30 A.M. why was the center open so
early: a compromise could have been offered in the light of the concerns raised
- Stated she would not approve the Use Permit requested
000014
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
SEPTEMBER 14, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Kolstad commented as follows:
- Objections to this proposal included traffic, question of availability of facilities and the
possible redistribution of school children, question of a commercial operation on -site, noise
- Professional experience in real estate demonstrated that potential home buyers had to made a
decision whether or nor they wished to live next to a school and deal with the inconvenience
- While the inactivity at this school may have been a benefit to the area, there were community
and social needs/responsibilities for schools and primary care facilities
- Furthermore, the School District had lease agreements with an escape clause; in addition,
the City would have some limited control over any use permit granted
- The Districes decision that the school would be used was not a threat, but rather reality
- Would vote for approval; the Use Permit would be reviewed in four months and he would
not hesitate to change his vote if problems arose
Commissioner Burger fully concurred with Commissioner Kolstad's comments. She reiterated
that the School District had the authority from the State to fill the school to capacity; a Prospect
Rd. access would only shift the traffic impacts, not eliminate them.
Commissioner Tucker considered the alternative of residential development on the site; traffic
impacts of such would be greater than the use proposed. In addition, Primary Plus would have
less enrollment than the Alternative School and the Commission could review this operation.
She reaffirmed her sensitivity to the concerns of the residential aces.
Commissioner Tappan concurred with statements of the above Commissioners. He agreed that
the District could use the site as they wished and suggested that Primary Plus may have less
traffic impacts than other uses. He favored review of the Use Permit, including a traffic study.
Chairwoman Ouch concurred with Commissioner Kolstad's comments and favored review of
the operation; she felt that traffic impacts could be reduced and asked the District to review the
complaint regarding trucks on Titus Ave. Regardless of use, there would be traffic impacts.
She was not favorable to a Prospect Rd access and cited safety hazards
Consensus reached that traffic volumes and safety hazards would be of particular concern in
reviewing the Use Permit; however, the entire operation would be carefully reviewed.
City Attorney advised that the Commission's involvement with the Citizen/School District
Committee be limited to a statement that the School District shall endeavor to resolve problems
by meeting with interested parties.
BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF UP -88-010 PER THE MODEL RESOLU-
TION, EXHIBIT A. AND DIRECTING STAFF TO MONITOR TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON
AN ON -GOING BASIS, AMENDING CONDITION 4. TO REQUIRE REVIEW OF THE
USE PERMIT FOUR MONTHS AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRIMARY PLUS
OPERATION AND ADDING A CONDITION REQUIRING AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF
THE USE PERMIT. Passed fr 1, Commissioner Harris dissenting.
000015
Use Permit
RESOLUTION NO. UP -88 -010
A RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING USE PEP14IT
APN #386 -28 -001
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Use Permit Approval of Primary Plus to provide
child care services to up to 175 preschool and school age children
at the Hansen School located at 12211 Titus Avenue.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds:
(a) That the proposed child care program is in accord with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district
in which the site is located.
(b) That the proposed child care program and the conditions
cinder which it would be operated or maintained will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that
appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize
potential impacts.
(c) That the proposed child care program will comply with
each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the
application of Cupertino Unified School District for use permit
approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following
conditions:
1. The hours of operation for the Primary Plus program shall be
limited to 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. In
addition, a total of three, evening or weekend festivals shall
be permitted during the school year. Planning Director to be
notified at least 15 days prior to holding of each such
festival.
2. The maximum number of students shall not exceed 175 or that
permitted by the license, whichever is less.
3. Any additional on -site signs shall comply with City Code Section
15- 30.080
4. Use permit shall be reviewed four months from opening and
annually thereafter.
4
0 00016
UP -88 -010, 12211 Titus Avenue
5. Access shall remain from Titus Avenue per Exhibit A. No access
is allowed on Prospect Avenue.
Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall
become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 14th day of September, 1988, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Burger, Harris, Kolstad, Tucker, an(
Tappan
NOES: Commissioner Harris
ABSENT: None
Chairman, Planning Comzfiission
AT T:
'Secret a Planning Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
MEN & /1��l f� �
5
000017
T R A F F I C A N A L Y S T S R E P O R T
H A N S E N S C H O O L
P R O S P E C T R O A D a n d T= T U S A VENUE _
C I T Y O F S A RA T O GA
July , 1988
By
PANG & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
P.O. BOX 4255
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA. 94040
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. SITE CONDITIONS
III. TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
A. Trip Generation
B. Trip Distribution
C. Level of Service
D. Circulation and Access
IV. MITIGATION MEASURES
V. CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX
Site Plan
Level of Service Descriptions
Level of Service Calculations
LIST OF PLATES
PLATE 1
PLATE 2A & 2B
PLATE 3A & 3B
VICINITY MAP
PEAK HOUR
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
MAXIMUM PROJECT
PEAK HOUR
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
REALISTIC PROJECT
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE I TRIP GENERATION
TABLE II SUMMARY
LEVEL OF SERVICE
PAGE
1
1
3
3
6
11
14
15
16
PAGE
2
7 & 8
9 & 10
PAGE
5
13
000019
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
The CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT proposes to utilize
the existing Hansen School in the City of Saratoga with
two distinct uses:
(a) as an Alternative School (1) with a maximum of 200
children in kindergarten to sixth grade (K -6);
(b) with a Primary Plus Day Care Facility with a
maximum of 350 children.
The site plan (2) shows the existing school at the
southwesterly corner of Prospect Road and Titus Avenue.
The objectives of this report are to analyze the
existing and future traffic conditions, provide an
estimate of traffic generation, assign and distribute
the trips to critical intersections, assess the
project's impact at these critical intersections, and
suggest possible mitigation measures.
II. SITE CONDITIONS
The school (Plate 1) is located on the west side of
Titus Avenue, immediately southerly of Prospect Road.
The existing school building will be used for both the
Alternative School and Primary Plus Day Care. The site
is bounded on the north by Prospect Road, a 4 lane
major arterial street, the south half of which is in
Saratoga and the north half in San Jose. Immediately
to the west and south are existing single family homes.
To the east is Titus Avenue, a two lane collector
street, and to the southwest is Melinda Circle, a two
lane local street.
(1) A private school environment within the public
school system, and provides the student with
special enrichment activities.
(2) The site plan is contained in the Appendix
-1-
0000
�°�POS�ECT
S...
D
�I
BwGbA'!�/
R
-N-
�9�E�c/
000021
�vo sC.q�E
YLATi: 1 PANGA ASSOCIATES
V 1 C I N I T Y MA Y CIVIL ANC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
ro DOX 425S MOUNTMN VIEW. G 94040 II16181S -1030
III. TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
A. Trip Generation
Two scenarios for evaluating the traffic impacts of
the project are presented. The first is a MAXIMUM
PROJECT condition with 200 children attending the
Alternative School, and 350 children the Primary
Plus Day Care facility for a total of 550 students.
The second is a REALISTIC PROJECT condition with
200 children in the Alternative School and 175
children in the day care facility after five years
of operation for a total of 375 students.
Alternative School
The Alternative School consists of a maximum of 200
kindergarten thru sixth grade (K -6) children with
an estimated trip generation rate of 3.6 per child
per day. This rate includes a 20% allowance for
carpooling. The average CalTrans trip rate for
neighborhood elementary schools without school bus
service is 1.16 per student. The lower rate also
assumes some carpooling and public bus usage, plus
other non - automobile trips from the neighborhood,
e.g. walking, skateboarding and biking. The
Alternative School concept requires that parents
participate in the child's educational process.
Thus, it is anticipated that a rate greater than
1.16 is appropriate. The 3.6 trips per child rate
is considered a "worse case" situation and is used
in the analysis as a conservative representation of
the traffic impacts.
The typical hours of operation of an elementary
school is expected with classes from about 8:00 AM
to 3:00 PM. The principal, teachers and other
employees may be present on the site until 4:30 or
5:00 PM. A 24% AM peak hour factor for 7:30 to
8:30 AM, and a 6% PM peak hour factor for 4:30 to
5:30 PM are selected as representative of the
"worse case" scenario. For the Alternative School
portion of the project, about 720 trips per day
with 173 AM peak hour trips and 43 PM peak hour
trips are anticipated.
-3- 000022
Primary Plus Day Care
The Primary Plus Day Care facility is expected to
have about 75 children in the first year of
operation (1). Growth projections are 25 children
per year so that after five years, the enrollment
should be at the 175 children level. The day care
facility, unlike the Alternative School, will
operate throughout the 12 months of the year. The
application to the City of Saratoga contains a 350
children maximum enrollment.
The hours of operation are 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM with
the AM peak hour around 8:30 or 9:00 AM and the PM
peak hour around 4:30 or 5:00 PM. A 20% AM peak
hour factor and 10% PM peak hour factor are
estimated for the day care facility. The estimated
trip rate of 3.6 per child per day with a 20%
allowance for_ carpooling is used for the "worse
case" condition.
About 1260 trips per day with 252 AM and 126 PM
peak hour trips are expected for the MAXIMUM
PROJECT condition. The REALISTIC PROJECT condition
approximates one -half the above estimates for daily
and peak hourly volumes for the day care facility.
Table I contains a summary of the trip generation
estimates for the two scenarios. The MAXIMUM
PROJECT will consist of 1980 trips per day at full
occupancy with about 425 AM and 169 PM peak hour
trips. The total REALISTIC PROJECT will generate
1350 trips per day after five years with about 299
AM and 106 PM peak hour trips.
(1) Reference: Carol Freitas of Primary Plus
-4- OU002 ,
TABLE I
TRIP GENERATION
LAND USE UNIT TRIP DAILY
RATE TRIPS
I. THE PROJECT - MAXIMUM CONDITION
a. Alternative (a)(c)
School 200 3.6 720
(K -6) children per child
b. Primary Plus (b)
Day Care 350 3.6 1260
children per child
T O T A L 550 children 1980
II. THE PROJECT - REALISTIC CONDITION
a. Alternative (a)(c)
School 200 3.6 720
PEAK PEAK HOUR
HOUR TRIPS
FACTOR
M AM PM
AM PM IN OUT IN OUT
24 6 121 52 15 28
(70%)(30%)(35%)(65%)
173 43
20 10 126 126 63 63
(50%)(50%)(50%)(50%)
252 126
247 178 78 91
(58%)(42%)(46%)(54%)
425 169
24 6
(K -6) children
b. Primary Plus (b)
Day Care 175 3.6 630 20 10
children
121 52 15 28
(70%)(30%)(35%)(65%)
173 43
63 63 31 32
(50%)(50%)(50%)(50%)
126 63
T 0 T A L 375 children 1350 184 115 46 60
(62%)(38%)(43%)(57%)
299 106
Source:
(a) Cupertino Union School District Interview with Sonja Shurr
(b) Primary Plus, Interview with Carol Freitas
(c) CalTrans, "Trip Ends Generation Research Counts" without
bus service rate is 1.16 for neighborhood schools.
PANG, & ASSO IAT S
CIVIL .NO IN.NS.O.IAI�ON CONSULTANTS
000024
B. Trip Distribution
The trip distribution for the MAXIMUM PROJECT is
shown on Plates 2A and 2B for the AM and PM peak
hours. The REALISTIC PROJECT trip distribution is
contained on Plates 3A and 3B for the AM and PM
peak hours.
The trips were distributed with the percentages
based on the existing traffic volumes and estimated
Alternative School enrollments as follows:
North - Not applicable (included in East
and West percentages)
East - 61% from Prospect Road East
South - 6% from Titus Avenue South
West - 33% from Prospect Road West
The Primary Plus trip distribution was estimated
based on the area's demographics and location of
other Primary Plus and competing day care
facilities (1) as follows:
North - Not Applicable (included in East
and West percentages)
East - 25% from Prospect Road East
South - 20% from Titus Avenue South
West - 55% from Prospect Road West
The directional splits for the Alternative School
are 70:30 (IN:OUT) for the AM peak hour and 35:65
(IN:OUT) for the PM peak hour. The Primary Plus
directional splits are 50:50 (IN:OUT) for the AM
and PM peak hours.
(1) Reference: Carol Freitas of Primary Plus
-6- 000025
V
PLATE 2A
/D0 /06
�j
JN�
• �GY7ii'` /E.
i
AM PEAK HOUR
TRIP I� I S TR I BUT I ON
MAXI MUM PROTECT
-x-
A`42=44
9
000026
Iva xewez-
PANG
& ASSOCIATES
CIVIL AND
TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS
PO WX 4265
MOUNTAIN VIEW. CA 94Wp 141610"4030
I
PLATE 2 B
PM PEAK HOUR
TRIP DTSTR2BUTION
MAXTMUM PROJECT
00002"
PANG& AS50dAT S
CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
►O DOx 4265 MOUNTAIN VIEW. G 04040 Isla► 94& -1030
�I
ti
V
tI
41
�1
QPGbi1'!i /E.
-x-
O
4k4
000028
wo s�.q�E
P 1-.,,A T E 3 A
I AM PEAK HOUR PANG& ASSOCIATES
TRIP D S S T R= B U T I O N CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
R E A L I Sr I C P R O J E C T Po mac 4265 MOU+TA+ VIEW. CA 94W (4161 0.0.1030
0
�•�POS.oECr�
90
�I
ti
V
tI
41
�1
QPGbi1'!i /E.
-x-
O
4k4
000028
wo s�.q�E
P 1-.,,A T E 3 A
I AM PEAK HOUR PANG& ASSOCIATES
TRIP D S S T R= B U T I O N CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
R E A L I Sr I C P R O J E C T Po mac 4265 MOU+TA+ VIEW. CA 94W (4161 0.0.1030
000029
No
PLATE 3 g
PM PEAK DOUR PANG& ASSOCIATES
TRIP D T S T R T B U T T O N CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
R E A L T S T T C PROJECT PO MR 4266 MOUNTAld wEw. CA Novo (.u) wao"
C. Level of Service
One critical intersection in the vicinity of the
project site was selected by the City of Saratoga
for level of service (1) analyses. The
intersection is Prospect Road at Titus Avenue.
The intersection is currently unsignalized and
operates with a STOP sign on Titus Avenue. The
intersection was evaluated for the AM and PM peak
hours for two scenarios and several conditions:
MAXIMUM PROJECT
REALISTIC PROJECT
1. Existing; 1. Existing;
2. Existing + With 2. Existing + With
Maximum Project; Realistic Project;
3. With Mitigation 3. With Mitigation
The "Existing" counts were taken in mid -July, 1988
by Pang & Associates. The AM peak hour selected
was 7:30 and 8:30 AM and the PM peak hour between
4:30 and 5:30 PM. The volume to capacity ratios
(V /C) and level of service (LOS) were calculated
for the critical intersection, utilizing the City
of San Jose's critical movement analysis level of
service program. This method was selected because
Prospect Road lies partially within the cities of
San Jose and Saratoga (2).
The V/C ratio was calculated for the existing AM
and PM peak hours. The turning movement volumes
are lower than during a typical day in September
thru May since the traffic from surrounding schools
are not on the street system during the summer
months.
(1) Refer to Appendix for Level of Service descriptions.
(2) Reference: Erman Dorsey, Engineering Department,
City of Saratoga
-11- 000030
Nevertheless, the counts do represent a base
condition from which the "With Project" V/C ratios
may be compared. The calculations for the "With
Maximum Project" condition includes 425 AM and 169
PM peak hour trips, while the "With Realistic
Project" condition includes 299 AM and 106 PM peak
hour trips. Table II contains a summary of the V/C
ratios and LOS for the intersection utilizing the
critical movement analysis methodology.
The Prospect Road / Titus Avenue intersection
operates with an "A" - LOS for the "Existing"
condition and a "B" or better LOS for both the
MAXIMUM and REALISTIC "With Project" conditions for
the AM and PM peak hours. Normally, in urban
areas, a "D" or better LOS is the upper threshold
of acceptance. Thus, the MAXIMUM PROJECT or "worse
case" condition as well as the REALISTIC PROJECT
have an insignificant traffic impact at the
Prospect Road..-/- . Titus Avenue intersection.
While mitigation is not required at the Prospect
Road / Titus - Avenue intersection, traffic
operations may - be improved by restriping the
intersection with the following lane
configurations:
West Leg: A left turn lane, two thrus,
and a separate right turn
lane, from a left, a thru and
a shared thru -right lane.
South Leg: A separate left turn and a
separate right turn lane, from
a combined left -right lane.
Parking prohibitions along the south side of
Prospect Road in front of the school site, and on
both sides of Titus Avenue from Prospect Road
southerly to Country Squire Lane would be required.
-12-
000031
TABLE II
SUMMARY
LEVEL OF SERVICE
---------------------------------------
WITH
EXISTING PROJECT
INTERSECTION --- - - - - -- ------- - - - - --
MAXI- REALIS-
MUM TIC
-------- - - - - --
LOS LOS LOS
V/C V/C V/C
--------------------------------- - - - - --
Prospect Road/
Titus Avenue
----------------------------
WITH (1)
MITIGATION INCREASE
------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - --
MAXI- REALIS- MAXI- REALIS-
MUM TIC MUM TIC
---------------------- - - - - --
LOS LOS
- -- - -- M
V/C V/C
---------------------- - - - - --
A
A
A
A
A
AM 0.498
0.574
0.549
0.502
0.485 11.5 7.7
PM A
B
B
B
A
0.599
0.664
0.641
0.600
0.587 8.8 5.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------
V/C = Volume to Capacity ratio
LOS = Level of Service
AM = Morning Peak Hour
PM = Evening Peak Hour
(1) "PERCENT INCREASE" refers to the increase in critical
volumes with the approval of this project.
PANG, & ASSOCiATES
CIVIL ANU TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
000032
D. Circulation and Access
Access to and from the site is provided along Titus
Avenue, a 2 lane collector street, to a parking lot
with a counter clockwise on site traffic pattern.
Some drivers familiar with the area may also
utilize Melinda Circle from Kristy Lane and Miller
Avenue. This action should be discouraged by the
Cupertino Union School District and Primary Plus to
retain Melinda Circle as a residential street. The
estimated maximum additional peak hour volumes
expected on adjacent streets are as follows:
STREET MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
Prospect Road West
195
Prospect Road East
170
Titus Avenue_ near
Prospect Road
365
Titus Avenue South
of site
60
Other residential streets to the south will have
increases in peak hour volumes of less than 60.
The residential area surrounding the site is
controlled by a series of 3 and 4 -Way STOP
intersections which discourages through traffic and
lowers the running speed. Streets that could be
affected with slight increases in traffic include
but are not limited to: Brookview Drive, Miller
Avenue, Northampton Drive, Brockton Lane, Melinda
Circle and Kristy Drive.
-14-
000033
IV. MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures relate to suggestions
to improve access, minimize congestion and enhance the
traffic carrying capability of streets in the proximity
of the development.
1. Restripe the "T" intersection at Prospect
Road / Titus Avenue as follows:
West Leg (Prospect Road): a left turn lane,
two thrus, and a separate right turn
lane with parking prohibition on the
south side of Prospect Road;
South Leg (Titus Avenue): a separate left
turn and a separate right turn lane
with parking prohibition on both sides
of Titus Avenue from Prospect Road
southerly to Country Squire Lane.
2. Restrict Alternative School and Primary
Plus traffic to Titus Avenue, a two lane collector
street, with use of the on -site counter clockwise
parking lot circulation pattern.
-15- 00034
V. CONCLUSIONS
The peak period traffic impacts have been evaluated and
several mitigation measures proposed. Several
conclusions may be extracted from this report. They
are related to trip generation, circulation and access,
and intersection levels of service.
1. The MAXIMUM PROJECT - "worse case" condition
is expected to generate about 1980 trips per day
or a maximum of 425 AM peak hour trips.
Approximately 247 (58 %) of the vehicles will be
inbound and 178 (42 %) outbound during the AM peak
hour.
The REALISTIC PROJECT is expected to have 1350
trips per day after five years with 299 AM peak
hour trips. About 184 (62 %) of the vehicles will
be inbound and 115 (38 %) outbound during the AM
peak hour.
2. The level of service at the Prospect Road /
Titus Avenue intersection utilizing the critical
movement analysis methodology will be at an "A"
level of service for the "Existing" and a "B" or
better level of service for the "WITH MAXIMUM
PROJECT" condition.
3. Peak hour volumes on existing streets
surrounding the project site will be
insignificantly increased.
-16-
000035
N
P SL .0 P. IL C v a u IL
------- — ---------------
P '
177
G J.31 U7- r-YTr2 tore w& :vim _
TYPUL
JA = . 1 ,7.
'A
- rIp:
T
FM (- "—
40
I . a
W 0. Iw.
11IW�OL Q �
Wus
FM (- "—
40
I . a
FILICS - AIRCUIT34T
LAURA IL NAMSXX ltrILUIPITAIII
SCIOOL.. a
Co
LEVEL OF SERVICE CONCEPT
Volume /Capacity Service Level Description
--------- - - - - -- -------------------------
Ratio
A <.60
A condition of free flow, with low volumes and
high speeds. Traffic density is low, with speeds
controlled by driver, desire, speed limits, and
physical road conditions.
B 0.60 < 0.69
A condition of stable flow, with operating speeds
beginning to be restricted somewhat by traffic
conditions. Drivers still have reasonable
freedom to select their speed and lane of
operation.
C 0.70 < 0.79
A condition of stable flow, but speed and
maneuverability are more adversely affected by
higher traffic volumes. Most drivers are
restricted in their freedom to select their own
speed, change lanes, or pass.
D 0.80 < 0.89
Conditions approach unstable flow, with tolerable
operating speeds being maintained though
considerably affected by changes in operating
conditions. Fluctuation in volume and temporary
restrictions may cause substantial drops in
operating speeds. Drivers have little freedom to
maneuver, and comfort, and convenience are low,
but conditions can be tolerated for short periods
of time.
E 0.90 < 1.00 Represents operation at operating speeds lower.
than in Level D, with volumes at or near the
capacity of the highway.
F > 1.00 Represents forced flow operations at low speeds,
where volumes are below capacity. Speeds are
reduced substantially and stoppage may occur for
short or long periods of time because of the
downstream congestion.
PAs & ASSOCIATES
Cl�ll AMO IIIAMjpp1AT QOM C01IjULTAMTj
000037
pertino Union School District
June 20, 1988
Mr. Robert T. Calkins
Assistant Planner
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitbale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
10301 Vista Drive • Cupertino, CA 95014 • (408) 252 -3000
Subject: Use Permit for Child Care, UP -88 -010
Dear Mr. Calkins:
In reference to your letter dated June 14, 1988 regarding use permit,
UP -88 -010 regarding additional information concerning the following:
1. Since a portion of the facility will be used as a District
educational site, evening usage will consist of P.T.A. meetings,
Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, e.e., school /family assemblies, winter,
spring, and summer family festivals and open houses. The above
programs usually commence at 7:00 p.m. and are over by 9:30 p.m.
Saturday use may consist of a school carnival, "pumpkin panic ",
track meet, i.e. These special events usually commence at
9:00 a.m. and finish by 5:00 p.m.
2. Please see attached plot plan verifying existing parking
spaces and circulation pattern.
3. Signs
a. School's existing sign will remain with a possibility of
a change in wording (see site plan).
b. A new directory will be designed identifying the location
of Muir Alternative School and Primary Pluss Programs
(Please see attached plot plan).
If you have any questions, please contact me at 252 -3000 X370.
Sincerely,
Sonja Shurr
Supervisor, Property and Facilities Planning
SS:eb
400035
Superintendent Yvette del Prado, Ph. D. • Board of Education Joan C. Barram Steven C. Chell Tommy G. Shwe Susan P Silver Elaine K White
�r QA,+
9/13/88
For your information, the attached letter and enclosures was hand delivered
to the following list of people on 9/12/88
Ann Marie Burger
20045 Winter Lane
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Susan B. Guch
12091 Plumas Drive
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Janet Harris
21083 Comer Drive
Saratoga, CA. 95070
John Kolstad
13600 Westover Drive
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Richard Siegfried
13388 Surrey Lane
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Thomas Tappan
19391 Valle Vista Drive
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Karen Tucker
13545 Riverdale Drive
Saratoga, CA. 95070
000039
pertino Union School District
10301 Vista Drive • Cupertino, CA 95014 • (408) 252.3000
September 12, 1988
Ms. Karen Tucker
13645 Riverdale Drive
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Dear Ms. Tucker:
The purpose of this letter is to provide a summary of the steps taken by the
Cupertino Union School District in support of the Use Permit application for
Hansen School. It is my hope that this will provide adequate information to
enable the members of the Commission to approve the Use Permit of Primary
Plus.
In chronological sequence the district:
o participated in 1986, by invitation of the Saratoga City Council, in a
school site task force to assist in a study of school sites as a part of
the City's policy development plan (summary attached). Please note the
concluding paragraph of the summary letter prepared y Virginia Laden
Fanelli which states: "It was agreed by all that the City and schools
must work together to educate the public to the value of retaining sites
for further education and current recreation needs: The greater goo_ d�of
o solicited, prior to application for a Use Permit, potential lessees.
Primary Plus was selected as best meeting district, community, and City
of Saratoga needs and requirements.
o notified the Hansen area residents living in a 500 foot circle from the
school's property corners and conducted a community meeting prior to
permit application. The meeting was well attended and only two people
from this meeting have attended subsequent meetings, an indication of low
concern. The district followed the City's public notification procedure
prior to applying for a use permit.
o applied for the Use Permit in April of 1988 assuming that would provide
sufficient time for a proposed August 15 opening for Primary Plus.
o contracted for, at the direction of the City, a traffic study by Pang &
Associates. The significant conclusion of that study was that even under
the maximum proposed student use by Primary Plus and the Alternative
Program, the traffic service level at the Prospect /Titus intersection
Superintendent Yvette del Prado. Ph.D. • Board of Education Joan C. Barram Steven C. Chell Tommy G. Shwe Susan P Silver Elaine K. While
Ms. Karen Tucker
September 12, 1988
Page 2
would be at an "A" volume /capacity ratio - the highest possible rating on an
A -F scale. An "A" rating is described as follows: "A condition of free
flow, with low volumes and high speeds. Traffic density is low, with speeds
controlled by driver desire, speed limits, and physical road conditions."
o conducted two additional meetings in residents' homes to ascertain
concerns and review the proposed use of Hansen School
o complied with City requirements to the extent that the staff recommended
approval of the Use Permit at the original level of 350 participants for
the Primary Plus program.
o agreed to the on inal requests of the community group, including
reduction from 350 to 175 students at Primary Plus, various parking
modifications, and the establishment of a community /school committee to
review conditions on a bi- annual basis.
o investigated, at the request of the Planning Commission, a possible
access opening off Prospect Road to serve the Primary Plus traffic. This
access was not recommended by the traffic consultant as it failed to meet
Cal Trans standards and would create additional vehicular hazards.
Additionally, this driveway would seriously impact existing ball fields
serving the greater good of the community, and would possibly require
cutting trees along the west property line shielding Kristy Lane
residents.
In summary, it is the belief of the representatives of the Cupertino Union
School District that we and Primary Plus have more than met any and all
reasonable requirements for a Use Permit at Hansen School. Therefore, we
respectfully request that the Saratoga Planning Commission approve our
application.
Sincerely,
rge P m Pmegn ire or
Asset M ag
GP:dp
000041
,AY LAWRENCE MNC.0 -1-M.
PO BOX 4255
MOUNTAIN VIEW
CA 94040
(415) 948 -1030
PAN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Ms. Sonja Shurr
CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
10301 Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Hansen School
City of Saratoga
Dear Ms. Shurr:
At the request
on August 16,
opening off of
intent of the
Plus Day Care
traffic for th,
the existing two
8835
August 30, 1988
of the City of Saratoga's Planning Commission
1988, we have investigated a possible access
Prospect Road at the Hansen School site. The
proposed access is to serve only the Primary
automobile traffic. The remaining vehicular
e Alternative School will be accommodated by
driveways and parking lot on Titus Avenue.
Our investigation included a site visit, a review of existing
"as- built" improvement plans, and a meeting with the City's
Public Works and Planning Staff members. The centerline of
the 24 foot driveway access opening is proposed at about 44
feet easterly of the -west school property line, or 187 feet
easterly from the centerline of Kristy Lane, a two lane
residential street. The 44 feet consists of a 25 feet
setback from the property line to avoid the existing trees,
plus a 5 foot sidewalk, a 2 foot shy -away for a fence and a
12 foot inbound travel lane. To the east of the centerline
is another .14 feet consisting of a 12 foot outbound travel
lane and a 2 foot shy -away. The distance from the centerline
of the proposed driveway to the centerline of Titus Avenue is
about 452 feet.
The proposed driveway will operate only with right turns in
and out from Prospect Road . Currently, Prospect Road
operates with four thru travel lanes (2 lanes in each
direction) with a striped double yellow "median" on the
pavement within a 100 foot curb to curb width and 120 foot
right of way. A bus stop with a concrete pad as well as a
mail box also are located in the vicinity of the proposed
driveway on the south side of Prospect Road.
The current 85th percentile speed per the City's Public Works
Department is about 44 miles per hour on Prospect Road. The
accident history near the Titus Avenue / Prospect Road
intersection was obtained from the City's Public Works
Department. During the last five years, only two accidents
000042
were recorded, one in February 1985 for speeding with only
property damage, and the other in February 1988 for an
illegal U -turn from the thru lane.
Several issues are considered relevant at the proposed
driveway on to Prospect Road. They are:
1. volumes and turning movement conflicts;
2. sight distance;
3. weaving distance;
4. driveway cross - section width and turn around radii;
5. parking demand;
6. miscellaneous e.g. existing trees and soccer field
dimensions.
VOLUMES and TURNING MOVEMENT CONFLICTS
Assuming that the Primary Plus Day Care will have 175
children for the "realistic condition" after five years in
operation, 63 vehicles are expected to enter and 63 vehicles
are to exit from the proposed driveway on Prospect Road
during the AM peak period. The 63 inbound vehicles consist
of 47 vehicles along Prospect Road from the west and another
16 vehicles along Prospect Road from the east. These 16
vehicles must negotiate a U -Turn at Miller Avenue, a distance
of approximately 1138 feet westerly from the centerline of
the proposed driveway. Of the 47 vehicles along Prospect
Road from the west, 35 are expected to make a U -turn at the
Titus Avenue / Prospect Road intersection, with the remaining
12 vehicles traveling south on Titus Avenue. These 35
vehicles must cross two lanes of traffic within 422 (452 -30)
feet the distance to a STOP bar or crosswalk on Propect Road.
In addition, the existing bus stop and mail box on the south
side of Prospect Road may require relocation to minimize
vehicular conflicts. This relocation will require a new bus
stop concrete pad and coordination with the Santa Clara
County Transportation Agency for the bus stop relocation, and
coordination with U.S. Postal Service for a new mail box
drop.
Thus, the proposed driveway on Prospect Road creates
additional vehicular conflicts of the new traffic with
existing traffic, and increases U -turn movements at Miller
Avenue and Titus Avenue.
PAN & ASSOCIATES
C.." ..O l...i.O.l.11p. C0.6"I..IS
000043
SIGHT DISTANCE
The CalTrans Highway Design Manual recommends the following
stopping sight distance (1) standards for various design
speeds:
Minimum
Design Speed (mph) Stopping Sight Distance (ft.)
25
150
30
200
35
250
40
300
45
360
The distance between Kristy Lane and Titus Avenue is
approximately 639 feet or about an average City or urban
block length. The distance between Kristy Lane and the
proposed driveway is 167 feet. The speed should be reduced
to below 30 mph from about the existing 44 mph (40 mph posted
speed limit) to meet.. minimum sight distance requirements.
The proposed driveway location does not meet the CalTrans
Highway Design criteria for sight distance at current
vehicular speeds. Only at the "school speed limit" of 25 mph
would the stopping sight distance requirement be satisfied.
(1) Stopping sight distance is measured from the driver's
eyes, which are assumed to be 3.5 feet above the
pavement surface, to an object 0.5 foot high on the
road.
PAN& ASSOCIATES
000044
WEAVING DISTANCE
The weaving distance for vehicles exiting the proposed
driveway and the STOP bar or crosswalk at Titus Avenue is
about 422 feet. The existing AM peak hour volume on Prospect
Road in the eastbound direction is 631. With the 63 exiting
vehicles of which 35 are expected to negotiate a U -turn at
Titus Avenue, the total potential weaving volume is 694. The
CalTrans design curve for collector weaving sections with a
40 mph speed would approximate a need for about 600 feet to
meet the minimum weaving criteria across one lane of traffic.
Therefore, the minimum weaving distance of 600 feet is not
satisfied since there is only 422 feet available.
DRIVEWAY CROSS- SECTION AND TURN - AROUND RADII
The minimum pavement cross - sectional width is two - 12 foot
travel lanes. In addition, a 5 -foot sidewalk,plus room for
fencing on both sides is desirable.
To accommodate the vehicular turn - around, a 32 foot outside
radii is desirable to meet the City of Saratoga's
requirements.
To date, the on -side driveway has not been engineered.
However, if the driveway is constructed at a location off of
Prospect Road, the City of Saratoga's minimum criteria must
be satisfied. (Refer to revised site plan).
PARKING DEMAND
At the end of the driveway, temporary parking should be
supplied to accommodate the needs of the Primary Plus Day
Care center. Because a child must be delivered to the
classroom, a parent must park the vehicle and walk the child
inside the building. Current estimates by Primary Plus
indicate a need for a minimum of 35 spaces during the peak
hour. The revised site plan shows 36 parking stalls.
MISCELLANEOUS
Other items of concern are the existing trees along the west
property line which currently shields the Kristy Lane
residents from the ball fields, and the utilization of the
ball fields.
PAN & ASSOCIATES
C$VII AND I.AMt.O.1AIlOM COMA 11
000045
The existing trees are to remain with the proposed centerline
of the driveway located about 44 feet easterly of the west
property line. However, the revised site plan shows the
encroachment upon the soccer fields and baseball fields.
Current utilization of the fields are as follows:
1. California Youth Soccer Association (CYSA)
August to January
3:30 to 7PM, Mondays to Fridays;
Saturdays - all day
2. American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO)
September to December
3:30 to 7 PM, Mondays to Fridays;
Saturdays - all day
3. Bobby Sox - softball
March to June
4 to 8 PM Mondays to Fridays;
Saturdays - all day.
Thus, the baseball diamonds and the soccer
require relocation- of some of the baseball
Additionally, an appropriate field size would
available for soccer.
fields would
equipment.
not remain
Our investigation of the proposed driveway at Propect Road to
serve the Primary Plus Day Care facility has focused on the
traffic engineering issues. With an inadequate sight
distance, and an inadequate weaving distance along Prospect
Road, plus a 36 stall parking lot, the proposed driveway is
expected to create additional vehicular hazards. Thus, it is
suggested that the Prospect Road driveway be removed from
consideration as a possible alternative access to serve the
Primary Plus Day Care at the Hansen School site.
Very Truly Yours,
Gay Lawrence Pang
Enclosure : Site Plan by
Cupertino Union School District
PAN & ASSOCIATES
CIV14 •MO T.AM{.O.TATIOM COMauu..TS
000046
pmaqb Ina
-- :_ -
gab
•i —� L-} «.� \� I � • w ova
- - - - -� i 007
V \.
8•iir��" '' � �. •�ti
1 % /
��� "yam �-• �. � � I
r
�-•�` _ _ .. yl�f I .�'�- ..•s.- .-..rte
WT
mels1 1
WY
•1
1
- - "-.-- so""
000047
"'sir D A �•��
13777 FRUITvALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-:3438 S'7500 �Olk COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
Virginia Laden Fanelli
Joyce Hlava
David Moyles
Summary
School Site Task Force Meeting
March 27, 1986
Present: Jerry Matranga, Cupertino Union School District
Sonia Shurr, Cupertino Union School District
E. G. McNicholas, Saratoga Union School District
Sarah Dunham, Campbell Union High School District
Tom Hodges, Fremont Union High School District
Dorothy Diekmann, Los Gatos - Saratoga Joint High School Dist.
Virginia Fanelli, City -of Saratoga
Harry Peacock, City of Saratoga
1. Reviewed information-from Cupertino Union School District,
Campbell Union High School District, and Los Gatos - Saratoga
Joint High School District regarding schools in Saratoga.
Saratoga Union School District will be delivering their data.
We need to request the information from Campbell Elementary
and Moreland.
2. It was explained that the City Council has included the
study of school sites in its annual policy development plan.
The Parks and Recreation Commission has been asked to do an
inventory of the recreation needs of the community and how
the school sites serve those needs. The Planning Department
will be looking at the potential uses in respect to the zoning
ordinance.
3. Concerns of school districts in leasing of part or all of a
school:
A. Liability - the cost that users incur to obtain liability
insurance.
B. The revenue from leases can presently be used for mainten-
ance of the site and within the district. The State may
change its position.
C. City process - involved and expensive.
11
Summary - School Site Task Force Meeting
March 27, 1986
Page 2
4. Use permit process: Can City set some base standards for
issuing a master use permit for a site? Then, other users
would not have to have separate use permit if they complied
with those standards.
Areas of greatest concern:
A. Parking - set a realistic ratio. Elementary schools
currently have about two spaces per classroom.
B. Hours of operation and days.
C. Traffic generated both in volume and time.
D. Allowance of uses not strictly educational.
E. Truck deliveries and refuse collection.
5. Uses for which schools have received requests:
Nursery schools; day care - -both preschool & older children;
office space; light industrial including research & training;
private schools; adult education - -JTPA training programs;
independent study programs; university extension programs;
performing arts; nursing home; senior citizen home; medical
offices; retail (depending on location of site).
6. May want to look at State law concerning alcoholic beverages
on school property. Alot of calls for organization and
fraternal meetings, conventions.
It was agreed by all that the City and schools must work together
to educate the public to the value of retaining sites for further
education and current recreation needs. The greater good of the
community should be encouraged rather than just responding to the
immediate neighborhood.
Prepared by:
Virg nia Laden Fanelli
Councilmember
jm
000049
of
7�1
Saratoga Planning (bmmission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re Use Permit - Primary Plus
Laura B. Hansen School
Ladies & Gentlemen
As a resident in the immediate neighborhood of the Laura B. Hansen
School, I would like you to be informed that I am against the
proposal by the Cupertino School District to lease space in this
school to Primary Plus for use as a day care center.
I am extremely concerned about the adverse safety and environmental
effects that the increased traffic and noise on Titus Avenue, already
an overstressed street, will have on me and my family.
I urge you to reject the application for a use permit, on any basis.
S incerely
Sat &q e c L�
Home Address
q Ig AV> 9
Date 7
000050
�,,� a '► l e-J 7L-a
b a 11 GQ tit
PRIMARY PLUS ... private elementary education
September 9, 1988
Saratoga City Hall
1377 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attn: Janet Harris
Dear Ms. Harris,
We would like to present a summary of our plans for Hansen school for your review. We
appreciate your time in consideration of this project.
It is our belief that the project will add to the educational opportunities for young children in our
community.
We would be happy to provide any additional information you may require.
Sincerely yours,
Carole J. Freitas
(408) 248 - 2464
Enclosure
CJF:kjy
AMBER DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL • 3500 Amber Drive • San Jose, CA 95117 • (408) 248 -2464
EL QUITO SCHOOL • 18720 Bucknall Road • Saratoga, CA 95070 • (408) 370 -0357 n f� f
MT. VIEW SCHOOL • 333 Eunice Avenue • Mt. View, CA 94040 • (415) 967 -3780 00 n 0 51
HANSEN AVENUE CHILDREN'S COMMUNITY
SEPTEMBER 1988
000052
In each of these programs, Primary Plus is dedicated to providing children with a happy, healthy and
creative environment involving experiences with the following goals:
• Successfully getting along in a group situation
• Development of maximum use of small and large muscles
• Increased attention span
• Independent socialization and development of friendships
• Increased communication skills
• Development of a greater feeling of self -worth through success with a variety of activities, and
• Encouragement of self- discipline
Primary Plus is directed by John and Carole Freitas. Mr. Freitas is a former Teacher of the Year for
the Fremont High School District and California Teacher of the Year nominee. He is also a member of the
Board of Fellows of Santa Clara University.
Mrs. Freitas, President of Primary Plus, is a former high school and college teacher. She holds an
M.A. in Child Development and Family Relationships.
000053
ACTION DAY NURSERY AND PRIMARY PLUS
A PHILOSOPHY - IN PROGRESS
Our schools' doors opened in 1968 because of the desire to experience first hand the marvelous
thrills and excitement of the world of young children. Of interest to the founders was the tremendous
amount of learning that goes on in young children. It's a very exciting time for them. All of the important
loving and guiding experiences of infancy we see played as the child grows. Also at this time, we have an
opportunity to suggest much of what will happen to children as they go through elementary school, junior
high school and on into adult life. It also was a real challenge to the people beginning our program to
have an opportunity to provide a situation that would assist in maximum development for children. Many
things that can be picked up and observed during the preschool years can be corrected or encouraged,
leading to much greater success in the years that follow.
We have maintained over the eighteen years that we've been in operation a philosophy that
encourages what we call a "semi - structured program." Semi - structured means, to us, that we have a
program put together by teachers and others that sets our specific goals each day, week and month for
every child enrolled in our program. Although the adults have goals and directions for the children in
mind, the children are not "made to" take part in these activities it they choose not to. We feel that this
makes it a semi - structured situation. So, although the teacher may have set up a music period, hoping to
Increase the child's awareness of music as well as to build on the child's attention span, if a particular
child doesn't want to take part In the music activity, he or she is not forced to be a part of the group at that
time. We feel that this allows for specific growth and also individual freedom.
One of the important differences in our philosophy has been the fact that we've been committed to a
particular kind of adult in our school environment. We have been proud of the fact that we have carefully
chosen adults who really care about children. We could spend hours and hours going through books,
writing lesson plans, buying equipment, setting up the preschool; however, the most important factor in
any school situation is the adult. It is exceedingly important that when each child enters the school
situation, he or she finds an adult who really, truly likes him or her.
It is our hope that each child will leave at the end of the day feeling better about himself or herself and
also equipped with a number of things they can say to themselves they can do that they couldn't do when
they started that day. If we achieve this goal, we add tremendously to the resources that each child takes
with him or her as they move up the educational ladder. It is our continued hope that we will be able to
provide an environment that stimulates positive feelings about oneself as well as a sound curriculum for
each child.
CAROLE J. FREITAS
15600 Canon Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95030
(408)354 -3064
EDUCATION San Jose State University
San Jose, California
Major: Home Economics
Degree: Master of Arts
Emphasis: Child Development and
Family Relationships
CURRENT Secretary- Treasurer of Action Day Nursery School, Inc.
POSITION President, Primary Plus
Wife of John R. Freitas
Mother of Michelle Ann Freitas
CURRENT American Home Economics Association
MEMBERSHIPS Private Nursery School Association
La Rinconada Country Club
Foundation for Hearing Research
Auxiliary for Hearing Research
Parent Group - Jean Weingarten Oral School for the Deaf
Exceptional Parents of Exceptional Children
President's Club - University of Santa Clara
Board of Fellows - University of Santa Clara
Alumni Association - San Jose State University
O'Connor Hospital Auxiliary
San Jose Chamber of Commerce
San Jose Chamber's Women in Business
LISTED IN Directory of Distinguished Americans
Who's Who in Education
000055
A PROUD RECORD ....
1968 - Action Day Nursery began operating as a preschool. The Prunerldge School In Santa Clara was
the first Action Day nursery school to be opened.
1971 - The second preschool, at 3030 Moorpark, opened its doors. An infant center Is also boated at the
Moorpark School.
1975 - Our third preschool joined the Action Day Nursery group. The Lincoln School is located in a
building that's about tiny years old and used to be a farmhouse on Lincoln Avenue. We're very
proud of the fact that the Willow Glen Historical Society put a picture of our school in the book
called 001d Willow Glen', which is a guide to historical landmarks in the Willow Glen area.
1976 - The Action Day Academy of Dance originated at our Moorpark School. The dance program now
has several locations and many children tapping, tumbling and doing ballet each week. We also
have some adult classes. The highlight of our dance program is a production each year at the San
Jose Center for Performing Arts.
1978 - Action Day Nurseries took over ownership of University Preschool on June 1, 1978. University
Preschool has been in existence In Saratoga for over 22 years.
1979 - In July, 1979, Primary Plus opened at 3500 Amber Drive. Primary Plus is an elementary school
with grades kindergarten through eighth grade. The school provides an educational setting that is
staffed with warm, personally interested adults who give the students the message that teaming is
exciting and important. The teachers attempt to establish a leaming environment that will allow the
children to experience the maximum amount of success possible.
1979 - Primary Plus Saratoga campus began offering extended day classes at the former Brookview
Elementary School.
1980 - Primary Plus Saratoga campus moved to Quito School and expanded to include preschool and
private kindergarten Gasses.
1981 - In 1981, our family had a new addition. Our new facility is the first school outside of the immediate
area. Located in Mountain View on the edge of a park, infants to children nine years old are in
attendance. The Mountain View Primary Plus is located In a facility that was formerly Cooper
School in the Mountain View Elementary School. District. The Infant program is housed in two
small buildings and the preschool- kindergarten program In a large, center -pod type building.
1984 - In September 1984, West Valley Middle School welcomed students from fifth to eighth grade.
Many of these students have been involved in Action Day Nursery and/or Primary Plus for a
number of years. The noddle school curriculum focuses on the unique needs of children ten to
fourteen years of age. The staff has worked carefully to develop a total program that will
encourage maximum growth both emotionally and intellectually.
1985 - Primary Plus Saratoga campus nerved to El Quito School and expanded to include an
infant - toddler program, preschool and private classes for children enrolled in kindergarten through
third grade.
10
MTN. VIEW
p J
¢ _J
W
J
Q
}
Z
Z
Z)
U) PROSPECT RD
— ACTION DAY
13560 SARATOGA-
SUNNYVALE RD.
14081867-45 15
ACTION DAY
AND
PRIMARY PLUS
ACTICN ;A1' 1
I - RUNFPIT) .F
INFANT CENTER
SAN JOSE
.ICTION DAY
Ya5 LINCOLN AVE
:08 ..:,:6.6952
r-
0
0
0
r-�
a
c�
0
a
I
u')
— ACTION DAY
13560 SARATOGA-
SUNNYVALE RD.
14081867-45 15
ACTION DAY
AND
PRIMARY PLUS
ACTICN ;A1' 1
I - RUNFPIT) .F
INFANT CENTER
SAN JOSE
.ICTION DAY
Ya5 LINCOLN AVE
:08 ..:,:6.6952
r-
0
0
0
r-�
ACTION DAY NURSERIES, INC.
Enrichment through a happy, healthy and creative environment
for children 2 -12 to 5 years
... Lincoln School
2148 Lincoln Avenue
San Jose, California 95125
266 -8952
... Pruneridge School
2001 Pruneridge Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050
244 -2909
-Moorpark School
3030 Moorpark Avenue
San Jose, Calfmomia 95128
247 -6972
... University School
13560 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Saratoga, California 95070
867 -4515
PRIMARY PLUS. . - . private elementary education
...Amber Drive Elementary School
and extended day care for
kindergarten through eighth grade
3500 Amber Drive
San Jose, California 95117
248 -2464
...Infant Center
Children 6 months to 2 -1/2 years
3030 Moorpark Avenue
San Jose, California 95128
247 -6972
...Cooper School
Infants through ten years old
333 Eunice Avenue
Mountain View, California 94040
(415)967 -3780
... El Quito School
Private classes preschool through
eighth. Extended day care for school
age children. Infant program.
18750 Bucknall Road
Saratoga, California 95070
370 -0357
WEST VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL
Private classes 5th - 71h grades
3500 Amber Drive
San Jose, California 95117
248 -2464
D,�TE: . �ubrn��'e� � Vic•
A September 10, 1988
TO: Saratoga Planning Commission
FROM: McAuliffe (formerly Hansen) School Area Residents
RE: Response to Permit Application for Primary Plus at McAuliffe School, and
Alternate Traffic Handling ProFosals - West Driveway and Melinda Circle
I have read and concur with the accompanying position memorandum on the
above topic.
Accordingly, I urge you to reject the alternate traffic handling proposals for the
Primary Plus facility including a new driveway west of the play field and /or the
opening of a driveway on Melinda Circle. I further request that the Primary Plus
application be denied altogether in order (1) to eliminate the undesirable traffic,
noise, safety, and property impact of such a day care facility and (2) to preserve the
use of the McAuliffe school campus for neighborhood school use to serve the
growing area needs which cannot be sustained by the already overloaded Blue Hills
campus.
:
Si ned �W- (� `
Signed: Date: � gO
Name (print ):___
Address: I ' 1 CLt1\j'(9AT c4ecLE -=5h+ - � I-
-------------------------
Signed•
Date: �
Name
----- - --------------- - --
Address: �`c� - \� _ �.aNDA_ C�i�C���S TC).(VT ,�}
Mc Auliffe School Campus Use September 10, 1988
Primary Plus Use Permit and Alternate Traffic Handling Proposals Page 1
mm
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum is provided in response to the written notice of the September
14 Saratoga Planning Commission. The particular issues before the Commission are
the application for a use permit at McAuliffe School by Primary Plus and certain
traffic handling alternatives to deal with concerns about undue traffic and noise
impacts on Titus Avenue, the only road serving the campus. This response is
provided in detail per the recommendation of Yuchuek Hsia, Planning Director, as
stated in the notice for the Commission meeting:
"If you challenge the subject applications in court; you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission /Site
Review Committee at, or prior to the public hearing."
The memorandum covers the following topics:
I. Endorsement of McAuliffe School Re- Opening
II. Arguments Against a West Driveway
III. Arguments Against a Melinda Circle Driveway
IV. Conclusions and Long -Term School Uses
I ENDORSEMENT OF THE McAULIFFE SCHOOL RE- OPENING
We are pleased and encouraged to see the formerly closed Hansen school site
re- opened. It has been exciting to watch the recent re- furbishment work and to
hear the sounds of school children again on the campus.
We want to assure that the negative impacts that would be caused by approval
of the Primary Plus application are avoided. However, do not interpret this
position as negative toward the school or, the school district in general.
We wish to make it clear at the outset that in no way are we opposed to having
children back in the school, or to having a school campus in our neighborhood.
On the contrary, we are quite "pro- school" and hope to see the campus not only
re- opened, but ultimately fully utilized as a neighborhood school.
c ►. . I &MIXeyal . KI dLsu
One alternative to partially relieve Titus of the traffic impact of the Primary
Plus facility is to build a two-way driveway directly off of Prospect Road along
the west side of the play field and behind the bordering Kristy Lane residences.
We oppose this proposal for the following reasons:
Mc Auliffe School Campus Use September 10, 1988
Primary Plus Use Permit and Alternate Traffic Handling Proposals Pag�ffl 0 0 6 0
A. Safety
The proposal would cause unsafe conditions for:
1. Walking McAuliffe School children
2. Walking and biking Lynbrook High School children (bike lane)
3. Prospect Avenue commuters
4. Local area residents/ drivers (Prospect, Kristy, Eric, etc.)
These and related issues are dealt with in great detail in the traffic handling
investigation report completed by Gay L. Pang, C.E., T.E. of Pang and Associates,
Civil and Transportation Consultants, dated August 30, 1988. We wish only to
underscore and emphasize the findings of that report:
"With an inadequate sight distance, and an inadequate weaving distance along
Prospect Road, plus a 36 stall parking lot, the proposed driveway is expected to
create additional vehicular hazards. Thus, it is suggested that the Prospect
Road driveway be removed from consideration as a possible alternative access
to serve the Primary Plus Day Care at the Hansen (McAuliffe) School Site."
B Preservation of the Existing Line of Trees
Please reject any consideration for a driveway, or any other alternative, that
would require total or partial removal of the over 30 existing mature trees
bordering the west side of the school field.
1. Noise and Sight Screen from Prospect - The trees provide the primary noise
and sight protection to the Kristy Lane residents from the heavy traffic along
Prospect Road. Prospect is a major thoroughfare with constant traffic from very
early morning to very late at night. Removal of the trees would cause a severe
noise and sight impact on the residents and undoubtedly affect housing values.
2. Beauty - The trees are numerous, varied, and mature. Their beauty is
appreciated not only by the immediately bordering Kristy residents, but by the
whole neighborhood. Their destruction, especially for an unsafe and
ineffective driveway, would be a terrible loss and certain mistake. Based on all
the considerations described in this memorandum, but particularly in the
regard to removal of the trees, we would request the professional preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report prior to any such action being approved.
There is presently no open auto access to the play field and playground areas.
This affords a certain privacy and protection to the homes on Kristy Lane.
Creation of a driveway immediately behind these homes would establish, quick
Mc Auliffe School Campus Use September 10, 1988
Primary Plus Use Permit and Alternate Traffic Handling Proposals Page 3
1111
and easy access to these residences directly from Prospect reducing privacy and
posing a significantly raised risk of theft.
Since Primary Plus will operate on an extended day schedule (6:30 to 6:30),
rather than a regular school day schedule, this driveway will be active all day
long with all of its negative effects on the area residents.
D Play Field and P1aXMund Impact
The proposed driveway would shrink the existing field such that it would no
longer support a regulation soccer field. This not only affects the school
campus by reducing precious field area, but adversely affects the local soccer
organizations that use the fields (CYSA and AYSO). The baseball diamonds
could also be jeopardized. (ref. Pang report)
The proposal further requires a 36 stall parking area to allow day care parents to
park while walking or carrying their children to Primary Plus. This lot would
necessarily reduce the playground area, further reducing the quality and
usefulness of the campus for its intended purpose - a school.
v
The proposal apparently requires that parents park and walk or carry their
children across the play ground in order to check their child in /out of Primary
Plus. How well will these parents be served by this driveway when it is
raining? How will the walkways accommodate the parents throughout the day
when school children are using the playgrounds? Who will want to use this
access driveway, even in good weather, when they have to carry a child and a
diaper bag 50 yards in and out every day?
To solve this problem would require extension of the driveway to the far end
of the west border nearer the school entrance. This is virtually impossible as it
would interfere directly with the student rooms on the west side of the
building, would require relocation of the PG &E transformer facility, and would
demand removal of the trees.
F East Driveway - Not a Viable Solution Either
Any consideration to build a Prospect Road driveway on the east side of the
play fields, along Titus Avenue, should be rejected as well. Many of the
considerations listed above apply equally for an east driveway, especially the
safety concerns which must be first and foremost.
Mc Auliffe School Campus Use September 10, 1988
Primary Plus Use Permit and Alternate Traffic Handling Proposals Page 4
000062
III ARGUMENTS AGAINST A MELINDA CIRCLE DRIVEWAY
Apparently, an additional consideration to distribute the traffic load caused by
Primary Plus is to build an auto driveway off of Melinda Circle. This proposal
is also considered unacceptable for the following reasons:
A. Safety
The Melinda Circle access to the campus is the only non - automobile access
point of entry to the school. It is also the only entry for all the neighborhoods
west of Titus Avenue served by the McAuliffe site. Melinda Circle is a curved
road which creates a blind sight line for drivers in either direction, raising the
risk to walking and biking children. Long -time area residents recall this design
as quite intentional as a protection for the children walking and riding to the
school from the surrounding residential streets.
There is no access directly off of Prospect. Schools access is only off of Titus
(walking and auto) and Melinda (walking or bike only). Installation of a
driveway on Melinda would remove the only access point safely reserved just
for the school children themselves.
B. Residential Traffic Increa
The overwhelming majority of drivers to the school will route back to Prospect
Road. Miller Avenue is best suited to this traffic, but it is winding with
multiple stops, and so will be avoided by rushing commuters. These drivers
will load up onto Kristy Lane to access Prospect eastbound, or route from Kristy
to Eric Drive to access the Miller /Prospect light to head west or north. The
additional traffic on Eric will have a residual effect on Candy Lane and Ingrid
Court which are fed by Eric.
These residential streets were never intended as a major access for the clientele
of a commercial enterprise. The noise, traffic and safety impacts are
unacceptable and define cause for rejection of opening the Melinda Circle access
with a driveway.
IV CONCLUSIONS AND LONG -TERM SCHOOL USES
gym, lo =3
The various proposals to re- distribute the increased traffic on Titus Avenue
caused by a Primary Plus facility are all unacceptable. The previously stated
concerns by Titus area residents indicate the rejection of unduly loading Titus
Avenue alone.
Mc Auliffe School Campus Use September 10, 1988
Primary Plus Use Permit and Alternate Traffic Handling Proposals Page 5
000063
Clearly the solution is not to be found in schemes to re- distribute the traffic,
but is only to be found in reducing the traffic to an acceptable level along the
existing Titus access.
The traffic can be reduced only if the Primary Plus application is rejected
altogether and the school site is used as a school, not a commercial day care
facility. The same position holds for any other school use proposals which will
have similar traffic impacts.
B Develop McAuliffe as a Neighborhood School
Beyond the traffic problems, the rejection of the Primary Plus facility is
warranted for another, and ultimately more compelling, reason - the need to
reserve the use of the McAuliffe campus as a neighborhood school.
The residential area near the McAuliffe campus in the Cupertino Union
School District is primarily served now by the Blue Hills School campus. This
campus is smaller than McAuliffe and is already over burdened. Blue Hills is
using four portable classroom units for the 1988/89 school year - doubled from
just last year.
The local neighborhoods are turning over rapidly to new young families, and
the pre - school children of current "baby- boomer" residents are coming of
school age in increasing numbers. Along Kristy Lane alone in the last four
months, four homes have changed ownership bringing in a netadditional
nine pre - school and grade school age children and two high schoolers to attend
local schools. The Blue Hills Kindergarten has grown from 52 in the 1986/86
year to 66 plus a waiting list this year. It appears that the local area will not be
served with adequate grade school capacity by Blue Hills in the very near
future.
If Primary Plus is granted a use permit, they will have to make significant
capital improvements required by and unique to a day care facility. Telephone
discussions with Carole Freitas, owner and president of Primary Plus, indicate
that Primary Plus will not proceed based solely on a short -term (6 month)
provisionary permit due to the risk to their investment.*
Primary Plus is a non - profit, commercial operation - a business. A business
with staff to pay and customers to satisfy. They must certainly intend to open a
new facility only with the expectation of successfully running that facility for
years. Their clientele also will represent a constituency that will be hard
pressed to leave the facility. If Primary Plus opens at McAuliffe School, they
will want to stay at McAuliffe School. But, in the very near -term, the area
residents will need the McAuliffe facilities to serve as a neighborhood school -
not a rented commercial enterprise.
Mc Auliffe School Campus Use September 10, 1988
Primary Plus Use Permit and Alternate Traffic Handling Proposals Page 6
000064
We urge rejection of the Primary Plus application not only due to unacceptable
traffic, safety, and noise, but as an act of prudent planning on behalf of the
nearby citizens of the City of Saratoga within the Cupertino Union School
District. Even if we could afford to let Primary Plus on campus at McAuliffe
this year, we can't the next year or soon thereafter when the campus will be
needed for the neighborhoods.
We further urge the Planning Commission and City Council of Saratoga to
recommend to the Cupertino Union Schools that they perform an updated
analysis of the McAuliffe School and Blue Hills School area demographics.
These studies should ascertain the near and long -term needs for our
neighborhood school facilities prior to permitting any other enterprise to
become entrenched on our local campuses. This consideration applies also to
the potential use of the McAuliffe campus solely for Cupertino Alternative
Programs. Such use would both preclude McAuliffe from serving as a
neighborhood school and cause excessive traffic since the - Alternative Program
students, like Primary Plus day care children, are typically driven to school.
Saratoga has a long tradition of neighborhood schooling. It is exciting to all of
us that the population of families with children has grown sufficiently to
warrant re- opening the school. We must not broker away a precious school
campus.
We have all waited nearly a decade for McAuliffe to re -open, let's not cut its
time short just as it's coming back to life.
* We in no way intend to represent the opinions of Carole Freitas or Primary Plus. This reference
is included to confirm the common sense interpretation that Primary Plus' intent regarding a
McAuliffe operation is long -term, not short -term, in nature. Please contact Primary Plus directly
regarding any questions on their policies, positions, or operations.
Mc Auliffe School Campus Use
Primary Plus Use Permit and Alternate Traffic Handling Proposals
September 10, 1988
Page 7
000065
le o -F / O
_�,ar�ttoga Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re Use Permit - Primary Plus
Laura B. Hansen School
ladies & Gentlemen
As a resident in the immediate neighborhood of the Laura B. -Hansen
School, I would like you to be informed that I am against the
proposal by the Cupertino School District to lease space in this
school to Primary Plus for use as a day care center.
I am extremely concerned about the adverse safety and environmental
effects that the increased traffic and noise on Titus Avenue, already
an overstressed street, will have on me and my family.
I urge you to reject the application for a use permit, on any basis.
S incerely,
Resident
Property Address
I -511Lo
n o
19 Z Z 5"
-%� ,
/610 5�S Ttvs x1Je �i� >"�G•�
12-9-10 T 7'41-' ,41- c �Ao- 47 ,OZ A
f 0`253� TnuS w—
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Kathryn Caldwell
DATE: September 14, 1988 PLNG. DIR. APPRV
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: UP -88 -0101 12211 Titus Ave.
APPLICANT /OWNER: Cupertino Union School District/ Primary Plus
APN: 386 -28 -001 Q
N
1
T7M 1� (2) (i) (4) (5)
12oz2 IZ050 12obo 12070 Iz0e0 12090
41 ;816.05 X86-05 (1 386.03 386•oi 386-05 -
54 53 52 51 4-) ( 7
� �, 1 2100
4-0 86'c5 446
IZO55;,) )2054 12041 12 5) 12073 IZO� 1Z110 '
44 s>ac. 2> -47 3646+ -z8- 3WO5-S5 3� -� 306-05 ;
]9 S." 3 U. 28 -o1
4(0) �' 47 11
12069 IZo70 12068 12115 • 12120
4 3Qiri7_98 3eL-28- 38605'66 C17) 86-06- _, -05
12087 12088 12110 (116) 66'05 12131 �'1 Ic
366-Z7 -49 J 381r05-BS 12139 -05-4!
37 37
3 4v)
(4 b) 386fl'S-
1 12l0►� 1Z10(6 IZ132 6 W 1- W 12140 } 12143 W) Cl 5) 3af.44
.3 41) (2121 ~ 12122') 121517• 12147 12151 I
!7- 3234-a -x 0 aye- 3$6 D5 -$3 63 {,-os. 3"-&S a 12150
3
6'{ GS N 6605+(_
.2 � 50
1216 Y )2130
/ 3£IG -271• teG; i. ' 121 07) (16D (15) 121(00
Q z I Z I L 9 I Z I (07 I Z 16 y. 3ib -45-42
12(49 (69
CI e -� L
I Z N Q B 67 K 121 T01
(6�) 386 - zg- 31015- 3 ".05 69 ^ T .� 86 -05 -41
�i 33 V 1zl) 1218o
G. IzlLI IizZ 12.
164' 386-27-54 ' 12173 !, (2181 0 386.05 -44
E gZ �"' 386 5- W 05 -70 CTo) 38605-
``�► C81) 121A4 12239 12177 72 12190
1 NDa �+�� 1z1>i7 se6 -Zg- za6•ze -oz 1— ate. -Ob i166 -05-),4
C7z (7() (70) 3aG -28- 12250 71 1221) clu
.4p 19404 2 C83) 166 -OS 79
Z8- 4686-04- 14,382 113'60 Cg 122016 3E6-05 12206
3 So ]A6rea ?8 12409 36ida- 12255 73 386-05
31 32 386-26-43 (r/ (� C251 C24) 12 210
3aG -28-22 19 (z3) 1.
7 ' (7(6) (77) C7 (��) �) 12446412281 2271 IZ2(61 IZ231 384 -06-
8 11377 1' Ju 986.06 86-C6 284.05 -al- 37
316.2 193 19349 19331 12221 12228 I7L3 70 77 7C.
�g 7
27 31 Z(.a J86. 6 ..Za- 9ir<?8- W ��g �i6- 46110+1 , v 12220
2S 4
Cs
M ELI N D A C1 R v 12240 ' z z 5 7 4) (2) C>> ' C4) Cs) Clio C Is`-os
G �
tb -Z8 � 1$6.2$•0
00006'7
X_)P- � -ctrl
zz
PLANNER'S WORKSHEET
Trails and pathways map checked
✓
Vicinity/locator m
y/ ap included
Dimensions shown on plot plan
7Adjacent structures
Directional arrow
gees labelled
Plans reflect field conditions
JAHeights shown on cross sections
N Ar
r7
0
Consistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans
1& Natural and finished grade on cross sections
Height of underfloor & attic areas included in floor area calculations
N�Roof pitch shown
All sheets included in submittal with required reductions
Colors submitted
Staff Reports
t Conditions from other agencies /department correct
Consistent figures throughout report
History files examined
—7correct address & application number on all o a es of the report
prt
Description consistent with advertisement
Plans labelled
—7 Order of attachment consistent with list
_All attachments included
Typographical errors corrected
✓
7 Dates on the resolutions correct
_applicant notified of recommendation
Applicant notified that staff report available Fri.
A:checklist
3 -4:00 p.m.
::,
1111.:
File No. UP -88 -010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY•
Application filed: 4/23/88
Application complete: 5/23/88
Notice published: 8/31/88
Mailing completed: 9/1/88
Posting completed: 8/25/88
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Cupertino Union School District and Primary
Plus, are requesting use permit approval of plans to operate a child
care program for up to 175 preschool and school age children at the
former Hansen School site.
PROJECT DISCUSSION: At the direction of the Planning Commission,
the project was continued from the adjourned meeting of 8/16/88 in
order to examine the feasibility of a secondary vehicular access off
Prospect Road. The proposal has been readvertised so that the
neighbors would be informed of the possible revision to the access.
The plan submitted (B) is in conflict with existing public
improvements, traffic improvements along Prospect Road and the turf
area used as a playground. However, each of these issues can be
resolved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission wishes to approve
the project a resolution is attached. Plan B is the revised site
plan and plan A is the original site plan submitted.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Negative Declaration
3. Resolution UP -88 -010
4. Letter from Mr. Pang, Traffic Engineer
5. Correspondence
6. Staff report to Planning Commission dated 8/10/88
7. Revised site plan, Exhibit B
8. Original site plan, Exhibit A
KC /kah
1
000069
RES -ND
Saratoga
File No.UP -88 -010
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY
OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has
determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through
15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and
Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described
project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on
the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Child care services for up to 175 preschool and school age children at
the Hansen school site, located at 12211 Titus Avenue.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Cupertino Union School District/
Primary Plus
10301 Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA. 95014
The proposal is similar to the site's previous educational use, is
consistent with the General Plan and will not have any adverse impacts.
Executed at Saratoga, California this day of
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
198 .
DIRECT/OR'S AU/T�HORIZED STAFF MEMBER
1 00070
UP -88 -010, 12211 Titus Avenue
Analysis /Background
The problem identified by the Planning Commission was essentially
one of circulation. The neighbors on Titus Avenue wanted the
traffic impact to be spread throughout the neighborhood and
suggested access onto Melinda Circle or Prospect Road. The Planning
Commission declined the access onto Melinda Circle and directed the
applicant to examine access onto Prospect. Enclosed in the
Commissioner's packet is the proposed layout showing the ingress -
egress off Prospect Road. Staff comments on the proposed plans are
as follows:
1. The location of the access, in close proximity to the bus pad
and mail box, is hazardous. However, these can be relocated
through cooperation with the Transit District and Postal
Services.
2. The proposed parking lot eliminates a significant portion of the
existing turf area and would prohibit the continued use of the
school grounds as a soccer field. The parking lot could be
moved further south on the site, closer to the school.
3. Construction of the access and parking lot off Prospect Road
would not ensure its use. Parents will use the most convenient
lot available for their needs. Therefore, the major entrance to
Primary Plus should be relocated to the northern part of the
school,, close to the parking lot.
4. The traffic engineer for the project points out that adequate
site distance on Prospect Road requires a 300 ft. distance
between Kristy Lane and Titus Avenue. Only 187 feet is
proposed. In addition, the weaving distance between the
proposed access and Titus is 422 ft. where 600 feet is needed.
However, if Prospect Road was posted 25 MPH school zone, the
site distance requirement would be less.
OPTIONS•
The Planning Commission has at least three options with regard to
parking and circulation.
1. Approve Exhibit A - parking in the current lot with access to
Titus as it exists. The Engineering Department will take counts
to assess the traffic condition on Titus within 3 -4 weeks after
Primary Plus begins.
2. Approve Exhibit B - access and parking will be off Prospect
Road.
3. Require an amendment to Exhibit B to establish the lot further
south, within the "surfaced play area." The turf area will
remain largely in tact.
2
UP -88 -010, 12211 Titus Avenue
RECOMMENDTION•
Establish the desirable access to the facility and approve the
conditional use permit by adopting Resolution UP -88 -010. The
proposal is consistent with the General Plan and with the Council
policy regarding alternative uses for school sites. The Primary
Plus proposal will be for 175 students (reduced from 350).
3
000072
RECEIVED
PAN & ASSOCiATES � �u� �
CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS PLANNING DEPT_
CAY LAWRENCE PANG. C.EJE. 8835
August 30, 1988
Ms. Sonja Shurr
CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
10301 Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Hansen School
City of Saratoga
Dear Ms. Shurr:
At the request of the City of Saratoga's Planning Commission
on August 16, 1988, we have investigated a possible access
opening off of Prospect Road at the Hansen School site. The
intent of the proposed access is to serve only the Primary
Plus Day Care automobile traffic. The remaining vehicular
traffic -for the Alternative School will be accommodated by
the existing two driveways and parking lot on Titus Avenue.
Our investigation included a site visit, a review of existing
"as- built" improvement plans, and a meeting with the City's
Public Works and Planning Staff members. The centerline of
the 24 foot driveway access opening is proposed at about 44
feet easterly of the west school property line, or 187 feet
easterly from the centerline of Kristy Lane, a two lane
residential street. The 44 feet consists of a 25 feet
setback from the property line to avoid the existing trees,
plus a 5 foot sidewalk, a 2 foot shy -away for a fence and a
12 foot inbound travel lane. To the east of the centerline
is another 14 feet consisting of a 12 foot outbound travel
lane and a 2 foot shy -away. The distance from the centerline
of the proposed driveway to the centerline of Titus Avenue is
about 452 feet.
The proposed driveway will operate only with right turns in
and out from Prospect Road Currently, Prospect Road
operates with four thru travel lanes (2 lanes in each
direction) with a striped double yellow "median" on the
pavement within a 100 foot curb to curb width and 120 foot
right of way. A bus stop with a concrete pad as well as a
mail box also are located in the vicinity of the proposed
PO Box 4255 driveway on the south side of Prospect Road.
MOUNTAIN VIEW
CA 94040 The current 85th percentile speed per the City's Public Works
Department is about 44 miles per hour on Prospect Road. The
accident history near the Titus Avenue / Prospect Road
intersection was obtained from the City's Public Works
(415) 948 -1030 Department. During the last five years, only two accidents
�0 ®0'73
were recorded, one in February 1985 for speeding with only
property damage, and the other in February 1988 for an
illegal U -turn from the thru lane.
Several issues are considered relevant at the proposed
driveway on to Prospect Road. They are:
1. volumes and turning movement conflicts;
2. sight distance;
3. weaving distance;
4. driveway cross - section width and turn around radii;
5. parking demand;
6. miscellaneous e.g. existing trees and soccer field
dimensions.
VOLUMES and TURNING MOVEMENT CONFLICTS
Assuming that the Primary Plus Day Care will have 175
children for the "realistic condition" after five years in
operation, 63 vehicles are expected to enter and 63 vehicles
are to exit from the proposed driveway on Prospect Road
during the AM peak period. The 63 inbound vehicles consist
of 47 vehicles along Prospect Road from the west and another
16 vehicles along Prospect Road from the east. These 16
vehicles must negotiate a U -Turn at Miller Avenue, a distance
of approximately 1138 feet westerly from the centerline of
the proposed driveway. Of the 47 vehicles along Prospect
Road from the west, 35 are expected to make a U -turn at the
Titus Avenue / Prospect Road intersection, with the remaining
12 vehicles traveling south on Titus Avenue. These 35
vehicles must cross two lanes of traffic within 422 (452 -30)
feet the distance to a STOP bar or crosswalk on Propect Road.
In addition, the existing bus stop and mail box on the south
side of Prospect Road may require relocation to minimize
vehicular conflicts. This relocation will require a new bus
stop concrete pad and coordination with the Santa Clara
County Transportation Agency for the bus stop relocation, and
coordination with U.S. Postal Service for a new mail box
drop.
Thus, the proposed driveway on Prospect Road creates
additional vehicular conflicts of the new traffic with
existing traffic, and increases U -turn movements at Miller
Avenue and Titus Avenue.
PANCj & Asso iy Es
CIVIL AND TRANS.DRTATIDN CONSULTANT$
0000'74
SIGHT DISTANCE
The CalTrans Highway Design Manual recommends the following
stopping sight distance (1) standards for various design
speeds:
Minimum
Design Speed (mph) Stopping Sight Distance (ft.)
25 150
30 200
35 250
40 300
45 360
The 'distance between Kristy Lane and Titus Avenue is
approximately 639 feet or about an average City or urban
block length. The distance between Kristy Lane and the
proposed driveway is 187 feet. The speed should be reduced
to below 30 mph from about the existing 44 mph (40 mph posted
speed limit) to meet minimum sight distance requirements.
The proposed driveway location does not meet the CalTrans
Highway Design criteria for sight distance at current
vehicular speeds. Only at the "school speed limit" of 25 mph
would the stopping sight distance requirement be satisfied.
(1) Stopping sight distance is measured from the driver's
eyes, which are assumed to be 3.5 feet above the
pavement surface, to an object 0.5 foot high on the
road.
PAN _& ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ANO TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
000075
WEAVING DISTANCE
The weaving distance for vehicles exiting the proposed
driveway and the STOP bar or crosswalk at Titus Avenue is
about 422 feet. The existing AM peak hour volume on Prospect
Road in the eastbound direction is 631. With the 63 exiting
vehicles of which 35 are expected to negotiate a U -turn at
Titus Avenue, the total potential weaving volume is 694. The
CalTrans design curve for collector weaving sections with a
40 mph speed would approximate a need for about 600 feet to
meet the minimum weaving criteria across one lane of traffic.
Therefore, the minimum weaving distance of 600 feet is not
satisfied since there is only 422 feet available.
DRIVEWAY CROSS- SECTION AND TURN - AROUND RADII
The minimum pavement cross - sectional width is two - 12 foot
travel lanes. In addition, a 5 -foot sidewalk plus room for
fencing on both sides is desirable.
To accommodate the vehicular turn - around, a 32 foot outside
radii is desirable to meet the City of Saratoga's
requirements.
To date, the on -side driveway has not been engineered.
However, if the driveway is constructed at a location off of
Prospect Road, the City of Saratoga's minimum criteria must
be satisfied. (Refer to revised site plan).
PARKING - DEMAND
At the end of the driveway, temporary parking should be
supplied to accommodate the needs of the Primary Plus Day
Care center. Because a child must be delivered to the
classroom, a parent must park the vehicle and walk the child
inside the building. Current estimates by Primary Plus
indicate a need for a minimum of 35 spaces during the peak
hour. The revised site plan shows 36 parking stalls.
MISCELLANEOUS
Other items of concern are the existing trees along the west
property line which currently shields the Kristy Lane
residents from the ball fields, and the utilization of the
ball fields.
PANG &A SSO _iAT S
CIVIL AMO TRANSPORTATION CO..U,T..TS
0000'76
The existing trees are to remain with the proposed centerline
of the driveway located about 44 feet easterly of the west
property line. However, the revised site plan shows the
encroachment upon the soccer fields and baseball fields.
Current utilization of the fields are as follows:
1. California Youth Soccer Association (CYSA)
August to January
3:30 to 7PM, Mondays to Fridays;
Saturdays - all day
2. American Youth Soccer
September to December
3:30 to 7 PM, Mondays
Saturdays - all day
3. Bobby Sox - softball
March to June
4 to 8 PM Mondays to
Saturdays - all day.
Organization (AYSO)
to Fridays;
Fridays;
Thus, the baseball diamonds and the soccer fields would
require relocation of some of the baseball equipment.
Additionally, an appropriate field size would not remain
available for soccer.
Our investigation of the proposed driveway at Propect Road to
serve the Primary Plus Day Care facility has focused on the
traffic engineering issues. With an inadequate sight
distance, and an inadequate weaving distance along Prospect
Road, plus a 36 stall parking lot, the proposed driveway is
expected to create additional vehicular hazards. Thus, it is
suggested that the Prospect Road driveway be removed from
consideration as a possible alternative access to serve the
Primary Plus Day Care at the Hansen School site.
Very Truly Yours,
Gay Lawrence Pang
Enclosure : Site Plan by
Cupertino Union School District
PANG & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT$
000077
Fo a 0.6 rb C x v c u u d ' - - -- - --
Tj
406 q
I' L---- - - - --- --
t t � t• I I �
t
I
ti• ,
in 7,411
IT7
jam. �i � ��.AN (��� � • �' 2�
0."::•i.. X11 •W '-�'� � •�i. � •) � � i
xr.Ww.: �rii -- '► ms's F.{ � _ �- �— �►._ - -.. '
��VbAr-
�.. _ i
sc
t.
w
9
000078
Saratoga Planning (bmmission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re Use Permit - Primary Plus
Laura B. Hansen School
Ladies & Gentlemen
As a resident in the imnediate neighborhood of the Laura B. Hansen
School, I would like you to be informed that I am against the
proposal by the Cupertino School District to lease space in this
school to Primary Plus for use as a day care center.
I am extremely concerned about the adverse safety and environmental
effects that the increased traffic and noise on Titus Avenue, already
an overstressed street, will have on me and my family.
I urge you to reject the application for a use permit, on any basis.
Sincerely
1tix�/ " • -)�/ a-,(- a (--_
"2csk QuC
Home Addr�s
f /9cfE
Date
000079
ANDREW M. =COGARD
12022 TITUS AVE UE
SA RATOGA , CA. 95070
SEPTEMBER 2, 1988
CITY OF SARATC(;A_ PLANNING COMMISSION
13777 `'RUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CA, 95070
Dear Commission Members,
Regretfully jfy wife and I may be unable to attend the public hearing
on Wednesday, Deutember 14, 1988 pertaining to the Cupertino Union
School District Primary Plus uermit, due to committments out of the
area. We would therefor like you to #,onsider additional, pertinent
.facts which EhDuld have significant bearing on your decision,
1, When Hansen School opens in September many parents in the
Brookview / Prides Crossing area are likely to transfer their child-
ren from Blue Hills School to Hansen to avoid bussing. No doubt
parent6 livings within a block or two from Hansen will find this a
convenient option even though the child will be enrolled in the al-
ternative program, which is really not all that different. I can
envision as many as 50 or more students enrolling.
2, The Seven Springs Development when completed, will consist
of some 500 new homes. Presently these students are housed at the
two nearest schools, Blue Hills and Reganrt. Both of these schools
are at near capacity now and I can foresee the need to utilize Hansen
School for students from this development, which should be completed
within the next year,
3. We are in favor of a Day Care Center at Hansen School which
would be similar to those found in other K -6 schools in this district.
A center which serves the immediate attendance area only.
4. We strongly feel that a neighborhood school should not be
used by Private Enterprise, Hansen School should be'used._for the'de-
velopment and growth of sUdents from the Cupertino School District
attendance area and not from all of Santa Clara County,
We thank you for your time and attention and sincerely hope that you
will give serious consideration to the to the above issues and reflect
on them before making your decision.
:1EGEIVED
Sincerely, SEP a 4 158n
p► ANNING DEPT
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Kathryn Caldwell
DATE: August 10:,; 1988
PLNG. DIR. APPRV.
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: UP-88-010, 12 211 Titus Avenue
APPLICANT/OWNER: Cupertino Unified School District /Primary Plus
APN: 386 -28 -001 Q
N
4i
iV ( I) 12016
9197 04379 386-z8-
44•s7 384-r7' 41 /
C,s ai
12038
�� • 366 z8-
¢D
3i, C3l) C45
12055 12054
14 386-27 -47 386-28-
39 386 -28 -OI
Ir 4(o)
12 ob°1 12 o7o
4 j86 Z]'18 38(.-28-
9
12 08 7 z 12088
384-27-49 J 366 -28-
37
4v) (4 B)
12(05 12106
�_ 3B. P7� • '66-28-
1 } 3b
12121 1 2122
t7- 386 -27Ls1 06-28-
� so
121 y[ !2/30
/ 39L-271-
1214 ,,,(c9
9
41 %," V -6� �
9419
Izlbl
3 9
386-27-54 cc
cel
�A G,
12187)
386 -28-
n&-z6-oz
C72
(70
(70) 386-28-
.b
as-
174o4
193b2
2
19360 (e
C89J
12206
f 2255
5
aeb -ze-
50
398
ag6 z8 12209
386 -28-
38(2-28 -ca
31
.32 366-28-22
19
(77) �7
(7aj)
64)
3µ.e
19l�
19959 19931
12211
12226
15
IZL?
?'
X86 -z6-
z� ec�2s-
3"-28-
W �46B
386 -4&-04
2L
(B
V. �� m ;. MELINDA CIRG
Iz :4o
1LSg7
ii�w;itii a r ri:. - - -. -- - -.
ie.. 6 -74-
J" -28-of
C6)
12090
WC>5 -
ql) ( 7
12100
1 [.110
M to
12130
366-o5y=
121100 �
810-05 -41
X12'
1218
386 -06-44
12190
386-05-3".
lo,
12 200
386 -,6 -3J
12210
3" -06-
37
12LZQ
86.06
C 7)
000081
File No. (IP-'o(�
PLANNER'S WORKSHEET
✓ Trails and pathways map checked
✓ Vicinity /locator map included
Dimensions shown on plot plan
Adjacent structures
7Directional arrow
Lt�rrees labelled
/Plans reflect field conditions
NIAHeights shown on cross sections
N14 Consistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans
(46-Natural and finished grade on cross sections
N Height of underfloor & attic areas included in floor area calculations
' A Roof pitch shown
All sheets included in submittal with required reductions
KIA Colors submitted
Staff Reports
Conditions from other agencies /department correct
Consistent figures throughout report
-7
History files examined
Correct address & application number on all pages of the report
7 escription consistent with advertisement
Plans labelled
_70rder of attachment consistent with list
7 11 attachments included
Typographical errors corrected
Dates on the resolutions correct
y pplicant notified of recommendation
::; Applicant notified that staff report available Fri. 3 -4:00 p.m.
A:checklist 000082 6/88
File No. UP -88 -010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY•
Application filed: 4/28/88
Application complete: 5/23/88
Notice published: 6/29/88
Mailing completed: 6/30/88
Posting completed: 6/17/88
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants, Cupertino Unified School
District and Primary Plus, are requesting use permit approval of
plans to operate a child care program for up to 350 preschool and
school age children at the Hansen School site.
PROJECT DISCUSSION: The proposal is consistent with the General
Plan and adopted City policies. No adverse noise impacts are
expected and the project is in compliance with the zoning code.
Although the number of vehicle trips per day will be substantial, it
will be considerably less than what would be expected if the school
was operating at full capacity based on the two trips per student
standard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application by adopting
the Negative Declaration and Resolution UP -88 -010.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Negative Declaration
3. Resolution UP -88 -010
4. Initial Study (including traffic
report)
5. Exhibit B, Project Description
6. Exhibit A, Plans
BC /kah B:K2
1 000083
UP -88 -010; 12211 Titus Avenue
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R- 1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: QPF - (Quasi Public
Facilities)
PARCEL SIZE: 10 acres
PROJECT DESCRIPTION /BACKGROUND: The applicants wish to re -open
Hansen School and operate a kindergarten through sixth grade
educational alternative program, offered by the Cupertino Unified
School District, and an infant /toddler preschool, a sick child
center, and extended day care for school children operated by
Primary Plus, a non - profit corporation. According to the
applicants, a maximum of 350 "students" will be enrolled in the
Primary Plus program, which will be open between the hours of 6:00
a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays only. Approximately 50% of its
student population will be preschool age children enrolled in its
extended day care program. It is expected that enrollment will be
gradual (i.e 75 students in the first year) with the maximum
enrollment being reached in 2 -3 years. Based on data from the
existing Primary Plus operation in Saratoga, at Bucknall and Paseo
Presada, it is expected that the preschool age children will be
dropped -off and picked -up by their parents. In the morning,
delivery times will be between 6:30 -9:00 a.m., with kids being
picked up between 4:00 -6:00 p.m. Most of the extended day care
students, on the other hand, will arrive in the afternoon on buses
provided by Primary Plus, and be picked up by their parents between
4:00 -6:00 p.m. Finally, Primary Plus has proposed a maximum of
three evening "festivals" during the school year.
The school district's enrollment will be 200 students and operate
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. It is expected that
most of these students will be driven to and from school by their
parents.. It is not known how many children will use public
transportation, walk or car pool. A full description of the proposal
is provided in Exhibit B.
Note: School districts in California are distinct governmental
agencies, separate from the governments of the cities and counties
in which they operate. As such, the California Government Code
grants certain autonomy to school districts with respect to the
authority a city or county government can exercise over them.
School districts must comply with all applicable building and zoning
ordinances of the local jurisdiction only when the proposed use of
the property is for non - classroom facilities. Therefore, since the
"educational alternative program" is being offered by the District
as part of their educational system, a use permit for that part of
the program is not required. Use permit approval is needed and
being requested only for the Primary Plus childcare program.
2
000084
UP -88 -010; 12211 Titus Avenue
Analysis
1) General Plan /Zoning Code Compliance - The Hansen School site is
located in Planning Area D as identified in the City's General Plan.
A specific development guideline for Area D is that "vacated school
(or underutilized school sites) interim uses shall not create
adverse impacts or excessive noise and shall provide adequate off -
street parking."
The applicants propose a total school enrollment, for both uses, of
550 students. This figure is approximately 21 percent below the
school's capacity i.e. 690 students, and approximately equal to the
school's enrollment when it was closed in the late 19701s. Existing
parking on -site (53 stalls) is adequate and meets the requirements
of City Code Section 15- 35.030, one parking space for each employee
including teachers and administrators. According to the
applicants, a total of 30 administrators /teachers will be employees
for both uses. As such, an extra 23 spaces will be available to
visitors and parents. The parking spaces are well marked and- the
existing on -site circulation system will allow for easy pick -up and
delivery of children.
Given that the proposed total enrollment is considerably less than
the site's maximum capacity and equal to the enrollment when Hansen
School was in full operation during the late 19701s, and adequate
parking will be provided, impacts are not expected to be very
different than if the school was being used entirely for District
activities.
2. Council Policy - In June 1987, the City Council adopted a policy for
Alternative Uses for School Sites which states that "only uses which
are similar to school uses, in terms of hour of operation, traffic,
and overall impacts, be permitted at vacant or underutilized
schools."
Although Primary Plus' operation is labelled as "child care ", it
does provide independent educational programs similar to a public
school system. In addition, although Primary Plus has requested
longer operational hours than the District's program, this should
not create any adverse impacts on surrounding properties. In'fact,
since the times when parents will be able to deliver and pick up
their children will be spread out over several hours in the morning
and evening, and that the extended day care students use
transporatation provided by Primary Plus to travel the school in the
afternoon the impacts on traffic will be minimized. In addition,
car pooling, students walking, using public transportation and less
than total enrollment will help minimze traffic impacts.
3. A traffic report was prepared for the project by Pang and
Associates. The report analyzed trip generation, circulation and
access, and the effect of the project on the intersection at
Prospect and Titus. The Engineering /Public Works Department reviewed
the report and supports the conclusion that there will be no adverse
3
UP -88 -010; 12211 Titus Avenue
impacts on the neighborhood. Prospect Road /Titus intersection will
operate at a level of service B; parking circulation is restricted
to a counter clockwise parking lot pattern. The report suggests a
parking prohibition on both sides of Titus Avenue. The residents on
the east side of Titus, however, may prefer to use the curb side
parking for guests. Staff recommends that no prohibition against on
street parking is necessary at this time, especially since the
Planning Commission has the ability to recall the use permit if a
problem should arise.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve
the use permit request to allow child care services for up to 350
students at the Hansen School. The proposed use is consistent with
the General Plan, the policies adopted by the City Council for
vacant or underutilized school sites, and complies with the zoning
code requirements. No adverse impacts on traffic or noise are
expected.
4 000086
RES -ND
Saratoga
File No. UP -88 -010
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY
OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has
determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through
15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and
Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described
project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on
the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Child care services for up to 350 preschool and school age children at the
Hansen School site, located at 12211 Titus Avenue.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Cupertino Unified School District /Primary
Plus, 10301 Vista Dr., Cupertino, CA. 95014
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The proposal is similar to the sites' previous educational use and will not
have any adverse impacts.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 13th day of July, 1988.
*,v � !� (z � �
IR CTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
T
FILING FEE: $ 711,�
GENERAL INFORMATION:
FORM EIA -la
CITY OF SARATOGA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE
(to be_ completed by appl.i_cant)._....,%
DATE: ��f �� FILE NO:(I P--0 -0(0
1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor:
Cupertino Union School District
10301 Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
2. Address of project: 12211 Titus Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Assessor's Parcel Number: 2242 Book 386 Page 28
.i. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning;
this project: Sonjn_Shurr
10301 Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA. 95014
(408) 252 -3000, X370
4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this
form pertains: '
S. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals
required for this project, including those required by city, regional,
state and federal agencies: State licensing of child care, use permit from
City of Saratoga
6. Existing zoning district: quasi - Public /Underlying R1
7. Proposed use of site (project for which this form is filed):
District Educatuonal site /Leased site
8. Site size: 10 acres
9. Square footage: 35,947.00 (buildings)
10. Number of floors of construction: Single Story
11. Amount of off - street parking: 48 spaces
12. Attached plans? Yes XX No
13. Proposed scheduling: SEE ATTACHED
14. Associated projects:. SEE ATTACHED
15. Anticipated incremental development: N/A
16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit ,sizes,
range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected:
N/A
1111:•
17. If commercial, -indicate--the type, whether neighborhood, city or
regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading
facilities: N /A.
18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and
loading facilities: N/A
19. -If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment
per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community, j
benefits to be derived f.rom•the project: Public School and Day Care Lease,
30 employees, 550 (maximum) children, restoration of public facility to original state
C T T
(vacant sine iyiy /, neighborhood ennancement
20. If the project involves a variance,.conditional use or rezoning appli-
cation, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required:
City use permit must be obtained since one half of the site will be leased and the other
half will be used as a uepr ino neon chool Ulstrictedu—cational site.
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects ?. Discuss
below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary).
YES NO
X 21. Change in existing features of any lakes or hills, or sub-
stantial alteration of ground contours.
X 22. Change in scenic views or vistas.from existing residential
areas or public lands or roads.
X 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of
project. Re -Use of closed site
X 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. No - one
dumpster
X 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
X 26. Change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity,
or alteration of existing drainage.patterns.
X 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in
the vicinity. None other than the return of little voices talking
and playing on the school grounds, parents driving their chi rei duo and
from school.
___ - v y,%W
YES NO
X 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more.
X 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives.
X 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police,
fire, water, sewage, etc.) . As the. school once again becomes operational
vandalism will drop, grounds have been maintained at a minimal since the
school's closure, therefore water usage will rise, but not substantially.
X 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity,
oil, natural gas, etc.).
X 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including
information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any
cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing struc-
tures on the site, and the use of.the structures.
A closed school site that will be r openFid as "HanCPn rhildrpn'c rnm,,nitV roryter,
Nothing will be changed on the outside of the exicting huildin V_ they will hP hrnuaht
sap to code in Order that they may once again hP n-Pd fnr Pdnratinnal�pijrpncoc_
34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants
and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate
the type of land use (residential,`\ ommercial, etcs.), intensity of
land use (one - family, apartment houses, shops; department stores. etc.)
State of C.I �OP4'11 P,
SS.
County of _SPNTP Cpl.
On this 2ATO day of RIt, in the year M6 ,
before me I personally appeared
p o th b . personally known to me (er-
r2e me on e asis ) to be the personfs.)„
whose name( is -afie subscribed to this instrument, and r� Qpy�ledge&,w
that he (shs�tbey) executed it. "`
f4.1 oFFICl:AL SEAL
D AWN 0• CORNISH � t
NOf:• rPtBLIC- CAL!FWKA o
WITNESS my hand and official seal. 9 S
SANTA CI.AP.n COUNTY
r ,,(� MyL Commission Expires t".ar. 4.99 �7aGx
V L.S.IJI,:�i
Notary's Signature
My Commission Expires:
0000,90
FORM EIA -lb
CITY OF SARATOGA
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(TO BE COMPLETED BY PUBLIC AGENCY)
PROJECT: CA-4i(S) CA119 FILE NO: D -pp'QI
LOCATION: X), I T! �y, f -
_Y kvg f x a, QA
4
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone N
C'a 95a 14
3. Date of Checklist Submitted: �I2 �j ! �J
4. Agency Requiring Checklist:
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable:
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe "answers are required on attached
sheets.)
1. Earth. will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- %
crowding of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief /
features? V
d. The destruction, coverinq or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
43 AL
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
YES MAYBE NO
V
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the / .
bed of a lake? V
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards
such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground
failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
/
ambient air quality?
b.
The creation of objectionable odors?
c.
Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature,
or any change in climate, either locally or region-
ally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
/
water movements in fresh water?
b.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surfacd water runoff?
V
c.
Alterations to the course flow flood
or of waters?
-2-
000092
d. Change in the amount of surface water or any
water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
YES MAYBE NO
V
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
`
ground waters?
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
J
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies?
i.
Exposure of people or property to water related
/
hazards such as flooding?
v
J.
Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or
/
V
chemical content of surface thermal springs?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.,
Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass
crops, and aquatic plants)?
r
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or /
endangered species of plants? V
-3-
000093
YES MAYBE NO
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: /
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ✓/
c4o U3 n b. Exposure o"ople to severe ise levels? y
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light /
or glare? v
000094
-4-
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
+�
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of
f
any species of animals (birds, land animals includ-
ing reptiles, fish, or insects)?
►/
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
/
01)(Inn(jorod npocion or nnimnln?
V
c.
Introduction of new species of animals into an area,
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement
✓
of animals?
V
d.
Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: /
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ✓/
c4o U3 n b. Exposure o"ople to severe ise levels? y
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light /
or glare? v
000094
-4-
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (inlcuding, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distriSution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result
in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
/moo�vement?
YES MAYBE NC
L--
�/-� , j�r�{�Y✓�Y�ii »u.�cliJGvi,CC '.� �/ �/� �j<.({ -W �� �Ka= o3�.1�
000095
YES MAYBE NO
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand
for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or /
movement of people and /or goods? 1/
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? v
f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, /
bicyclists or pedestrians? I
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
C. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
r f. Other governmental services?
15. End. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? v
-6-
00000G
YES MAYBE NC
C. Does the project have impacts which are indivi-
dually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
IV. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
OI find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED.
OI find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRON14ENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
DATE: 2i J
S GNA RE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
r
For:
-10-
(rev. 5/16/80)
PRIMARY PLUS ...private elementary education
September 9, 1988
Saratoga City Hall
1377 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Friends,
We would like to present a summary of our plans for Hansen school for your review. We
appreciate your time in consideration of this project.
It is our belief that the project will add to the educational opportunities for young children in our
community.
We would be happy to provide any additional information you may require.
Sincerely yours,
'� S .
Carole J. Freitas
(408) 248 - 2464
Enclosure
CJF:kjy
000099
AMBER DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL • 3500 Amber Drive • San Jose, CA 95117 • (408) 248 -2464
EL QUITO SCHOOL • 18720 Bucknall Road • Saratoga, CA 95070 • (408) 370 -0357
MT. VIEW SCHOOL • 333 Eunice Avenue • Mt. View, CA 94040 • (415) 967 -3780
PROGRAM
000100
k 1 too` `
y
TPPV
4.
r
Birthday Celebrations
V � •
Socialization
Field Trip
000102
Computer Classes
000103
NEED
000104
September 13, 198e
TO% Saratoga Planning Commission
FROM: Mary Ellen Eurningham
4C Council Planning Assistant
RE: Proposed Child Care Facility / Primary Plus
As the state designated child care Resource and Referral
Agency for Santa Clara County, our agency provides, among
many other things, assistanace to more than 30,000 parents
each year. The demand for child care assistance continues
to.grow yearly, with an increase of 35% noted in the first
quarter of this year. The Council also maintains the only
comprehensive licensed child care computerized data base in
the region consisting of detailed, descriptive information
on 471 child care center facilities and 1,392 family day
care homes.
Our past 15 years of experience responding to requests for*,
child care assistance from parents needing to locate
accessible, affordable and available child care from new
and existing daycare providers, supports the notion that
child rare services in Santa Clara is severely deficient.
Child care services in Santa Clara County have reached a
critical crossroad. The social economic shifts over the
last decade toward dual career and single parent families
have dramatically increased the demand for various types of
supplemental adult supervision for children for some period
of time during the day or night.
The reality is that women are entering the work: force as
never before and that they are doing so out of economic
necessity. The growing acceptance of group child care
services for young children is another factor which is
pertinent here as, even when mothers are not work;ingv they
are likely to use some types of child care service.
Some facts about children and families in Santa Clara
County will illuminate for us current family composition
and work force trends that have implications about child
care demand in our County.
* The labor force participation rate of women increased
from 50 in 1975 to 60 in 1980.
* The labor for participation rate of women is on the
000105
increase and is projected to rise to 75% in the next 4
years.
* 78% of women with children under 18 years old work
outside the home.
* An increase in divorce rates have been noted and
consequently a 68% increase between 1970 -1980 of female
headed households has been noted.
*' 46% of the County's families considered at povert.y
level are headed by females.
* 91% of these females have children under the age of 17.
While the demand for all types of child care is projected
to increase through 1990 with 2 of every 3 mothers in the
labor force, existing child care services do not meet the
need. The changes in family composition and work force
trends in the County are clear, yet the # of spaces and
facilities throughout the County have not kept pace.
Evidence of the current deficiency in Saratoga and
surrounding areas, is provided by a review of compilations
by the 4C Council's R &R staff as follows:
Saratoga
* Only 17 licensed Family Day Care Homes are located in
the area compared to 1,:38:' available County wide.
* Only 3% of all County Center Facilities are located in
this region.
Los Gatos
* Only,15 Family Day Care Homes are located in the area
compared to 1,382 County wide.
* Only 2% of the County's Child Care Facilities are
located in the region.
Campbell
Only 40 Family Day Care Homes are located in thetarea
compared to 1,382 County wide.
* Only 3 of all County licensed Child Care Facilities
are located in the region.
The supply profile above results in.a very limited choice
for area residents needing to locate quality child care
programs in their community.
The shortage of child care County wide, including Saratoga 000106
and surrounding areas, if not already perceived as acute
will certainly be by 1990, as the County child population
is expected to increase 10%. A continued influx of women
into the labor force is also projected.
The current shortage of Child Care Facilities and the
projections for the near future puts the Community at risk=:,
impacting both children and parents. In addition, an
extremely heavy burden is being placed on.existing child
care resources in the community.
The Child Care Facility being proposed by Primary Plus, for
the reasons stated above would certainly be a proactive
step in the right direction.
0
I
000107
Monaay, June 16, 1986 fan, Tranirisco qronidc
4MILOVARE/THS /' TAE 80s
MOTHERS 111 THE WORK FORCE
with children
1 and younger.
with children
3 and younger
with children
3 -5 years old
Source: Bureau of labor- Statistics, Depertment of labor, December. 1964
Monday, June 16, 1986 San ,Yranrisco (fhronicle
WILD CARE/THE IS S . EOF THE `COs
000109
Washington Update
Children's.issues have been
discovered in the nation's capital!
More attention has been.paid in
the last few weeks to child care
than to nearly any other election
issue. The focus on children at
the Democratic national convention
was quickly= followed by Vice - President
Bush's announcement of a,proposed
$2.2 billion child care plan that
would include a children's allowance
targeted at low- income families
-and make the existing dependent
care tax credit refundable.
At this writing',-the Republican
platform is still being drafted.
It is likely, however, to include
Bush's child care proposal.- The
Democratic platform also contains
language on child care that
mirrors the basic concepts of the
ABC bill..,
Why .the flurry "of attention to
child care? One big reason is.'.'
that pollsters have found that
the American public overwhelmingly
supports a stronger government role
to.help families in their quest for
good, affordable child care.
Also, the politics of the so- called
"gender gap" make proposals with
particular appeal to women voters
especially attractive. Finally,
the demographics'of the baby boom
are being felt. More babies were
born last year in any year since
1964. More babies means more
parents, and with over half of.
-mothers, of infants in the labor
force, more voters than ever know
firsthand the need for more and
better child care.
Young Children • September 1988
August 9, 1988
Federal Legislation Update
In the midst of increased
public attention, federal child
care legislation continues to
move forward with primary focus
on ABC (the Act for Better Child
Care).
S. 1885, the Senate version
of ABC, has successfully moved out
of committee and should come
before the full Senate for a
vote sometime in September.
Several changes were made during
committee markup, including
reducing the eligibility limits
from 115% to 100% of state median
income. Also,-the health and
safety standards (including group
size and ratios) now apply only
to programs receiving public
dollars (including ABC child care
certificates). The training
requirements and licensing
enforcement requirements continue
to apply to all licensed programs.
H.R. 3660, the House version,
is still in the committee markup
process as of this writing. Thus
far, the only change has been one
also made in the Senate to clarify
that church - related programs may
receive funds under the bill so
long as the money is not used for
sectarian purposes.
NEXT STEPS:
Votes on ABC are expected in
both the Senate and the House
sometime in September. NOW IS A
CRITICAL TIME FOR BUILDING GRASS-
ROOTS SUPPORT.
000110
59
NEIGHBORHOODS
000111
2
3 4 5
6
7 8
9 10
it
O
Iz 13 Iq
—
O
I
5393
6050 !
— - --
6050 6050 6050
— - - -- — - --
6050
6C SC FC 5`
— — -- - - - -
SJY 6C SC
6050
6o so (00 s0 x=50
�n
- -- —4
Q
AMBER
3500
DRIVE u I —°
9.75 AC
„� X65>s
I� 0-
IYJ
3C d O
o 17
h z
o Q
W
- W
I z 1
Q
0[ O
~ ce
i
MORELAND
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
O
N 229 "' q
` x= :,76.x,3
I
PEAR LTON E DR
� '
' c, L •o N
a
W
a
Q,
22
C
N tr
1'
2
3
4 5 6
7 8
9
10 II
12
13
N
t4 Z
I�w
N
o
cy
30 30l
a3
60 SC
6050
6.1 5D 5: c17, b0 50
E:
50 5,)
iC
6'.: 50
.0 82
3533 -5
3527
35!9 3511 3503
3493 349.5
3477
3469 3459
3451
3443
3435
I
YUBA
TRACT No 2373
AVE =' �
5:15 3
295?3.
i®
Z
z
�
}
I
CL
Q
I
Z
Q
U
To Whom it May Concern:
Primary Plus has been located in our neighborhood for a number of years and the observed
traffic impact has been minimal.
Name Address -
3W Amber ir. 70 e- Sri
Jill 9 S/
r
1ST/
000113
0,
4�. •0
107
EDP O 012.
SS A
0Q
o"v
MORELAND SCHOOL DIST 28870/ 749_
106 28 JO I
N ro
qc.5 32145
�
G4- el Q4 961" O
bt PASEO
5)
16
IT f OF SARATOGA -TUROS!S CARM
.X 56 3 0 78 A 5U3DfV;S!0N-
lb ll
4), rr
to _FASEO
4i PuEBLO
0
66
0
A
96,; '0, 66 AC. 1.24 AC .
2
27 6
C) Co,.�, 229 249.32
'88ag 18805
P
AVENUE
R. 0 S. 19617 P.M. 516-M- 50
`P 389
M
HANSEN SCHOOL MUTUAL USE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
PRIMARY PLUS DATA SUBMITTED
TO THE PLANNING COI',511ISSION:
REALISTIC REQUIREMENTS:
S"'TinEPdT/TEAC }ER RkTIO
1 -20
:;iUiri
" "INFANT
1 - -4
TEACHERS
9
TEACHERS
25
A.M, �TNTTSTRATORS
- - --- - - -
VOLUNTEERS
10
VOLUNTEERS
10
21
37
CHILD D=ROP -OFF SPACES
10
CHILD DROP -OFF SPACES
10
31
47
CUSD ALT"RNTATIVE SCHOOL:
i
TEACHERS
TEACHERS
5
PRINCIPAL
1
PRINCIPAL
1
SECRETTAR IL,S
2
SECRETARIES
2
VOLUNTEERS
10
VOLUNTEERS
15
CHILD DROP -OFF SPACES
0
CHILD DROP -OFF SPACES
20
TOTAL SPACES
18
TOTAL SPACES-
NEEDS FOR .PRIMARY PLUS
31
NEEDS FOR PR ID1AR Y PLUS
47
NEEDS FOR ALTERNATIVE SCH.
18
BEDS FOR'ALTERNATIVE SCH.
43
49
Col'13iN TJ ivEL'DS
o0
EXISTING SPACES 55 EXISTING SPACES _ 55
C010INED NEEDS -49 _l�r
FREE SPACES �-
-rl
-2—
PRILIMARY PLUS VEHICLE COUNT AT HANSEN AND EL QUITO SCHOOL SITES. EACH
HAS SA"-01E ENROLLMENT OF 1?5 CHILDREN
T M
kr' T)�
T kl
T
-7-.AR!,rTN-G -�OTS
HANSEN
EL
QUITO
T I P,17 DATE
CARS
TIME
A
DATE
CARS
TOTAL
COMBINED
8 :45
9/22
33
66
8:4o 9/23
36
8:45
9/23
—
40 9/26
8 : LL. 5
9/26
33
64
8:45
9/27
49
84
8:40 9/28
44
8:45
9/28
38
32
of 10/3
36
It
10/3
41
79
10/12
45
to
10/12
43
88
T
IROJECTED GRO,'ITH
AT HANSEN
150 -200 CHILDREN
OR 25%
WITH
JUST 55
AVAILABLE SPACES
10 ADDITIONAL REQUIRED.
SUB=LEASE OF 6,250 SQ, FT.
— 7 CLASSROOMS— SPACES ITEEDED- FOR
GRO'ITH
10
AEROBIC CLASSES
ENROLLED 30
SPACES NEEDED
20
BALI ET CLASSES AS""'
to
20
10
KARATE
20
to
to
10
ART CLASSES
to 20
to
it
10
CERA41IC CLASSES
It 20
to
to
10
CRAFT CLASSES
ot 20
to
to
10
S-ES-
:.MUSIC ClAS
20
o
10
TOTAL SPACES - NEEDED
go
ZONING REGULATIONS
ARTICLE S15-35 OFF STREET PARKING SECTION S15-35 .020 E:
. THE OFF STREET REQUIREDC=S OF THIS ARTICLE MAY BE SATISFIED BY PER7..
MANENT ALLOCATION OF THE PRESCRIBED NUMBER OF EACH USE IN A COMMON PARKING
FACILITY; PROVIDED, THAT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SPACES SHALLL BE NOT LESS THAN
THE SUM OF — THE INDIVIDUAL REQUIREMENTS.
PROJECTED PARKING NEEDS:
Ai,;r—LR.[','ATiYE a)GHOUL 4) SPACES PRITUiRY PLUS 47 SPACES
to
25' GR UlIT' H 1
53 47
PRU,IkRy PLUS 47
LEGAL AVAILABLE SPACES 46
1_ 4
ADDITIONAL SPACES NEEDED
-3-
��„ •� 0Q
Il9b�rD 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
` Virginia Laden Fanelli
Joyce Hlava
David Moyles
Summary
School Site Task Force Meeting
March 27, 1986
Present: Jerry Matranga, Cupertino Union School District
Sonia Shurr, Cupertino Union School District
E. G. McNicholas, Saratoga__Union School District
Sarah Dunham, Campbell Union High School District
Tom Hodges, Fremont Union High School District
Dorothy Diekmann, Los Gatos - Saratoga Joint High School
Virginia Fanelli, City of Saratoga
Harry Peacock, City. "of Saratoga
1. Reviewed information from Cupertino Union School District,
Campbell Union High School District, and Los Gatos - Saratoga
Joint High School District regarding schools in Saratoga.
Saratoga Union School District will be delivering their data.
We need to request the information from Campbell Elementary
and Moreland.
Dist.
2. It was explained that the City Council has included the
study of school sites in its annual policy development plan.
The Parks and Recreation Commission has been asked to do an
inventory of the recreation needs of the community and how
the school sites serve those needs. The Planning Department
will be looking at the potential uses in respect to the zoning
ordinance.
3. Concerns of school districts in leasing of part or all of a
school:
A. Liability - the cost that users incur to obtain liability
insurance.
B. The revenue from leases can presently be used for mainten-
ance of the site and within the district. The State may
change its position.
C. City process - involved and expensive.
I
fi
Summary - School Site Task Force Meeting
March 27, 1986
Page 2
4. Use permit process: Can City set some base standards for
issuing a master use permit for a site? Then, other users
would not have to have separate use permit if they complied
with those standards.
Areas of greatest concern:
A. Parking - set a realistic ratio. Elementary schools
currently have about two spaces per classroom.
B. Hours of operation and days.
C. Traffic generated both in volume and time.
D. Allowance of uses not strictly educational.
E. Truck deliveries and refuse collection.
5. Uses for which schools have received requests:
Nursery schools; day care—both preschool & older children; .
office space; light-industrial including research & training;
private schools; adult education - -JTPA training programs;
independent study programs; university extension programs;
performing arts; nursing home; senior citizen home; medical
offices; retail (depending..on location of site).
6. May want to look at State law concerning alcoholic beverages
on school property. Alot of calls for organization and
fraternal meetings, conventions.
It was agreed by all that the City and schools must work together
to educate the public to the value of retaining sites for further
education and current recreation needs. The greater good of the
community should be encouraged rather than just responding to the
immediate neighborhood.
Prepared by:
i Laden Fanelli
Councilmember
jm
z
' "t'1". r :; :.7•••?"" - •.r -..v `r ..�.);. ..�. cT�••.ityZ..
-;
.•^.'c.a;a�.,+.. -.ny. ...' ?'� -r.. ' +..r -.T•; Yf.t'.V .�•,-c„'•.2• •Y:�,_._
.. .•.,rr•��..- r.- .��.�_ .��. .. ..,•�....•+r- ..s,..+!- �.•. -.,�. . ;•>S.1f�r':�-
4.., f-
- a .. •• h Y. • • �'t
s r . yL; : �`,
_'
T? � r : 1 � .+ems 11 -z * -- v- w•�f.-0y
s Bl• 3f' 64
_
G ♦ ^5.91' _ --_
h
-- -
.. i1' ws•_nwf• 7
PLJl r.1Er.T
Rep
-v
yv T
G...�.- ...�•PluLi 6'7' Irt
.�,
.,p �• � 1 '1 d I
�20r'E2�r � Ue � ._ .c._..:oc -•� rdv, 1 1 ( I
It
JQ�O�
_ OsIL
O
lyl-
1 I
r '
/6" ..� - � SOU' _ .._ - 1� - b� 06. -+ 2c• So'I �
Vl7R
A 1 I
' i • -p• O
—G2Gr- 1 / I J I w -� ooc�s•ci ae _. c
.:-I' Wlv c•F CasT "I.
�1 r _� I 6 a . c•e a
a cT ¢s:i r7.
Ii +
tr
in
LA
/ l io ;,o
a L
r1U F:.L �1•{ X2.61 � 1.� •
I J
�,
—_-- - —+
sh { +T y • ' 1
UNIT �!. Lu .. IV . +tt...•K4
Ald
4.L
I it
-cLt�
I 183 �' ,r' �{ � _.. ^ _ __ . � ��'e:r�r.•Ql.lT �� ._ 5��E►RV LtN! V 11 //
1• � 1I�L I I 1 L. .L �TlalT 4w•T Cf wa.�
T`... •3•l
T CAT
rl ! IL C C L�� �. p I c'sl yL. a �I ^•'•- c: uc �.,y � �Y71,, ■ I 1
IF
1� •Q KA.G 1LTi ,.'� : 'I e3• Y;r• '' >(+ :. i�� 1 i :+ T.,i
= 53 ON SITE -
P/R- KK i ff c-r, SPA -ca,<
+ a T • �� N� j ^e t ? ' . S i G N TO KE 10V
l ' J
I J No IL•ii ♦ TiTA° W O R—C) I N Y
G ,!�
r d -� �' .r,vltf /� •• >P., ro,. a.. ''��'. bu w: *,�,'''�; i•,oa I I � �� � ; 1 �`i l� 13�-
/ `' i
Yr�, C f1 ��� L•/ L•TC Vl... � Lr.: a'T'i , ca+�. Cv�, � •+a C' 1 I
r `. <'.' ICZ` -- — — — — — — — t�\ Laawa arl w•.7" — I j }
O' 00" 4 ^G -• - �tol.. ol yw - - ?�� --- r.r•.aTla� �¢ISGTS x i NGhoe -Ao
_
co.+c couaT`i � Slsf?dG
R cwq LIdT }ICrJCI
i
scz SursT A-4 Foa S zES, LoceTloNS, ETC. -
F.dM, S &P-OVT SLD6{
I T I .. A LAURA M.'RANS£N ECEMENTARY SCHOOL _ ■ °� �+ _ _ ■ -•°•
fCIQK, fY/ . �•`•.,•`_ ION SCHOOL DISTRICT �.,��, , Iii_., ■ _
)■TM #011 ■TM ti. . SAM' ION. CALlFo,MiA SANTA - - .:.;. ....1 -6.64
CLARA COUNTS CALIFORNIA ■ - ■
�.�:i ... � h..�," -Y �� It�±•±e= ..-�. '..� ':I� ; ;.�'µ.>,'. it -, x' ��ic'r• � l• 1� e - ,
pertino Union School District
October 12, 1988
Mr. Don Peterson
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Dear Mr. Peterson:
10301 Vista Drive • Cupertino, CA 95014 • (408) 252 -3000
The purpose of this letter is to provide background information to assist
the Council with its decision on the appeal. of the Use Permit granted to
Hansen School.
Hansen School is one of two Cupertino Union School District sites in the
City of Saratoga - the second is Blue Hills school. Hansen was closed in
1971 along with 20 other Cupertino District Schools during the precipitous
enrollment decline of that era. Hansen has a designed capacity of 690
students but had a peak enrollment of 911 students. During the period from
1971 to 1987 the buildings on the site were unused but the playing fields
remained available to community use. The fields will continue to be
available to community recreation use during the building lease.
In 1986, by invitation of the Saratoga City Council, representatives of the
district participated in a school site task force to assist in a study of
school sites as a part of the City's policy development plan (summary
attached) Please note the concluding paragraph of the summary letter
prepared by Virginia Laden Fanelli which states: "It was agreed by all that
the City and schools must work together to educate the public to the value
of retaining sites for further education and current recreation needs. The
In 1987 the school district determined that Hansen School should remain as a
reserve site for potential future enrollment increases. To make this
economically feasible, it was decided to refurbish the school and lease a
portion of the site. The refurbishment has, been completed with a cost which
exceeds $600,000. At all times, the plans for leasing the site were
consistent with the criteria cooperatively developed with the City of
Saratoga.
In fact, prior to applying for the Use Permit, the district solicited
potential lessees. Primary Plus was selected as best meeting district,
community and City of Saratoga needs and requirements.
Superintendent Yvette del Prado, Ph.D. • Board of Education Joan C. Barram Steven C. Chell Tommy G. Shwe Susan P, Silver Elaine K. White
'i 2.,.
�j
10301 Vista Drive • Cupertino, CA 95014 • (408) 252 -3000
The purpose of this letter is to provide background information to assist
the Council with its decision on the appeal. of the Use Permit granted to
Hansen School.
Hansen School is one of two Cupertino Union School District sites in the
City of Saratoga - the second is Blue Hills school. Hansen was closed in
1971 along with 20 other Cupertino District Schools during the precipitous
enrollment decline of that era. Hansen has a designed capacity of 690
students but had a peak enrollment of 911 students. During the period from
1971 to 1987 the buildings on the site were unused but the playing fields
remained available to community use. The fields will continue to be
available to community recreation use during the building lease.
In 1986, by invitation of the Saratoga City Council, representatives of the
district participated in a school site task force to assist in a study of
school sites as a part of the City's policy development plan (summary
attached) Please note the concluding paragraph of the summary letter
prepared by Virginia Laden Fanelli which states: "It was agreed by all that
the City and schools must work together to educate the public to the value
of retaining sites for further education and current recreation needs. The
In 1987 the school district determined that Hansen School should remain as a
reserve site for potential future enrollment increases. To make this
economically feasible, it was decided to refurbish the school and lease a
portion of the site. The refurbishment has, been completed with a cost which
exceeds $600,000. At all times, the plans for leasing the site were
consistent with the criteria cooperatively developed with the City of
Saratoga.
In fact, prior to applying for the Use Permit, the district solicited
potential lessees. Primary Plus was selected as best meeting district,
community and City of Saratoga needs and requirements.
Superintendent Yvette del Prado, Ph.D. • Board of Education Joan C. Barram Steven C. Chell Tommy G. Shwe Susan P, Silver Elaine K. White
Mr. Don Peterson
October 11, 1988
Page 2
In addition, the district:
1. Notified the Hansen area residents living in a 500 foot circle from the
school's property corners and conducted a community meeting prior to
permit application. The meeting was well attended and only two people
from this meeting have attended subsequent meetings, an indication of
low concern. The district followed the City' public notification
procedure prior to applying for a use permit.
2. Applied for the Use Permit in April of 1988 assuming that would provide
sufficient time for a proposed August 15 opening for Primary Plus.
3. Contracted for, at the direction of the City, a traffic study by Pang &
Associates. The significant conclusion of that study was that under the
proposed student use by Primary Plus and the Alternative School Program,
the traffic service level at the Prospect /Titus intersection would be at
an "A" volume /capacity ratio - the highest possible rating on an A -F
scale. An "A" rating is described as follows: "A condition of free
flow, with low volumes and high speeds. Traffic density is low, with
speeds controlled by driver desire, speed limits, and physical road
conditions."
4. Conducted two additional meetings in residents' homes to ascertain
concerns and review the proposed use of Hansen School
5. Complied with City requirements to the extent that the City staff
recommended approval of the Use Permit at the original level of 350
participants for the Primary Plus program.
6. Agreed to the on inal requests of the community group, including
reduction from 350 to 175 students at Primary Plus, various parking
modifications,.and the establishment of a community /school committee to
review conditions on a biannual basis.
7. Investigated, at the request of the Planning Commission, a possible
access opening off Prospect Road to serve the Primary Plus traffic.
This access was not recommended by the traffic consultant as it failed
to meet Cal Trans standards and would create additional vehicular
hazards. Additionally, this driveway would seriously impact existing
ball fields serving the greater good of the community, and would
possibly require cutting trees along the west property line shielding
Kristy Lane residents.
Mr. Don Peterson
October 11, 1988
Page 3
Child care and related services are a high priority need in today's complex
society. School districts are not in a financial position to provide such
services and must work with top quality organizations to partially meet
these needs.
With your assistance we can help the parents and children of Saratoga.
Sincerely,
Zvette del Prado, Ph.D.
Superintendent
GP:dp
cc: S. Silver
G. Plumleigh
V 1 1
91.1 3
Data Received:
Hearing Date:
Fee : * /db,cto
CITY 'USE C
APPEAL APPLICATION •
f Name of Appellant: chYJG *nnhcY E Taaffa
on behalf of Ccnrorned
Address: Residents of Saratoga
C/ 111 We4t St_ Tnhn -Strep #FiSn
• Telephone: San Jose-, CA 95113
r408) 8-3383
Name of Applicant: Cupertino Union School District /Primary Plus
Project File No.: UP -88 -010
Project Address: y 12211 Titus Avenue -
Project Description: Child Care-Services
Decision Being Appealed: Approval of Use Permit for Child Care
S vi a
• Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
Please See Attached
Christopher E. Taaff`
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
TUTS APPY.TCATIOV MUST DC SUQi•1ITTL•D IVITIIIN TCN 10 CALENDAR DAYS
7�1 L• �\ h -iffI OF
6
To the Members of
The Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Council Members:
The Saratoga Planning Commision has approved the request
of the Cupertino Union School District /Primary Plus for a use
permit to provide child care services for approximately 175
children at the Hansen School site. This was done in spite of
the objections of over 200 residents of Saratoga who reside in
that area and who will be most severely impacted. I have been
asked to prepare and file an appeal of that decision on their
behalf and in which I join.
The increased traffic and the resultant congestion and
increased noise level are two of the major considerations.
Safety or the lack thereof is a third major consideration.
At the request of the Planning Commission the school
district retained a firm, Pang & Associates of Mountain View,
to conduct a traffic study. This was done on Tuesday, July 19,
1988. That firm counted 149 cars between the hours of 7:30 and
8:30 a.m. on Titus Avenue. That one -day study is unreliable
and any conclusions that may have been drawn from it are
invalid.
First, the study was conducted during the summer months
when many residents who use Titus Avenue are on vacation.
Second, the study was not done when the school was in session.
Third, the Pang study apparently took into acocunt the
impact of 150 children at the school. However, it necessarily
relied upon information provided by the school district such as
carpooling and so on. It concluded that the traffic impact was
within acceptable limits. The validity of this study is
unreliable because it used a grading scale that applies to
either Saratoga Avenue or Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, which are
commercial streets and not residential streets, such as Titus.
More recently, a resident of Titus Avenue, Andrew Boogard,
conducted a traffic count of the number of cars on Titus Avenue
during that same time frame (7:30 to 8:30 a.m.) which is much
more indicative of the true traffic picture.
On September 22 between the hours of 7:30 and 8:30 a.m.,
280 cars were counted on Titus Avenue. One hundred six of
these cars were counted between 8:20 and 8:30 a.m. Keep in
mind that this is with only 150 students enrolled in the
alternative program and Primary Plus not yet in operation.
On September 21 between 8:00 and 8:35 a.m., 81 cars drove
into the Hansen parking lot: 73 of these cars arrived with
only one or two children, eight with three or more children.
Thirty -six cars arrived between 8:25 and 8:30. Yet, the school
district claims that there will be no congestion at this peak
time. Once again, keep in mind this is with only 150 children
presently enrolled in the alternative program and Primary Plus
still not in operation.
Of the 280 cars that were observed turning onto Prospect
from Titus on September 22, 1988, 233 of these cars made right
turns onto Prospect and 47 autos made left turns across
oncoming traffic. When the total of 175 Primary Plus is
achieved, there will be approximately 650 cars using the
intersection at Titus and Prospect between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m.,
and at a time when commute traffic is quite heavy on Prospect.
Left turns onto Prospect could prove to be very dangerous.
It is of interest that one of the residents learned just
today, September 23, 1988, from an alternative program parent
that the school district has requested that all parents when
leaving the school turn left onto Titus towards Prospect so as
to not disrupt other residents in the neighborhood. Yet for
those turning left on Prospect, it would be safest to utilize
the signal at Miller Avenue and Prospect Road.
The school district has also claimed that parking will not
be a problem. The facts do not support that contention.
On September 21, 39 cars were observed occupying parking
spaces out of a total of 54 available spaces. These are
presently used by the alternative school. Primary Plus will
require at least 20 parking spaces for a staff ratio of 10 /1
plus a minimum of three for administrative personnel, nurse,
etc. One has to be concerned about where the Primary Plus
parents are going to park when they bring their children to the
program. The answer is obvious. They will have to park out on
Titus, up and down the street. They will be making U -turns on
Titus and. they will be utilizing the driveways of residents as
turn -a- rounds.
According to information obtained from 4 C's Day Care
Center, 90 percent of their enrollment arrives between 7:30 and
8:30 a.m. It is not unreasonable to believe that will be the
case with Hansen.
The increased level of noise was a factor that was
pooh- poohed by the Planning Commission. Yet, the fact of the
matter is that with an additional 175 cars ariving between 6:30
and 8:30 a.m. there is going to be a horrid and offensive
increase in the noise level. That same noise will return like
clockwork when the parents return between 5:30 and 6:30 p.m. to
pick up their children. The school district has claimed there
will not be that many cars because parents will carpool their
children. That contention is not only lacking in merit, it is
ludicrous. These are parents who will be dropping off their
- 2 -
children so they can go to work. They will be coming from all
areas of the community, not just Cupertino. Carpooling
presupposes that not only would two parents have children going
to the same pre - school but that they also work at the same
place. Such a likelihood is remote, at best.
It is truly unfortunate that the Saratoga Planning
Commission has rolled over and played dead for the benefit of
the Cupertino Union School District and to the detriment of
many residents of the City of Saratoga whose best interests
they are supposed to be representing. Moreover, they have
relied upon information provided by the school district which
is undependable. In fact, other than the traffic study
performed by Pang, the school district has provided no studies,
reports, or certified findings which support their contentions.
Finally, there is one last item that must be addressed. A
use permit has been approved for Primary Plus, which is a day
care facility. However, it is apparent that once Primary Plus
has its use permit, it will put in uses that are not consistent
with "Day Care." On Tuesday, September 4, 1988, an
advertisement for Primary Plus appeared in the San Jose Mercury
News ;for its other sites. (See attached) Ballet - tap and
tumbling instructions are being offered in addition to extended
day care and not as part of day care. Primary Plus intends to
lease two- thirds of the school. It is the belief of the
residents that Primary Plus intends to sublease portions of
what it leases to non - conforming private commercial
enterprises. This could be anything from ballet to drug
education for teenage offenders.
It is truly appalling how the Saratoga Planning Commission
is helping to undermine the character of what has been a quiet
residential neighborhood up until now.
It is for the above reasons that we are asking the
Saratoga City Council to revoke the use permit previously
granted.
- 3 -
•r:
r:_j
. -.
B Sunday, Sept. 4, 1988 ■ San Jose Mercury News
State News
Fastnm oving
fire near
.M
Arvin over lines blame
gp d
for sparks that ,caused blaze
SANTEE (AP) — A fast - moving
fire scorched more -than 510 acres
of brush and the roofs of at least 20
hilltop homes Saturday as fire -
fighters struggled to contain the
flames in 100 - degree heat, officials
said.
Sparks blown from the blaze
caused roof fires on the homes,
located on the west side of Cowles
Mountain, about 15 miles northeast
of downtown San Diego, said San-
tee Fire Department dispatcher
Jane Rolin.
6 I was like
looking at the
pictures of
Yellowstone
Park. Y
— Ruth Meier, manager,
mobile home park
Those flare -ups were quickly
doused, but one house sustained
moderate damage, she said. There
was no estimate of damage.
The blaze, reported at 1 :15 p.m.,
was caused by arcing power lines,
she said. The fire was 70 percent
contained by 7 p.m.
One firefighter was treated at a
hospital for heat - related injuries
and released, Rolin said.
Twenty to 30 homes were evacu-
aied during the height of the blaze
the dispatcher said.
More than 250 firefighters fror
four agencies, assisted by water
dropping helicopters and bulldog
ers, fought the blaze in Missioi
Trails Regional Park, said Sal
Diego County sheriff's dispatelm
Jan Wildermuth.
The fire forced residents of the
Highland Mobile Home Park tc
seek shelter in a community meet•
ing room on the park grounds, but
passed by without causing damage,
Rolin said.
The plume was visible from
downtown San Diego.
Firefighters from the California
Department of Forestry assisting
firefighters from Santee, San Die-
go and La Mesa had to contend
with temperatures around 104 de-
grees and extremely dry air, said
CDF spokeswoman Audrey Hagen.
"The humidity is just 16 percent
and the h at out there is oppres-
sive," Hagen said.
The fire closed Mission Trails
Regional Park and a 1% -mile
stretch of Mission Gorge Road.
"The fire was all round the
courts," said Ruth Meier, manager
of Highland Mobile Home Park. "It
was like looking at the pictures of
Yellowstone Park" where fires
have been raging this summer.
Firefighters protected the courts
with fire retardant and there was
no significant damage there, she
said. Residents returned about 4:30
p.m. -
The fire left the hills blackened
"but we're all OK," she said.
..............................
PRIMARY PLUS 0 0 .
PRIVATE ELEMENYARY EDU'tI.AT /ON
Small C /asses • Ind /Wdua/ Program .
Learn/ng At Ch/ld's Own Pace
• KINDERGARTEN THRU 8TH GRADE — PRIVATE CLASSES
• EXTENDED DAY CARE FOR SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN
• FULLY ACCREDITED STAFF 8 FACILITIES '
• BALLET - TAP d TUMBLING INSTRUCTION
OPEN 6:30 AM to 6 PM
SAN JOSE SARATOGA MOUNTAIN VIEW
AMBER DANE SCHOOL EL QUITO BCHOOL
408. 248.2464 L QUIT 0.0351 CooPER SCHOOL
415.96 -3780
3tW0 AMBER DA., B.J. 107?0 BUCKHALL RD. 333 EUN E AVE.
A brush fire closes
More Than Just a
Binoculars • Spotting Scope
Globes • Weather Instrurncn
Microscopes • Magnifiers
Books *T-shirts • Caps
Astronomical S terrestrial
telescopes. Binoculars for
astronomy, backpacking,
birdwatching, boating, &
sports. Scientific gifts,
games. S toys, plus
hundreds of other S�
fascinating items.
All price ranges.
PROJECT
0001 ?.1
HANSEN AVENUE CHILDREN'S COMMUNITY
SEPTEMBER 1988
0001.22
THE PROGRAM
Primary Plus, Inc., a two- decade old child care firm is currently planning to convert Cupertino's
Hansen Elementary School into an innovative new child care facility.
The facility, to be called the Hansen Avenue Children's Community, will consist of 25,000 square feet
of classrooms dedicated to complete child care. On a quiet suburban street, the school is nevertheless
only blocks from several major industrial parks. As presently planned, the facility will have separate
sections for infants, pre - schoolers and sick children, as well as space for independent educational
programs -- including music and dance -- in which children can be enrolled. Toward this end, the school
facility will undergo a major upgrading to make it fully dedicated to child care and education. Central to the
Hansen Avenue center is the notion of community.
HANSEN AVENUE CHILDREN'S COMMUNITY
To describe the Hansen Avenue center as merely a child care facility is woefully inadequate. In truth,
when completed it will constitute a milestone in the care and education of infants and pre - schoolers.
The Hansen facility can be seen as having four distinct functions which, in practice, will be separated
into different wings of the center:
1. Infant Care. Special attention to the needs of infants and toddlers.
2. Care of Pre - schoolers. The program will include a challenging learning environment for young
children.
3. Educational Enhancement Programs. As it is planned, classrooms and recreation rooms will be
set aside for creative enrichment environments for pre - schoolers. Some of these programs will
be directed by Primary Plus. Others will be contracted to established and highly respected
programs, such as Recreation USA, Gymboree and Children's Theater. Other planned
programs include music, dance, art, even karate. This means the busy working parent no longer
needs to worry about rushing a child to some early evening program at a distant dance or music
studio. Instead, that training can be part of the child's daily daytime activities.
4. Sceclal Care for Sick Children. The fourth program planned for the Hansen Avenue Children's
Community is care for sick children who have common colds or other minor illnesses which
prevent attendance at regular school. A leading cause of absenteeism among young working
mothers is illness -- not their own -- but their children's. In a separate facility, the Hansen
Avenue center will be fully equipped to tend and monitor a sick child throughout the workday.
PRIMARY PLUS
In child care, facilities and programs -- no matter how innovative -- take a back seat to the quality of
the staff. Primary Plus believes that its staff of teachers and professionals is second to none in the Bay
Area and the firm's record and reputation bear that out.
Founded in 1968, a primary goal was to improve the quality of care for young children during their
period of greatest physical and intellectual development. At present, more than 2,000 children aged 6
months to 14 years are enrolled in 9 school programs at seven facilities in Santa Clara, San Jose,
Saratoga and Mountain View.
00012'3
In each of these programs, Primary Plus is dedicated to providing children with a happy, healthy and
creative environment involving experiences with the following goals:
• Successfully getting along in a group situation
• Development of maximum use of small and large muscles
• Increased attention span
• Independent socialization and development of friendships
• Increased communication skills
• Development of a greater feeling of self -worth through success with a variety of activities, and
• Encouragement of self- discipline
Primary Plus is directed by John and Carole Freitas. Mr. Freitas is a former Teacher of the Year for
the Fremont High School District and California Teacher of the Year nominee. He is also a member of the
Board of Fellows of Santa Clara University.
Mrs. Freitas, President of Primary Plus, is a former high school and college teacher. She holds an
M.A. in Child Development and Family Relationships.
000124
ACTION DAY NURSERIES, INC.
Enrichment through a happy, healthy and creative environment
for children 2 -1/2 to 5 years
...Lincoln School
2148 Lincoln Avenue
San Jose, California 95125
266 -8952
... Prunerldge School
2001 Pruneridge Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050
244 -2909
... Moorpark School
3030 Moorpark Avenue
San Jose, Califomia 95128
247 -6972
...University School
13560 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Saratoga, California 95070
867 -4515
PRIMARY PLUS .... private elementary education
...Amber Drive Elementary School
and extended day care for
kindergarten through eighth grade
3500 Amber Drive
San Jose, California 95117
248 -2464
...Infant Center
Children 6 months to 2 -1/2 years
3030 Moorpark Avenue
San Jose, California 95128
247 -6972
...Cooper School
Infants through ten years old
333 Eunice Avenue
Mountain View, California 94040
(415)967 -3780
... El Quito School
Private classes preschool through
eighth. Extended day care for school
age children. Infant program.
18750 Bucknall Road
Saratoga, California 95070
370 -0357
WEST VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL
Private classes 5th - 7th grades
3500 Amber Drive
San Jose, California 95117
248 -2464
000125
ACTION DAY NURSERY AND PRIMARY PLUS
A PHILOSOPHY - IN PROGRESS
Our schools' doors opened in 1968 because of the desire to experience first hand the marvelous
thrills and excitement of the world of young children. Of interest to the founders was the tremendous
amount of learning that goes on in young children. It's a very exciting time for them. All of the important
loving and guiding experiences of iMancy we see played as the child grows. Also at this time, we have an
opportunity to suggest much of what will happen to children as they go through elementary school, junior
high school and on into adult life. It also was a real challenge to the people beginning our program to
have an opportunity to provide a situation that would assist in maximum development for children. Many
things that can be picked up and observed during the preschool years can be corrected or encouraged,
leading to much greater success in the years that follow.
We have maintained over the eighteen years that we've been in operation a philosophy that
encourages what we call a "semi - structured program." Semi - structured means, to us, that we have a
program put together by teachers and others that sets our specific goals each day, week and month for
every child enrolled in our program. Although the adults have goals and directions for the children in
mind, the children are not "made to" take part in these activities if they choose not to. We feel that this
makes it a semi - structured situation. So, although the teacher may have set up a music period, hoping to
increase the child's awareness of music as well as to build on the child's attention span, if a particular
child doesn't want to take part in the music activity, he or she is not forced to be a part of the group at that
time. We feel that this allows for specific growth and also individual freedom.
One of the important differences in our philosophy has been the fact that we've been committed to a
particular kind of adult in our school environment. We have been proud of the fact that we have carefully
chosen adults who really care about children. We could spend hours and hours going through books,
writing lesson plans, buying equipment, setting up the preschool; however, the most important factor in
any school situation is the adult. It is exceedingly important that when each child enters the school
situation, he or she finds an adult who really, truly likes him or her.
It is our hope that each child will leave at the end of the day feeling better about himself or herself and
also equipped with a number of things they can say to themselves they can do that they couldn't do when
they started that day. If we achieve this goal, we add tremendously to the resources that each child takes
with him or her as they move up the educational ladder. It is our continued hope that we will be able to
provide an environment that stimulates positive feelings about oneself as well as a sound curriculum for
each child.
000126
CAROLE J. FREITAS
15600 Canon Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95030
(408)354 -3064
EDUCATION San Jose State University
San Jose, California
Major: Home Economics
Degree: Master of Arts
Emphasis: Child Development and
Family Relationships
CURRENT Secretary- Treasurer of Action Day Nursery School, Inc.
POSITION President, Primary Plus
Wife of John R. Freitas
Mother of Michelle Ann Freitas
CURRENT American Home Economics Association
MEMBERSHIPS Private Nursery School Association
La Rinconada Country Club
Foundation for Hearing Research
Auxiliary for Hearing Research
Parent Group - Jean Weingarten Oral School for the Deaf
Exceptional Parents of Exceptional Children
President's Club - University of Santa Clara
Board of Fellows - University of Santa Clara
Alumni Association - San Jose State University
O'Connor Hospital Auxiliary
San Jose Chamber of Commerce
San Jose Chamber's Women in Business
LISTED IN Directory of Distinguished Americans
Who's Who in Education
000127
A PROUD RECORD ....
1968 - Action Day Nursery began operating as a preschool. The Pruneridge School in Santa Clara was
the first Action Day nursery school to be opened.
1971 - The second preschool, at 3030 Moorpark, opened its doors. An infant center Is also located at the
Moorpark School.
1975 - Our third preschool joined the Action Day Nursery group. The Lincoln School is located in a
building that's about fifty years old and used to be a farmhouse on Lincoln Avenue. We're very
proud of the fact that the Willow Glen Historical Society put a picture of our school in the book
called "Old Willow Glen ", which is a guide to historical landmarks in the Willow Glen area.
1976 - The Action Day Academy of Dance originated at our Moorpark School. The dance program now
has several locations and many children tapping, tumbling and doing ballet each week. We also
have some adult classes. The highlight of our dance program is a production each year at the San
Jose Center for Performing Arts.
1978 - Action Day Nurseries took over ownership of University Preschool on June 1, 1978. University
Preschool has been in existence in Saratoga for over 22 years.
1979 - In July, 1979, Primary Plus opened at 3500 Amber Drive. Primary Plus is an elementary school
with grades kindergarten through eighth grade. The school provides an educational setting that is
staffed with warm, personally interested adults who give the students the message that learning is
exciting and important. The teachers attempt to establish a learning environment that will allow the
children to experience the maximum amount of success possible.
1979 - Primary Plus Saratoga campus began offering extended day classes at the former Brookview
Elementary School.
1980 - Primary Plus Saratoga campus moved to Quito School and expanded to include preschool and
private kindergarten classes.
1981 - In 1981, our family had a new addition. Our new facility is the first school outside of the immediate
area. Located in Mountain View on the edge of a park, infants to children nine years old are in
attendance. The Mountain View Primary Plus is located in a facility that was formerly Cooper
School in the Mountain View Elementary School District. The infant program is housed in two
small buildings and the preschool- kindergarten program in a large, center -pod type building.
1984 - In September 1984, West Valley Middle School welcomed students from fifth to eighth grade.
Many of these students have been involved in Action Day Nursery and/or Primary Plus for a
number of years. The middle school curriculum focuses on the unique needs of children ten to
fourteen years of age. The staff has worked carefully to develop a total program that will
encourage maximum growth both emotionally and intellectually.
1985 - Primary Plus Saratoga campus moved to El Quito School and expanded to include an
infant - toddler program, preschool and private classes for children enrolled in kindergarten through
third grade.
000128
101
MTN. VIEW
82,
PRIMARY PL!:S
- 32? EU"JiCE
!415; 967J720
SUNNYVALE
C,
09
�9
ACTION DAY
13560 SARATOGA-
SUNNYVALE RD.
;4081867 -4515
ACTION DAY
AND
PRIMARY PLUS
SANTA
CLARA
�_ .. 17
'NPANT C "ER
SAN JOSE
,CTIGN DAY
6 ' !NCCLN AVE
. 1!51 -,66-3052
.: 1,
101
w
�
J
¢
_J
W
J
Q
}
Z
Z
D
N
PROSPECT
RD.
a
cs
O
cl
Q
82,
PRIMARY PL!:S
- 32? EU"JiCE
!415; 967J720
SUNNYVALE
C,
09
�9
ACTION DAY
13560 SARATOGA-
SUNNYVALE RD.
;4081867 -4515
ACTION DAY
AND
PRIMARY PLUS
SANTA
CLARA
�_ .. 17
'NPANT C "ER
SAN JOSE
,CTIGN DAY
6 ' !NCCLN AVE
. 1!51 -,66-3052
.: 1,
101
OBSERVATIONS
000130
To Whom it May Concern:
As a parent of Vounq chi1dren. 1 am concerned abn'1 Up
limited number of child care programs available zn our
c6mmunity, and feel there is a crucia1 need fo, adUitzo/`ai
facilities.
Name
Address`,
----
^/
(
..............
................. ;� . .... .. ......... . . ........ . ....... . .......... .. . ........... ns ............ L.".141. L6 o"...
\
. .... .......
. ..... . .. .. ..... . ..... .... ...... .. ... . . ....... .... ... .. .......... ........................ .. I ...... .. ... ..... . ....... ............ . ......... . .................... :...- .. ..... ...... . . ..
/7
l/�fr
____--�_���_���!������-���............. ..... .... ..... ''��--'--
K��%�n��
�������
Date Received:
Hearing Date:
Fee :
CITY 'USE
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name �--
r of Appellant: Chr. ;atr,nhcr E Taaffe on
behalf o ^ ^ ^grned
Address: Residents of Saratoga
C/0-11 - 1 West St ..John •Rtr•vet #65n
Telephone: Sa Jose; CA 95113
r-4081998-3183
Name of Applicant: Cupertino Union School District /Primary Plus
Project File No.: UP -88 -010
Project Address: _ 12211 Titus Avenue
Project Description: Child Care-Services
Decision Being Appealed: _ Approval of Use Permit for Child Care
• Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
Please See Attached
y
Christopher E. Taaffe-,",--�
*Please do not sign this application until it
City offices. If you wish is specific presented at the
appeal please list them on a separate be notified of this
TIIIS APPI IC,�TTON J►IJST Df: SUDi•fITTL•D IVITFIIN TCN 10 CALL•PJDAR DAYS
7�I I L• ,1' U N 'I E U- lrf YS O F
00014- 5
To the Members of
The Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Council Members:
The Saratoga Planning Commision has approved the request
of the Cupertino Union School District /Primary Plus for a use
permit to provide child care services for approximately 175
children at the Hansen School site. This was done in spite of
the objections of over 200 residents of Saratoga who reside in
that area and who will be most severely impacted. I have been
asked to prepare and file an appeal of that decision on their
behalf and in which I join.
The increased traffic and the resultant congestion and
increased noise level are two of the major considerations.
Safety or the lack thereof is a third major consideration.
At the request of the Planning Commission the school
district retained a firm, Pang & Associates of Mountain View,
to conduct a traffic study. This was done on Tuesday, July 19,
1988. That firm counted 149 cars between the hours of 7:30 and
8:30 a.m. on Titus Avenue. That one -day study is unreliable
and any conclusions that may have been drawn from it are
invalid.
First, the study was conducted during the summer months
when many residents who use Titus Avenue are on vacation.
Second, the study was not done when the school was in session.
Third, the Pang study apparently took into acocunt the
impact of 150 children at the school. However, it necessarily
relied upon information provided by the school district such as
carpooling and so on. It concluded that the traffic impact was
within acceptable limits. The validity of this study is
unreliable because it used a grading scale that applies to
either Saratoga Avenue or Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, which are
commercial streets and not residential streets, such as Titus.
More recently, a resident of Titus Avenue, Andrew Boogard,
conducted a traffic count of the number of cars on Titus Avenue
during that same time frame ( 7:30 to 8:30 a.m.) which is much
more indicative of the true traffic picture.
On September 22 between the hours of 7:30 and 8:30 a.m.,
280 cars were counted on Titus Avenue. One hundred six of
these cars were counted between 8:20 and 8:30 a.m. Keep in
mind that this is with only 150 students enrolled in the
alternative program and Primary Plus not yet in operation.
On September 21 between 8:00 and 8:35 a.m., 81 cars drove
into the Hansen parking lot: 73 of these cars arrived with
000146
only one or two children, eight with three or more children.
Thirty -six cars arrived between 8:25 and 8:30. Yet, the school
district claims that there will be no congestion at this peak
time. -, Once again, keep in mind this is with only 150 children
presently enrolled in the alternative program and Primary Plus
still not in operation.
Of the 280 cars that were observed turning onto Prospect
from Titus on September 22, 1988, 233 of these cars made right
turns onto Prospect and 47 autos made left turns across
oncoming traffic. When the total of 175 Primary Plus is
achieved, there will be approximately 650 cars using the
intersection at Titus and Prospect between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m.,
and at a time when commute traffic is quite heavy on Prospect.
Left turns onto Prospect could prove to be very dangerous.
It is of interest that one of the residents learned just
today, September 23, 1988, from an alternative program parent
that the school district has requested that all parents when
leaving the school turn left onto Titus towards Prospect so as
to not disrupt other residents in the neighborhood. Yet for
those turning left on Prospect, it would be safest to utilize
the signal at Miller Avenue and Prospect Road.
The school district has also claimed that parking will not
be a problem. The facts do not support that contention.
On September 21, 39 cars were observed occupying parking
spaces out of a total of 54 available _spaces. These are
presently used by the alternative school. Primary Plus will
require at least 20 parking spaces for a staff ratio of 10 /1
plus a minimum of three for administrative personnel, nurse,
etc. One has to be concerned about where the Primary Plus
parents are going to park when they bring their children to the
program. The answer is obvious. They will have -to park out on
Titus, up and down the street. They will be making U -turns on
Titus and they will be utilizing the driveways of residents as
turn -a- rounds.
According to information obtained from 4 C's Day Care
Center, 90 percent of their enrollment arrives between 7:30 and
8:30 a.m. It is not unreasonable to believe that will be the
case with Hansen.
The increased level of noise was a factor that was
pooh - poohed by the Planning Commission. Yet, the fact of the
matter is that with an additional 175 cars ariving between 6:30
and 8:30 a.m. there is going to be a horrid and offensive
increase in the noise level. That same noise will return like
clockwork when the parents return between 5:30 and 6:30 p.m. to
pick up their children. The school district has claimed there
will not be that many cars because parents will carpool their
children. That contention is not only lacking in merit, it is
ludicrous. These are parents who will be dropping off their
- 2 - 0,014
children so they can go to work. They will be coming from all
areas of the community, not just Cupertino. Carpooling
presupposes that not only would two parents have children going
to the same pre - school but that they also work at the same
place. Such a likelihood is remote, at best.
It is truly unfortunate that the Saratoga Planning
Commission has rolled over and played dead for the benefit of
the Cupertino Union School District and to the detriment of
many residents of the City of Saratoga whose best interests
they are supposed to be representing. Moreover, they have
relied upon information provided by the school district which
is undependable. - In fact, other than the traffic study
performed by Pang, the school district has provided no studies,
reports, or certified findings which support their contentions.
Finally, there is one last item that must be addressed. A
use permit has been approved for Primary Plus, which is a day
care facility. However, it is apparent that once Primary Plus
has its use permit, it will put in uses that are not consistent
with "Day Care." On Tuesday, September 4, 1988, an
advertisement for Primary Plus appeared in the San Jose Mercury
News for its other sites. (See attached) Ballet - tap and
tumbling instructions are being offered in addition to extended
day care and not as part of day care. Primary Plus intends to
lease two - thirds of the school. It is the belief of the
residents that Primary Plus intends to sublease portions of
what it leases to non - conforming private commercial
enterprises. This could be anything from ballet to drug
education for teenage offenders.
It is truly appalling how the Saratoga Planning Commission
is helping to undermine the character of what has been a quiet
residential neighborhood up until now.
It is -for the above reasons that we are asking the
Saratoga City Council to revoke the use permit previously
granted.
- 3 -
000148.
-f
w
Y
4B Sunday, Sept. 4, 1988 a San Jose Mercury News
State News
Fast - moving fire
L It was like
looking at the
pictures of
Yellowstone
Park.
— Ruth Meier, manager,
mobile home park
Those flare -ups were quickly
doused, but one house sustained
moderate damage, she said. There
was no estimate of damage.
The blaze. reported at 1:15 p.m.,
was caused by arcing power lines,
she said. The fire was 70 percent
contained by 7 p.m,
One firefighter was treated at a
hospital for heat - related injuries
and released. Rolin said.
Twenty to 30 homes were evacu-
passed by without causing damage
Rohn said.
The plume was visible from
downtown San Diego.
Firefighters from the California
Department of Forestry assisting
firefighters from Santee, San Die.
go and La Mesa had to contend
with temperatures around 104 de-
grees and extremely dry air, said
CDF spokeswoman Audrey Hagen.
"The humidity is just 16 percent
and the hRat out there is oppres-
sive," Hagen said.
The find closed Mission Trails
Regional Park and a 1% -mile
stretch of Mission Gorge Road.
"The fire was all round the
courts." said Ruth Meier, manager
Of Highland Mobile Home Park, "It
was hke looking at the pictures of
Yellowstone Park" where fires
have been raging this summer.
Firefighters protected the courts
with fire retardant and there was
no significant damage there , she
said. Residents returned about 4:30
p.m.
The fire left the hills blackened
"but we're all OK," she said.
i PRIMARY PLUS
PRIVATE ELEA/ENTARY EDueArION
Smell Classes. lrid/vldual Program
Leaming At Chi&,$ Own pace
• KINDERGARTEN THRU 6TH GRADE — PRIVATE CLASSES
• EXTENDED DAY CARE FOR SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN
• FULLY ACCREDITED STAFF 6 FACILITIES
• BALLET - TAP 6 TUMBLING INSTRUCTION
OPEN 6:30 AM to 6 PM
SAN JOSE A[W RATOGA W iMBER DRNE SCHOOL ITO SCHOOL 40d 248-2184 370 -0367 aL 3500 AMBER DR S.J UCKNALL RO E.
near
A brush fire closes y
More Than Just a
Binoculars • spotting Scope
Globes • Weather Instrurncn
Microscopes • Magnifiers
Books e T-shirts • Caps
Astronomical a terrestnai
telescopes. Binoculars for
astronomy, backpacking,
birdwatching, boating, g
sports. Scientific gitis.
games. 6 toys. Of %
hundreds Of othery =:'
fascinating items' i
Ali price ranges.
010N
1000149
'{
Arcing power
lines blamed
for sparks that
,caused blaze
SANTEE (AP) — A fast- moving
fire scorched more than 510 acres
ated during the height of the blaz
the dispatcher said.
of brush and the roofs of at least 20
hilltop homes Saturday as fire-
More than 250 firefighters froi
fighters struggled to contain the
flame ut 100 -degree heat,
four agencies, assisted by watel
dropping helicopters and bulldo;
said. officials
Sparks blown from the blaze
em, fought the blaze in Micsio
Trails Regional Park, said Sai
caused roof fires on the homes
located on the west side Cowles
Diego County :h0'Ws �t�
Jan
fire ri
of
Mountain, about 15 miles northeast
of downtown San Diego,
a forced
The fire forced residents of tM
Highland Mobile Home Park t,
said Suer
tee Fire Department dispatcher
�muoinds,
Jane Rolin.
ling room on the Pa grounds, but
bu'
L It was like
looking at the
pictures of
Yellowstone
Park.
— Ruth Meier, manager,
mobile home park
Those flare -ups were quickly
doused, but one house sustained
moderate damage, she said. There
was no estimate of damage.
The blaze. reported at 1:15 p.m.,
was caused by arcing power lines,
she said. The fire was 70 percent
contained by 7 p.m,
One firefighter was treated at a
hospital for heat - related injuries
and released. Rolin said.
Twenty to 30 homes were evacu-
passed by without causing damage
Rohn said.
The plume was visible from
downtown San Diego.
Firefighters from the California
Department of Forestry assisting
firefighters from Santee, San Die.
go and La Mesa had to contend
with temperatures around 104 de-
grees and extremely dry air, said
CDF spokeswoman Audrey Hagen.
"The humidity is just 16 percent
and the hRat out there is oppres-
sive," Hagen said.
The find closed Mission Trails
Regional Park and a 1% -mile
stretch of Mission Gorge Road.
"The fire was all round the
courts." said Ruth Meier, manager
Of Highland Mobile Home Park, "It
was hke looking at the pictures of
Yellowstone Park" where fires
have been raging this summer.
Firefighters protected the courts
with fire retardant and there was
no significant damage there , she
said. Residents returned about 4:30
p.m.
The fire left the hills blackened
"but we're all OK," she said.
i PRIMARY PLUS
PRIVATE ELEA/ENTARY EDueArION
Smell Classes. lrid/vldual Program
Leaming At Chi&,$ Own pace
• KINDERGARTEN THRU 6TH GRADE — PRIVATE CLASSES
• EXTENDED DAY CARE FOR SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN
• FULLY ACCREDITED STAFF 6 FACILITIES
• BALLET - TAP 6 TUMBLING INSTRUCTION
OPEN 6:30 AM to 6 PM
SAN JOSE A[W RATOGA W iMBER DRNE SCHOOL ITO SCHOOL 40d 248-2184 370 -0367 aL 3500 AMBER DR S.J UCKNALL RO E.
near
A brush fire closes y
More Than Just a
Binoculars • spotting Scope
Globes • Weather Instrurncn
Microscopes • Magnifiers
Books e T-shirts • Caps
Astronomical a terrestnai
telescopes. Binoculars for
astronomy, backpacking,
birdwatching, boating, g
sports. Scientific gitis.
games. 6 toys. Of %
hundreds Of othery =:'
fascinating items' i
Ali price ranges.
010N
1000149
'{
at !
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
— / /4-
MEETING DATE: 10 -19 -88
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
I
SUBJECT: FINAL MAP APPROVAL FOR SDR 1470
PARK DRIVE, RAISA KOCHER
AGENDA ITEM 4F
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
Recommended Motion: ,
Approve Resolution 1470 -04, attached approving Final Map for SDR 1470.
Report Summary:
1. SDR 1470 is ready for Final Map Approval.
2. All requirements for Final Map are approved.
3. All fees have been paid.
Fiscal- Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
I. Resolution No. 1470 -04.
2. Resolution approving Tentative Map-
3.-Location
Q Map.
Mo t i Oil &-vote 7rovement Agreement .
10/19• Continued to 11/2,3 -2 (Peterson, Nbyles opposed).
RESOLUTION NO. 1470 -04
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Raisa Kocher
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1:
The 0.586 Acre and 0.519 Acre Parcels shown as A and B'on Final
Parcel Map prepared by Westfall Engineers and submitted to the City of
Saratoga, be approved as two (2) individual building sites.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and
passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the
day.of 19 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
s-
Building Site Approval
6le No. SD -1470
RESOLUTION NO -SOB- 1470 -2 \" ------ . -._- --
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH
TO COMPLETE REQUIREMENTS OF BUILDING SITE APPROVAL
APN 510 -1 -12, 517 -22 -37
WHEREAS, a Building Site Approval for George and Raise Kocher for 2
lots has been filed with the Planning Department of the City of Saratoga;
and
WHEREAS, the construction requirements and conditions set forth as
Exhibit A attached hereto Must be fulfilled as set forth in the attached
Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that
1. The proposed Building Site Approval, together with the provisions
for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan of
City of Saratoga; the
2. The Planning Commission grants an extension of time to SO -1470,
Kocher, for 12 months in which to complete the conditions listed in Exhibit
A; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga hereby expressly finds that the fulfillment of said construction
requirements and conditions are necessary for reasons of public health and
safety and as a prerequisite to the orderly development of the area
surrounding the property referred to herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State
of California, this 14th day of January, 1987, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Burger, guch, Harris, Pines, Siegfried, Tucker
NOES:
ABSENT: Callans
ATTEST: Chairmen, Planning COMMi..i n
4S,.�tary.Plannin�C,--'l .i.n
A:SDR -1470
• EXH'I'BIT 'A -
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, includi
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 effe
at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and compliance with applicable health Department regulations -and appl
cable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Referenc
is hereby made to Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excu
compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordi
nance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following
Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section
23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
A. one;'
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
B.
Approval.
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation
and recordation fees) (If is
parcel shown on existing mapaofrrecord, submitng
three (3) to -scale prints).
C. Done (See Parcel'Ma '
P)•
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to
D. See Parcel Map.
provide for a 30 ft. half- street
on Piedmont Rd. and Park Drive.
D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication "_ t0 provide easement as_ required—_
E. Improve Piedmont Rd.
and Park Dr. to City Standards, including the following:
(Deferred Improvement Agreement)
1. thru 4 – see Deferred
Improvement Agreement.
I. Designed Structural Section 26 ft. between centerline and flowl
ine. D. I.A.
2. Asphalt Concrete Berm on Park Dr.
D.I.A.
3. P.C. Concrete Curb and Gutter (V -24) on Piedmont Rd. D.I.A.
4. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities. D.I.A.
F. Construct Standard Driveway Approach. D.I.A.
G. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft.
wide at street paving. Use double seal
coat oil and screenings or better on
6 in. aggregate base.
H. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as
approved by the Director of Public Works.
I. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required
at driveway and access road intersections.
J. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent
flow.
k. & 1. – with building
permit.
K. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water Distri
to be done within the Water Districts ct for
work
right -of -way,
L.. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Department of Public Works for driveway
approaches or pipe crossings of City Street.
M. 'thru O. — See Deferred M. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: D.I.A.
.Inprovement Agreement. 1. Street Improvements D.I.A.
2. Storm Drain Construction D.I.A.
N. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans.
0. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required improvements
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional in accordance
C with letter from William Cotton & Assoc., dated November 10, 1983 prior to
With Building Permit. issuance of building permits.
B. 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.)
Provide private drainage easements to Parcel "A ".
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 ft.
or higher.
4. Erosion control measures.
S. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data,
location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc.
IY. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY SANITATION DIST. NO. 4
A; , With' Building Permit. A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements
of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated August 18, 1980.
B. See Parcel Map' B. Provide easements for building sewers from Parcel B for Parcel A in accordance
with letter dated August 18, 1980.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one -foot shoulders using double
*seal
oraccess and
proposedgdwelling. inch
exceedul2h% watt
out adhering to the following:
1. Driveways having slopes between 12h% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2�" of
A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base.
With Building Permit. 2. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted.
3. All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic
loading.
6. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling site having a 32 foot inside
radius. Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of the Fire
Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
C. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet.
rnn i.�n
J
D. Provide a parking area for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed building site.
or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
E. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire pro- With Building
tection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants.. permit,
F. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site.
Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
G. Developer to install 1 hydrant that meets Saratoga Fire District's specifica-
tions. Hydrant to be installed and accepted prior to issuance of building
permits.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by
the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation Dist. No. 4.
for Parcels A and S. 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.
C. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled in accordance with County C. Done.
Standards. A $400.00 bond is to be posted to ensure completion of this work.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. If a storm drain outfall into the creek is necessary, it must be designed to
minimize number of future outfalls necessary. Furnish all outfall structure
details for review and issuance of permit prior to Final Approval.
B. Dedicate right -of -way along entire creek frontage, to Santa Clara Valley Water
District per letter and map dated September 3, 1980.
C. All grading adjacent to the Santa Clara Valley Water District 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 Santa Clara Valley Water District
for review and permit issuance prior to construction. Utility crossings to be With Building
designed in accord with Santa Clara Valley Water District Sheets 21 and 22 and permit,
sewer lines within 15 feet of creek section to be steel or cast iron.
D. -Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval,•submit plans showing the location
and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara Valley Water District
for review and certification.
E. Road crossings to be designed so as not to obstruct flood flows.
F. First floor of house adjacent to floodplain to be at least 2' above the natural
ground elevation at the fl oodplain limit shown.
G. Any utility crossings of creek to be make with ductile iron pipe or equivalent
and the top of pipe to be at least 4' below existing creek bottom.
* H. Any modificatiors to the creek channel are to be reviewed and approved by staff
in order to keep the riparian area as natural as possible.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits.
- inln n
Al
1
B.. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to.Planning
Commission approval.
C. Prior to issuance of building permits, 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 the building site.
IX. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances.
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted
Signature of Applicant Date
SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TRACT NO
Storm Drain Fees
Park & Recreation Fees
Plan Check & Inspection Fees
SDR No. 1470
$2:,;200.00
$2,600.00
$ 200.00
Final Map Check Fees $ 300.00
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SDR- 1470.3 15139 Park Dr.
Request for an Extension of Time Kocher
7
It
;ISO
-tt -93
11
20105
517-21-01 .
MENDELSOHN LN.
N�
Mgt
71w'G71 -G7
♦,
9310-01-ZS
SIC -o / -26
(u
DFFERRFD 114PROV17D1BN,r naRrl:PU;NT By oaNrR OR HIS
SUCCESSORS IN 1NTERl:ST TO CONSTRUCT LAND
DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS
Project identification: S� /',f 7c
This agreement between the CITY OF SARATOGA, hereinafter referred -
to as CITY, and /r,-,-, 3 %7 e
hereinafter referred to as 'Owner ".
WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property described in Exhibit
"A" but wishes to defer construction of permanent improvements beyond the
time limits otherwise required and City agrees to such deferment provided
Owner agrees to construct improvements as herein provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
I. AGREEMENT BINDING ON SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST
This agreement is an instrument affecting the title and posses-
sion of the real property described in Exhibit "A ". All the terms, cove-
nants and conditions herein imposed shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the successors in interest of Owner. Upon any sale or division
of the property described in Exhibit "A ", the terms of this agreement shall
apply separately to each parcel and the owner of each parcel sh$11 succeed
to the obligations imposed on Owner by this agreement.
II. STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
A. City and Owner agree that the improvements set forth in this
section may be deferred because:
The public interest is served by having all improvenents along
Park Drive & Piedmont Road done at one time, that time to be determined
in the future.
B. Owner agrees to construct the following improvements on the pro-
perty described in Exhibit "A" as well as required off site improvements in
the manner set forth in this agreement:
Improvements required by City Department of Public Works are gen-
erally described on Exhibit "A ". (Cross out improvements that arc not re-
quired.)
1. Curb and gutter
2. Sidewalks
3. Driveways .t
4. Street grading, base and
paving
5. Storm drainage facilities
6. Erosion control plantings
and facilities
8. Undcsground conduit with
wi.•ing and pull boxes
9. Barricades and other improve-
ments needed for traffic safety
10. Street trees and other improve-
ments between curb and property
11. Relocation of existing fences,
signs and utilities
12. Payment of a pro rata share of
the costs as determined by the
Dept. of Public Works of a st-orm
drainage or street improvement
which has been, or is to be,
provided by others or jointly
provided by owner and others
where such facility benefits the
property described in Exhibit "A"
- i
C. W1IV1I Lhc D rcc:t.ur of 1'uh I is Wui:ks dvLcrin l n C:: Lha[ Lhe rt:aSC)S I
for the deferment oC Lhe isgir0vcmcnts as set forth in Section II 110 longer
exist, he shall notify Owner in writing; to commence Lheir insta113Li.on and
construction. The .noLic'e •sliall lc mailed. to the current owner or o4mers
Of the land as shown on Lhe latest adopted county assessment roll. The'
notice shall describe the work to be done by owners, the time within which
the work shall commence and Lhe time within which it shall be completed.
All or any portion of said improvements may be required at' a specified
time. Each Otmer shall participate on a pro rata basis in the cost of the
improvements to be installed. If Owner is obligated to pay a pro rata
share of a cost of a facility provided by others, the notice shall include
the amountto be paid and the time when payment must be made.
III. PEW'OR,tANCE OF THE WORK
Owner agrees to perform -the work and make the payments required by
City as set forth herein or as modified by the City Council. Owner shall
cause plans and specifications for the improvements to be prepared by com-*
petent persons legally:_qualified to do the work and to submit said improve
ment plans and specifications for approval prior to commencement of the
work described in the notice, and to pay City inspection fees. 'The work
shall be done in accordance with City standards in effect at the time the
improvement plans are submitted for approval. .Owner agrees to coarnence
and complete the work within the time specified in the notice given by the
Director Of Public Wprks and to notify the City at least 48 hours prior to
start of work. In the event Owner fails to construct any improvements re-
quired under this agreement, City may, at its option do the work and colle
all the costs from Owner, which costs 'shall be a lien on all, the property
described in Exhibit "A" hereof. Permission to enter onto the property
of the Owner is granted to City or its contractor as may be necessary to
construct such improvements.
IV. JOINT COOPFRATIVE PLAN '
Owner agrees to cooperate•upon notice.by City with oche= property
.owners, the City and other public agencies'to provide the *provements
set forth herein under a joint cooperative plan including the formation
Of a local improvement district, if this method is feasible to secure the
installation and construction of the improvements.
V REVIE14 OF REOUIREMENTS
If Owner disagrees with the requirements set forth in any notice
to commence installation of improvements he shall, within 30 days of the
date the notice was mailed, request a review of the requirements by the
City Council. The decision of this Council shall be binding upon both
the.City and the Owner.
VI AfAi;;TENAt7CF. OF ITIPROVE;TENTS
City agrees to accept for maintenance those improvements specified
in Section II which are constructed and completed in. accordance with City
standards and requirements and are installed within rights -of -way or ease -
menLs dedicated and accepted by resolution of the City, after the expira-
tion of one year from date of satisfactory completion, Owner to maintain
Said improvemenLS at 06mer's sole cost and expense at all times prior to
such acceptance by City.
Oncr agrees to provide any necessary temporary drainage facilities,
access road or other required improvements, to assume responsibility for
the proper functioning thereof, to submit plans to the appropriate City
aCcncy for review, if required, and to maintain said improvements and
facilities in a manner which will preclude any hazard to life or health
or damage to adjoining property.
•'1
a
VII. BONDS
Prior to approval of improvement plans by the City, Owner may be
required to execute and deliver to City a faithful performance bond and
.n labor and materials bond in an amount and form acceptablelto City,-to
be released by City Council in whole or in part upon completion of Llie
work required and payment of all persons furnishing labor and materials
ill the performance of the work.
VIII. I \SURANCE
Owner shall maintain or shall require any contractor engaged to
perform the %.ork to maintain, at all times during.the performance of the
work called for herein, a separate policy of insurance in a form and
amount acccpLable to City.
IX. INDEZ, NNITY
The Owner shall assume the defense and indemnify and save harmless
the City, its officers, agents and employees, from every expense, liability
or payment by reason of injury, including death, to persons, or damage to ,
property suffered through any act or omission, including passive negligence
or act of negligence, or both, of the Owner, his employees, agents, con -
.tractors, subcontractors, or his employees, agents, contractors, subcontrac-
tors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them, or
• arising in any way from the work called for by this agreement, or any part
of the premises, including those matters arising out of the deferment of
permanent drainage facilities or the adequacy, safety, use or non -use of
temporary drainage facilities, the performance or non- performdnce' of the
work.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has executed this agreement as of
CITY OF SARATOCA
MAYOR
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this agreement as of
Owner
STATE OF CALIFO"IA
�`/'
CUUntY u� / p— L 1
Orr l �r �Y 1 � 1 y befure rue,
y.Nutary public,
its andfur said State, penorwlly appeared
rusted to me on the basis of satisjnctury
evidence to be the persurr_ whose name _/A�_ Atbscribed to the within instru-
ment, and acknowledged to rn"wt�he_cxecufed the Larne.
MILESS RANKIN
• NOTARY PUBLIGCAUFORNM
SANTA CLARA C0'X1'
KY CoKm. EXP.MA .d
NO'CAkY PUBLIC
I "'ZCV� - 177)MONT RC +D +ND "+RK DRIVE TC ''7T° 3T' " -)+7^ 'g
7CLU ", *S :
1) Designed ,tructur3l Fection 26 °t. between centerline
and flowline.
2) sp`al t concrete Bern on ,ark Drive.
3) '.C, concrete curb and 7utter (V -2,) on "iedmont Rd.
Underground existing overhead utilities.
Construct -torm dr7in.
c
EXHIBIT "A"
That certain property situated in the City of Saratoga, County of
Santa Clara, State of California, rmre particularly described as
follows:
The Parcel A and B shown on Parcel Map prepared by Westfall Engineers
and recorded in Book of Maps at Pages in the
County of Santa Clara.
EXHIBIT "B"
Inprove Piedmont Road and Park Drive to City standard as follows:
1) Designed structural section 26 ft. between centerline and flowline.
2) Asphalt concrete berm on Park Drive.
3) A.C. concrete curb and gutter (V -24) on Piedmont Rd.
4) Underground existing overhead utilities.
5) Construct storm drain.
1
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
DATE: 11 -22 -88
COUNCIL MEETING: 12 -07 -88
SDR -1470 Kocher /Allen Park Drive /Piedmont Read
At your Nov. 2, 1988 meeting the Final Map for the above SDR was
presented for your approval. Councilmember Stutz questioned the accuracy
of the topography on which the Tentative Map Approval was given. Council
instructed staff to review and verify that data.
We requested the applicant to have a new topography map prepared, to
present cross-sections of the property from that map. In addition, they were
to compute the average slope of the property and the slopes under the proposed
building foot print.
They have provided all that information.and it does show that the slope
information on which the Tentative Map Approval was given was inaccurate.
The information provided at the time of tentative approval was that the
average site slope was 9.82% and the average slope under proposed building
was 27% with a maximum slope of 33% at any point.
The new information is that the average site slope is 13.5% and that the
maximum slope at any point under the proposed structure is 62%.
Had it been clear that the average slope of this site was in excess of
10% it would have triggered the use of the slope - density formula. Using that
formula the area per parcel would be 1.2 acres. Inasmuch as this site has
a total area of 1.1 acres, it could not have been subdivided without grant-
ing a variance to the area requirements. No such variance was applied for or
discussed.
New requirements have been added to the R -1 Zoning regulations which
would add more restrictions that would disallow this lot aplit but they were
added after the tentative approval of this map.
Page 2
Draft SDR -1470
Report to Mayor /CC
Based on the new information it is apparent that the tentative approval
was granted based on faulty data provided to the City by the applicant.
Due to that, staff recommends that the Tentative Map Approval be rescinded
and, therefore, that Final Map Approval not be granted.
All fees and bonds submitted to the City in connection with the Final
Map Approval shall be returned to the applicant.
Shook
Cit Engineer
RSS /df
#0999,
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: 10 -19 -88 CITY MGR. APPROVAL L9
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPT.
SUBJECT: FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL SD 88 -009
Sobey Road, Mark Pierce (1 Lot)
Recommended Motion:
Approve Resolution No. SD 88- 009 -02 attached, approving Final Building Site.
Report Summary:
1. SD 88 -009 is an addition to existing house and ready for Final Building
Site Approval,
2. All requirements for City and other departments have been completed.
3. Fees have been paid.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No, SD 88- 009 -02.
2. 'Resolution Approving Tentative Map.
3.. Location Map.
4. Differed Improvement Agreement.
Motion and Vote:
C/ q Ila
RESOLUTION NO. SD 88 -009 -2
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF NBC PIERCE
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1:
1.08.Acre Lot shown on Record of Survey prepared by Park L. Verner
and recorded in Book 56 of Maps, Page 43 in the Santa Clara County
Recorder's Office and submitted to the City of Saratoga to be approved
as one individual building site.
The above and.foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and
passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the
day of
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
19 by the following
MAYOR
2. Done.
3. N. A.
RESOLUTION NO. SD -88 -009
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
Building Site of one lot at 1295 8obey Road
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under
the subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the
Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map
approval of one (1) lot, all as more particularly set forth in File
No. SD -88 -009 of this City, and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga-General Plan and with'
all - specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision
and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general
land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to
the Staff Report dated 7/27/88 being hereby made for further
particulars, and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the
(Categorical Exemption) prepared for this project in accord with the
currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a)
through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to
said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord
with conditions as hereinafter set forth.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated April, 1988
and is marked Exhibit A in the hereinabove'referred file, be and the
same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said
approval are as follows:
1. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay
required checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown
on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints.)
2. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft.
half- street on'Sobey Road. ;..
3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements,
as required. n'.4-
4. Improve Sobey Road to City standards, including the following:
4. a, b, c. - Yes.
5. with building plans.
6. with building plans.
10. thru 15. See Differred
Improvement Agreement
16. with building plans.
18. with building plans.
SD -88 -009, 15295 Sobey Road
(a) Asphalt concrete berm (D.I.A).
'(b) Pedestrian walkway (6 ft. A.C., 4 ft. P.C.C.) (D.I.A).
(c) Underground existing overhead utilities (D.I.A).
5. Construct standard driveway approach 16 ft. wide at property
line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat
oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base.
6. Construct "valley gutter" across ldriveway or pipe culvert under
driveway as approved by the City Engineer.
7. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view
as required at driveway and access road intersections.
8. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
9. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
10. Obtain encroachment permit from the Engineering Department for
driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City street (D.I.A.).
11. Engineered improvement plans required for street improvements
12. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from
improvement plans (D.I.A.).
13. Enter into improvement agreement for required improvements to
be completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval
(D.I.A.).
14. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements
(D.I.A.).
15. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required
improvements marked "D.I.A."
16. An automatic fire extinguishing system, sprinklers, are
required in the proposed three car garage.
17. Provide approved spark arresters on chimneys.
18. Detailed on site improvements plans showing::•_
a. grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quanities)
b. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall,
location, etc.)
19. existing.
20. existing.
21. none.
H
SD -88 -009; 15295 Sobey Road
c. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or
R.C.E. for walls feet or higher. Length and height
(measured from base of footing to any top of wall) to
be noted on plan.
d. Any existing structures, with notes as to remain or be
removed.
e. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan
using recorded data, location map, north arrow, sheet
nos., owner's name, etc.
f. Breakdown of square footage into the following
catagories other requiremets 1) garage /storage 2)
living space 3) decks and patios 4) any other
structure.
19. A sanitary sewer connection will be required.
20. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Works.-'-,--,.'/'.
21. Prior to final map approval the applicant shall submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells on
the lot, to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review
and certification. N,- �1 G
22. No tree removal is permitted unless in accordance with the
City Ordinance Article: 15 -50.
23. The accessory structures on slab at the west shall be
removed prior to final inspection.
Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements
of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning
Commission, State of California, this 27th day of July, 1988 by
the following vote:
t c
SD -88 -009; 15295 Sobey Road
AYES: Guch, Harris, Burger, Siegfried, Tucker, Kolstad
NOES: None
ABSENT: Tappan
ATTEST: ,^ ,
kAU-, Chairman, Planning emmission
S creta ing Commission
Applicant's Signature Date
aEC��vEp
AuG ' Q 1�ge
PANNING OE ?j
LOCATION MAP
S3� 88- 009
DF71:4RFD IMPROvr-mEN,r ACRRI ?114Mr ny OWN[:R OR IIIS
SUCCESSORS IN 1NTEREST TO CONSTRUCT LAND
DEVELOPMENT IMPROMtENTS SD 88 -009
Project identification: SD 88 -009
This agreement between the CITY OF SARATOCA, hereinafter referred
to as CITY, and MARK PIERCE
hereinafter referred to as 'Owner".
WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property described in Exhibit
"A" but wishes to defer construction of permanent improvements beyond the
time limits otherwise required and City agrees to such deferment provided
Owner agrees to construct improvements as herein provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ACREED AS FOLLOWS:
I. AGREEMENT BINDING ON SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST
This agreement is an instrument affecting the title and posses-
sion of the real property described-in Exhibit "A ". All the terms, cove-
nants and conditions herein imposed shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the successors in interest of Owner. Upon any sale or division
of the property described in Exhibit "A ", the terms of this agreement shall
apply separately to each parcel and the owner of each parcel shall succeed
to the obligations imposed on Owner by this agreement.
II. STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
A. City and Owner agree that the improvements set forth in this
section may be deferred because:
The public interest is served by having all improvements along Sobey Rd.
in this area done at one time, that time to be determined in the future.
B. Owner agrees to construct the following improvements on the pro-
perty described in Exhibit "A" as well as required off site improvements in
the manner set forth in this agreement:
Improvements required by City Department of Public Works are gen-
erally described on Exhibit "A ". (Cross out improvements that are not re-
quired.)
Aacx It2r
:ftxx
4. Street - grading, base and
paving
S. Storm drainage facilities
6. Erosion control plantings
and facilities
3xxxf0LV*0CQ&&0=
8. Underground conduit with
wi.-ing and pull boxes
9. Barricades and other improve-
ments needed for traffic safety
10. Street trees and other improve-
ments between curb and property
11. Relocation of existing fences,
signs and utilities
12. Paynunt of a pro rata share of
the costs as determined by the
Dcpt. of Public Works of a st.orm
drainage or street improvement
which has been, or is to be,
provided by others or jointly
provided by owner and others
where such facility benefits the
property described in Exhibit "A"
C. l,hcn Lhc W rec t.ur uC I'ulil is lcurlcs dcLcrminc:;: L113C the rc:asc,ns
for the de(crmcnC oC the improvements as Set forth in Section II nn lung;
exist, he shall notify Owner in writing to commence their installati.on ar
construction. The•notic•e•shall IM mailed.to the currant owner or owners
or the land as shown on the laCest.adopted county assessment roll. The
notice shall describe the work Co be done by owners, the time within whic
the work shall commence and the time within which it shall be completed.
All or any portion of said improvements may be required at a specified
time. Each Owner shall participate on a pro rata basis in the cost of tl
improvements to be installed. If Owner is obligated to pay a pro rata
share of a cost of a facility provided by others, the notice shall inclul
the amounttD be paid and the time when payment must be made.
III. PERPOR,%LANCE OF THE WORK
Owner agrees to perform -the work and make the payments required by
Ci:,� as set forth herein or as modified by the City Council. Owner shal
cause plans and specifications for the improvements to be prepared by co
petent persons lcgally:;qualified to do the work and to submit said impro
ment plans and specifications Tor approval prior to commencement of the
work described in the notice, and to pay City inspection fees. 'The work
shall be done in accordance with City standards in effect at the time th
improvement plans are submitted for approval. .Owner agrees to commence
and complete the work within the time specified in the notice given by t
Director Of Public Wgrks and to notify the City at least 48 hours prior
start of work. In the event Owner fails to construct any improvements r
q uired under this agreement, City may, at its option do the work and col
all the costs from Owner, which costs shall be a lien on all. the propert
described in Exhibit "A" hereof. Permission to enter onto the property
of the Ocrner is granted to City or its contractor as may be necessary to
construct such improvements.
IV. JOINT COOPERATIVE PLAN '
Owner agrees to cooperate-upon notice.by City wit1h other property
owners, the City and other public agencies'to provide rlha improvements
set forth herein under a joint cooperative plan including the formation
of a local improvement district, if this method is feasible to secure tt
installation and construction of the improvements.
V REVIEW OF REOUIREMENTS ,
If Ou-ner disagrees with the requirements set forth in any notice
to cor=ence installation of improvements he shall, within 30 days.of the
date the notice was mailed, request a review of the requirements by the
City Council. The decision of this Council shall be binding upon both
the City and the Owner.
VI MAINTENANCE OF ItMROMMNTS
City agrees to accept for maintenance those improvements spegifie,
in Section II which are constructed and completed in. accordance with Ci
standards and requirements and are installed within rights -of -way or ea
mcnLs dedicated and accepted by resolution of the City, after the expir
tion of one year from date of satisfactory completion, Owner to maintai
said improvericnLS at 06rner's sole cost and expense at all times prior t
such acceptance by City.
0:.-icr agrees to provide any necessary temporary drainage facili.ti
access road or other required improvements, to assume responsibility fo
the proper fu.•utioning tlicrcof, to submit plans to the appropriate City
aCcncy for review, if required, and to maintain said improvements and
facilities in a manner which will preclude any hazard to life or healtL
or damage to adjoining property.
W+
VII - BONDS
Prior to approval of improvement plans by the City, Owner may be
required to execute and deliver to City a 'faithful perforinn6cc bond and
-n labor alid materials bond in an aniount and form acceptable Ito City,. to
be released by City Council in whole or in part upon completion of Llte
work required and payment of all persons furnishing labor and materials
in the Performance of the work.
VIII. INSLIRANCE
Owner shall maintain or shall require any contractor engaged to
perform the work to maintain, at all times during the performance of the
work called for herein, a separate policy of. insurance in a form and
amount accopLable to City,
IX. INDE;MITY
The Owner shall assume the defense and indemnify and save harmless
the City, its officers, agents and employees, from every expense, liability
or payment by reason of injury, including death, to persons, or damage to ,
property suffered through any act or omission, including passive negligence
or act of negligence, or both, of the Owner, his employees, agents, con-
tractors, subcontractors, or his employees, agents, contractors, subcontrac
tors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them, or
arising in any way from the work called for by this agreement, or any part
of the premises, including those matters arising out of the deferment of
permanent drainage facilities or the adequacy, safety, use or non -use of
temporary drainage facilities, the performance or non - performance of the
work.
IN 14ITNESS WHEREOF, City has executed this agreement as of
CITY OF SARATOGA
MAYOR
IN 14ITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this agreement as o
/l2 L
Owner
(This document to be acknowledged with signatures as they appear on
dced'_nL ririn 1
STATE OF CALI10RNIA ,
(:�wrry of
On _ T � ' 1 % 3� LeJu rr r,r r,
m and fur i,tid Starts, pvri,mJ1y jppcarcJ / /�CrOIGX_
Proved to me urr the b,isri
eeidrncc to Lr drr Prriun_ udrusr name
_<11Q_ subscribed to the within insfru
me't' �nJ ,tc kr'"u�IrJ�,e me /th�,,t he r.arutud the s�nrr.
Nu'IARY NU BLIC
NILiSL s
orgy �KKIN
SANTA ciARA "uFOa
EkP..41Y ;C C01lI'
EXHIBIT "A"
That certain property situated in the City of Saratoga, County of
Santa Clara, State of California, more particularly described as follows:
The land designated 1.08 acres parcel shown on Record of Survey prepared
by Park L. Verner (L.S.) recorded in Book 56 of Maps, Page 43, Santa
Clara County Recorder's Office.
EXHIBIT "B"
1. Construct Sobey Road to provide 20+ feet at half street between
centerline and face of asphalt concrete berm.
2. Construct storm drain per Master Plan.
3. Construct Walle Way.
4. Underground existing overhead utilities. `
0
SARATOG/A CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: October 19, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL JI)W
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
SUBJECT: ABAG Workers' Compensation Insurance Pool
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution No. authorizing the City to join the ABAG
Workers' Compensation Pool effective January 1, 1989; authorizing
self insured status for workers compensation liabilities; and
authorizing the City Manager to act for the City in filing a cer -.
tificate of consent to self insure with the California Department
of Industrial Relations.
Report Summar
The City of Saratoga has the opportunity to join with seven other
agencies in the bay area to enter into a joint powers agreement to
form a self- insured pool for workers' compensation insurance coverage.
Actuarial studies have determined that such a group is feasible and
will be of benefit to the members. Saratoga currently participates
in two other ABAG joint powers pools, for employee health insurance
and City liability insurance. Experience with both pools has proven
to provide both cost savings and better claims management. Premium
cost for the first year will be approximately $116,000.
Fiscal Impacts:
ABAG projects cost savings in the first year to be between $15,000
and $35,000, depending on the City's claims experience.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report
2. Resolution No.
Motion and Vote:
co
s�4
o�o0 00 0� 0 000
1: 3777I�R1 'I "1��'.U.l::\V'I�,NI'I�. • �.A IZ, A "l�O(i.A,(:,ALII�OIZNI. ♦S)iO7O
(408) 867- :34:38
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaien Anderson
Martha Clevenger
October 19, 1988 David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzmao
To: City Council
From: Administrative Assistant
Subject: ABAG Workers' Compensation Pool
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. authorizing the City to join the ABAG
Workers' Compensation Pool effective January 1, 1989; authorizing
self insured status for workers compensation liabilities; and
authorizing the City Manager to act for the City in filing a
certificate of consent to self insure with the California Depart-
ment of Industrial Relations.
Background•
As a result of seeing workers' compensation rate increases of as
much as 50% in the last five years, members of the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) over the past year have been discuss-
ing the feasibility of forming a self- insured group workers'
compensation program. The program is designed to enable members
to gain control over their rising coverage costs by pooling
self- insured losses, establishing effective loss control pro-
grams, and instituting sound and aggressive claims management.
Actuarial studies determined that such a self- insured group
(composed of the cities of Saratoga, Dublin, Los Altos Hills,
Suisun City, the Contra Costa County Transit Authority, and
special districts Bay Area Air Quality Management, San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency, and ABAG) is feasible and will be of bene-
fit to the members. The pool will form January 1, 1989, and is
in a position to go forward whether or not Saratoga joins.
Saratoga is a member of two other insurance pools through joint
powers agreements with ABAG. In 1985 Saratoga became one of the
first agencies to participate in the ABAG Benefits Trust Health
Plan providing employee health insurance, and since 1986 we have
been in the ABAG Plan for liability insurance. The experience
with both of the pools has been very positive, as we have real-
ized both cost savings and better claims management.
To: City Council Page 2
Subject: ABAG Workers' Compensation Pool
October 19, 1988
Analysis:
Currently the City's workers' compensation insurance is carried
by the State Compensation Insurance Fund. Advantages which the
ABAG pool is expected to provide over our current carrier include
a reduction in the overall cost of standard claims through ag-
gressive claims management and avoidance of the extremes of the
standard insurance market since premium charges will be based on
the member's experience, not that of the entire state. ABAG's
claims department will handle claims of the pool members and work
closely with the member agencies.
Premium costs for each member agency will be calculated individu-
ally by rates established for existing workers' compensation
classification codes with credit or debit given for experience,
using the same formulas for experience modification that are
currently used by State Fund. In addition, each member share of
the purchase of excess insurance at the $250,000 level, claims
administration, actuarial services, audit costs, and other gener-
al administration costs will be part of the annual premium cost.
(See attachment)
The premium cost for the first year is expected to be approxi-
mately $116,000, about $17,000 less than that with State Compen-
sation. These figures are based on our past claims history.
There is no way to predict what our future claims experience will
be, and therefore the premium is subject to retrospective adjust-
ment of credit up to 25% or a debit to 75 %.
The decision to join the ABAG Workers' Compensation pool is a
three year commitment during which time no member agency will be
allowed to cancel. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved
the documents for setting up and becoming a part of the joint
powers agreement.
arolyn King
Jm
Attachments
SUMMARY OF COSTS
ABAG WORKERS' COMPENSATION POOL
1. Cost of the program (deposit premium): See attached.
2. Included in the premium cost:
• claim administration
• loss control programs
• actuarial services
• audit costs
• allocated loss adjustment expenses (attorneys, investigations,
etc.)
• general administration of the pool
• excess insurance at $250,000 level with a $5,000,000 per
occurrence limit
3. Not included in the premium cost:
• retrospective premium adjustment, when applicable
• special adjustments, when applicable
4. Why it is to an ABAG member's advantage to be in the pool
rather than self- insure on its own:
• there is sharing or risk, rather than assuming the entire risk
• administration is done by ABAG
• services and excess insurance are purchased jointly, thus
reducing cost and giving greater selection of providers
SUMMARY
ABAG WORKERS' COMPENSATION POOL
1. What is included in the development of the premium?
The premium development is comprised of several factors:
a. Pure premium. This is the rate per $100 of payroll for each
workers' compensation (WC) classification determined by the
actuary to pay for expected losses.
b. Administrative Premium. This is the amount paid by each
member for the administrative costs of the program. These
costs include: general administration of the pool; claims
administration of all claims for all members; actuarial costs;
audit costs; loss protection costs; and allocated loss adjustment
expenses (attorneys, investigation, etc.).
C. Excess Insurance Premium. This is the amount paid for the
purpose of excess insurance over the self- funded layer to a limit
of coverage of $5,000,000 each occurrence.
d. Adjustment Premium. This is the amount to be calculated
annually as a retrospective adjustment of actual loss reserves to
actual losses. This amount may be a credit of up to 25% or a debit
to 75 %. _ -
e. Special Assessment. This is an amount calculated when pure
premium and the retrospective adjustment are not sufficient to
provide for loss payments.
2. What are the advantages of the program?
The self- insured program will provide several advantages to prospective
members. Included are:
a. Joint purchase of services such as loss control, claims
administration and actuarial studies. On a group basis these
essential services are much more affordable, and the individual
member will have a greater selection of potential service
providers, since the pool will have greater earnings.
b. Reduction in the overall cost of standard claims through
aggressive claims management. The members will benefit,
since their own claim administrator specializes in public entities,
the State Fund. Also, since the members will handle their
,unlike
own claims administration through the self- insured fund, they can
guarantee that the claims -to- adjuster ratio is maintained at
a reasonable level. The State Fund has a tendency to overload
inexperienced adjusters, which can have an adverse effect on
claims handling.
C. Promotion of awareness of risk management and loss control
as tools to reduce the ultimate cost of risks.
d. Avoidance of the extremes of the standard insurance market. The
premiums charged will be based on the members' experience, not
that of the entire state.
e. Sharing of large loss costs, thus enabling members to defray a
portion of their own severe loss costs, rather than forcing them to
deplete reserves for truly fortuitous losses.
f. Moderate pool experience will produce a surplus reserve fund. The
primary purpose of the fund will be to help defray the cost of
large future losses. As a result, this will help to keep premium
levels from sudden increases.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO BECOME SELF - INSURED FOR WORKERS
COMPENSATION LIABILITIES AND TO ENTER INTO A JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT TO FORM THE ABAG WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE POOL
WHEREAS, the City has studied the feasibility of increased
benefit to the City through improved claims management by
becoming self- insured for workers compensation liabilities and by
entering into a Joint Powers Agreement with the Association of
Bay Area Governments,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that
1. The City of Saratoga is authorized to become self -
insured for workers' compensation liabilities
2. The City Manager is authorized to act for the City of
Saratoga in this regard
3. The City of Saratoga is. authorized to enter into a
Joint Powers Agreement with ABAG and other agencies
to form a self- insured workers compensation insurance
pool.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Saratoga held on the 19th day of October, 1988, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
c�, ►�
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. � AGENDA ITEM
•MEETING DATE: 10 -19-88 .4
CITY MGR. APPR VAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: -IlHEERII��G
t4,,,,d.
SUBJECTS FIB' MP APPRC'IAL FOR SDR 1470 '
PARK DRIVE, RAISA KOC HER
Recommended Motion:
tion_ ,
Ak=ve Resolution 1470 -04, attached approving Final. Map for SDR 1470.
Report Summary:
1. SDR 1470 is ready for Final Map Approval.
2. All requikements for Final Mep are approved
3. All fees have been paid.
• Fiscal• Impacts :
Attachments:
1. Resolutions No. 1470 -04..
2. Resolution approving Tentative Map.
3. •Loaatien Map.
Moti�h DAf pyrov,,msnt Agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 1470 -04 -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Raisa Kocher
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1:
The 0.586 Acre and 0.519 Acre Parcels shown as A and B on Final
Parcel Map prepared by Westfall Engineers and submitted to the City of
Saratoga, be approved as two (2) individual building sites.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and
passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the
day of 19 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
r
MAYOR
1
Building Site Approval
�ile No. SO- 1470 \.
RESOLUTION NO.SDR-1470 -2
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH
TO COMPLETE REQUIREMENTS OF BUILDING SITE APPROVAL
APN 510 -1 -12, 517 -22 -37
WHEREAS, a Building Site Approval for George and Raise Kocher for 2
lots has been filed with the Planning Department of the City of Saratoga;
and
WHEREAS, the construction requirements and conditions set forth as
Exhibit A attached hereto must be fulfilled as set forth in the attached
Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that
I. ' The proposed Building Site Approval, together with the provisions
for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan of the
City of Saratoga;
2. The Planning Commission grants an extension of time to SO -1470,
Kocher, for 12 months in which to complete the conditions listed in Exhibit
A; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga hereby expressly finds that the fulfillment of said construction
requirements and conditions are necessary for reasons of public health and
safety and as a prerequisite to the orderly development of the area
surrounding the property referred to herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State
of California, this 14th day of January, 1987, by the following roll call
vote: f
AYES: Burger, 'Guch, Harris, Pines, Siegfried, Tucker
NOES:
ABSENT: Callans\
ATTEST: Chairman, Planning Comniasi n
aeeUetary, Planning Commis�i.n
A:SDR -1470
0 EXHIBIT A r
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, includ
without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or Parcel Ma payment
storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinane ineff
at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and compliance with applicable health Department regulations- and app
cable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Referee,
is hereby made to Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way exc�
compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other excl
Hance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the followin5
Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section
23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
A. Done.
B.
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval.
B. Submit "Parcel Map° to City for checking and recordation
and recordation fees) (If parcel is shown on existing mapaof
three (3) to
-scale prints). record submitni
C. Done (See Parcel Map) ,
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication"
D. See Parcel Map.
to provide for a 30 ft. half -street
on Piedmont Rd. and Park Drive.
D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication "_ to provide easement as r'evuired�_
E. Improve Piedmont Rd.
and Park Dr. to City Standards, including the following:
(Deferred Improvement Agreement)
1. thru 4 — see Deferred
Improvement Agreement.
1. Designed Structural Section 26 ft. between centerline and f lowline
O.I.A.
2. Asphalt Concrete Berm on Park Or. D.I.A.
3. P.C. Concrete Curb and Gutter (V -24) Piedmont
on Rd. D.I.A.
4. Undergrounding existing overhead
utilities. D.I.A.
F. Construct Standard Driveway Approach. D.I.A.
G. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft.
wide at street paving. Use double seal
6 in. aggregate base.
coat oil and screenings or better on
N. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as
approved by the Director of Public Works.
I. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required
at driveway and access road intersections.
J. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
flow.
k. & —with building
retard or prevent
K. Obtain Encroachment Permit
permit.
from the Santa Clara Valley Water District
to be done within the Water District's right -of -way, for work
L. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Department of Public Works for driveway
approaches or pipe crossings of City Street.
- -- --- -- -_..
M. thru 0. — See Deferred M. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: D.I.A.
Improvement Agreement. 1. Street Improvements D.I.A.
2. Storm Drain Construction D.I.A.
N. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. p
0. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required improvements m
"D.I.A."
- - -- - �•� ..���u.�au�.a - uiviSIUN OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. 6eotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional in accordance
with letter from Nilliam Cotton Assoc., dated November 10, 1983 prior to
With Building Permit. issuance of building permits.
8. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts. fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and
proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
Z: Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.)
Provide private drainage easements to Parcel °A ",
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 ft
or higher.
4. Erosion control measures.
5. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data,
��- location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY SANITATION DIST. NO. 4
A. With Building Permit. A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements
Of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated August 18, 1980.
B. See Parcel Map.
B. Provide easements for building sewers from Parcel 8 for Parcel A in accordant
with letter dated August 18, 1980.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one -foot shoulders using double
seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base from public str
or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 12ht wit
out adhering to the following:
1. Driveways having slopes between 12�% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2v," of
A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base.
With Building . Driveways g Permit . I with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted.
3. All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic
loading.
B. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling site having a 32 foot inside
radius. Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of the Fire
Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
C. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 421feet.
I
.. J
D. Provide a parking area for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed building site.- -
or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
E. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire pro- With Building
tection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants.. permit.
F. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site.
Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
G. Developer to installe1 hydrant that meets Saratoga Fire District's specifica-
tions. Hydrant to be installed and accepted prior to issuance of building
permits.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by
the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation Dist. No. 4.
for Parcels A and B. 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.
C. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled in accordance with County C. Done.
Standards. A $400.00 bond is to be posted to ensure completion of this work.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. If a storm drain outfall into the creek is necessary, it must be designed to -- --r
minimize number of future outfalls necessary. Furnish all outfall structure
details for review and issuance of permit prior to Final Approval.
B. Dedicate right -of -way along entire creek frontage, to Santa Clara Valley Water
District per letter and map dated September 3, 1980.
C. All grading adjacent to the Santa Clara Valley Water District right -of -way to be
done in accordance with sheets 20 -208 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 Santa Clara Valley Water District
for review and permit issuance prior to construction. Utility crossings to be i With Building
designed in accord with Santa Clara Valley Water District Sheets 21 and 22 and ; permit.
sewer lines within 15 feet of creek section to be steel or cast iron.
D. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval,.submit plans showing the location i
and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara Valley Water District
for review and certification.
E. Road crossings to be designed so as not to obstruct flood flows.
F. First floor of house adjacent to floodplain to be at least 2' above the natural
ground elevation at the fl oodplain limit shown. I
6. Any utility crossings of creek to be make with ductile iron pipe or equivalent {
and the top of pipe to be at least 4' below existing creek bottom.
* H. Any modificatiors to the creek channel are to be reviewed and approved by staff
in order to keep the riparian area as natural as possible. --
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits.
- iA-n n
B. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning
Commission approval.
C. Prior to issuance of building permits, 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 the building site.
IX. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances.
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted
Signature of Applicant Date
SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TRACT NO
Storm Drain Fees
Park & Recreation Fees
Plan Check & Inspection Fees
Final Map Check Fees
SDR No. 1470
$2,200.00
$2,600.00
$ 200.00
$ 300.00
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SDR- 1470.3 15139 Park Dr.
Request for an Extension of Time Kocher
1 Tom'
1517 -21 -Od '; `T 3'17 -18 -48
tolo5 "" CO)
517-21-0! . J993S 1 a �7
7.00 /7 �317-2t•09 /91q 47
bl7- 21 -07
g17•tl ��
MENDELSOHN LN. - Ci N�
i0o 5 702 7(, 114 /V 1989E !9870
Z- 99 19215 C61 Cs)
• !17•lt 910 -e1 -ol
51o0Z!- e/oe 1- gtoeo*1-
rSo�►
C'u C8) M (4) CID 910 -a -oss
517-22 -15 /5CSI JSOSZ 13111 15077 1'5°83 15049 15056
SIT-CZ- 510 -01- 910 -0+- g10 -o(-
36 10 09 08 07 0
Q
PARK DR- �z,J
15oq 1 O (n) It
917- cL -1f. =l t 1 7 (17) (4) C2r (21,
Q
l�10o ISo70 1656f.0 1-050 510-01 -23
917- - 1-
37 510-o1- 510-01- 510-01-
710 - 01.-19
20 Z! 22 2L
G
1514 Cls,lb 310 -01 -24
150 So
7 310 -o� -IB 2y
II
cis) 510 -01- 25
15166 (A) CS)
'517 -2t -gs 5177 151(.1 19971 (141 (so) C23)
C24
1°-e1 510 -ot- 510 -01-17 19897 19875 14853
4 45 510-01- 510 -01- 510 -pt- 's10 -o /-26
2°1 2b 2
su4ecr 123ACEL PAR 00.
1
!6) 19920 Ig89` 19874 It852 15185
151 S I `'1 ° -°I�SS e1o_ol. Slo -01-32 510-01 -
5to -o - X10 -01.31 n
15168
910-52-tL •
I SO C7J
-it•93 1 5 2 11
wo
DEFERRED It•trncYv mL:N'r AMMUIPNT ny owmm OR HIS
SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO CONSTRUCT LAND
DEVELOI'MENT IMPROVF: ?LENTS
Project identification: J f P f 7G
This agreement between the CITY OF SARATOGA, hereinafter referred
to as CITY, and /r4.i S � /k' 17C- I-
hereinafter referred to as "Owner"
WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property described in Exhibit
"A" but wishes to defer construction of permanent improvements beyond the
time limits otherwise required and City agrees to such deferment provided
Owner agrees to construct improvements as herein provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
I. AGREEMENT BINDING ON SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST
This agreement is an instrument affecting the title and posses-
sion of the real property described in Exhibit "A ". All the terms, cove-
nants and conditions herein imposed shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the successors in interest of Owner. Upon any sale or division
of the property described in Exhibit "A ", the terms of this agreement shall
apply separately to each parcel and the owner of each parcel sh�ll succeed
to the obligations imposed on Owner by this agreement.
II. STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
A. City and Owner agree that the improvements set forth in this
section may be deferred because:
The public interest is served by having all inprovements along
Park Drive & Piedmont Road done at one time, that time to be detexmined
—in the future.
B. Owner agrees to construct the following improvements on the pro-
perty described in Exhibit "A" as well as required off site improvements in
the manner set forth in this agreement:
Improvements required by City Department of Public Works are gen-
erally described on Exhibit "H ". (Cross out improvements. that arc not re-
quired.)
1. Curb and gutter
2. Sidewalks
3. Driveways
4. Street grading, base and
paving
5. Storm drainage facilities
6. Erosion control plantings
and facilities
8. UndcrFround conduit with
wi.•ing and pull boxes
9. Barricades and other improve-
ments needed for traffic safety
10. Street trees and ocher improve-
ments between curb and property
11. Relocation of existing fences,
signs and utilities
12. Payment of a pro rata share of
the costs as determined by the
Dept. of Public Works of a st.orm
drainage or street improvement
which has been, or is to be,
provided by others or jointly
provided by owner and others
where such facility benefits the
property described in Exhibit "A"
a
C. lawn Lhr: D rcct.ur of P%'III is Works d,Ler:nLnL•:7 Lhat L c re,t:;o,Is
for the deferment of Lhe improvements as set forth in Section II no lonl;rr
exist, he shall noLLfy Owner in writing to commence Lheir installation and
construcLion. The.notice•shall IM mailcd.to the current owner or &-whers
of tlic land as Shown on Lhe latest adopted county assessment roll. The
noLi:e shall describe the work to be done by owners, the time within whicl:
the work shall commence, and_Lhe time within which it shall be completed.
All or any portion of said improvements may be required at a specified
time. Each 0wner shall participate on a pro rata basis in the cost of the
improvements to be installed. If Owner is obligated to pay a pro rata
share of a cost of a facility provided by others, the notice shall include
the amount m be paid and the time when payment must be made.
III. PEUOIL`WNCE• OF TIIE WORK
Owner agrees to perform the work and make the payments required by
City as set fo -th herein or as modified by the City Council. Owner shall
cause plans a;d specifications for the improvements to be prepared by com-
petent persons legally:.qualified to do the work and to submit said improve
alent plans and specifications Tor approval prior to commencement of the
work described in the notice, and to pay City inspection fees. 'The work
shall be done in accordance with City standards in effect at the time the
improvement plans are submitted for approval. .Owner agrees to corrnence
and complete the work within the time specified in the notice given by the
Director Of Public Wprks and to notify the City at least 48 hours prior to
start of work. In the event Owner fails to construct any improvements re-
costs under this agreement. City may, at its option do the work and colle
all the costs from Owner, which costs 'shall be a lien on all. the property
described in Exhibit "A" hereof, Permission to enter onto the property
of the Oacner is granted to City or its contractor as may be necessary to
construct such improvements.
IV. J0I14T C0OPERA'1•IVE PLAN
Owner agrees to cooperate *upon notice.by City with other property
owners, the City and other public agencies to provide the I=provements
set forth herein under a joint cooperative plan including the formation
of a local improvement district, if this method is feasible to secure the
installation and construction of the improvements.
V RF-VIE14 OF REOUIREMENTS
If disagrees to comnene0e installation oft improvement sehenshall, within i30adaysoofcthe.
date the notice was mailed, request a review of the requirements by the
City Council. The decision of this Council shall be binding upon both
the City and the Owner.
VI MA111TENANCF. OF IMPROVEMENTS
City agrees to accept for maintenance those improvements specified
in Section II which are constructed and completed in.Ilaccordance with City
standards and requirements and arc installed within rights -of -way or ease -
mcnLs dedicated and accepted by resolution of the City, after the expira-
tion of one year frorn date of satisfactory completion, Owner to maintain +
said improvements at 06mer's sole cost and expense at all times prior to I
such acceptance by City.
0^ncr n rces to provide any necessary temporary drainage facilities,
access road or other required improvements, to assume responsibility for
the proper fuzctioninG thereof, to submit plans to the appropriate City
aCcncy for review, if required, and to maintain said improvements and
facilities in a manner which will preclude any hazard to life or health
or damage to adjoining property,
i
II
1
r t..
VII. BONDS
Prior to approval of improvement plans by the City, Owner may be
required to execute and deliver to City a faithful perforinarice bond and
.a labor and materials bond in an amount and form acceptable%to City,.to
be released by City Council in whole or in part upon completion of Lhe
work required and payment of all persons furnishing labor and materials
it, the perfornance of the work.
VIII. INSURANCE
Owner shall maintain or shall require any contractor engaged to
perform the work to maintain, at all times during.the performance of the
work called for herein, a separate policy of insurance in a form and
amount acceptable to City.
IX. INDEMNITY
The Owner shall assume the defense and indemnify and save harmless
the City, its officers, agents and employees, from every expense, liability
or payment by reason of injury, including death, to persons, or damage to ,
property suffered through any act or omission, including passive negligence
or act of negligence, or both, of the Owner, his employees, agents, con-
tractors, subcontractors, or his employees, agents, contractors, subcontrac-
tors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them, or
• arising in any way from the work called for by this agreement, or any part
of the premises, including those matters arising out of the deferment of
permanent drainage facilities or the adequacy, safety, use or non -use of
temporary drainage facilities, the performance or non- performanc' of the
work.
IN WITNESS [WHEREOF, City has executed this agreement as of
CITY OF SARATOGA
MAYOR
IN 14ITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this agreement as of
Owner
STATE Of CALIFORNIA
cuunty u'[Y L
19 before site,
+,Votary Public,
in and for said State, personally appeared
proved to site sin the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be rite person_ whine name �L subscribed to rite within itutm-
ment, and acknowledged to me tltatShe_ <xecutcd the same. KAL
'LS
°�yWICI N
I A. _-- LIGCAUFOQNtA
SANTA CLARA COtl(TY
lry OrY1. EX7.!WY 10, 1991
NMAKY 11L)MAC
r
'EI3IT °
RC%D `VD - +RR DRIV T_r �rry ;T. . „� •3
Designed .tructural Fection 26 Ft. between centerline
=nd clowlina.
2) 'sp`.slt concrete Bern on 's-k Drive.
3) '.C. concrete curb and nutter. (V -24) on "iedmont 2d.
Un der round existing over'ead utilities.
”) Construct Morn dri.in.
Y
EXHIBIT "A"
That certain property situated in the City of Saratoga, County of
Santa Clara, State of California, more particularly described as
follows:
The Parcel A and B shown on Parcel Map prepared by Westfall Engineers
and recorded in Book of Maps at Pages in the
County of Santa Clara.
EXHIBIT "B"
Improve Piedmont Road and Park Drive to City standard as follows:
1) Designed structural section 26 ft. between centerline and flowline.
2) Asphalt concrete berm on Park Drive.
3) A.C. concrete curt and gutter (V -24) on Piedmont Rd.
4) Underground existing overhead utilities.
5) Construct storm drain.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: 10/19/88
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning
AGENDA ITEM: 7r;
CITY MGR. APPROVA I '-WP I'
SUBJECT: Article 15 -45, Administrative Design Review Procedure
Recommended Motion: Set the filing fee for administrative review of
projects at $100.00 by adopting Resolution 2383.4.
Report Summary: On September 28, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed the
year's operation of the administrative review procedure for residences han-
dled through the staff. As shown on the chart in the staff report, eighteen
(18) total permits were processed; five (5) were modified and one (1) was
referred to the Commission for final determination.
The Commission felt that the process was working satisfactorily and adopted
Resolution PC -88 -004, proposing a $100 filing fee to defray the costs of
processing the application.
Fiscal Impacts: $2,000 + /year based upon 20 applications @ $100 each.
Attachments: 1. Memo to City Council
2. Resolution PC -88 -004
3. Planning Commission minutes dated September 28, 1988
4. Resolution 2383.4
M_+-4— .-A K7nto.
0919'f o 0&MZ19QX5&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE: 10/19/88
FROM: Kathryn Caldwell, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Article 15 -45 - Administrative Design Review Procedure
Background
The Design Review Ordinance (Article 15 -45) was revised and adopted
by the City Council in October, 1987, and became effective on
November 9, 1987. Under the new Design Review Ordinance, some of
the design review applications that previously were reviewed by the
Planning Commission are now reviewed administratively by staff. As
a result, a new procedure was designed to handle those particular
applications. The purpose of this memo is to give a summary of how
the new procedure is operating, as requested by the City Council, to
determine if any changes in the procedure should be recommended at
this time.
The administrative review procedure is used for projects that would
have been reviewed by the Planning Commission under the old Design
Review Ordinance. This includes the following:
1) New single -story residences;
2) New two -story structures on flat or infill lots;
3) Accessory structures on double frontage lots;
4) Major additions in size, defined as a 100 sq. ft. or greater
addition to the second story of a multi -story main or accessory
structure.
The current administrative procedure used in the review of these
applications is as follows:
1) Application submitted (no filing fee). In addition to the
standard application materials, applicant is required to submit
two (2) sets of stamped, addressed envelopes for mailing notices
to the ten (10) closest neighboring properties and seven (7)
Saratoga Planning Commissioners.
1
Memo to City Council
Re: Administrative Design Review Procedure
2) Staff reviews application.
3) If application can be approved by staff, a "Notice of Intent to
Approve" will be mailed to the ten neighboring property owners
and seven Commissioners. All concerned parties will have ten
(10) days in which to review the application.
4) If there are no objections by the applicant, other property
owners, or Planning Commissioners, the application is approved.
If there are objections but the differences of opinion can be
worked out to the satisfaction of all those involved, then the
application can also be approved. After the application is
approved, staff will mail out the second set of seventeen (17)
envelopes to notify concerned parties of the approval and to
initiate the required 10 -day appeal period. If there are no
appeals, the applicant submits plans for zoning clearance and
building permit approval.
5) If there are objections to the project and the differences of
opinion cannot be resolved, the application is scheduled for
Planning Commission review and the applicant is required to
file a standard design review application and go through the
Planning Commission public hearing process. If both staff and
the applicant agree that the project can be approved but a
neighbor or Commissioner still has concerns, then the objector
is required to file an appeal after staff approves the
application; the appeal fee is $50.00 and the application is
scheduled for Planning Commission review as an appeal to staff's
administrative decision. Planning Commissioners are exempted
from the $50.00 appeal fee.
Attached is a flow chart diagram summarizing the current design
review Drocessina procedures.
Staff Analysis
The chart attached summarizes how the administrative review process
has operated during the time that it has been in effect. As you can
see, over the past 9 months, a total of 18 applications have been
approved through the administrative design review procedure. Of
these, 12 projects were approved as originally submitted, while 5
required modification of some sort before eventually being approved.
Requests for modification came from staff, Commissioners and
neighbors, as noted, and changes made to plans included reduction in
height (2), relocation of windows (1), reduction in size (1), and
relocation of structure to save a tree (1). As noted, only one
application was referred to the Planning Commission for a decision,
since staff, the applicant and the neighbor in question were unable
to reach a mutually agreeable solution. The Planning Commission
subsequently approved the project as originally submitted.
2
Memo to City Council
Re: Administrative Design Review Procedure
Overall, it appears that the administrative procedure is working
effectively and efficiently. For most projects (12 of 18), staff
has been able to approve the plans as submitted. In these cases,
the plans complied with code requirements, and the neighbors
notified were satisfied with the project (or at least declined to
comment). This process takes about 3 weeks to a month, compared to
the current 3 -month processing period for standard design review by
the Planning Commission. The two 10 -day initial public review and
appeal periods account for most of the 3 -week processing time. The
procedure takes a week or two longer if some sort of modification is
required. Staff time during this period is spent on actual review
of the project for code compliance, assisting the applicant in
establishing the mailing list, preparing and sending the notices,
and follow -up. As such, the Planning Commission recommended that a
fee of $100 be established to compensate the City for the staff time
required to process the application.
It should also be noted that since the administrative process has a
faster turn around time, applicants may design their projects to be
eligible for administrative rather than standard design review. For
example, the developers of a new lot on Sobey Road recently chose to
go with a low one -story design for the home which would be reviewed
administratively to save time, rather than go to the Commission with
a two -story design. This accomplishes two things: 1) it reduces the
Planning Commission's workload, and 2) it encourages low profile
single -story homes in lieu of bulkier two -story designs.
Recommendation
Adopt a $100.00 processing
projects.
K thr�in Caldwell
Associate Planner
fee for administrative review of
Attachments: 1. Design Review Procedures Flowchart
2. Administrative Design -'Review Summary,
3. Resolution PC -88 -004
KC /lw /dsc
3
AppL444-no1J
F1 Lg d AND
MEr y or-
�tz.ocess�NC�
D�1E�tr FEED
d
I
DE516M REVIEW FF- CCECuPLEs f=L4DVJC- +AV-r-
��,�tl�� Zo�aE
l■� _ate, _
PP -OJECI is exem
t1wDIIRD X16,
W I E W PRocET:'uus
R-EV I C-W
RE
40BJIaG1 Coy i -4l5ED
IssuES Respumm
CojaeulDlsS RAISED
I%UUS NOT RMOLVED
i
8El -aIN ZEE
GI.EA�ANC,E
fi�oCeA,t tz.E
Ge6la Zops
'PRac,eDUeE
APFuG4NT 1=o1 ow-4
STA OD4R.D OrouG7t.1
R>c"VIEW FPZCZDUR-E
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 1987 - AUGUST 1988
Approved Approved Referred to Total
Projects As After Planning Number Comments
Submitted Modification Commission Submitted
(see comments)
New one -story home 6
New two -story home on
flat or infill lot 2
N
8 1 modified at staff's
request
1 modified at Commis-
sioner's request
1_ 3 Modified at neighbor's
request
Addition to second
story exceeding 4 2 1
100 sq. ft.
Total Number
Approved 12 5
1
18
2 modified at neighbor's
7 request
RESOLUTION NO. PC -88 -004
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADOPTING PROCEDURES
FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE
(ARTICLE 15 -45)
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga adopted a new Design Review Ordi-
nance in October, 1987 establishing procedures for review of single
family dwellings and accessory structures in residential
districts, and;
WHEREAS, the Ordinance requires staff administrative process be
set forth to implement the Ordinance and is described in the
attached Exhibit A, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga requested an evaluation of the
sufficiency of the new design procedures after six months,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby confirm that the process described in the attached Exhibit A
implements the requirements of the Design Review Ordinance and shall
continue to be followed.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 28th day of September, 1988 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Burger, Harris, Kolstad, Siegfried, Tucker, Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Guch
X 1 �
Chairman, lblaAfrin g ssion
ATTEST:
'Secret #y Planning Commission
4
EXHIBIT A
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
PROCEDURE
With the new design review ordinance, some of the design review
applications that previously were reviewed by the Planning
Commission will now be reviewed administratively by staff. As a
result, a new processing procedure has been designed to handle those
particular applications. There will now be three processing
procedures, each covering certain types of projects, as outlined
below.
1. Exemption - Construction projects that do not fall into either
the Planning Commission public hearing or administrative review
procedure are exempt from the design review process. These
projects typically fall into the category of minor additions,
some accessory structures, swimming pools, tennis courts and the
like. No public notice is required and building permits can be
issued after zoning clearance is given by the Planning
Department. Zoning clearance is the term used for Planning
Staff review and approval of construction plans for compliance
with zoning regulations prior to the issuance of building
permits.
2. Standard design review procedure - Projects that are required to
go through the standard design review procedure before the
Planning Commission are as follows:
a) Two -story structures on hillside lots (10$) slope or
greater);
b) Conversion of one -story structure to two -story structure;
c) When design review is required by subdivision or other
planning - related approvals;
d) Main structures on lots of less than 5,000 sq. ft. in area;
e) Structures that exceed 6,000 sq. ft. in floor area;
f) Structures that exceed the allowable floor area and the site
abuts dedicated private open space;
g) Referral by Planning Director.
3. Administrative review procedure - Projects that are required to
go through the staff administrative review procedure are as
follows:
a) New single -story residences; 18' or less in height.
b) New two -story structures on flat or infill lots;
c) Accessory structures on double frontage lots;
5
d) Major additions in size, defined as a 100 sq. ft. or greater
addition to the second story of a multi -story main or
accessory structure.
The procedure allows for notifying neighboring properties and will
be as follows:
1. Application submitted ($100 filing fee). In addition to the
standard application materials, applicant will be required to
submit two (2) sets of stamped, addressed envelopes for mailing
notices to the ten (10) closest neighboring properties as
determined by the Planning Department and seven (7) Saratoga
Planning Commissioners.
2. Staff reviews application.
3. If application can be approved by staff, a "Notice of Intent to
to Approve" will be mailed to the ten neighboring property
owners and seven Commissioners. All concerned parties will have
ten (10) days in which to review the application.
4. If there are no objections by the applicant, other property
owners, or Planning Commissioners, the application can be
approved. - If there are objections but the differences of
opinion can be worked out to the satisfaction of all those
involved, then the application can also be approved. After the
application is approved, staff will mail out the second set of
seventeen (17) envelopes to notify concerned parties of the
approval and to initiate the required 10 -day appeal period. If
there are no appeals, the applicant can submit plans for zoning
clearance and building permit approval.
5. If there are objections to the project and the differences of
opinion cannot be resolved, then the applicant will be required
to file a standard design review application and go through the
Planning Commission public hearing process. If both staff and
the applicant agree that the project can be approved but a
neighbor or Commissioner still has concerns, then the objector
will be required to file an appeal after staff approves the
application; the appeal fee will be $50.00 and the application
will be scheduled for Planning Commission review as an appeal to
staff's administrative decision. Planning Commissioners are
,exempted from the $50.00 appeal fee.
A: DRProcess
N.
loor
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
mission, Burger continued as follows:
that a response had not been made to the Commissio/1kind uest for underground pa ing
and ed that parking be adjacent to the apartment area to rhe walking distance
- Asked t up to two acres be provided for flower and vegeardens
Sugges osideration of anon- sectarian chapel on the gr
Commissioner Tu er commented as follows:
Asked that additi l open space be provided and was favor a garde rea Questioned mainten ce of the rear property area a nd sugge pro' maintain this area Concurred that inn to street widths existed, causing car p on the sidewalk area
Felt the proposed staf a loyee parking allotment of 45 sp d be inadequate Asked that the Applicant e a contract with a life care orion prior to development; she
was concerned regarding the 'ect if such an agreement w secured
Commissioner Tappan commented as Ilows:
- Concurred that the name proposed inappro
former use of the site by Paul Masson eery or
Was unfavorable to the architectural traditional and contemporary elements
. Objected to the differentiated color of t al
Noted the critical role of landscapin n the pry
favorable to the meandering walk g Saratoga
f and asked that the project be tied to the
of the mural artist's name
;ed and cited an incongruous mixture of
from a safety point of view
.t to mitigate noise and pollution; he was
Commissioner Kolstad concurrS&Owith the above comments d added:
- Asked that the name of the oject be easily pronounced
- Noted concern regardi a density proposed
Suggested removal o e rear yard fencing to create a greater fee ' of open space
- Was not favorabl the colored sidewalks proposed
- Asked for si ' cant increase in parking proposed; he was reluctant grant any variance for
parking re I ' meats
Vice Ch ' rson Siegfried was greatly concerned regarding the density of this ed use project;
due to a size of the townhouse units and number of bedrooms proposed, the p 'ect would be
ve ease. Such could be addressed by increasing the open space and reducing t number of
is. He felt that parking may be adequate if the density were reduced.
HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE PC- 88-003 TO OCTOBER 12. 1988.
MIS _ LLAN O r :
Article 15-45 - Design Review Ordinance - Assessment of Administrative Review Process.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Memorandum of September 28, 1988.
The Chair recognized the following speaker.
Mr. Rich Crowley, Vice President, Building Industry Association, noted the Association's letter of
August 18, 1988. He cited examples of the lengthy design review process and provided examples,
suggesting a study session be held to resolve any difficulties. He agreed that concerns raised were
not with the Administrative Review Process under consideration.
The City Attorney noted the following changes to the Model Resolution:
First paragraph, amended to read in part, "...residential districts..."
- Exhibit A. 2., Standard design review procedure c) to read, "...planning- related approvals..."
- Procedures for notifying neighboring properties:
1. Insert, "... cknot neighboring properties as determined by the Planning Department..."
5. Amended to read, "ff there are objections to the project and the differences of opinion cannot
be resolved, the applicant will be required to file a design review application..."
BURGERMARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PC4% -004 ADOPTING PRO-
CEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE. (ARTICLE
15-45) AS AMENDED. Passed 6-0.
i
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. .SSw� --
MEETING DATE: October 19, 1988
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
AGENDA ITEM �"�✓
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Contract with Project Match for 1988/89 CDBG Funding
Recommended Motion:
Authorize Mayor to sign contract.
Report Summary:
In January, the Council allocated $1850 in 1988/89 Community
Development Block Grant funding to Project Match, a non - profit
agency which brings together low income seniors desiring shared
housing. Subsequently, Project Match suffered a major setback
which has impacted the agency's ability to meet some of their
goals for this fiscal year. However, Project Match has re-
affirmed that they will be able to meet the goal of 10 matches
for Saratoga residents.
The contract which the City executes each year with each Block
Grant sub - grantee is very specific as to the type of reporting
and documentation required to insure that an agency is performing
at an acceptable level. Each agency is monitored quarterly for
compliance with the Federal HCDA and the Urban County require-
ments, as well as for their efforts in meeting stated goals.
The staff recommendation is that the Council authorize the Mayor
to sign the attached agreement, confirming the previously allocated
funding for this fiscal year.
Fiscal Impacts:
The $1850 allocation is authorized in the 88/89 budget.
Attachments:
1. Agreement between City of Saratoga and Project Match
2. September 15, 1988 letter from HCDA Coordinator
3. August 18, 1988 letter from Project Match Executive Director
of �
� O
Il9) g0 ^ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • S, \RATOG, \, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
September 15, 1988 Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
Arlyne June
Executive Director
Project Match
1671 Park Avenue, Room 21
San Jose, CA 95126
Dear Arlyne:
Thank you for your letter of August 18 re- affirming your 1988/89
goal of 10 matches for Saratoga residents.
I am enclosing two copies of the contract which we will need to
complete before we can begin to make payments of the $1850 CDBG
grant which has been allocated to Project Match for 88/89.
The contract form is a standard one and some areas of it are not
applicable to the type of program you provide. Also, you may
disregard the reference to Exhibits A, B, and C as they were
completed as part of your proposal for funds.
Please note the quarterly reporting requirements outlined in
Section III.B on page two of the contract. Timely receipt of
these reports is essential for our program monitoring.
We will need two signed copies of the contract and
fully executed agreement for your files. We
disburse the funds in quarterly payments upon
signed contract and a written request for payment.
Sincer y,
Carolyn King
Administrative Assistant
Enclosures (2)
will return a
can begin to
receiving the
r".
ff9atchinc, JECT
1671 Park Ave., Rm. 21 San Jose, CA 95126 (408) 287 -7121
Shared Housing • Home Equity Conversion • Senior Group Residence
August 18'1988
Carolyn King
Dept of Housing and Community Development
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga
California 95070
Dear Carolyn,
As I am sure that you know by now, Project Match has been
the victim of a series of tragic events. I am happy to tell
you that I have finally been able to return to my job after
almost four months of recuperation.
Throughout all of this, the agency has been fortunate to
have a commited Board of Directors, a loyal staff and a
great Interim Director, all of whom worked together to
strengthen the agency and begin the repair process.
You recently received.an August 4 letter from Charlie
Chew at the County along with.an attachment from our Interim
Director, Malcom White. This correspondence spells out the
problems in more detail and proposes some solutions.
In some jurisdictions, we have been forced to reduce
our goals from those proposed in our funding applications.
We are now in the process of negotiating with these areas
and are finding a very sympathetic adn supportive audience.
I am very very happy to tell you that for the City of
Saratoga we are not requesting any goal reduction. We
intend to keep our original goal of matching ten residents
of your City.
It is good to be able to report good news to you. If
you have any questions, please call me.
Sinc y,
Le
Ar yne j une
Funded in part by the State of California, the cities of San Jose and Los Altos, and the Community Development Block
Grant programs of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Mountain View, and the Urban County of Santa Clara including the unincor-
A United My Agency porated areas and the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill and-Saratoga.
.a
' r
AGREEMENT dd
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on
by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a political subdivision
of the State of California (hereinafter "CITY" ), and
PROJECT MATCH a non - profit
corporation (hereinafter "CORPORATION ").
WHEREAS, CITY has received Community Development Block
Grant (hereinafter 11CDBG11) Entitlement Program funds from'the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter "HUD ") as
an entitlement jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of Title 1
of the.Hpus,ing._and_..Commun,ity Development Act of 1974, as amended;
and,
WHEREAS. CITY has agreed to the use by CORPORATION, as a
subrecipient, of a portion of CITY's CDBG entitlement for a
housing program to be operated within CITY and shall benefit low
and moderate income households;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. VOGRAM
CITY agrees*t(# grant a portion of its CDBG entitlement to
the CORPORATION, as a subrecipient, being the sum of
Qa Thousand Eight Hundrpd Fifty and no /100 - - -"
( ;1,850.00 ) for the purpose of implementing the housing program
(hereinafter "PROGRAM "), as more particularly described in Exhibit
"A" (Proiect Work Plan), Exhibit !'B" (proposed Implementation TIMP
S hedule),,and Exhibit °C" (Budget).
II. TERM
-1-
A. The term
of this Agreement shall
begin
on
_July
1, 1988
and shall terminate
on the
earlier of
_fie 30. 1989
or the date
of the
expenditure of the
total
grant amount
provided for herein, or.upon
the termination
date
established pursuant
to Section V or
Section VII.
-1-
Ill. U13LIGATIONS OF CORPORATION
A. Organization of CORPORATION. CORPORATION shall:
,f r
1) Provide CITY with:
a) Its Articles of Incorporation under the
laws of the State of California;
b) A copy of the current Bylaws of CORPORATION;
c) Documentation of its Internal Revenue
Service non - profit status;
d) Names and addresses of the current Board of
Directors of CORPORATION; and,
e
e) An adopted copy of CORPORATION's personnel
policies and- procedures, and approved affirmative
action plan.
2) Report any changes in CORPORATION's Articles of
Incorporation, Bylaws, Board of Directors, personnel
policies and procedures, affirmative action plan, or tax
exempt status immediately to.PROGRAM MANAGER.
3) Maintain no member of its Board of Directors as a
paid employee, agent or subcontractor under this Agreement.
4) Open to the public all meetings of its Board of
Directors, except meetings, or portions thereof, dealing
with personnel or litigation matters.
5) Keep minutes of all its regular and special
meetings. `
6) Comply with all provisions of California Non -
Profit Corporation Law.
B. Program Performance by CQRPORATION. CORPORATION shall:
1) Conduct.. the PROGRAM within .Santa Clara County, for
the purpose.of benefiting.low and moderate income households.
2) File progress reports with CITY on the type and
number of services rendered through the operation of the
PROGRAM and a description of the beneficiaries of these
services, which reports shall evaluate the manner in which
the PROGRAM is achieving its objectives and goals according
t.o the 'standards established by - CITY. The progress
reports shall be due ten days after the close of each
reporting period and shall cover the three months
immediately preceding the date on which the report is filed.
-2
.� 3) Coordinate its services with other existing
organizations providing similar services in order to foster
community.cooperation and to avoid unnecessary duplication
of services.
4) Seek out and apply for other sources of re(vee nue in
support of its operation or services from local. state,
federal and private sources and, in the event of such award,
inform CITY within ten days.
5) Include an acknowledgement of CITY funding and
support on PROGRAM stationary and on all appropriate
publicity and publications using words to the effect:
"funded in whole or part by the City of Saratoga
through the Housing and Community. Development Act of 1974,
as amended, [month and year of the preparation]."
C. Fiscal Responsibilities of CORPORATION. CORPORATION
shall:
1) Appoint and submit the name of a fiscal agent who
shall be responsible for the financial and accounting
activities- of_CORPORATION. including the receipt and
.disbursement.of CORPORATION funds. The CITY shall
immediately be notified in writing of the appointment of a
new fiscal agent and that agent's name.
2) Establish and maintain an accounting system that
shall be in conformance with generally accepted principles
of accounting. The accounting system shall be subject to
review and approval of CITY.
3) Document all PROGRAM costs by maintaining records
in accordance with Section III, Paragraph D below.
4) Submit to CITY
of the month, at request for
supporting documentation.
by the tenth (10) calendar day
payment, together with all
5) Submit for approval by CITY any lease Agreement
either contemplated or in effect.
6) Certify insurability subject to CITY approval as
outlined in Exhibit •'D ",(Insurance).
7) If applicable, submit an indirect cost plan to
CITY for approval.
.8) 1) through 7) are express conditions precedent to
any CITY funding and failure to comply with these
conditions will, at discretion of CITY result in
suspension of funding,or termination of this Agreement.
9) CORPORATION is liable for repayment of all
disallowed costs. Disallowed costs may be identified
-3-
through audits, monitoring or other sources. CORPORATION
shall be required to respond to.any.adverse findings which
may lead to disallowed costs. The CITY shall make the
final determination of disallowed costs, subject to
provisions of OMB Circular A- 122. "Cost Principles fob r
Non - Profit Organizations.,,
D) Establishment and Maintenance of Records. CORPORATION
shall maintain complete and accurate records of all its
transactions including, but not limited to, contracts, invoices,
time cards, cash receipts, vouchers. cancelled checks, bank
statements, client statistical records, personnel, property and
all other pertinent records sufficient to reflect properly (a) all
direct and indirect costs of whatever nature claimed to have been
incurred or anticipated to be incurred to perform this Agreement
or to operate the PROGRAM, and (b) all other matters covered by
this Agreement.
E) Preservation of Records. CORPORATION shall preserve and
make available its records
l)..until. the expiration of three years from the date
of..final payment to CORPORATION under this Agreement; or
2) for such longer period, if any as is required by
applicable law; or,
3) if this Agreement is completely or partially
terminated, the records relating to the work terminated
shall be preserved and made available for a period of three
years from the date of termination.
F) Examination of Records; Facilities. At any time during
normal business hours, and as often as maybe deemed necessary,
CORPORATION agrees that HUD and the CITY and /or any duly
authorized representatA ves may until expiration of (a) three years
after final payment under this Agreement, (b) three years from the
date of termination of this Agreement, or (c) such longer period
as may be described by applicable law, have access to and the
right to examine its'plants, offices and facilities used in the
performance of this Agreement.or the operation.of the PROGRAM, and
all its records with respect to the.PROGRAM and all matters
covered by this.Agreement. CORPORATION also agrees that CITY or
any,duly authorized representatives shall have the right to audit,
examine. and make excerpts or transactions of and from, such
records and to make audits of all contracts and subcontracts,
invoices, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of
employment, materials and all other data relating to the PROGRAM
and matters covered by this Agreement. CORPORATION will be
notified in advance that an audit will.be conducted. CORPORATION
will be required to respond to any audit findings, and have the
responses included in the final audit report. The cost of any
such audit will be borne by CITY.
G)'Compliance with Law. CORPORATION shall become familiar
-4-
i,
and comply with and cause all its subcontractors and employees, if
any, to become familiar and comply with all applicable federal,
state and local laws, ordinances, codes, regulations and decrees
including, but not limited to, those federal rules and
regulations, executive orders and statutes identified in exhibit
"E" (Assurances.) Specifically, CORPORATION shall comply with the
requirements and standards of OMB Circular No. A -122, "Cost
Principles for Non - Profit Organizations" and the following
attachments to OMB Circular No. A -110:
1) Attachment A. "Cash Depositories," except for
Paragraph 4 concerning deposit insurance;
2) Attachment B, "Bonding and Insurance
3) Attachment C. "Retention and Custodial
Requirements for Records;"
4) Attachment F. "Standards for Financial Management
Systems ; ".
$),Attachment.H,. "Monitoring and Reporting Program
Performance," Paragraph 2;
6) Attachment N, "Property Management Standards,"
except for Paragraph 3 concerning the standards for real
property; and
7) Attachment 0, "Procurement Standards."
IV. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY
A. Method o a vent. During the term of this Agreement,
CITY shall reimbur CORPORATION for all allowable costs and
expenses incurred in connection with the PROGRAM, not to exceed
the total sum of One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty and no /100
Dollars ($ 1,850.00 ),
except that CITY may, at any time in its absolute discretion,
elect to suspend or terminate payment to CORPORATION, in whole or
in part, under this Agreement or not to make any particular
payment under this Agreement based on CORPORATION's
non - compliance, including, but not limited to, incomplete
documentation of expenses, failure to submit adequate progress
reports as required herein or other incidents of non-
compliance as described in Section V. Paragraph B of.this
Agreement or based on the refusal by CORPORATION to accept any
additional conditions that may be imposed by HUD at any time, or
based on the suspension or termination of the grant to CITY * made
pursuant to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended.
B. Advance Payments. CITY may, but is not required to,
make advance payments to CORPORATION before CORPORATION has
-5-
provided services or incurred costs, in such amounts and subject
to such conditions and limitations as CITY in its absolute
discretion, may specify.. No such funds shall be advanced unless
such CDBG funds shall have first been received by CITY from HUD.
Before advances shall be made, CORPORATION must submiT,tsto
CITY � a request for advance funds in a form satisfactory to
CITY specifying in detail the items for which such advance is
requested, the amount of money requested for each item covered in
the request, together with a certification by the CORPORATION that
the items specified in such request are eligible for payment under
this Agreement and in connection with the PROGRAM. Payment to
CORPORATION shall, subject to all of the foregoing limitations and
conditions, be made, provided that CITY determines that the
requested items are eligible for payment under this Agreement and
in connection with the PROGRAM. In makinq such determination,
CITY may rely upon the CORPORATION's certification that the
requested items are eligible.' In no event shall CORPORATION
expend any funds advanced by CITY under this section for any
items except those specified in the request and in the amounts
shown for each item in the request, 'Without- CITY's prior written
approval.
V. CONTRACT COMPLIANCE
A. Monitorina and Evaluation of Services. Evaluation and
monitoring of the PROGRAM performance shall be the mutual
responsibility of both CITY and CORPORATION. CORPORATION shall
furnish all data, statements, records, information and reports
necessary for PROGRAM MANAGER to monitor, review and evaluate the
performance of the PROGRAM and its components. CITY shall have
the right to request the services of an outside agent to assist in
any such evaluation. Such services shall be paid for by CITY .
B. Contract NoncDmDliance. Upon receipt by CITY of any
information that evidences a failure by CORPORATION to comply with
any provision of this Agreement, CITY shall have the right to
require corrective action to enforce compliance with such
provision. 'Areas of.noncompliance include but are not limited to:
1) If CORPORATION (with or without knowledge) shall
have made any material misrepresentation of any nature with
respect to any information or data furnished by CITY in
connection with the PROGRAM.
2) If there is pending litigation with respect to the
performance by CORPORATION of any of its duties or
obligations under this Agreement which may materially
Jeopardize or adversely affect the undertaking of or the
carrying out of the PROGRAM.
3) If CORPORATION shall have taken any action
pertaining to the PROGRAM which requires CITY approval
without having obtained such approval.
-6-
4) If CORPORATION is in default under any provision
of this Agreement.
5) If.CORP'ORATION makes improper use of CITY funds.
it
6) If CORPORATION submits to CITY any report which
is incorrect or incomplete in any material respect.
C. Corrective Action Procedure. CITY in its absolute
discretion and in lieu of immediately terminating this Agreement
upon occurrence or discovery of noncompliance by CORPORATION under
this Agreement, shall have the right to give CORPORATION notice of
CITY intention to consider corrective action to enforce
compliance. Such notice shall indicate the nature of the
non - compliance and the procedure whereby CORPORATION shall have
the opportunity to participate in formulating any corrective
action recommendation. CITY shall have the right to require the
presence of CORPORATION's officer(s) and EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR at any
hearing or meeting called for the purpose of considering correc-
tive action. Thereafter, CITY shall forward to CORPORATION
specific corrective action recommendations and a detailed time-
table for implementing these recommendations; such timetable shall
,...,a,llow,.CORPORATION not less than five (5) nor more than thirty (30)
days.to. comply... Following implementation of the corrective
actions, CORPORATION shall forward to CITY within the time
specified by CITY any documentary evidence required by CITY -
to verify that the corrective actions have been taken.
In the event that CORPORATION does not implement the
corrective action recommendations in accordance with the
corrective action timetable. CITY may suspend payments hereunder
or terminate this Agreement.
D. Termination for Cause. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in the foregoing, CITY may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to CORPORATION, if any of the events
of noncompliance list*d in Section V. Paragraph B occur or are
discovered, if CORPORATION does not implement any recommended
corrective action, if CORPORATION is in bankruptcy or
receivership, if a member of *the CORPORATION's Board of Directors
or the EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR is the subject of investigation for
wrongdoing, or if there is reliable evidence that CORPORATION is
unable to operate the PROGRAM. Termination under this section
shall be effective.on,the. date notice of termination is received
• or such later date as may be,specified in the notice.
I
V.I. PROGRAM COORDINATION
A. CITY. The City Manager shall assign a single
PROGRAM MA WER for CITY who shall render overall supervision of
the progress and performance of this Agreement by CITY . All
services agreed to be performed by CITY shall be under the
overall direction of the PROGRAM MANAGER.
-7-
B. CORPOMTION. &s . of the date hereof, CORPORATION has
designated 9 ti C, to serve as EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR and to sume overall - responsibility for the progress and
execution of this Agreement. The CITY shall.be immediately
notified in writing of the appointment of a new EXECUTIVE DI4&CTOR
and the name of that EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
C. Notices. All notices or other correspondence required or
contemplated by this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the
following addresses:
CITY: City of Saratoga
c/o Carolyn King
Program Manager
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
CORPORATION:
m nd T le of Executive Director
orpor do Name
Address of Corporation
c.e C
Hoke Add,c ss of Executive Director
All notices shall either be hand delivered or sent by United
States mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid. Notices
given in such a manner shall be deemed received when hand
delivered or seventy -two (72) hours after deposit in the United
states mail. Any party may change his or her address for the
purpose of this sectioli by giving five days written notice of such
change to the other party in the manner provided in this section.
VII.: TERMINATION
A. In addition to CITY's right to terminate for cause set
forth in Section V. either CITY or CORPORATION may suspend or
terminate this Agreement for any reason by .giving thirty (30) days
prior written notice to the other party. Upon receipt of such
notice, performance of the services hereunder will be immediately
discontinued.
B. Upon termination, either under this Section VII or
Section V, CORPORATION shall:
1) be paid for all documented services actually
rendered to CITY to the date of such termination;
provided., 'however, CITY* shall be obligated to compensate
-e-
a CORPORATION only for that portion Iof CORPORATION's services
which are allowable costs and expenses as determined by an
audit or other monitoring device;
I
2) turn over to CITY immediately any and alf copies
of studies, reports and other data, whether or not
completed, prepared by CORPORATION or its subcontractors, if
any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials
shall become property of CITY CORPORATION, however,
shall not be liable to CITY'S use of incomplete materials
or for CITY's use of completed documents if used for other
than the services contemplated by this Agreement; and
3) transfer to the CITY any CDBG funds on hand and
any accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG
funds. All assets acquired with CDBG funds shall be
returned to the. CITY,
C. Upon termination of this Agreement, CORPORATION shall
immediately provide CITY access to all documents, records,
payroll, minutes of meetings, correspondence and all other data
per.taining,,,,to ,,t.he, CDBG entitlement fund granted to CORPORATION
pursuant to this,Agreement.
VIII. PURCHASING REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY
A. Title to Personal Property. Title to any personal
property used in connection with the Project shall vest as follows:
L) Personal property donated or purchased with other
than CITY CDBG funds shall become the property of
CORPORATION or person specified by the donor or funding
source; otherwi a the same shall become the property of
CITY except'f5r property and equipment as described in 2).
2) Personal property and equipment permanently
affixed to buildings owned by CORPORATION shall become the
property of CORPORATION.
r
3) All other personel property, supplies and
equipment purchased.pursuant to this Agreement and not
consumed shall become property of CITY.
B. Non - Expendable Eroperty. Non - expendable property
purchased by CORPORATION with funds provided by CITY with a
purchase price in excess of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250), must
be approved in advance in writing by CITY. CITY shall retain
title to said property. If a PROGRAM will be continued beyond
termination of this Agreement, CITY ' at its option, may revert
title to CORPORATION.
C. Purchase of Real Property. None of the funds provided
under this Agreement shall be used for the purchase of real
-9-
property, unless CITY approves such purchase by resolution
containing any conditions the CITY deems appropriate prior to,
the time CORPORATION finalizes such purchase. Approval of any
such contract or an option to .purchase shall be processed through
the PROJECT MANAGER. , r
D. Security Document. As a condition precedent to CITY
releasing funds for the purchase of real property or an option to
purchase real property, CORPORATION shall prepare and execute a
promissory note. deed of trust or other Agreement restricting the
use of said real property for purposes consistent with this
Agreement. HUD and CDBG requirements.
1 1 Y e Yig
a Income generated by the PROGRAM shall be retained by
CORPORATION. Such income shall be used. to reduce the monthly
request for funds under this Agreement and for the same purposes
and activities described in Exhibit A. All provisions of this
Agreement shall.apply.t.o . the.:use.of.PROGRAM income for such
activities.
X. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
This is an Agreement by and between independent contractors
and is not intended and shall not be construed to create the
relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint
venture or association between CORPORATION and CITY
CORPORATION, including its officers, employees, agents or
subcontractors, shall not have any claim under this Agreement or
otherwise against CITY for any Social Security, Worker's
Compensation, or employee benefits extended to employees of CITY.
X1. ASSIGNABILITY
A. This Agreement may,not. be assumed nor assigned to another
corporation, person.. partnership or any other.entity without the
prior written approval of CITY.
B. None of the work or services to be performed hereunder
shall be assigned, delegated or subcontracted to third parties
without the prior written approval of CITY. Copies.of all third
party contracts shall be submitted to CITY at least ten days
prior to the proposed effective date. In the event CITY
approves any such assignment, delegation or.sub- contract, the
subcontractors, assignees or delegates shall be deemed to be
employees of CORPORATION, and CORPORATION shall be responsible for
their performance and any liabilities attaching to their actions
or omissions.
-10-
XII. DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL CLIENT INFORMATION
CITY and CORPORATION agree to maintain the confidentiality
of any information regarding applicants for services offeAd by
the PROGRAM pursuant to this Agreement or their immediate families
which may be obtained through application forms, interviews,
tests, reports from public agencies or counselors, or any other
source. Without the written permission of the applicant, such
information shall be divulged only as necessary for purposes
related to the performance or evaluation of the services and work
to be provided pursuant to this Agreement, and then only to
persons having responsibilities under this Agreement, including
those furnishing services under the PROGRAM through approved
subcontracts..
XIII. HOLD HARMLESS
In addition to the indemnity set forth in Exhibit "D
CORPORATION shall,,.indemnify and hold CITY, its officers,
employees and elected officials, boards..and commissions, harmless
with respect to any damages, including attorneys fees and court
costs, arising from
1) the failure of the PROGRAM to comply with
applicable laws, ordinances, codes, regulations and decrees,
including without limitation those set forth in Exhibit "E ";
or,
2) any negligence or omission arising out of any work
or services provided by CORPORATION, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors under the PROGRAM or
this Agreement.
XIV. WAIVER OF RIGHTS AND REMEDIES
In no event shall any payment by CITY constitute or be
construed to be &.waiver by CITY of any breach of the covenants
or conditions of this.Agreement or any default which may then
exist on the part of CORPORATION, and the making of any such
payment while any such breach or default shall exist shall in no
way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to CITY
with respect to such breach or default. In no event shall payment
to CORPORATION by CITY in any way constitute a waiver by CITY
of its rights to recover from CORPORATION the amount of money paid
to CORPORATION on any item which is not eligible for payment under
the PROGRAM or this Agreement.
FAr
( -11-
XV. NONDISCRIMINATION
In connection with the performance of this Agreement.
CORPORATION assures that no person shall be subject to
discrimination because of sex, race,.religion, ethnic background,
sexual preference, age, handicapped status, or union.activity.
XVI. AMENDMENTS
Amendments to the terms or conditions of this Agreement
shall be requested in writing by the party desiring such
amendment, and any such amendment shall be effective only upon the
mutual Agreement in writing of the parties hereto.
XVII. INTEGRATED DOCUMENT
This Agreement contains the,entire.,Agreement between CITY
—and CORPORATION With respect to the subject matter hereof. No
written or oral ..Agreements with any officer, agent or employee of
CITY prior to..execution of this Agreement shall affect or modify
any of the terms of obligations contained in any documents
comprising this Agreement.
XVIII. MISCELLANEOUS
A. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience of
reference only, and the words contained therein shall in no way be
held to explain, modify, amplify or aid in the interpretation,
construction or meanin4 of the provisions of this Agreement.
B. All exhibits attached hereto and referred to in this
Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference as if set
forth fully herein.
/
-12-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
in duplicate the day and year above written.
CITY OF SARATOGA [�
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CORPORATION
By
Executive ; b it ctor /
APPROVED. AS TO FORM.& LEGALITY:
CITY ATTORNEY
-13-
0 EXHIBIT D
Insurance Requirements
Indemnity:. Corporation agrees to indemnify and save harmless
the City of Saratoga, its officers, employees and elected
officials, boards and commissions from all suits, actions, claims,
causes of action, costs, demands judgments and liens arising out
of the Corporation's performance under this Agreement, including
the Corporation's failure to comply with or carry out any of the.
provisions of this Agreement.
Insurance: Corporation shall take out prior to commencement
of the— perfo=mance of the terms of this Agreement, pay for, and
maintain until completion of this Agreement, the following types
of Policies. These Policies must cover at least the following,
which are minimum coverages and limits.
I. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance including the
following:
(1) Premises Operations (including completed operations,
if the exposure exists)
(2) Broad Form Blanket Contractural
(3) Personal Inury coverages A, B and C, delete
exclusion "C"
a. All coverages must have a minimum of $500,000
Combined Single Limit
II. Compr.ehensive Auto Policy to cover:
(1) Non -Owned
(2 ) Hi red -Auto
a. There coverages must have a minimum of $500,000
Combined Single Limit for bodily injury and property
damage.
III. Errors or Omissions coverage for attorneys and
paralegals with a minimum 1 mit of $500,000 per occurrence
Combined Single Limit with no more than $1,000 deductible per
occurrence. (Where scope.of services provides for attorneys and
paralegals)
IV. Medical Malpractice Insurance: Minimum limits of
$500,000 per occurrence with no greater deductible than $1,000 per
occurrence. This is to cover all medical staff associated with
the Corporation, such ad, but not limited to, doctors, nurses, and
paramedicals. (Where scope of services provides for medical staff)
V. Workers Compensation coverage with the statutory limit of
liability and $1,000,005 employer's liability.
- i -
i
Endorsements: On all required insurance the following_ endorsements
must be a part of each Policy:
(1) The City of Saratoga, and its officers, officie &ls, boards,
commissions, employees and volunteers are to be additional
insureds.
(2) Thirty (30) days notice of cancellation or reduction in
coverage of any nature must be given to the City of Saratoc
(3) The insurance policies must be endorsed to show that they
are primary, and any other valid and collectible insurance
the City of Saratoga may have will be excess only.
(4) All insurance policies must be satisfactory to the City of
Saratoga.
-ii-
1 EXHIBIT E
ASSURANCES it
Corporation hereby assures and certifies that it will comply
with all regulations, policies, guidelines and requirements
applicable to the acceptance and use of Federal funds for this
federally- assisted program. Also, Corporation gives assurances
and certifies with respect to the Program that:
(a) The Program will be condLcted and administered in
compliance with:
(1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L.
88 -325, 42 USC 2000d et seq.) and implementing regulations
issued at 24 CFR Part I;
(2) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Pub.L.
90 -284, 42 USC 3061 et seq.), as amended, and implementing
regulations;
(3) Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974, as amended; and the regulations issued pursuant
to thereto (24 CFR Section-570.601);
(4) Section3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
,1968, as amended and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part
135;
(5) Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive
Orders 11375 and 12086 and implementing regulations issued at
41 CFR Chapter 60;
(6) Executive♦Order 11063, as amended by Executive Order
12259 and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 107;
(7) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Pub.L. 93 -112), as amended and implementing regulations when
published for effectr
(8) The Age.Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended,
(Pub.L. 94 -135) and implementing regulations when published
for effect;
(9) The relocation requirements of.Title II and the
acquisition requirements of Title III of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies '
Act of 1970, and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part
42;
(10) The labor standards requirements as set forth in 24
CFR 5570.605 and HUD regulations issued to implement such
requirements
(11) Executive Order 11988 relating to the .evaluation of
flood hazards and Executive Order 11288 relating to the
prevention,. control, and abatement of water pollution;
(12) The flood A assurance purchase requirements of r. e
Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,
(Pub.L. 93 -234).
(13) The regulations, policies, guidelines and
requirements of OMB Circular Nos. A -102, Revised, A -87, A -110
and A -122 as they relate to the acceptance and use of Federal
funds under this federally- assisted Program.
(b) No member,' officer, or employee of.the Corporation, or
its designees or agents, no member of the governing body of the
locality in which the program is situated, and no other public
official of such locality or localities who exercises any
functions or responsibilities with respect to the Program during
his /her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any
interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or
the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with
the Program and all such contracts or subcontracts shall contain a
provision prohibiting such interest;
(c) It will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act which
limit the political activity of employees;
(d) It will give HUD and the Comptroller General or any
authorized representatives access to and the right to examine all
records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant;
(e) It will comply with the lead -based paint requirements of
24 CFR Part 35 Subpart B issued pursuant to the Lead -Based Paint
Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.).
IV -
M
It
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: 10/19/88
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA ITEM (�
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: V -88 -010, 20881 Canyon View Dr. (Krueger) - Appeal of the
Planning Commission decision approving a variance application to
allow the construction of a home on 31.2% slope in lieu of 300
maximum allowed.
Recommended Motion: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning
Commission.
Report Summary: The City Council discussed the appeal at the 9/7/88 meeting
and required that a soils report for the property be prepared for the
Council review prior to final discussion regarding the appeal. The soils
report was reviewed by the City Geologist and has been found satisfactory.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments: 1. Soil investigation dated September, 1988
2. Report to City Council dated 9/7/88
3. City Council minutes of 9/7/88
4. Correspondence
Motion and Vote
A:V -010
SOIL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Krueger Residence
20881 Canyon View Drive
Saratoga, California
SEPTEMBER 1988
Applied Soil Mechanics, Inc.
SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS • GEOLOGISTS
835 Blossom Hill Road, Suite 215 • San Jose, California 95123
(408) 365 -8100 • FAX (408) 365 -8362
File No. A8- 1986 -J1 September 20, 1988
Mr. Donald Krueger
1076 Royal Acres Drive
San Jose, CA 95136
Subject: Proposed Krueger Residence
20881 Canyon View Drive
Saratoga, California
SOIL INVESTIGATION
Dear Mr. Krueger:
As you requested, we have completed the soil investigation for the subject
project. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the current
surface and subsurface soil conditions as they may affect the proposed lot.
We have previously conducted a Geologic Review and Preliminary Soil
Feasibility Study for the subject site and presented the results of that study
in a letter dated August 30, 1988. The results of our geologic and soil
investigations indicate that the site is suitable for a single - family
residential structure provided the recommendations in this report are
carefully followed.
Presented herein is our report covering the results of our subsurface
exploration and laboratory testing program, together with our recommendations
covering the soil engineering aspects of design.
We should review the grading and foundation plans, prior to construction
bidding, to verify conformance with our recommendations. We should also
provide the on -site soil services during grading and foundation construction,
as specified in our recommendations.
If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, or require
any further information, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
APPLIED SOIL MECHANICS, INC.
Written By:
Thomas A. Sparrowe
Project Geologist
TAS /sp
Copies: 6 to Addressee
]RECEIVED
SEP 2 21988
PANNING DEPT.
i
R _i ewed By :
Le r41 1 41_
&t,& &
Carl W. Greenlee
Geotechnical Engineer #355
File No. A8- 1986 -J1 September 20, 1988
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Page No.
Object and-Scope of Investigation 1
Planned Development 2
Location and Description of the Site 2
Subsurface Conditions 4
CONCLUSIONS 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
General
6
Site Development
and Grading
6
Foundation Recommendations
9
Concrete Slabs -On
-Grade
11
Retaining Wall Design
12
Surface Drainage
14
LIMITATIONS AND
UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
15
APPENDIX A
Field Drilling Program
A2
Logs of Test Borings 1 -6
A3 -A4
APPENDIX B
Description of Laboratory Test Procedures
B2
Test Results
B3 -B4
APPENDIX C
General Grading Specifications
C2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Site Plan
3
Figures Al -A2
Logs of Test Borings 1 -2
A3 -A4
LIST OF TABLES
Table I
Summary of Moisture, Density,
Swell and Direct Shear Testing
B3
Table II
Summary of Atterberg Limits Test Results
B4
Applied soil Mechanics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1 September 20, 1988
INTRODUCTION
Object and Scope of Investigation
The object of this soil investigation was to determine the soil and ground-
water conditions at the site and based on the conditions revealed by the
investigation, to provide recommendations that can be used in the development
of the site for the proposed single - family residential structure. This report
covers soil investigation, subsurface conditions, site preparation and grading
requirements for the proposed property and general foundation design criteria
for the proposed structures.
We have previously conducted a Geologic Review and Preliminary Soil Feasibil-
ity Study for the subject site and presented the results of that study in a
letter dated August 30, 1988. The purpose of that investigation was to deter-
mine the local and regional geologic conditions on and around the subject
property, and to determine whether the existing soil and geologic conditions
were the same as reported by Bay Soils, Inc., dated September 24, 1979, and
Budinger & Associates, dated April 4, 1986. The results of our study
concluded that the geologic and soil conditions had not changed and the site
did not have any adverse slope stability problems.
Basic data for the foundation analysis was obtained through literature review
of available reports and maps, site inspection, subsurface borings, subsurface
soil sampling and laboratory testing program on selected soil samples.
Detailed descriptions of these operations are incorporated into the subsequent
sections of this report.
1 Appim Soii Mechopics
ED
File No. A8- 1986 -J1 September 20, 1988
Planned Development
Current building plans call for the construction of a custom built single -
family residential home at the approximate location shown on Site Plan, Figure
1. The building will be a split level, one- and two -story structure of wood -
frame construction, with wood floors in the living areas and a concrete slab -
on -grade floor in the garage. Up to 9 feet of soil will be excavated in the
building area. Concrete or masonry retaining walls, laterally supporting up
to 8 feet of soil are planned as part of the construction of the house and
backyard. The grading of the driveway is anticipated to have up to 5 feet of
cut and fill. Wooden retaining walls are now planned to retain the driveway
cut and fill slopes. Conventional municipal sewer service will be utilized
for the residence. Therefore, the construction of a septic leachfield system
will not be necessary within the property.
Location and Description of the Site
The rectangular shaped site is located on the east foothills of the Santa Cruz
Mountain Range in Saratoga, California. Access to the site is from the
southeast, off Canyon View Drive, (refer to Site Plan, and Geologic Map,
Figure 1).
Topographically, the subject site is characterized by moderately steep (31.2
percent inclination) east - facing hillside topography. Previous grading
associated with the construction of Canyon View Drive and a private driveway,
has resulted in a steep (28 degree inclination) cut slope along the eastern
property line. Drainage is characterized by uncontrolled sheet flow to the
southeast. The site currently supports grass, weeds and a few small trees.
2
Applied Soil Mechanics
File Nu. A8- 1986 -J1
September 20, 1988
e �+
� \s�� rjo rPrro
Se
ea
A
O
N
G
O
�G.at age • ��
Approximate
location of 2 T -2
proposed re-
..............
taining wall
(typical) OSEO..:::: T
::.. OP
RES %p::::::: :: ::::::.
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF T -3
TEST BORING(typical)
APPROXIMATE LOCATIO ^1
OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH FOR
GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION(typical)
LOCALITY MAP
n
D
Z
rr,
::k.
C
SCALE IN FEET
0 25 50 75
Figure 1 - Site Plan and Locality Map, 20881 Canyon View Drive., Sara nGa- HlCs
3 M oA
File No. A8- 1986 -J1 September 20, 1988
Subsurface Conditions
On September 1, 1988 two (2) test borings were drilled to obtain subsurface
profiles and soil data for the project. Based upon our examination of the
material encountered in the exploratory borings, the subsurface materials on
the site generally consists of 1 to 5 feet of silty CLAY (CL) soil underlain
by weathered, semi - consolidated and cemented beds of conglomerate, sandstone,
siltstone and claystone of the Santa Clara Formation.
The approximate locations of exploratory borings are shown on the Site Plan,
Figure 1. Detailed descriptions of the materials encountered in each of the
exploratory borings are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. The
boring logs and related information depict the subsurface conditions only at
the locations indicated and on the particular date designated on the logs.
Our Laboratory program included moisture content, dry density, plasticity
index and direct shear tests. The results of these tests (Table I and Table
II, Appendix B) were used for engineering classification of the site soils,
evaluation of potential soil problems, and determination of grading and
foundation design criteria.
4
Applied Sou mechanics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1
CONCLUSIONS
September 20, 1988
The following conclusions are drawn from the data acquired and evaluated
during our soil investigation for the proposed residential development.
1. Site Suitability: Based on the findings of the literature research and
field reconnaissance, it is concluded that the proposed building site and
driveway are physically suitable from a geotechnical standpoint for the
proposed single - family residential home site.
2. Soil Expansion: The surface soils and moderately weathered bedrock at
the proposed building pad elevations have a moderately high plasticity (PI =31)
and therefore, have moderately high expansion potential.
3. Foundations: Because of the hillside nature of the proposed building
site, the expansive potential of the near - surface soils and the variable
subsurface soil conditions, a foundation system consisting of drilled friction
piers and connecting concrete grade beams appears to be the most appropriate
to support a house on this lot.
4. Settlement: The rather firm soil and bedrock conditions on site
indicate that differential settlement due to static loading from building
construction (including fill placement) should not present a problem to the
proposed development.
5 APPiied Soil Mechanics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1
RECOMMENDATIONS
General
September 20, 1988
The following paragraphs present recommendations for the design and construc-
tion of
-the single - family, custom home. These recommendations are
ted
toward
the reduction of the
identified geologic and soil condi" -
J,ay
affect
building performance;
for the general development of
-nd for
the design and construction of the foundation units. These ;rrmen,...tions
are based on the results and conclusions reached during our engineeri-_ :naly-
sis and evaluation of the field and laboratory data for this inve�-'.- on.
If an asphalt pavement is desired for the driveway, we can ._
pavement designs for the subject site. However, because cuts a . f;" ; will
be required to build the driveway, we suggest that the final pa:.: _.: resign
testing be deferred until the distribution of the various soi '_rock
materials during construction can be determined.
Site Development and Grading
1. Development of the site as proposed will require the rots
of earth be moved and some relocation of excavated soils as fil, -,11 of the
grading should be done under the direct observation of, and testing by a
representative of our firm.
2. All debris should be removed from the site. All surface organics should
be stripped from all proposed structural zones and areas to be graded. It is
expected that organic stripping will involve the removal of at least the upper
four to eight inches of organic surface soil over most of the building area.
The exact amount of stripping should be determined by the Soil Engineer in the
6 Applied Sou mechanics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1 September 20, 1988
field during grading operations. This organically contaminated soil may be
either be stockpiled for later use as topsoil in landscaped areas, or be
hauled from the site. In no case should this organically contaminated soil be
used as compacted fill or under pavement sections.
3. All abandoned underground pipelines shall be plugged, removed or demol-
ished. The appropriate final disposition of such lines shall depend upon
their depth and location, and the method of removal or demolition shall be
determined by field observation by the Soil Engineer. One of the following
methods will be used.
A. Excavate and totally remove the pipeline from the trench.
B. Excavate and crush the pipeline in the trench.
C. Cap the ends of the line with concrete to prevent entrance of water.
The locations at which the utility line shall be capped will be
determined by the Soil Engineer. The length of the cap shall not be
less than five feet, and the concrete mix.employed shall have minimum
shrinkage.
4. All exploratory trenches and pits excavated for previous soil and
geologic investigations should be reworked unless they are in areas designated
for landscaping or will be totally removed by planned cutting operations.
5. Unless otherwise approved by the Soil Engineer, all excavations and
depressions created during site clearing and demolition operations shall be
left open with bottoms consisting of undisturbed native soil. For safety
purposes, sidewalls may be ramped outward from the excavations. All such
excavations or depressions will be backfilled with clean engineered fill. The
fill shall be placed in layers not exceeding 8 inches in thickness and
7 Applied soil Mechanics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1 September 20, 1988
compacted to 90% relative compaction, at optimum moisture (or above), before
subsequent layer is placed.
6. The properly cleared and stripped native ground in areas to receive fill
or pavement sections should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, moisture
conditioned over optimum and recompacted to not less than 90% relative
compaction prior to receiving compacted fill or pavement sections.
7. All fills placed on sloping ground (greater than 10:1, horizontal to
vertical) must be properly keyed at their base and continuously benched into
the underlying natural slope. Once the keys have been approved by our firm,
filling may proceed. Each layer of fill should not be greater than 8 inches
in thickness and must be compacted to 90% relative compaction at optimum
moisture (or above) before subsequent layer is placed. The base of the keys
should be scarified and recompacted, as specified for areas to receive
compacted fill.
8. Constructed slopes, either cut or fill should not exceed 2:1, horizontal
to vertical, in finished slope. All cut slopes should be inspected by the
Soil Engineer and Engineering Geologist to ascertain the need for any
stabilizing buttress grading. Fill slopes should be constructed slightly over
size laterally so that they can be trimmed to a clean finished surface at the
completion of grading. All constructed slopes should be protected against
over - the -slope runoff of rain or surplus irrigation water by some appropriate
drainage control facility. All new fill should receive some type of erosion
control planting soon after completion of grading.
9. Cut portions of cut /fill transition building pads may require over -
excavation and rebuilding with compacted fill to provide a uniform support for
8 Applied soil Mechanics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1 September 20, 1988
the proposed structures. The need and required depth of overexcavation will
be determined by our office during grading operations and will depend upon the
location of the cut /fill boundary and depth of fill, existing soil conditions,
etc.
Foundation Recommendations
10. It is our recommendation that the house and garage be supported by a
combination of friction pier and grade beam perimeter and isolated pier and
post interior foundations. Retaining walls that function as house foundations
may be supported by conventional foundations if the walls are in areas of cuts
deeper than 3 feet below the existing ground surface. `
11. The drilled, cast -in- place, concrete piers should be a minimum of 12
inches in diameter and should be drilled to a minimum depth of 8 feet below
the bottom of the grade beam. All isolated interior piers under wood floors
and under exterior wood decks, etc., should also extend at least 8 feet below
the ground surface.
12. The allowable skin friction or adhesion for dead plus live load is 400
psf for the friction piers. The top 2 feet of soil embedment for piers should
be discounted when computing the total load- carrying capacity of the friction
piers. The allowable friction value may be increased by one -third to include
short term wind and seismic effects. An equivalent fluid weight of 300 pcf
may be used for passive pressure for the soils in lateral resistance. All
interior and exterior piers should contain reinforcing steel full depth.
13. All concrete grade beams should be a minimum of 8 inches wide and be
horizontally reinforced continuously top and bottom. The grade beam trenches
9 Applied soil mechanics
• File No. A8- 1986 -J1 September 20, 1988
should penetrate into the undisturbed soil pad at least 6 inches for raised-
wood floor areas and at least 12 inches around concrete slab -on -grade areas,
such as the garage. The penetration of grade beams into the soil pad will
tend to reduce the potential for migration of exterior irrigation and rain
water under the perimeter foundations to the underside portion of the house.
14. The actual final design of the grade beams, reinforcing, size and
spacing of the piers will depend upon actual building loads and should be
determined by the engineer responsible for the foundation design.
15. Any masonry fireplace footings should be supported by a minimum of four
drilled, reinforced concrete friction piers, penetrating at least 8 feet into
the underlying firm native soil or compacted structural fill. The base foot-
ing, to be supported by drilled piers, should be trenched at least 12 inches
below the lowest adjacent soil pad grade and be reinforced with at least No. 4
horizontal
bars on 12 -inch centers
each
way, placed
near the
bottom
of
the
footing.
The vertical reinforcing
bars
in the piers
should be
tied
into
the
horizontal steel of the fireplace spread footing.
16. At least 6 inches of soil is to be backfilled against the exterior of
grade beams with a sufficient slope to create positive drainage away from all
foundations.
17. All foundation piers should be drilled under the observation of a repre-
sentative from our firm who will verify the proper penetration depth into the
underlying firm native soil.
10
Applied Soil Mechanics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1 September 20, 1988
18. The foundations should be designed to withstand the effects of antici-
pated ground shaking. The latest edition of the Uniform Building Code should
be considered as the minimum design standard.
Concrete Slabs -On -Grade
19. Exterior, non - traffic bearing concrete slabs -on -grade such as side
and patios should be underlain by at least two (2) inches of appro�au
compacted, import granular base material.
20. Concrete slab -on -grade garage floors slab should be founded on at least
by at least four (4) inches of clean 1/2 -inch gravel which will act as a base
course and moisture break.
21. Concrete slab -on -grade driveways should be founded on at least by at
least four (4) inches of approved compacted granular base material.
22. For concrete slab -on -grade floors in living areas, at least 6 inches of
clean gravel (112" maximum diameter) should be placed between the slab and the
finished soil pad grade to act as a capillary break and cushion layer. No
plastic membrane is required as a moisture barrier if clean gravel is used as
a slab base material. An alternative base section for slabs in living areas,
would be 2 inches of clean sand over a plastic membrane, over 4 inches of
clean pea gravel (3/8" maximum diameter).
23. All interior concrete slabs -on- grade, including the garage slab, should
be reinforced with at least wire mesh. The concrete slabs in living areas
shall be structurally connected to all adjacent foundations. Reinforcement of
the driveway is considered optional. The garage slab -on -grade adjacent to
door openings, should be structurally dowelled to the adjacent foundation.
11 Applied soil Mechanics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1 September 20, 1988
24. Both driveway and garage slabs -on -grade should be divided into four (4)
to six (6) approximately equal size sections in order to to reduce the poten-
tial for shrinkage cracking. This sectioning may be accomplished by deep
scoring, emplacement of expansion joints or other standard techniques. The
divisions should be in two directions perpendicular to the edges of the slabs.
Retaining Wall Design
25. It is our understanding that the retaining wall behind the house will be
up to 8 feet in height and retain a 2:1, horizontal to vertical, slope of
structural fill and native soil. Portions of the house will be supported by a
foundation retaining wall that will be up to 5 feet in height and retain a
2:1, horizontal to vertical, slope of structural fill and native soil All
retaining walls acting as house foundations, shall be supported by drilled
friction piers, which are recommended for the house foundations. Based upon
the above assumptions, the wall design criteria is as follows:
A. Active (free standing walls) - 45 pcf equivalent fluid weight;
B. Passive - 300 pcf equivalent fluid weight;
C. Coefficient of friction (base.sliding) -N= 0.40 (where no piers support-
ing;
D. Allowable spread foundation bearing capacity (dead plus live load) -
2,500 psf;
E. Minimum spread foundation trenching (below lowest adjacent dense soil
grade) - 18 inches.
The top 1 foot of soil embedment at the toe of the footing should be
discounted when computing the total lateral (passive resistance) of the
retaining wall foundation.
12
App u Soii�Mechanics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1 September 20, 1988
26. Retaining walls for the driveway will have vertical timber posts with
horizontal timber lagging. The walls are presently designed to be up to 5
feet in height a will retain a horizontal and a 2:1, horizontal to vertical,
slope.
27. The above recommended pressures assume that a drainage system is
constructed behind the walls to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures.
The wall drainage system should consist of either free - draining, clean 1/4" to
1" diameter gravel encased in an envelope of filter fabric or Caltrans Class 2
Permeable without a filter fabric, placed as backfill behind the retaining
wall. The drain blanket should be at least 12 inches wide and extend from the
base of the wall to within 24 inches of the final ground surface when exposed
to the weather. The uppermost 24 inches over the drain rock blanket should be
composed of general structural fill, compacted to at least 90% relative
compaction (ASTM D1557 -70). For retaining walls not exposed to the weather
the drain blanket should extend from the top of the footing up to the surface
so that any water under the house will drain to the gravel backfill.
28. All retaining walls should have a 4" diameter perforated rigid pipe that
is bedded at the bottom of the rock blanket, perforations down. This drain
pipe should have a minimum gradient of 0.5 percent and should lead to a sump
or other appropriate discharge facility at either or both ends of the retain-
ing wall.
29. The retaining walls that are part of the house structure should be
moisture proofed to prevent water or moisture from penetrating the walls and
entering the garage or other interior areas of the house.
13
Applied Soil Mechanics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1 September 20, 1988
30. A concrete lined drain ditch should be constructed at the top of the
retaining walls to prevent surface irrigation or rain water, above the wall,
from flowing over the top of the walls.
Surface Drainage
31. Surface drainage control should be provided throughout the completed
project to protect the future stability of the foundation, driveway, roadway
and slopes. The site should be graded to provide rapid removal of surface
water away from the structures, the top of graded slopes, and areas of identi-
fied landslide potential, slope instability, or soil creep. All surface
drainage should be properly intercepted and discharged into appropriately
designed facilities to avoid any uncontrolled flow which may cause erosion.
32. Planting (as specified by the Project Landscape Architect) for purposes
of erosion control should be installed as quickly as possible after the
completion of grading operations on all completed graded slopes. Ideally,
such planting should be restricted to native grasses and shrubs which require
minimal amounts of irrigation water. Potentials for erosion and slope insta-
bility are often created by excessive irrigation.
33. All exterior soil grades adjacent to foundations should be sloped away
from the building in order to prevent surface water from ponding adjacent to
the foundation. The use of roof gutters should be used for the entire
project. All roof drainage should be collected in a water tight pipe system
and discharged into the storm drain system or frontage street below the
structure.
14
Applied Soil Mechanics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1
September 20, 1988
34. The final soil subgrade under the wood floors of the house should be
shaped to drain toward a low corner of the crawl space, where a 4 -inch pipe
should be provided through the perimeter house foundation, to allow for the
immediate removal of any irrigation water or rain water that might find its
way under the house. This drain pipe should be extended to a proper discharge
point below the house.
15 Applied soil Mechanics
File.No. A8- 1986 -J1
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The recommendations of this report are
the soil conditions do not deviate from thos
any variations or undesirable conditions are
or if the proposed construction will differ
time, Applied Soil Mechanics, Inc., should b
recommendations can be given.
September 20, 1988
based upon the assumption that
e disclosed in the borings. If
encountered during construction,
from that planned at the present
e notified so that supplemental
2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibil-
ity of the owner or of his representative to ensure that the information and
recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the architect
and engineers for the project and incorporated into the plans and that the
necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry
out such recommendations in the field.
3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However,
changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time,
whether they are due to natural processes or to the works of man, on this or
adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate
standards occur, whether the result from legislation or the broadening of
knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated,
wholly or partially, by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this
report should not be relied upon after a period of three years without being
reviewed and approved by a Soil Engineer.
4. This report was prepared upon your request for our services, and in
accordance with currently accepted standards of professional soil engineering
practice. No warranty as to the contents of this report is intended, and none
shall be inferred from the statements of opinions expressed.
16 Applied 3011 McChaRICS
APPENDIX A
Field Drilling Program
Logs of Test Borings
Applied soil Mechopics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1
FIELD DRILLING PROGRAM
September 20, 1988
The approximate locations of the test borings are illustrated in Figure 1,
Site Plan. The drilling was accomplished on September 1, 1988 under the
supervision of Project Geologist, Mr. Thomas A. Sparrowe. A total of two (2)
test borings were drilled within the subject site. Test boring no. 1 was
drilled to a depth of approximately 21.5 feet below the existing ground
surface. Test boring nos. 2 to a depth of approximately 11.5 feet below the
existing ground surface.
The test borings were drilled with a truck mounted drill -rig, and utilized a
six -inch diameter continuous flight auger. As the borings were advanced,
relatively undisturbed samples were obtained at various depths by hammering a
standard three -inch diameter (O.D.) split -tube sampler into the undisturbed
soil mass. The hammering system consisted of a 140 -pound hammer with a 30-
inch free fall, in order to obtain a blow -count value. Relatively undisturbed
soil samples were obtained from the standard three -inch diameter sampler.
The Logs of the Test Borings, showing the vertical distribution of the soil
units, the locations of the samples, blowcount values and selected laboratory
test results are presented in Figures Al and A2.
Applied Soil MEMO
A2
File No. A8- 1986 -J1
September 20, 1988
Figure Al - Log of Test Boring No. 1
A3 Applied soil Mechanics
IN- PLACE
OIDfH
SAMPLE
LOG
0U MPTI0N
IN
FEET
NO.
UUTI0N
for
WU
1M'MwO
r�N
Date drilled: 9/1/88
DIRT
DENSITY
MOISTURE
CONTENT
Logged by: TAS
sc!
%d''' •t
0.
Approximate Elevation = 601 feet
Brown Silty with sand an
•
with gravel, stiff, dry.
• 2.
104
10.8
eo
Dark brown Silty CLAY (CL) with some
•
sand and fine gravel, stiff, slightly
. 4.
moist.
6.
'
Brown -grey CONGLOMERATE, subrounded,
oa°
°•�
well graded, hard. Sand matrix, poorly
. 8.
° °b•
consolidated, with occasional sandy
'
1-2
Q °o
75
CLAYSTONE lens, approx. 6" thick, hard,
118
9.0
very slightly moist
10.
(SANTA CLARA FORMATION)
Very coarse clasts at 10.5 feet.
,12•
__
Brown Sandy CLAYSTONE and SANDSTONE,
-
very stiff to dense, fine grained,
. 14,
1 -3A
76
moist.
118
io.0
= —
— CONGLOMERATE,
126
11.5
•
Ol:o'
CLAYEY gravel. Brown, very dense to
• 16.
•b
hard, slightly moist. Sandier at 15'
with some thin lenses of fine sandstone
as °:o
and siltstone at 17' to 18.2'
18.
ooio
71 fo
104
:;..� 111
120
13.5
. 20.
Boring terminated at 18.9 feet.
•
Free groundwater was not encountered.
Figure Al - Log of Test Boring No. 1
A3 Applied soil Mechanics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1
September 20, 1988
Figure A2 - Log of Test Boring No. 2
A4 Applied Soil Mechanics
IN- PLACE
QPTH
SAMPLE
LOG III
Powis
OCI M►TION
IN
FEET
000.
LOCATION
yl�
nNIy,wM
..,,„
Date drilled: 9/1/88
OIIV
DENSITY
MOISTURE
CONTENT
Logged by: TAS
P°`
%*V wt.
0.
•
Elevation =613 feet
Brown Silty CLAY (CL) with sand,
• 2.
2 -1
stiff, dry.
113
12.9
Greyish brown SILTY CLAY (CL) with gravel,
•
very stiff, slightly moist.
. 4.
•
0 forl
• 6.
2-2
Light olive grey Silty SANDSTONE with
115
14.9
112
occasional gravel lens, poorly consol-
idated, hard, slightly moist.
• 8•
(SANTA CLARA FORMATION)
__
•
aR b,'
Olive brown CONGLOMERATE, well graded,
10.
off
poorly consolidated with clay binder,
—1
very dense, slightly moist.
.12.
-
—
66�
Grey mottTed yel -low- orange Clayey SAND-
119
13.3
STONE, very dense to hard, slightly
.
moist.
Boring terminated at 11.5 feet.
Free groundwater was not encountered.
Figure A2 - Log of Test Boring No. 2
A4 Applied Soil Mechanics
APPENDIX B
Descriptions of Laboratory Test Procedures
Laboratory Test Results
Applied 3011 McChODICS
File No. A8- 1986 -J1 September 20, 1988
DESCRIPTION OF TEST PROCEDURES
The following laboratory tests were performed on selected samples of the
various soil strata encountered in the test borings, to determine their
physical characteristics pertinent to geotechnical aspects of the proposed
development. Tests performed were selected on the basis of the probable final
design requirements, correlated to the site subsoil profile, as determined by
the logs of the test borings and the site geology. A short general
description of the tests performed, including a brief discussion of the
purpose of each test, is given as follows:
A. Moisture - Density (ASTM D2937): Conducted on undisturbed soil samples,
to determine their in -situ moisture contents and dry unit weights.
These tests aids in— d ermining general soil conditions and properties.
See the Logs of the Test Borings (Appendix A, pages A3 -0), and Table I
(Appendix B, page B3).
B. Direct Shear (ASTM D3080): Conducted on a undisturbed soil sample to
determine the sample's in -situ unit cohesion and angle of internal
friction. This test provides soil shear strength values, which aid in
determining such design criteria as bearing capacities and lateral earth
pressures. See Table I (Appendix B, pages B3).
C. Atterberg Limits (ASTM D424 -71): Conducted on an undisturbed soil
sample, to determine its liquid limit and plastic index values. This
test provides water content values for the sample's liquid and plastic
phases. The test aids in determining the expansive characteristics of
the soil tested. See Table II (Appendix B, page B4).
Applied Soil Mechaflb
B2
File No. A8- 1986 -J1 September 20, 1988
TABLE I
Summary of Moisture - Density, Swell & Direct Shear Results
Sample Depth In -Place Conditions Swell Index Direct Shear Testing
Moisture Dry % swell /
Content Density % moisture Angle Unit
Increase Internal Cohesion
W/100 psf Friction
No. feet (% dry wt) p.c.f. Surcharge (degrees) p.s.f.
1 -1
2.5
10.8
109
1 -2
9.0
9.0
118
1 -3A
14.0
10.0
118 1.1 22 2100
1 =3B
14.5
11.5
126
1 -4
18.7
13.5
120
2 -1
2.5
12.9
113
2 -2
6.5
14.9
115
2 -3
11.5
13.3
119
NS = NO SAMPLE recovered from the sampler during the drilling operations.
DS = DISTURBED SAMPLE, no moisture /density tests conducted on this sample.
B3 Applied Soil Mechanics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1
TABLE.II
September 20, 1988
Summary of Laboratory Atterberg Limits Test Results
Sample Depth Description of Soil Atterberg Limits
Liquid Plasticity
Limit Index
ft. % (P.I.)
2 -1B 2.5 Yellowish brown Silty CLAY with sand 48 31
64 Applied soil Mechanics
APPENDIX C
General Grading Specifications
Applied soil Mechanics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1
GENERAL GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR: Proposed Krueger Residence
20881 Canyon View Drive
Saratoga, California
1. Limitations
September 20, 1988
1.1 The following information is of a general nature and is intended for
use only in conjunction with the site - specific information contained within
the main body of the soil investigation of which it is a part. The report
should be reviewed in its entirety prior to implementation of these specifica-
tions.
1.2 These specifications concern clearing, grubbing and general soil
preparations; spreading, compaction and control of fill operations; and
subsidiary work necessary to complete grading to conform within the lines,
grades and slopes as shown on the accepted plans.
1.3 In the event that any conditions
encountered during grading operations, the
be immediately notified for directions.
2. Field Observation and Testing
not covered in this report are
Soil Engineer (see Item 2.1) shall
2.1 Applied Soil Mechanics, Inc., hereafter referred to as the Soil
Engineer, should be consulted prior to commencement of any work involving
these specifications. Verification of compliance by the Soil Engineer
requires observation and testing services which must be conducted contempora-
neously with the associated construction operations. The Soil Engineer shall
be notified at least forty -eight (48) hours in advance of any clearing or
grading operations on the site.
3. Laboratory Tests
3.1 Compaction specifications contained in this report are based upon the
maximum density and optimum moisture content of the material. The laboratory
test used to define these soil properties is ASTM Test Procedure No. D1557 -70.
Minimum densities allowable during compaction control are expressed as a
percentage of the maximum density value (% relative compaction ").
4. Site Clearing and Demolition
4.1 . All abandoned buildings and foundations, trees (except those
specified to remain for landscaping purposes), fences, weeds and miscellaneous
surface debris shall be removed, piled or otherwise disposed of to an extent
that the areas proposed for development have a neat appearance and are suit-
able for grading.
C2 Applied Soil McChaRICS
File No. A8- 1986 -J1
September 20, 1988
4.2 All abandoned septic tanks, and any other subsurface structures
existing in proposed development areas, shall be removed prior to any grading
or fill operations. All appurtenant drain fields and other connecting lines
must also be totally removed.
4.3 All abandoned underground irrigation or pipeline shall be removed or
demolished. The appropriate final disposition of such lines shall depend upon
their depth and location, and the method of removal or demolition shall be
determined by field observation by the Soil Engineer. One of the following
methods will be used.
4.3.1
Excavate
and
totally remove the
pipeline from the trench.
4.3.2
Excavate
and
crush the pipeline
in the trench.
4.3.3 Cap the ends of the line with concrete to prevent entrance
of water. The locations at which the utility line shall be capped
will be determined by the Soil Engineer. The length of the cap shall
not be less than five feet, and the concrete mix employed shall have
a minimum shrinkage.
4.4 All abandoned water wells shall be capped and sealed in accordance
with the requirements of the appropriate government agency. The strength of
the cap shall be at least equal to the adjacent soil. The final elevation of
the top of the well casing must be a minimum of 36- inches below the lowest
adjacent grade existing after grading or fill operations. In no case shall
building foundations be placed over the capped well.
4.5 Unless otherwise approved by the Soil Engineer,
depressions created during site clearing and demolition
left open with bottoms consisting of undisturbed native
purposes, sidewalls may be ramped outward from the
grading operations, all such excavations or depressions
according to specifications determined as appropriate by
their location and depth.
5. Rough Grading
all excavations and
operations shall be
soil. For safety
excavations. During
will be backfilled
the Soil Engineer for
5.1 All organically contaminated soil shall be stripped and removed from
the ground surface upon which foundations, structural fill or pavement
sections are to be placed.
5.2 The undisturbed natural ground surface exposed by the organic strip-
ping, shall be plowed or scarified until the surface is free of ruts, hummocks
or other uneven features which may inhibit uniform soil compaction. The
ground surface should then be disced or bladed until it is uniform in texture
and free from large clods.
5.3 Upon completion of Items 5.1 and 5.2, the ground surface shall be
ready for moisture conditioning and compaction.
C3 4pueo Sou mechanics
File No. A8- 1986 -J1
September 20, 1988
5.4 Reference should be made to the Recommendations section of this
report for the required depths of organic stripping and scarification, proper
moisture conditioning, and allowable values of relative compaction.
6. Fill Materials
6.1 The materials for engineered fill shall be approved by the Soil
Engineer before commencement of grading operations. Any imported material
must be approved for use before being brought to the site. The materials used
shall be free from vegetable matter and other deleterious material. Refer to
the Recommendations section of this report for minimum quality standards for
fill material.
7. Fill Construction
7.1 The approved fill materials shall be placed in layers no thicker than
will permit adequate bonding and compaction. Each layer shall be spread
evenly and shall be thoroughly blade mixed during the spreading to insure
uniformity of material in each layer.
7.2 Fill material approved for certain purposes may include rock. No
rocks will be allowed to nest, and all voids shall be filled and properly
compacted. No rocks larger than three inches in diameter will be permitted in•
the fill unless approved in writing by the Soil Engineer
7.3 When the moisture content of the fill is below that specified by the
Soil Engineer, water shall be added until the moisture content is as specified
to assure thorough bonding during the compaction process.
7.4 When the moisture content of the fill is above that specified by the
Soil Engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by bl ading or other satis-
factory methods until the moisture content is as specified.
7.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall
be thoroughly compacted to the specified density.
7.6 Compaction shall be by sheepsfoot roller or other types of accept-
able compacting rollers. Rollers shall be of such design that they will be
able to compact the fill to the specified relative compaction within the
specified moisture content range. Rolling of each layer shall be continuous
over its entire area until the required minimum density has been obtained.
7.7 Field density tests shall be made by the Soil Engineer during
compaction operations. Where sheepsfoot -type rollers are used, the soil may
be disturbed to a depth of several inches. Density tests shall be taken in
compacted material below the disturbed surface. When these tests indicate
that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below the required
relative compaction, the particular layer or portion thereof shall be reworked
until the relative density has been obtained.
C4 Applied soil Mechanics
a
t
File No. A8- 1986 -J1
September 20, 1988
7.8 The fill operation shall be continued in compacted layers as speci-
fied above until the fill has been brought to the finished slopes and grades
as shown on the accepted plans.
7.9 All earth moving and working operations shall be controlled to
prevent water from running into excavated areas. All excess water shall be
promptly removed and the site kept dry.
7.10 Observations by the Soil Engineer shall be made during the fill and
compaction operations to an extent sufficient to determined that the fill was
constructed in accordance with the specifications of this report.
8. Seasonal Limits
8.1 Fill material shall not be placed, spread or rolled while it is at an
unsuitably high moisture content or during unfavorable weather conditions.
When the work is interrupted by heavy rain, fill operations shall not be
resumed until field tests performed by the Soil Engineer indicate that the
moisture conditions in areas to be filled are as previously specified.
C5
Applied soil Mechopics
4
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: .9/7/88
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: V -88 -010, 20881 Canyon View Dr. (Krueger) - Appeal of the
Planning Commission decision approving a variance application to allow the
construction of a home on a 31.2 % slope at building site in lieu of 30%
maximum allowed.
Recommended Motion: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning
Commission.
Report Summary: On July 13, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a
variance application to allow a home on a 31.2% slope at the building site
where 30% is the maximum allowed, in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. The
applicant's neighbor, Mr. Emil Kissel, has appealed the Planning Commission
decision on the grounds that the subject lot is too small for a home and
not buildable due to a history of landslides.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments: 1. Report from the Planning Department dated 9/7/88
2. Appeal application and letter
3. City Geologist's report
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated 7/13/88
5. Letter from the appellant to the City Attorney dated
8/14/88.
6. Staff report to the Planning Commission, 7/13/88
Motion and Vote:
CI
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA• CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
DATE: 9/7/88
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: V -88 -010, 20881 Canyon View Dr. (Krueger) - Appeal of Planning
Commission decision approving a variance to allow the construction
of a home on a 31.2% slope in lieu of 30% allowed.
Background /Analysis
On 7/13/88, the Planning Commission approved a variance application from
Ordinance 15- 12.061 of the City Code, to allow the construction of a home
on a 31.2% slope, where 30% is the maximum allowed, in the R -1 zone
district. The Planning Commission considered the possible building sites
on the lot, the limitation of the size of the lot and the existing
utilities easement, and approved the variance application.
Analysis of the Appeal
Mr. Emil Kissel, the applicant's neighbor, appealed for the reasons stated
in his letter dated 7/1/88 and appeal dated 7/15/88. The reasons and staff
analysis are as follows:
1. The lot is too steep and has a history of landslides. Construction on
the lot will increase the chances of landslides. Other homes on the
adjacent properties have similar landslide problems (reason #1 in
appeal letter and #2 and #5 in letter to the Planning Commission).
Response: The proposed plans for a home on the subject lot were reviewed
by the City Geologist and the City Engineer. All the City Geologist's
requirements for slope stability evaluations and soil investigation
must be prepared and submitted to the City for review. All the
requirements for the erosion control measures must be addressed prior
to any building permit issuance. The lot is not exceptionally steep
and variances were granted in the past to build on steeper lots (12553
Parker Ranch Road - 45 %; 12468 Parker Ranch Ct. - 33.5 %; 12502 Parker
Ranch Ct. - 35 %).
2. The lot is too small for a large house and will add to the other
excessively large homes along Canyon View Drive ( #2 in appeal letter
and #3 in letter to the Planning Commission).
Memorandum to City Council
V -88 -010; 20881 Canyon View Drive
Response: The Planning Commission denied the variance to exceed the
allowable floor area requested by the applicant. The allowable floor
area for the home is determined relative to the lot size, and is
adjusted to the average slope on the lot. At this time, no home has
been approved on the lot.
3. The subject lot is not an established building lot and is only a "left
over" result after the location of Canyon View Drive ( #1 in letter
to Planning Commission).
Response: The lot is a lot of record and is zoned residential, R -1- 40,000.
There are no special restrictions on the lot. The same requirements
and standards of the City Code for any other lot in the zone will
apply to this lot.
4. The future home will impact the view of the neighbor ( #4 in letter to
the Planning Commission).
Response: Due to the size of the home, the design review application for a
new home was denied. View impacts of a future application will be
reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission through the design
review process.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision of
the Planning Commission.
TA /lmc
B:canyon
N
September 14, 1988
City Council Committee
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Variance, Applicant Krueger V -88 -010
Dear Council Committee:
I apologize for missing the meeting held September 7, 1988 con-
cerning the Mr. Krueger request for slope variance.
My residence (20880 Canyon View Drive) is directly across the
street and down the hill from the subject property. Two major
areas are of concern to me:
1. the movement of the land, and
2. water coming from the hill above our house.
I would like the opportunity to show anyone interested the effect
of land movement on our property and what we have done to combat
the problems. We have cracks in walls; doors that required re-
work; floors that have been releveled, etc.
We have also been plagued with water seepage problems. During
the winter, water comes through the concrete block wall thz,t
forms the west wall downstairs. I have made every effort to seal
the driveway. We have been told by two different contractors
that the water was coming from across the street and under the
driveway. I have no way of proving where the water comes from,
but I am sure to have water through the wall into the stairwell
and then into the garage. The water is not a problem all along
the wall, just in one area.
Again, if anyone is interested, I would like to have them look
at our situation.
Respectfully,
C
Gordon R. Norris
20880 Canyon View Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
GN /gj r
5 E P 19 1988,
211 ',4 Sullivan day
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Sept 16, 1986
Mayor Andersen and City Council,
JLi 1 1J00
I shall not be able to attend the continuation hearing 10 -19-66
On V-68-U10, 20881 Canyon View Dr.
Since the hearing of 9 -7 -06t neighbor Gordon Norris, who lives
directly across the road from, and downhill from dudol, has
supplied evidence of underground water coming tnrough his foundation
wall. he has shifting of ground and his house.
The FG E power poles on 20881, had tilted to such a degree that
they had to be straightened and are leaning again. This seems
to indicate that the ground is not stable.
The damage done by the drilling rig on 9 -1 -66 at 4 PR to
Janyon View Dr., has not been repaired. The applicants
geologist promised to do this during his testimony before you 9 -7-88.
I ask the City Council to aeny the variance of the 30% slope
ordinance based on all the evidence and.common sense. I enclose
copies of newspaper articles, editorials and letters to the Editor.
Surely, 12 men tried and true would .agree that 2U601 is a bad
place to build a house and those of you who visited this site
would agree looking at the site.
Yours truly,
6� / "j
NEW"' S:f
Satntogaf A
etW-sphemipffnfluchce as reiO�� A
Hillside property r(-miteS*.-_*coric6ffi' s-`
BY KIM W.I.—k the planning department was Most of the trees cut were about
When con
White eight-years-;Id. In addition, 12 inches in diameter. White e3-
tractor Jake White mistakenly notified resi- timates:
received building Permits from dents located 30) feet from the "I only removed what I had
Santa Clara County to build his center of his project instead of to remove for constrivetion." he
Mme in the unincorporated hills 300 feet from the boundary Une. said.
between Saratoga and Monte if they had been notified the Neighbors said the tree re-
Serena. he never eVected to wAgbbors would have protested moval• in addition to construe-
find himself embroiled hr 1110, - to•end thgrisroject befons -con- tims on a 40 =4=and =
midEtafa controvesq. 771"i• 4.-z'sj 1 -damaged at
PiSighbors MAJ&Abe. ',wW*jA11dft-wffl= the•;
plan departmmt landslides. -arm,
got,.
pod its bounds.i Aw.
granted Fwmfttft
ha
home on a OD AlThd 0".. tb.
feeis):�Mr*o old have bmAir— rha'd todsu*
slope. They say cosoly-08001"
failed to follow thO
ItOpavelt: ants=-, the
eral piss which WK. neigidsoW atbj 1,,& aim Voloid. . . . . . . . . . . . wlil
which 'iwil ham cor—a-, Lane
cent or mom Ow ban of While'k prep - T110 has
'Tb@ hilloi"-il� on - pivied - :40 4 his driveway.. 01m] be .4111111310 to
eb
Weren't
61 4at n
insta a culvert ban th. (do a.
`W. Ssyso!-Ahlt eW wow driveway to all** thretedcnc mdoM
gave WWe kOn statiaigmM 'I
W-W�JUAA&. tblogb. but
-werslow.- a- the pr000e*�� , the culvert -am
tailed amt-rAvoorted flr,-Tlw� 7 elvolop . to.. court.3 Whit
ppgqnpdptatgg department '40MO-A deal of
:..., 6. Ee M. ,
abash' puw _ R"_
I I :the_ ne
the
OW
_NU
irst its policy am hmdft 0mstrOetlosi to the
ieaseftheeom tj
Me' ,
his
be-
EIEURIMM,
12th.Congmsi6nal r,
r%v% 4..— —A.!
pdttieal
h
Pfsek!f I SAW "T, AREVIeted
thissato-do-josa wha,tbaig
6K
,
which was LamiLaW20, i;
the
ten
� to
to ask
- - - -1-A
bath, 0amt>Qrs,Qf.thaYeb6ana. I � "Now to lochade several wells unsure in spin I
pr"Otler, b6c, I afteaft" ft PMPrw, war
_`bftte&—
addition, WNW i6d an adjacent
has put a great
neighbot am replacing. a worn
)•hls house de-
* pip&—aff : dr a Nountami
m
disagrees with
W, Y.Cyviaammdnotbe pipe
construction
idawdeesse
Ulifeet o=wn "
says tha* two
ansawslide pos-
Me' ,
his
be-
EIEURIMM,
12th.Congmsi6nal r,
r%v% 4..— —A.!
pdttieal
h
Pfsek!f I SAW "T, AREVIeted
thissato-do-josa wha,tbaig
6K
,
which was LamiLaW20, i;
the
ten
� to
to ask
- - - -1-A
bath, 0amt>Qrs,Qf.thaYeb6ana. I � "Now to lochade several wells unsure in spin I
pr"Otler, b6c, I afteaft" ft PMPrw, war
_`bftte&—
rest
oohiu" smteg.
T% LbeW Ageniey;
F*madm QmmissiM haw_
QP?M e0rdIrEfted tbmV are about
ordhomee
sbudd ism nods" two.
zxlx,4R saven low in the. James
LAID*`
am, including Widtes,
wbieb am nol located in soy.
F`1 7P"
00.
M,ft cc Sara
'i
tor'la-eur-
—'lF'ft1Ww1Ug;ft -180a. and
ow-s000lwopose,
6i
to anon am
C""VftnnkVA*ctdr
F.
toga's alibm of btfluenee., 7Ws
Leote Fkmk1W
woolUallow fianiog
dder bilildde zoning 'd.=
413I.PIP0110-49-
I _
pond-Wa" e0oltrudlon. rube
PrO
_P0.1119=400sedtobeinda
within
"We have am so etty tomb
an 1202010"
.0090.= mv**d � by AW
am
z0bul" of 'ofte"A*
Off hillsides and. we
Mot the county to be as toughas
N&M.Kaeea
arid'
—Nor
:.Aftall ifin hysarampit
Ujy. Low";
z .4.,
could Was as joog as dz Months
lot
— _# t!
. :
z:C -.7 7
la'aamm SM propard" wothe
1%ide scuffle: B
. . . . . . . . . .
u� c�
C didn't follow up on plan;
kyliervisors poised to act on
$Y- 1k*t4gn Salley wq're seeing incr-. OCU
�It�l 004 sort WHter with respect to dew Qptd�f
t' Son 3taarned a house was hillsides." r _ S
the rued when his
s Diann*
lilu t rnntructton crew wha is wailngfor ArcdO t
'Ii" �IAt trees in their for- merit controls suggesbgtf la M4 tn- t
,� in the hills out- terview that awry
ty qu f tie r
Now the 4i robs Hewlett. atiag 1 �,,
ire is wot'tited the Ditidtlfl
laid to des
caitd waalt out the Zoe
him and his areas of
p� W! the valley. asked '
' ofals say the
x' bigger problem and
>, abotat building gam,
od outrage over the
• owVcuq�a ^
was a
jAwnas Lace has led
meetlb
Iry that Santa Clara '
is
`
rssacted ordfnancea
In f7
the hi side ll
caantyhas
gl
��
ordinance
71>e
blt for de
idonm& steep�l
determines how
I of supervisors is
ment is allowed.
Vt4p Puy on a tem-
f
matical fa"W*
least building
tied kt filling the gap
gent ordinances are
sides. Anx"
e, say local
was to pr W.
the board's
E,,Es,tinR
open space aid;
the hill-
landslides
beat," said Linda
w ttee for Green
tared tie has closely moni-
It's particularly
tAt point because ...
V 0t1 nj s>t w >t
But after the planning depart-
ment staff was reduced by dristie
budget cutbacks in 1982, the county
put a lower priority on ordinances
for building Qn sig& parcels. Offi-
cials say they simply never got,
a
,
�C
tlU
Vie
for ' do'aYA�+Aak tf
stroll }tlhaltRi'beQ�N
° • o &tn'jo+e Metcury News ■ "day. August 9, 1988 313
Wents
• C7 ct
If �iqq bilizes the
p hdghbor Wanda
AlexrZa�r somebody could get
killed" a landsidde.
NefgD ' and'tnvironmental-
Irts print to a.epCjM of the gener-
�ytttt�t (t�{�, aonstnic-
�olt iimiiatigw aced on
4j9M Rboyp�,IM : nt." But
WW the nelgbl m read that lan-
gpp Oo -r eaA abtlolutely no con -
+1+00*4 40owed, county plan-
4 say it means building
11f mrefuDy planned and
monitored.
ry pia¢ director Leode
yhfnki►tt Wjbr*#W a proposed or-
4buto e ; last 7berday that would
MH*, Mt1kft on; steep slopes if
Abell pk%469; 4partment is Pwwam �
against t ride and enviror,
meStal: damw,i,Qr'itics of the
Mite ;prcoect iwid that ww t
strict ieneugh `,- r! is
t ,Tile Couoly swc elM about 70 ap-
piiCat�ow a year for hillside pro-
jwr Ori.s.me.t -j�� jee`ts wvu1d be affected by the
� � rid ><eQ�411119
reYleired by
plataflM commission and the
its• board of Diridon sug-
Md- [Pled 1th'Ehvironmental
r .tff i" y case where
44 .,o:t i �, �lthe 3;pe "t
jtlad Y L4119 is OW !wrier she isTwilling
d@6 A fig- to r ing the plan-
Well" is proposal. But
1 LIF a E. 14so Ar �1 IMf' �t1DY'bbunty'ahready
tdad0 1qt i>i,di!`�Q sldpe A bit strict Cit+ef)pment controls,
la a 1640- 1b+lb`lk the board
Ib
iii d hfln reviewing
;., ,t, TY proms.
inn ease
Mercury Nsus
5 t Al.
?i s
ROBERT D. INGLE, Senior Vice President and Executive Editor
JEROME M. CEPPOS, Managing Editor
JENNIE BUCKNER, Managing Editor /Afternoon
BOB ELDER, Vice AwidaW and Editor _
DEAN $ BARTEE, Senior Wise President
JOHN B. HAMMETT, Senior Vice President
PETER, E. PITT, Vice President /Operations
TALLY C. LIU, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
TIMOTHY J. ALLDBIDGE, Marketing Director
RONALD G. BEACH, Classified Advertising Director
WILLIAM A. OTT RICHARD IL FETSCH, Director of Circulation Operations
President and Publisher ROBERT C. WILLIAMSON. Display Advertising Director
EdtOdab Friday, August 12, 1988 gB
Keep off the slopes
County shcWd not
back down on ben of
hillside construction
ANTA Clara County supervisors de.
cided Tuesday that the county gen-
eral plan does not in fact ban hous-
ing : cozritivcItiarn on hillsides with slopes
greater than 30 percent.
- -The decision could open the steep
slopes of unincorporated land on both
sides of the Santa Clara Valley to new
development. The supervisors approved
an interim ordinance restricting such de-
velopment for 45 days, but not banning it.
- That isn't good enough. The supervisors
have decided that construction on sheep
slopes on county land is legal unless some
reason, for health or safety, can be found
h* prohibiting it. -
They've got it exactly backward. As the
1982 general plan states, all building on
steep slopes should be prdilbited unless
some reason exists for aIIm►� it.
The issue arose when complaints about
nevv construction in the bills outside Sara-
toga led to the discovery that the county
had never enacted ordinances to imple-
ment the slope restrictions in the general
Pin . The supervisors decided Co could not
enforce a ban after County Comisel Don
Clark told them that the general plan is
unclear, and that a ban could deprive
owners of the use of their land, constitut-
ing inverse condemnation, requiring the
county to buy the land.
Given the potential liability to the coun-
ty, Clark's caution was understandable.
Nevertheless, the stakes are important
enough to adopt the strictest possible con-
trols. No less than the long -term, environ-
mental degradation of the hillsides is at
risk. For an idea of what can happen, see
the hillsides of Los Angeles County .
In our view, Clark's opinion that an
ordinance banning all development on
steep slopes would open the county to
liability hasn't been demonstrated.
Courts have ruled that inverse condem-
nation exists when an owner is deprived
of aU use of his land, not just one use. So
long as an owner has an alternative use, it
Is not inverse condemnation.
The supervisors decided not to test that.
Instead, they gave themselves 45 days to
decide what kind of permanent restric-
tions to adopt for building on the steep
slopes. There are some things they should
bear in mind as they proceed.
The public's health and safety must be
protectgd. If construction on any slope
site would increase the threat of slides,
divert streams, fell trees needed to pro-
tect from erasion or otherwise endanger
the land, it should be denied.
Building applications for the steep
slopes should include automatic environ-
mental assessments. And — as was not
done in the hills outside Saratoga — all
Interested parties should receive notice of
public hearings • where they can make
lmown their opposition.
But such specific regulations are a sec-
ond line of defense. Given the stakes, the
county'should not back down on an over-
all prohibition without irrefutable evi-
dence that it's legally untenable. And we
don't think. that's been demoated.
ID�vr 1-,nr%tt T TNT A -v ao
r
■
T
f
j
e�
0
Lel
0
h
invc
im
Vin
incl
exp
Peg
E
cal
cis
01H
me
C
Y
drii
ate
�.� William Cotton
and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
330 Village Lane
Los Gatos, California 95030 V A
(408) 354 -5542 O _W , U
October 14,1988
S1 138B
TO: Tsvia Adar, Assistant Planner
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
SUBJECT: Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Review
RE: Lands of Krueger, DR -88 -025
20881 Canyon View Drive
We have completed a supplemental geologic and geotechnical review of the
proposed development using:
Soil Investigation (report) prepared by Applied Soil Mechanics,
dated September 20,1988.
Additionally, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our
office files (i.e., Gutierrez, SDR- 1432).
The applicant proposes to construct a single - family residence and driveway.
In our previous review report (September 2, 1988), we reviewed a preliminary
feasibility study (report dated August 30, 1988) prepared by Applied Soil Mechanics.
We concluded that this previous report adequately characterized site geologic
conditions and concurred with the project consultant that the site is physically
suitable, from a geotechnical standpoint, for the proposed development. We
recommended that a detailed soils investigation be completed prior to issuance of
building permits.
• • • I4�•�7
Based on our review of the referenced soil investigation (report), it appears
that the project geotechnical consultant has, in general, recommended appropriate
geotechnical design criteria to mitigate the apparent site constraints. We have
recently been in communication with the applicant's geotechnical consultant to
clarify appropriate retaining wall design criteria. The consultant has recommended
that retaining walls which support 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slopes should be designed
to resist an active pressure of 75 pcf equivalent fluid weight (personal
communication, October 12, 1988). It is our understanding that an addendum letter
will be prepared by the consultant stating the revised retaining wall design criteria.
We recommend approval of building permits with the following conditions:
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Tsvia Adar
October 14,1988
Page 2
Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical
consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site
drainage improvements, and design parameters for
foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that his
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the plan review should be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of site
development and building permits.
2. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant
shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the project construction. The inspections should
include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and
grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements,
and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the
placement of concrete and steel.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall
be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City
Engineer for review prior to final project approval.
WRC:TS:mjs
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William R. Cotton
City Geotechnical Consultant
CEG 882
William Cotton and Associates
v
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
WINTER 1982 -83
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
William Cotton and Associates
Hh
s
VI William .Cotton
and Associates
TO: Wayne Dernetz
City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
March 14, 1983
SUBJECT: Preliminary Storm Damage Assessment
RE: Landslide Problems
At your request, we have completed a preliminary field inspection
of approximately 25 landslides that have resulted from this years rain
storms. Most of the landslide problems are confined to private property,
however, some involve public roads and utilities. The cumulative affect
of these failures will most likely result in a very significant economic
impact to the Saratoga community for the next several years.
The cause of the slope failures is directly related to the prolonged
winter season which has been characterized by storms of both high intensity
and long duration. For the most part, the landslides that have taken place
in Saratoga are of two general types: (1) shallow, fast moving soil slip/
debris flows and (2) deep, slow moving earth slumps. In both o t ese
cases, the Tailures are triggered by over saturation of the ground and /or
by raising ground -water levels. If the storm season begins to diminish
in the next few weeks, we should see a marked decrease in the soil slip/
debris flow type of failures, however, the deeper- seated earth slumps
could continue to occur into the spring and possibly summer months. This
is especially true in hillside areas which are underlain by preexisting,
relatively stable landslide deposits. We anticipate that the steeper areas
within these landslides will be the most vulnerable areas for future failures
As ground water infiltrates into these deposits during the remainder of this
year, these areas will become more unstable.
If we can be of additional service to you, please contact our office.
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATEeS, INC.
William R. Cotton
President /Chief Engineering Geologist
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
'-- ---- - - -- - -, -
-- - - - - - - - -
id MIA IQ
bf7 •un��d •^ . u"`�ul� 4 .. '•■4 ••••
wort •• a �`' ° - . nrr.•4JC
I �° ` , SA AV��Ii.S <' • +� �t ° =w•` t..IrW • l �.
�3 p ° ._' -•'.,` << -�
LA
CREEK to
QNAR (CY w L• . ° •_ n.r a_ a, •, d d. ..r.
'cr, �ti--'• L rn"lir'i ti Ycg�L
1 i ec, t.� ;b i ,Iw•'�• ryns,\C • S / + �'r "i •, .rha rn
------ -----J Itot. �' fit• '�r '�c; .'• + �� Jh/ a i !L, e r j: Y�• ,.�. 4 \It•'-. �. /(w-
COUNTY PARK �� �`` °/ s: �.4 i w 4��� �t 4 ;.`"• wj + +�;•
KoEPfR�1iX /\\ /� -��.. �, \./ t / � °y IIgg �b, /+ � L ��: ens d��•fs ��,.
- - - - - - - - - - - \- �,n -t\ �Q_ �� 3s� "FQ�c..l ic�o o■ ♦, r•`'�t� 4�' " "\ fb� 3 �' f e
fG l• � lull r• � • • p4r•• jJ ' • - ♦� 9 \ r v M��� � �\
'\ '�S' �� •usi�u•ru.• '� � ru..t, ;I r , S " 6 i � / 4 r-N � r ♦`.� s•tu Q
°Wr.. s�•r s. a a. F , _ino '$Jc 4 c•• • •.ash S• wIG
• 1 4 cr ■�mn- ♦l a
sAaATac. . r - �. �I �E `� } �, i• `� °- 1 �
A AMANA r, a �� B I •cu•. =1�•'• i i ;1 c C' . E•� 1 Y
PRIV RTE ERi,E V KEC�I .4C` ( iiil.lSt .�.` 1 : . •;, guar., RFe� •r. °n`°' :,`-• c— c..r. ` •ic[roA =
\/ N $_I L �:; s I_ u•s°'yor.uS ^' o •L r[it rul[r •s`
co'"G[
JMlllr tr
e w,d� - .� lr% rS,V `� a . .IS�F}� �d ,~✓ �•�.0 � ' \0� E � ` � \ti _
!�•• V0 f J e IQ
MItNAEI .,o c 1 �/ ..
rtKE�SOBLEMAN FIERCE- �,•o• +a,�♦ �♦ t ���? 6
ou
♦ I
,� 4 Y • ty 4 Y
KILLER ..n l v. r■■tcs : ro I•
4
• ° G- ° 'h 1 a` d rINRIO cuaw :,a OP r
. R4SSELl. i ,I,.,.91 �
' : � 6 •. - ro t � ;� /- �` 4`io� • `'' oa " .o.vva i iI nw Ir[�' �r � tl �s
P95 cl.
4�% J _ I. u t K ^•cl 1.
cam
`• +y�• q_ j` �1 KANZAGAL JoPFES �� ° •.11 n. l.ntow
!° 4 • .t f
_ a lr• � P c � If
KITTRIDGE !� v `w., r
o�
w .
VILLA ' I a■
OATALYO
` • Y•Y s .• ! ps♦ u•
N • ♦ . i'E �ASN d
AASOX TUY 1 .f '` a:� + Cj% • \
♦ '�i CCC"`
i�
SJ � d �•�•.yrJl \ a/o7 +ri
NO`!ER �\J� '
LANDSLIDE INDEX MAP, 1983
ip
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The landslide occurred along the northern margin of a very large,
relatively stable Old Landslide deposit (Ols). The stream canyon
marks the boundary between the landslide and a bedrock ridge
(i.e. Ritter parcel) underlain by siltstone and sandstone materials
of the Santa Clara Formation. The portion of the Old Landslide
that is failing appears to have been modified by grading, however,
the grading activities appear to be minor.
Approximate Size:
Eissman /Rueling Landslide
Length: 50 feet
Width: 200 feet
Depth: 12 feet
Winn /Herman /Laughlin Landslide
Length: 250 - 350 feet
Width: 100 - 140 feet
Depth: 20 feet
Ritter Landslide
Length:
Width:
Depth:
Time of Failure:
180 feet and 100 feet
100 feet and 90 feet
10 feet and 5 feet
It is our understanding that the Eissman landslide first showed
signs of movement on February 8, 1983. The Herman residence
first showed signs of distress during the late afternoon of
March 3, 1983.
Probable Cause of Failure:
The most likely cause of the present phase of slope instability
appears to be the erosional downcutting along the adjacent stream
channel which reduced lateral support and the prolonged period
of rainfall that saturated the old landslide debris that makes up
the canyon walls. The rupturing of the waterpipe located across
the canyon immediately north of the Herman parcel may be a signifi-
cant factor in causing both the Herman landslide and the Ritter
landslide. However, the Ritter landslide may have caused the water
pipe to break.
William Cotton and Associates
r
6) Ritter Parcel
Two landslides have occurred on the south - facing slope of the
Ritter parcel, however, they have not damaged any structures.
The eastern most landslide was associated with the breaking of
of a water line belonging to San Jose Water Works.
Potential Remaining Hazards:
The landslide processes will continue at or above the present
rate of activity, however, if the intensity and /or duration of
rain were to increase,the rate of failure will correspondingly
increase. We anticipate that the landslide margins will get
larger if any significant movement of the existing landslides
were to occur.
Recommended Action:
At the present time, a number of the property owners have
retained the services of a geotechnical consultant for emergency
work. However, we recommend taht a detailed investigation of the
entire Michaels Drive area be conducted. The primary purpose
of this investigation would be to characterize the potential for
enlargement of the existing landslide, to determine the potential
for new landsliding in the adjacent hillside and to provide
recommendations to mitigate the adverse effects of the recent
episode of landsliding.
William Cotton and Associates
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
MICHAELS DRIVE LANDSLIDE COMPLEX
Location:
March 14, 1983
The landslides are located north of Michaels Drive adjacent to
the residences of Eissman (21193), Rueling (21161), Winn (21139),
and Herman (21107), and Laughlin (21075).
Property Damage:
The landslides in this area are mainly characterized by movements
towards the stream canyon which is located along the northern
boundary of the parcels. Three separate landslides, Eissman/
Rueling, Winn and Herman, are located on the south wall of the
canyon and two landslide deposits (Ritter) are located on the
north wall.
1) Eissman Parcel
Extensive damage has been sustained by the Eissman residential
structure and swimming pool area. The eastern edge of the house
foundation system is located at the head scarp region of the
landslide and has been destroyed. The swimming pool area is
situated on the landslide mass and has been severely damaged.
2) Rueling Parcel
The slope located between the Rueling home and the Eissman
parcel represents the toe area of the landslide and is moving
into the yard area of the Rueling parcel.
3) Winn Parcel
The Winn residence does not show damage, however, the hillside
immediately east of the home is moving toward the Herman parcel.
The Winn swimming pool area is entirely within the landslide mass.
4) Herman Parcel
The Herman house foundation has been partially destroyed and
severely damaged throughout due to landsliding. A well- developed
head scarp has developed beneath the east edge of the house
and swimming pool area. A second lands.lide located on the
slope between the Winn and Herman properties is moving toward
the residence.
5) Laughlin Parcel
The Laughlin residence foundation appears not to be damaged but
adjacent to their home on the creek side, the swimming pool area
and decking are moderately damaged.
William Cotton and Associates
' .ice .r141, �
4 0' ,
WrAr
_J
PRELIMINARY,STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
March 14, 1983
KITTRIDGE ROAD LANDSLIDE
Location:
The landslide is 1RoadeandnBohlmanpRoaduraThelheaddoft region
the landslide
between Kittredge
is opposite the driveway access for 15380 Kittridge Road. The
western margin of the landslide is immediately adjacent to the
residential structure located at 15330 Kittridge Road. The
remaining natural however,
Bohlman
t Road.
the toe of t
Property Damage:
Access along Kittridge Road
thehas
roadbeen
al�gnmentwhere
andthe
gaseandswaterof
the landslide extends into
lines have been disrupted. The ground area and residential astride
structure located aflthe0landslideeanda are rtherefore d
o involved in the
the lateral margin o
failure process.
Potential Remaining Hazards:
The landslide has a very high prfaaburety continuing to
at or above the present rate of
the mass will likely involve more of15330 Kittridge
idgeRoad alignment
and the residential structure (i.e.
may extend downsope to Bohlman Road. If weather conditions like
the 1982/1983 seasons extend in the future,
this landslide mass
will continue to undergo progressive failure and thus will
continue to represent a severe economic risk to the City and the
adjacent landowners.
Recommended Action:
We recommend that all surface water be collected and diverted
away from the head of the landslide (i.e. Kittridge) by using a
closed system of surface drains. All utilities should be placed
above ground.
The entire slope area should be carefully investigated in order
to assess the actual extent of the landslide, determine the
tigate
associated risks, and to develo e practical
the effects of the failure processes.
The private property owners involved in the failure should retain
the services of an engineering geologist to evaluate the level of
potential risk to their land.
William Cotton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The landslide represents a portion of a much larger landslide
mass that is designated on the City Geologic map as a Dormant
Landslide (Dls).
Approximate Size:
Length: 250 feet (down slope)
Width: 120 -180 feet (cross slope)
Depth: unknown
Time of Failure:
The time of failure was March 3, 1983.
Probable Cause of Failure:
The unusually high amount of rainfall has caused the Dormant
Landslide to become saturated and ground -water levels to rise.
William Cotton and Associates
! / _� - — ,. •- �.. � I e� �� � - -_ \ \ \\ li i l l l I I'I V v11 �• ` 1 I ` \ 1 \
��' TRIDGE ROAD
o
XI
Is
�. �. _ j , ;;►
KIT
LANDSLIDE
1983:
3,5 Cy
/...1300
� _ ,.•�• `:���. � � � - � i ��;.�� -.. - _ ___; �� /, � X11 � i� •
145
/ 1 1
INN
// ►/� /1
IT \ \� /% /% / , i It 1 t o� g \\
\ 4AN
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
SARAHILLS DRIVE SLOPE MOVEMENT
Location:
March 14, 1983
This slope movement is located on Sarahills Drive. The major
cracking is near the junction of Sarahills Drive and Sarahills
Court,and the feature extends to the north - northwest along the
trend of Sarahills Drive.
Property Damage:
There has been extensive cracking of Sarahills Drive adjacent to
Sarahills Court, and the concrete gutter has pulled away from
the curb as much as 2 inches. The curb has buckled near the
left lateral margin of the feature, and Sarahills Drive has
suffered compression cracking near the lower region of the slope
movement. In addition, the driveway access to 21265 Sarahills
Drive has suffered numerous distress cracks.
Potential Remaining Hazards:
This slope movement has a high potential of continued activity.
Further movement would pose a high hazard to the integrity of
Sarahills Drive and existing utilities located along the road
alignment. In addition, if the slope movement processes expand
upslope as well as laterally, the residences located at 21265,
21266, 21328 and 21346 Sarahills Drive could be threatened.
Recommended Action:
At the present time, all open cracks along Sarahills Drive should
be sealed, and surface drainage should be diverted away from
cracked areas where appropriate.
William Cotton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The slope movement occurred in an area mapped as Old Landslide
(Ols) on the Town Geologic maps. The Santa Clara Formation is
exposed in cut slopes along Sarahills Drive near the toe of the
landslide. As indicated on the Town Geologic Maps, the bedrock
strikes to the north - northwest and dips steeply (300 to 350)
to the east.
Approximate Size:
Length: 270 feet
Width: 530 feet
Depth: 10 - 20 feet
Time of Failure:
Accelerated movement occurred between-March 2 and March 3, 1983.
Probable Cause of Failure:
The probable cause of movement is reactivation of Old L_andside
deposits by high ground water conditions.
William Cotton and Associates
/ � . / �/ � / / ' �. � ��� •. iCC' : ` „O �', 'IISS'M� , . 7„ .. i l • � 1 • ....
�' ��• r � /�`, /, -�; 1. ��/ `� ,� '.� �� 'j� {. — ;...- •,.�ti�' 1�� r;.•,r /�� j� /. /•.' `: ., .
.�
3
al.
r1 i
ASS
hl
A is 1 .. .;+.; `. , / •' %� �S C't
v • y • �` ; r
... -' • ' \ 5
o
l f '
IV J
;� � / /;',; /� ��•r' ', -�'' ��, rid � /'.rjv, �- •' - __ --.__
• : ' SARAHILLS DRIVE
• `tip � '� ' ,' �' ���
• � � SLOPE MOVEMENT �` ��' rr � ,f ,�. %,r�:. ,�• " %� �__.•-== '--� --.
Im • ``fir.' r r ` r,r .`
Ols.
NN
\��� � • •! � 1 i ` f "r ,`'' �j�f�" � f r� .. lam\ �• '_ \ � �.
Wil a CQitotttd sso�iates
JONES LANDSLIDE
Location:
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
March 14, 1983
The landslide is located on the slope below Haymeadow Drive
and immediately above the Jones residence, 21127 Bankmill Road.
Property Damage:
No property damage was noted with the exception of minor distortion
of the lagging in a retaining wall located at the base of the
slope and behind the Jones residence.
No significant displacement has yet occurred, however, surface
cracks have been noted on the hillside in several places.
Potential Remaining Hazards:
There is a moderate to high potential for more pronounced slope
failures at this site.
At present, the slope between the retaining wall and Haymeadow
Drive has a set of well- developed incipient cracks near the top
of the slope. These features indicate that the slope is under-
going progressive failure. If this slope were to receive large
quantities of water due to a short period of intense rainfall, it
is likely that the rate of failure would accelerate. We anticipate
that the failure would not be very deep (i.e. 3 to 5 feet) but may
involve a significant portion of the slope. Under intense storm
conditions the failure mode would most likely be a very rapid mud
flow (i.e. soil slip /debris flow). These types of failures have
the potential to cause high levels of structural damage to homes
and can prove fatal to the occupants.
Recommended Action
As temporary measures, we recommend that the critical portions
of the slope between Haymeadow Drive and the retaining wall be
covered with plastic (i.e. visqueen). This will require cutting
of trees and brush from the slope before the plastic is laid
down and providing a closed system of surface drainage to collect
and divert runoff from the base of the plastic covered slope to
the street (i.e. Bankmill Road). Care should be taken to extend
the plastic over the retaining walls to the level area located
behind the Jones residence.
The homeowner should retain the services of a.geotechnical consultant
to conduct an investigation of the slope in order to provide design
alternatives to mitigate unstable slope conditions.
William Cotton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The slope problems are situated on a steep hillside area that
'nis represents the lateral scarp of a very large landslide deposit.
This deposit is designated as an Old Landslide (Ols) on the Cit
Geologic Map and underlies most of the developed lands along y
Bankmill Road. The subject failures are located south of this
.7i . I relatively stable landslide and are underlain by siltstone,
sandstone and conglomerate bedrock materials of the Santa Clara
Formation. Although the stratification of the bedrock is inclined
toward the slope and therefore may be considered to be a contri-
buting factor to the present level of instability, is more
likely that the failing ground is confined
materials that blanket the slope. to the surficial
Approximate Size:
Length: 30 feet (downslope)
Width: 50 feet (cross slope)
Depth: 5 feet
Time of Failure:
The failure is estimated to have taken place between March 2 and
March 4, 1983.
Probable Cause of Failure:
The failure is attributed to the abnormally high rainfall that
saturated the ground and produced high groundwater levels.
00 William Cotton and Associates
lk-
l:j J�,t q �0
��Sc:
'ONES
3b",
00
CIA` LANDSLIDE
si
1983
N
'Ag
A
4kO
"PIA iot. 11`,�
0"t
N
7i
At-
IR,
.::I,
v,
'lilt
7"
777
• —
4r - -----
zo
ar
8-A
KI,
"ji
IA MIX-
_7t
x.:
j
;OW 6
` .L .11 t fY 'V !S V D ■ a �' �r d13r �n+tf 1 i t i f �/ i �^• -
IV
.44 ki�"
TZ l..
_TAM
mown
7.77
RoA 0 l\,Av
TM, ,pry it'ia 4110 \11",_:
I,
86. -44,4
T vf,
'G 41
;Jw �rT +.,' 11 \ 1 '`1 1. yVr."'.`•'nw, �, 1 I \,
iacm-
o-64
A f, .7 F
KOEPERNIX LANDSLIDE
Location:
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
March 14, 1983
The primary landslide is located on the Koepernix parcel, 21810
Via Regina. A much smaller secondary failure is situated in the
riding ring area of the Frogner parcel, 21810 Via Regina.
Property Damage:
The Koepernix landslide has displaced the house foundation
approximately 5 inches downslope. No major structural damage
has been sustained by the residence, however, doors are out of
plumb and some cracking has developed in the concrete foundation
and the garage slab.
The Frogner landslide has resulted in failure of a wooden retaining
wall below the southern edge of the riding ring.
Potential Remaining Hazards:
If the landslide processes continue,the activity may extend
laterally as well as in an upslope and downslope direction.
If significant movement were to take place, the Koepernix house
would be severely damaged.
Recommended Action:
We recommend that a detailed geotechnical investigation be
completed in order to provide design criteria for slope stabilization.
The mitigation measures that would have the most merit would be
those that address the control of the surface /subsurface drainage.
William Cotton and Associates
1
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The landslide occurred in an area desha d Dormant
llowgroundwaterconditionse
(Dls). There are abundant signs of
through most of the lower slopes of the
relativelynde the
drainage a ern
margin of the landslide is marked by a
channel.
Approximate Size:
Length: 400 feet
Width: 150 feet
Depth: 0 feet
Time of Failure:
The landslide occurred on March 2 or 3, 1983.
Probable Cause of Failure:
The probable cause of failure oversaturation of
toerai5esthee
materials by the recent heavy
ground water to critical levels.
William Cotton and Associates
1 +
• .,.. , • �� ! + �`� ',`\ •�•\ �� �y -mil �\.
• _ 15
oo
KOEPERNIX�, \�
,..� ..�.
•— • '— — LANDSLIDE Olg ,. f
. /� � '` •,. • __. .r: 1983
_ .. - _ ._ - fro e e •, e o .` `. .� c � ° - ..�.,.,_ / i. �i
• :\ `- r... --••�� '
to 'o•' ••' �'-, ' •e p o . rte,, e% o / •�... �_. ���e �%
• � •`� �.', �- • e o
:06i e • o/ �,•
oll
Ql
°o..� of ° ,o. •o a'• �_�• o. •• / .'.:
al a.
°
ID's
�' ` 1 • .•, O . .. j �/. -'...- -:::tip = s- z-' 0
1. G� , 11 ......, /�� /'. �� � . %•�, /� � ^' _ —_' - --
0,
Z.,
r,50
G/.07
s P,
C,
"0 a Ols
0 0
0 ° ° + 0 a -- ' 0 ilt O
0
iu oft crh and,KssociateA
X o
MILLER LANDSLIDE
Location:
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
March 14, 1983
The landslide is located on the steep hillside area along the northern
edge of the Miller parcel (15000 Springer Road).
Property Damage:
The failure has destroyed the primary access to the Miller parcel
and has left the north end of the tennis court complex unsupported.
The landslide has crowded the stream channel at the base of the
slope and has caused accelerated erosion and undercutting of
the north bank of the stream.
Potential Remaining Hazards:
The landslide will continue to fail near the head scarp region and
may damage further the tennis court. The toe area should experience
small scale sloughing of the stream banks that will adversely
impact the residential properties on the north side of'the stream
channel (i.e. Canyon View Drive). If the failure process were to
accelerate, the stream channel would be blocked and waters would
be temporarily dammed on the upslope side of the landslide.
Recommended Action:
At the present time, all surface drainage should be directed away
from the landslide and adjacent slopes in order to minimize the
potential for reactivation, enlargement and erosion. The property
owner may also wish to cover the headscarp with plastic (i.e.
visqueen) in order to minimize the infiltration of water into
the landslide. However, we recommend that a detailed geotechnical
investigation of the landslide and adjacent areas be conducted to
mitigate the adverse affects of the landslide and to provide
recommendations for long -term stabilization.
William Cotton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The landslide occurred in an area designated as an Old Landslide
(Ols) deposit on the City Geologic Maps. The head scarp of the
landslide is in a fill prism which supports a tennis court area.
The fill material is a brownish black silty clay. The colluvium
is a brown poorly sorted clayey sand with a small amount of
gravel. The head scarp area is saturated with a small drainage
flow coming out at the tennis court concrete foundation /fill
contact.
Approximate Size:
Length: 350 feet
Width: 200 feet
Depth: 20 feet
Time of Failure:
The initial failure occurred January 31, 1983, and the landslide
continued to move and finally destroyed the access driveway
sometime between March 1 and 4, 1983.
Probable Cause of Failure:
The failure most probably can be attributed to the oversaturation
of the Old Landslide deposit. It appears that surface and sub-
surface drainage may have been directed onto the head of the land-
slide. The unusually high rainfall coupled with the surcharge
of fill at the head of the landslide and possible undercutting
of the toe along the stream channel all added to the instability
of the existing landslide mass.
William Cotton and Associates
1 • •�* �i+4`':�i.�t t a1,�'t � ` ��',,; '� #R �� 11�� ::�� 1 j+ I � r f (+ r. i v
MILLER
LANDSLIDE
19831• IfJ ff 1`I� I i J r r
se
1 '
• �.�` 1 iii 7II2( �� t r +
,.QT
• 1
:
t '11
Ni'.1�-_ �; G.. y `L�t Y *:'�a, -�� aKx�.^ ,�'`, ��•'�`+y�t� i 1 � F ..} 1 i i �t
:gyp:.. \• :� 1 n u t 1 f #' { 'r /'
' Goa 't 11' i f t j `:•,
—•t. '• -tea- r / ,�' � -� ! i )
/�• :
!, � • ,• }•. I i;3
•..,*..`. a �: I y� '��,.-` /,•• `.. •p •• ,•' • } i �• Qom- � _`r' �
LA
• y n�,�.. - _. � ' , +ter : - / �� + i. i
ire, • • ♦ • t
/*
G •�l 1 i tT •: i, f.' 'II. 'f 1 t. �, ' 1 !,', • r•+ • � t 1 11 f t c�
,�t� f',;y, rf! .,a. a a � ,1A • r �• • 1 ,
t4 • 7 ,
t.ton an ssoci tes /
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
SARATOGA HILLS ROAD LANDSLIDE
Location:
March 14, 1983
The landslide is situated on a steep hillside located on the north
side of Saratoga Hills Road.
Property Damage:
A small amount of debris is flowing onto Saratoga Hills Road.
No structures are involved.
Potential Remaining Hazard:
If the landslide processes continue, the landslide may extend
laterally as well as in an upslope direction. In an upslope
direction, the landslide would extend into the backyard of the
residence above and adjacent to the failed slope. Saratoga Hills
Road could also be blocked if debris continues to flow downslope.
Recommended Action:
In the short - term,the landslide area should be covered with plastic
(i.e. visqueen) and all surface water redirected away from the
affected area. In the long -term, a geotechnical study should
be.done to determine the design criteria for corrective work.
William Cotton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The landslide is confined to surficial deposits of soil,
colluvium and artificial fill that overlies bedrock materials
of the Santa Clara Formation.
Approximate Size:
Length: 120 feet
Width: 60 feet
Depth: ± 5 feet
Time of Failure:
The week of March 1 through March 4, 1983.
Probable Cause of Failure:
The failure is attributed to oversaturation of the surficial
materials on the steep hillside due to the abnormally high rain-
fall.
William Cotton and Associates
RUSSELL LANDSLIDE
Location:
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
March 14, 1983
The landslide is situated on a hillside at the rear of the Russell
residence located at 13987 Pike Road.
Property Damage:
The rear porch is loosing its foundation.
Potential Remaining Hazards:
Only a small part of the fill prism has failed so there is a good
potential for the landslide to expand in size up and downslope
as well as laterally. If it did expand laterally and upslope,
the remaining porch foundation would be lost and the house founda-
tion would be in danger of being damaged.
Recommended Action:
The owners should retain a geotechnical consultant to review the
failure and to provide recommendations to mitigate the problem.
Visqueen has been placed over the landslide area to inhibit further
saturation from rainfall.
William Cotton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The house sits on a hill top which is underlain by bedrock materials
of the Santa Clara Formation, however, the failure is confined to
fill materials.
Approxiamte Size:
Length: 40 feet
Width: 30 feet
Depth: 5 feet
Time of Failure:
Unknown
Probable Cause of Failure:
The fill was oversaturated and possible oversteepened causing
failure. It is not obvious, but the homeowners may have been
discharging their runoff over the fill slope.
William Cotton and Associates
0 0
0 0.0' Ols
0 0 Q �ci 0 .0 0 0 p O o 0 0 0 :a 1, , i 5 0 \ ~�•. / i % +r 11 / %:
o
A I s
� � - O�• �' __��,/ i l Ir t it
STS L-A D
/Ols
[
/*
0
RUSSELL
I's
I _-
";��' I LANDSLIDE
olS.
W1411am'Cotton and Aigt6st:es:: _.
IQTSC' .11
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
PIERCE - VIA REGINA LANDSLIDE
Location:
March 14, 1983
The landslide is located 400 feet southwest of the intersection of
Pierce and Via Regina Roads. It involves the edge of the west-
bound lane of Pierce Road, continues downslope and is toeing up
along the edge of Via Regina Road.
Property Damage:
A significant portion of Pierce Road is involved at the head of
the landslide and has moved downslope. The uphill lane of Via
Regina is partially destroyed where the landslide is moving up
through the road section.
Potential Remaining Hazards:
If the landslide processes continue, the failure may extend
farther into both road alignments. Additionally, the unstable.
slope conditions may extend laterally along the edge of'Pierce
Road and thus severely restrict traffic flow for a considerable
distance along this alignment.
No residential structures are jeopardized, however, significant
movement in the toe region could cut off access to residential
parcels on Via Regina.
Recommended Action:
At the present time, all surface drainage should be directed
away from the head area of the landslide. We recommend that a
detailed geotechnical investigation of the landslide and adjacent
areas be conducted in order to generate the necessary data to
formulate design criteria for repair of the landslide.
William Cotton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The landslide occurred in an area underlain by siltstone and
sandstone materials of the Santa Clara Formation, however, the
landslide may be confined to the thick cover of soil and colluvium
which overlies the bedrock.
Approximate Size:
Length: 50 feet (downslope)
Width: 40 feet (cross slope)
Depth: 10 feet
Time of Failure:
The initial failure occurred sometime between March 1 and March 4,
1983.
Probable Cause of Failure:
The failure most probably can be attributed to the oversaturation
of the hillside in association with high rainfall.
William Cotton and Associates
' \0� C 0 • • 1 1 p
1 0
PIERCE /VIA REGINA.
01
�:� .
Ira ` LANDSLIDE ,.. ,Y
sct 1. a -- ° • �.. ..
- _ - 1983 °
..! —.�. ! .,1`_ •' •.i 110 �.0 O 0 /i,/ Q 'i r r °e••G °0• / ! '
;:1:' y moo/ of • r'
Q
D1'
S/
0.* 0 4
0, .0
o c ° O o o , C�
0
0 0
0
0 S/
0 `1 O a 0./ Dis,
0
° O
0.,
• � /. � .. �;.,•,�• 717 i,• �'�, / , `, 1 11,1 ` � 1 i \.
1 - Dis i .
QTsc
William Cotton and Associates
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
QUICKERT ROAD LANDSLIDE
Location:
March 14, 1983
The landslide is located on Quickert Road approximately 180 feet
east of the Kittridge Road junction. The greatest portion of
the landslide originated on the steep hillside located above and
below Quickert Road and moved down canyon across Kittridge Road.
Property Damage:
Extensive damage has occurred to both Kittridge Road and Quickert
Road. Shoulder and road fills have failed along three separate
100 foot sections of the road alignment. The actual extent of
damage is difficult to determine because of the cover of landslide
debris on the road surfaces.
Potential Remaining Hazards:
The landslide process will continue throughout the remainder of
the rainy season. We anticipate that the scale of continued
failures will be confined to piecemeal sloughing and erosion of
the landslide area. However, much larger failures could result
if the area received intense periods of rainfall. The small
failures may result in periodic road closures while the larger
episodes may extend downslope to Bohlman Road.
No structures were damaged by the landslide.
Recommended Action:
The roads should be cleared of all loose hazardous landslide
debris that remains above and below the roads.
The impacted landowners should retain an engineering geologic
consultant to assess the slope conditions and provide long -term
recommendations for stabilization.
William Cotton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The landslide occurred on a steep slope (350) that lies between
the switchbacks of Kittridge and Quickert Roads. The bedrock is
highly fractured shale and sandstone materials of the Franciscan
Formation. The materials involved in the landslide included
fractured bedrock, the natural cover of soil and colluvium, and
the artificial fill materials from Quickert Road and Kittridge Road.
The landslide was essentially confined to the relatively thin
mantle of surficial materials that covered the hillside.
Approximate Size:
Length: 300 feet
Width: 50 to 100 feet
Depth: 10 feet
Time of Failure:
The slope failure occurred on March 2, 1983.
Probable Cause of Failure:
The failure was caused by over saturation of the slope by the
recent heavy rains. The over saturation created high pore
pressures within the surficial materials.
William Cotton and Associates
--- cT
QUICKERT ROAD
LANDSLIDE -
1983
\
rsc ;.
_. •Als s \
� �' _ - - --- _ .��\~ �� •� /' .',/ /� /� .. _ _..._. Off, ,` \•�'�\ • ', \ •
TUC -- ".,,�, i\�.' •� 1 • %•�.- '� ••,� ,'� \;�
�.,, .___. �. \. . -, 1; .` �_ � � \. � 1 }1111 � i �• � �,_ ,. �� �, f ,
1300 t i ' , /. ,.•,
a \
��
600-
> /i / /Illllfl 11 I II I III I Illl i i I II II U; i ili I N li; li l
'1r
1
J oT
/OO-
�� e
MANZAGAL LANDSLIDE
Location:
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
March 14, 1983
The landslide is located in the front yard area of the Manzagal
parcel on Canyon View Drive approximately 180 feet from the inter-
section of Sullivan Way and Canyon View Drive at the residence
of 21090 Canyon View Drive.
Property Damage:
The north side of the Manzagal house shows minor cracking on the
foundation. The entire front yard is included in the landslide.
Potential Remaining Hazard:
If the landslide processes are allowed to continue, the activity
will extend laterally as well as in an upslope and downslope
direction. If extended in an uphill direction, the head scarp
would remove the foundation stability of the front of the Manzagal
residence. If extended in a downslope direction, the landslide
toe could block portions of Canyon View Drive.
Recommended Action:
We recommend a geotechnical consultant be retained to review the
site and to provide immediate emergency recommendations to protect
the residential structure should additional failures take place.
William Cotton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The landslide is confined to a large fill prism extending from
the front of the Manzagal residence out to Canyon View Drive.
The headscarp extends up to the foundation of the Manzagal residence
and extends along the entire width of the house.
Approximate Size:
Length: 60 feet
Width: 75 feet
Depth: ±10 feet
Time of Failure:
The time of failure was March 1, 1983.
Probable Cause of Failure:
The probable cause of failure was oversaturation of fill materials
due to high ground -water levels.
William Cotton and Associates
IN
4= MANZAGAL
�,
LANDSLIDE
1983 k.
rn
to
• L C -
• ti / •
� I : • l � tai � -�-% � ;'• _ _ ,
\ 1
• .1, *des $c
f
� "` maw � f • . • � • 1 �"'.� i� _, • • �• � �i • � ' • i —•'�`w • .' /{ : � / • i � �� -- '
��`'� • � 1 • ; .'� • • r • ' tea.".•. / �'/ • • .* • * • � Y �' �• • i •. • I � tr ..-+• � -...r
O 'fit 1 •�i :�}. � -r'� � —+� � � ,� �`,.:-j . �. i ��-. .
•'`'IV+: • r+`:. �r wJ�.: . r �'� • .`�£.• ` ^�^
�„y''.. ,• i ;.d , .'� • 1,
is
ol
0 Ts c
Is
IA
Ir
3bu
ev
�=
�.. :; T� F F',! e .J II�•'f. =R '�, j } :. / SY' .ti ri. • •�' f , •. _.�• • 1r
Wi a Cotron.and'Associ$tes'v
f
. •`�•,l ' �. 1�i= ^N..� '�•�^ 'f. � hrtN \.�1.� • _.. tu_ �� _ .. c� f!� 1.. a IA L r _
HOVER LANDSLIDE
Location:
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
March 14, 1983
The landslide is located west of Peach Hill Road on the west -
facing slope below the Hover residence and above the driveway
access to the Andre parcel.
Property Damage:
A low, wooden retaining wall, located immediately west of the
Hover residence, has suffered minor damage. The driveway access
to the Andre residence was blocked by the landslide,and the road
surface was damaged. A low retaining wall along the Andre
driveway access also suffered moderate damage.
Potential Remaining Hazards:
There remains a high probability that the landslide process will
extend itself laterally as well as upslope and downslope. The
processes could eventually threaten the Hover's swimming pool and
associated concrete decking and walkways. The Hover residence,
located approximately 20 feet upslope of the head scarp, could also
be in jeopardy. The Andre driveway access and retaining wall may
suffer further inundation by landslide materials.
Recommended Action:
We recommend that all surface drainage from the Hover residence
and swimming pool area by diverted away from the landslide and
the adjacent slope in order to minimize the potential for
reactivation of the landslide and erosion of the slope.
William Cotton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The landslide occurred in the Old Alluvial fan deposits situated
directly above a small creek that parallels Madrone Hill Road.
The colluvium is a clayey sand. The failure is primarily confined
to a natural slope with a 3 foot cut at the base. The head scarp
is' still below the backyard boundary.of 15301 Peach Hill Road
(Hover residence). The landslide is directly above the driveway
of 15255 Peach Hill Road and presently is not involving the road-
way. A small creek runs parallel to the 15255 Peach Hill Road
driveway and Madrone Hill Road, but appears not to be involved
with the landslide other than being a drainage for mud debris.
Approximate Size:
Length: 80 feet
Width: 35 feet
Depth: 5 feet
Time of Failure:
Mrs. Hover identified the initial failure to have occurred on the
evening of February 28, 1983.
Probable Cause of Failure:
The Hover residence has a drainage pipe that leads from their
roof, under their backyard and discharges somewhere on the slope
where the landslide is located. This pipe became plugged,and they
broke the underground connection replacing it with a surface hose
which was directed on the landslide slope area. There is not a
significant fill prism involved, and the cut at the base of the
slope is small (approximately three feet) so it appears that the
discharge of surface runoff onto the slope oversaturated the
colluvium and caused the failure.
William Cotton and Associates
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
PIKE ROAD /SOBLEMAN LANDSLIDE
Location:
March 14, 1983
The landslide is located on the hillside between the Sobleman
residence (13800 Pierce Road) and Pike Road and is approximately
300 feet south of the intersection of Pierce Road and Pike Road.
Property Damage:
A significant section of Pike Road is failing in a downslope
direction. The uphill yard area of the Sobleman parcel has moved
downslope toward the home. The rear portion of the Sobleman
residence has been elevated approximately 4 to 6 inches. The
concrete decking around the swimming pool has been damaged. The
Richardson residence (13845 Pike Road) which sits uphill and on
the south margin of the head scarp, has lost part of the driveway,
and their retaining wall has failed. The retaining wall failure
is not related to the landslide activity.
Potential Remaining Hazards:
The landslide activity will continue to fail at or above its
present rate of failure, however, additional heavy periods of
rainfall will accelerate the failure process. If more rapid
failures were to take place, the access along Pike Road would
most likely be lost and the Sobleman residence severely damaged.
The Richardson residence would in all probability not be involved
in any expansion of the landslide process.
Recommended Action:
The Pike Road residents and the Soblemans should retain a
geotechnical consultant to investigate the landslide and provide
practical recommendations to mitigate the instability.
William Cotton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The landslide occurred in an area that is designated as an
Old Landslide (Ols) deposit on the City Geologic Maps. This
area of the Old Landslide represents some of the steepest topo-
graphy within the mass and therefore has a moderately high
potential for failure.
Approximate Size:
Length: 100 -120 feet
Width: 80 -120 feet
Depth: 10 -15 feet
Time of Failure:
The failure occurred on February 28, 1983.
Probable Cause of Failure:
The probable cause of failure was reactivation of a portion of an
Old Landslide deposit due to the high rainfall which caused
abnormally high ground -water Tevels.
William Cotton and Associates
s 0. p f ,•.,.
/-..
o al ° °. °• a
DI
= ° 0
01'
0 o p 00 0
o : /. -ear' � `_a =!'. Ay•YK''` c + _ f j
PIKE RD /SOBLE
MAN ..... �` f
LANDSLIDE
6.00.,
1983
01. 6
0 1 S.-
Q I il'
'o ° • � °,
VIM
D 1,6:
,DI - ,
PLEX
:1ki1I + C�Cton and r/Ssof�e
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
PERATA COURT LANDSLIDE
Location:
March 14, 1983
The landslide is located below Perata Court, south of the Perata
residence, and directly above the Carlson residence.
Property Damage:
The head scarp has cut into the Perata parking area. The lower
margin and toe of the landslide have cracked and are displacing
two cross slope surface drains. Also, the landslide toe is pushing
out and buckling a wooden retaining wall and a concrete brick
retaining wall.
Potential Remaining Hazards:
If the landslide processes continue, the failure will extend
laterally as well as in an upslope and downslope direction.
Three, 14 inch pine trees are located on the landslide mass and
have potential to fall on the Carlson carport. In addition, the
Carlson retaining walls and cross slope drains will be further
damaged with continued landslide activity.
Recommended Action:
In the short term, the head scarp area should be covered with'
plastic (i.e. visqueen) and surface drainage directed away from
the landslide area. The two cross slope surface drains should be
checked periodically to insure water is not leaking into the
landslide mass. The affected pine trees should be tied back to
the slope to avoid damage from their collapse.
We recommend a geotechnical consultant be retained to study the
site and determine design criteria for stabilizing the landslide
area.
William Cotton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The landslide occurred in a fill prism. There is no upslope
drainage that spills directly on the affected area. It appears
that the oversaturation of the fill prism by high rainfall has
overloaded the slope. Also, the older cut of the Carlson residence
where the retaining walls have been placed, may have but into the
slope enough to add to the instability. The two trees showing
bowing and straightening on the lower slope indicate older slope
movement. Perhaps those retaining walls were originally placed.
to correct an older failing slope. The fill prism was constructed
with local fill from a foundation excavation. It is fine - grained
and saturated. The construction was not supervised by a soil
engineer and possibly was not compacted properly. The head scarp
is 3 to 4 feet high and it is not obvious if the slippage plane
is only'in fill or cuts into the original slope. The slide
shows a rotational movement with the upper block rotating and
sliding diagonally downslope towards the northwest. The toe is
pushing out the retaining walls but its movement has not been
extensive.
Approximate Size:
Length: 60 feet
Width: 75 feet
Depth: 5 -10 feet
Time of Failure:
The failure occurred between March 2 and March 3, 1983.
Probable Cause of Failure:
The failure appears to be attributed to oversaturation of the fill
due to heavy rainfall and not upslope surface drainage. In addition,
the older cut at the Carlson residence may have weakened the slope.
William Cotton and Associates
p ,. �'-= per;, -a .. `-. �/y ,/•rj ` , � � (� i . ��,,.�- � r � . Y .
o' 110 .i� lc •' • ti
PERATA
��'i. 1',, t'.a�. _. "r we'ti.:. 1'•• .• i j � i •7 �.1 ,1 �� � ��
LANDSLIDE a. `• �'., '.mow ;�.
r
/ 1983
` If
�`— / �, • � � / ,ice --`` � � / �
/ .rte --1�
/ LA ,
RLEX- ,, \
_Wil Cotton and Associate's•
Tsc
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
QUARRY ROAD LANDSLIDES
Location:
March 14, 1983
The location of the landslides are along the downslope edge of
the Quarry Road alignment.
Property Damage:
Extensive damage has been sustained by the steep fill slopes
located along the downslope edge of the road. The failures have
caused the stream channel to become crowded and partially blocked,
thus severe erosion has resulted in additional instability.
Potential Remaining Hazards:
There remains a high potential for additional damage if the area
receives additional rain of moderate to high intensity.
Recommended Action:
The open cracks along Quarry Road should be sealed and all
surface water should be prevented from flowing over the edge of
the road. The head scarp areas of the landslide should be
covered with plastic (i.e. visqueen).
The entire area should be studied in order to provide a plan to
mitigate the adverse effects of the stream channel erosion and
the slope failure processess.
0
William Cotton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The landslides are underlain by Old Landslide deposits (Ols).
The creek is actively undercutting the banks below the road and
removing the lateral support from the edge of the road. The
materials actually involved in landsliding are confined to the
near surface soil and colluvial materials.
Approximate Size:
Landslide 1 - Length: 35 feet
Width: 75 feet
Depth: 5 -10 feet
Landslide 2 - Length: 80 feet
Width: 135 feet
Depth: 5 -10 feet
Landslide 3 - Length: 75 feet
Width: 150 feet
Depth: 5 -10 feet
Time of Failure:
The time of failure was prior to March 4, 1983.
Probable Cause of Failure:
The primary cause of the failures was the combined effect of
oversaturation of the surficial materials and the undercutting
of the slopes by stream erosion.
William Cotton and Associates
cc,
50 4 1
' 0 S
0 ;, 3.
55� '
° �./ ~-o� QUARRY ROAD
• ro ° °—IS; / 38 1 • Q /•� /
LANDSLIDES j• �:`' °�. /:..i ,!='� =
° QaI��5 • 1983 �• iI ►'
' 45 -•� -mot �...ii� '` �,, • ,y • ��• 1. �jj'' � � 1.1 1 i i Jr
low
,. /-_--- � >- .ice: -� .;; ,� �;, •� •,• , � I;''. ;•% � , •I � , %
DI
�
1' •
i ,! i i i.a rn 2r�t t/6 a o- es, O I S
AMANA LANDSLIDE
Location:
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
March 14, 1983
The landslide is located on the hillside situated above the Amana
residence (13899 Upper Hill Drive).
Property Damage:
The landslide destroyed a series of terraced garden beds located
on the slope behind the Amana home,and the failed debris partially
filled the backyard swimming pool. The toe of a fill slope
located on the neighboring parcel (i.e. up slope) has been lost due
to this event.
Potential Remaining Hazards:
The landslide has potential to expand upslope and laterally along
the hillside. Further damage to the pool and backyard is likely
if the slope continues to fail. Additionally,the residence located
upslope may loose foundation support if the failure process
extends in an upslope direction.
Recommended Action:
As temporary measures,we recommend that the affected area be
covered with plastic (i.e. visqueen),.that the upslope surface
drainage be diverted away from the failed area, and that a system
of surface drains be placed below the plastic cover in order to
intercept runoff and direct it down the driveway.
The homeowners should retain the services of a geotechnical
consultant to conduct a thorough investigation of the unstable
slope conditions and to provide recommendations for long -term
stabilization.
William Cotton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The landslide is confined to the thin surficial cover of soil and
colluvium located at the top of a backyard cut slope. No deep
seated bedrock materials of the Santa Clara formation were involved
in the event.
Approximate Size:
Length: 40 feet
Width: 25 feet
Depth 3 feet
Time of Failure:
The initial failure occurred on January 27, 1983. Apparently,
since then, during times of high rainfall, the slope has continued
to fail and the landslide has increased in size.
Probable Cause of Failure:
The cut slope for the Amana residence has daylighted the bedrock/
colluvium contact at the top of the slope. The colluvial materials
became saturated and failed down the cut slope as a debris flow.
William Cotton and Associates
n
PRELIMINARY STORM DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
BOHLMAN ROAD LANDSLIDE
Location:
March 23, 1983
The landslide is situated on a steep natural hillside region
along the south side of Bohlman Road, 250 feet southwest of the
intersection of Belnap Way and Bohlman Road.
Property Damage:
Extensive damage has occurred to the surface of Bohlman Road,
however, the gross stability of the road alignment is not threatened
by this failure.
Potential Remaining Hazards:
The landslide process will continue in a piecemeal manner thoughout
the remainder of the rainy season. There is a high potential
for headward and lateral enlargement of the landslide area.
Such activity may result in possible blockage and periodic closures
of Bohlman road.
Recommended Action:
The entire slope area should be investigated in order to assess
the extent of the landslide, determine the associated risks,
and to develop practical measures to mitigate the effects of
the failure processes.
William Cotton and Associates
A
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
Geologic Conditions:
The landslide occurred on a steep (35 °) north facing slope between
Bohlman Road and On Orbit Drive. The landslide represents a
portion of a much larger landslide mass that is designated as
an Active Landslide (Als) on the City Geologic map. The bedrock
is highly fractured greenstone of the Franciscan Formation.
In the immediate area, the bedrock dips from 32 to 38 degrees
to the northwest parallel to the slope of the hillside. The
materials involved in the landslide consist of fractured bedrock,
landslide debris, and the natural cover of soil and colluvium.
Approximate Size:
Length: 250 to 300 feet
Width: 80 to 150 feet
Depth: ± 10 feet
Time of Failure:
Unknown
Probable Cause of Failure:
The failure was caused by oversaturation of the surficial earth
materials by recent heavy rainfall.
William Cotton and Associates
�- BOHLMAN ROAD -
/ LANDSLIDE
1983 \`
. ;
l
10
0
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address:
JUL 15 1988
CITY OF SARATO
CITY N:ANAOFK'9 0fk$
APPEAL APPLICATION
Date Received:
Hearing Date:
Fee :
CITY 'USE
K
y� 9 �'� 7 - 3 7 1 7 /5 74
Project Description: J
Decision Being Appealed: 3 �' V-
----------
- C/
r
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached) -711'3
JCS
Pz
�, Sf } G� vim+% 1 / -t!�c ,.�1 G� l ('c lL+ w 5
'11
i
l l�-��M >�r� r' 11 /l Tt,��/ r, n�� ci/.� Gig �.!) '�jf "Q'1¢�� /L1. fj 'F.-t.�� •:
C A C
tee.
Sn\�
*Please do not
City offices.
appeal please
Appellants Signature
sign this application until it is presented at the
If you wish specific people to be notified of this
list them on a separate sheet.
VTS A P•TC, %TION r.iitcT nr c,rnmTT.'rD ;,'TT"1IN
TEN I Ol. THE D -' SIO, (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
� y � l -M%
2) Z 9- 03 s" _
CrnI -`aM
4 D u ( U
t' r
/.tai " -� a� 3 / CI pJ 17 i fS b (�- Imo / G 7
• �, � X �,. 1 t �-c� .�`.' . � �zrc.t cL , Qtt�t 1`t �( �I.. � n_.k°
aL, d LL*A,- J et C�
{' 1 iti o'1�t�c �i C c.� -� fit, + nom . �- E� �* ,C.� dA
eL
�a , ✓�ti f �[ E a 0 r�..�
�L
Al D tom- c,• .C�? -Fe .l-e 141, dA 14 -e tie �t IL a-e ti", p�
S - y�
yt-vi
�. %�.Q n� G�� • 'L2 �i G. �l l`Q �i 1� rt lL i E.0 d
i1n �1 -�- �} @-1. -9 iGt c ► P
IL-,- 1, Le JQA
i p r 1
- fig -e. C \C t��yj /L� d c 4e - ` to n l t / G1 cC 6.
l y
2
n
/J
�
At/ 5- 3 71 2 6% 6 P,/
File No.
APN
o E C E V
D
JUL 15'1988
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING
I t M I L as appellant on the above file and
property known as fr�l C �,,�� ]� hereby authorize Engineering
Data Services to do the legal noticing on the above file.
Date: Signature: