HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-1988 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAA
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. /-)— ()-
MEETING DATE: December 7, 1988
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning
AGENDA ITEM: 1D
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: ABAG's 1988 Housing Needs Determinations
Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution revising housing needs and
forward to ABAG.
Report Summary: ABAG has issued its 1988 Housing Needs Determinations
Report. The figures for Saratoga are greater than
can reasonably be expected to be built. The Council
should adopt a resolution and report revising the
figures downward. The resolution and report will be
forwarded to ABAG for their consideration.
Fiscal Impacts:
Non(z!.
1)Report from Planning Director, with resolution
Motion and Vote:
a4L� % . 2 - 30 4
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO
FROM
SUBJECT:
City Council DATE: 12/7/88
Stephen Emslie, Planning.Director
1988 ABAG Housing Needs Determinations
Pursuant to Government Code 65584, the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) has prepared its five year Housing Needs
Determinations Report. The report outlines the number of additional
dwelling units that need to be constructed in Bay Area cities and
counties to bring housing production into equilibrium with housing
demand. State law requires that Housing Elements be updated every
five years and that the local shares of regional housing needs be
considered. City's are not required to "meet" the identified
housing needs; they are only required to make a sustained and
serious effort towards that goal.
A 90 -day review period is allotted to local governments to review
the housing needs figures and adopt revisions; this review period
ends on December 13. ABAG then has 60 days to accept or reject the
revisions.
Saratoga's Housing Element was last updated in 1984 and will again
be updated next year in 1989. The current Element contains a
section on the ABAG Housing Needs Determinations Report for 1983.
At that time, ABAG projected a toal need of 1,073 for the projected
year of 1990. The City Council adopted a resolution revising the
need downward to 723, (which included 230 units that were already
slated for development) based on developmental, economic and
environmental constraints unique to Saratoga. ABAG has again, in
this 1988 report, projected a housing need for Saratoga far in
excess of what the City can realistically hope to meet. The total
projected need through 1995 is 1,029. Figures 1 and 2 show the
projected need by time period and by income category.
1988 -90
PROJECTED NEED
797
FIGURE 1
PROJECTED HOUSING NEED
1988 -95
PROJECTED NEED
+ 232
FIGURE 2
TOTAL
PROJECTED NEED
1,029
PROJECTED HOUSING NEED BY INCOME CATEGORY
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE
165 134 185
ABOVE TOTAL
MODERATE PROJECTED NEED
545 1,029
Based on a review of the 1983 needs revisions and an analysis of
development activity in Saratoga in the five years since then, staff
is recommending that the City Council again adopt a resolution
revising the housing needs figures downwards. ABAG requires that
local government revisions be based on available data and accepted
planning methods; a report outlining the reasons for the revisions
is attached to the resolution.
Steph n Emslie
Planning Director
SE /vy /kah
Attachment: Resolution and report
REPORT ON SARATOGA HOUSING NEEDS REVISIONS
Recent Development Data
ABAG's total projected housing need for Saratoga in 1995 is 1,029.
To keep up with that projected need, an average of 147 dwelling
units per year would have to be built in Saratoga. Based on
issuance of single - family residential building permits for 1984 to
the present (shown in Table 1), an average of 73 new residences per
year are built in Saratoga; this is about half the number need to
keep up with the projected need. Considering these numbers, the
housing need quantities projected by ABAG are not realistic.
TABLE 1
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS SINCE 1984
YEAR NUMBER OF PERMITS
1984
59
1985
51
1986
59
1987
106
1989
93
TOTAL
368
Although favorable economic conditions have led to an increase in
new residential units in the last few years, these units are
primarily in subdivisions that were created in the early 19801s.
There are approximately 140 vacant lots remaining in approved or
tentatively approved subdivisions, and about 30 condominium units.
In addition, the City only processes about 5 -8 minor subdivisions
(less than 4 lots) per year. The Paul Masson subdivision on Saratoga
Avenue proposes 75 market -rate townhouse units and 215 senior -
restricted cottage and apartment units.
Environmental and Williamson Act Considerations
Environmental constraints significantly affect the amount of housing
that can be produced in Saratoga. Over 80% of Saratoga's vacant
land not already approved for development is under Williamson Act
contract or is located in environmentally sensitive areas. The same
can be said for the underdeveloped residential land not already
approved for development and for nearly all of the vacant and
underdeveloped lands located in the City's urban service areas.
Williamson Act lands can only be used for agricultural uses while
under contract to the state. The term of the contract is ten years.
Combined Williamson Acts lands within the city limits and the urban
service areas represent about 13% of the units that can be
accommodated in those areas. The City does not anticipate that any
of the Williamson Act properties, exclusive of those under
consideration for contract cancellation, will be available for
development by ABAG's 1995 projection period. Thus, it would be
reasonable to reduce the total housing need of Saratoga for 1995 by
13 %, or from 1,029 to 895.
Most of the remaining residential land in Saratoga is in hillside
areas. Environmental factors dictate that the density in the
hillsides be an average of 1 -4 acres /unit. These environmental
factors include geotechnical hazards, steep slopes, potential
landslides, erosion and drainage problems, and inaccessibility for
public services. The Northwestern Hillsides Specific Plan was
adopted in 1981 to govern hillside development. The plan area
covers about 85% of the City's vacant and underdeveloped land, and
resulted in a reduction in allowable density in those areas by about
40 %. It is the City's position that due to the environmental
constraints evident in the hillside areas the housing need projected
for the City of Saratoga should be reduced.
The following calculations indicate the manner by which the ABAG
projected need for Saratoga is reduced.
ABAG projected housing need for 1995 1,029
Less 13% for Williamson Act lands - 134
895
Less units already slated for development - 170
725
Less reduction for hillside constraints
725 x 85% (hillside area) = 616
<LESS>
616 x 40% reduction = 369
247 - 247
Remaining Housing Need 478
SUMMARY
Based on the factors outlined in this report, the total housing need
for the City of Saratoga for 1995 is hereby reduced from the ABAG
projection of 1,029 to a total of 478.
A:abag
t
:4.
11
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
REVISING THE HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATIONS
FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA
WHEREAS, the Association of Bay Area Governments is the council
of governments (hereinafter "ABAG") under the Joint Exercise of
Powers Act for the San Francisco Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, each council of governments is required by Section
65584 of the Government Code, as added by Chapter 1143, Statutes of
1980 (hereinafter "Section 65584 "), to determine the existing and
projected housing needs for its region; and
WHEREAS, each council of governments is further required to
determine each city's and county's share of the regional housing
needs; and
WHEREAS, ABAG's staff has prepared and circulated for public
review and comment, a draft Housing Needs Determinations report
meeting the requirements of Section 65584; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Needs Determinations report was approved
by the ABAG Executive Board for the purpose of beginning the
official review and revision of the determinations contained
therein; and
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga desires to revise its share of
the regional housing need based on available data and accepted
planning methodology in accordance with the requirements of Section
65584;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that, pursuant to Section 65584, the City of Saratoga
revises its share of the regional housing need, as contained in the
September 15, 1988, Housing Needs Determinations report published by
ABAG; and be it further
RESOLVED, that this revision is made effective December 7,
1988; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ABAG Executive Board is requested to act on
such revision in accordance with the requirements of Section 65584;
and be it further
RESOLVED, that a
report be transmitted to
of Bay Area Governments.
copy of this resolution and the attached
the Executive Director of the Association
f
i
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
Saratoga City Council on this 7th day of December, 1988.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
C
U
Mayor
� J
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0.
,.5 ~
MEETING DATE: 12 -7 -88
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGTNEFR_TNG
SUBJECT: Overlay Various City Streets 1988 -1989
Notice of Completion
Recommended Motion:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
Accept the subject project and authorize filing of the "Notice of Completion ".
Report Summary :
The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting on September 21, 1988,
awarded the contract for above project to Raisch Construction Company. The work
on the project has been satisfactorily completed.
Fiscal Impacts:
Total construction cost.
Attachments:
1. Notice of Completion.
2. .Progress Payment.
Motion and Vote:
J
P
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
City Clerk
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
r I
� I
am. City of Saratoga
ao 1
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
`s;a : L Saratoga, Ca. 95070
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
(Iat Wiettain
MirP is hereby given that .......... I........... , the undersigned, ...jie R. Peacock
.........................
.............................................. ............................... ................................................... ...............................
............................. /the agent of]* the owner....... of th............. certain lot............ piece..............., or,
parcel ............. of land situated in the ...... City . Af.. S= aWg?.............................................. County of
•: �:a ............................ State of California, and described as follows, to -wit:
OVERLAY OF CERTAIN CITY STREETS
That............................................................................................................ ...............................
................................................. ............................... . as owner...... of said land, did, on the ....21.5t......
day of .......SeP. r . ............................... 19 ..88........... , enter into a contract with .........................
RAISCH ( bfISTR[ K' TIi(' 15Y ........................................ ............................... for
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
.......................... ' WERLAY ..0F. ZE0. 1!..:GTE ..... ? EETS.'.'....................................... ...............................
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the
•••••.•••• •••••••.• .................... count o . , State of California, on
the.... ............................... .. day of ......................... ,
Thaton the ........ 7th .... ............................... day of ........ ? Y.......................... 19 .88......
the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said ...................
................... ..........IiA�SCEi..I+?�?CIZC�T COMPANY
...................................................... ...............................
That the name ...... and address...... of all the owner...... of said property are as follows:
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
and the nature of ........ ............................... title to said property is .................. ...............................
STATE OF CALIFORNIA •••••• Owner ............
Countyof ............................. ............................... Agent
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
I�
being duly sworn . ....................... says:
.................................................................... ...........................
I am .......... (the agent of /' the owner...... of the property described in the foregoing notice.... . I have
read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge.
Subscribed n so am to before me this
dayf ...................... 19.......1 ................................................. ...............................
................................................ ...............................
' Delete words in brackets if owner signs.
L This doc —nt is ordv • pAsaral form tankh rtsay M Props for use in snriple transactions and in no wv Wis. or it intended to
the SdviW of an attarrey. The mblis er doer not nulra any Mrranty, ititner 1xWM or itnplisd tl to Me loll
PRUJECT. OVERLAY ON VARIOUS CITY STREETS
PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE
DATE: 10- 17 -R ;R EST. NO. 2 CITY OF SARATOGA
FROM: October 14, 1988 13777 FRUITVALE AVE.
T0: October 31, 19se SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070
CONMCTOR:__ Faisch Construction
ADDRESS:
2
BID ITEM
QUAWITY
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
WRKI.DONE
PREVIOUS
EST.
WRK. DONE
THIS EST.
TOTAL
WMt.DONE
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
DUE
%WORK
DONE
REMARk
1 Install 2" Overlay
4750 /toes
31.0 /ton
147,250.00
3,728.90
0
3.728.90
31.0
115,595.90
78.58
2 fabric
39,048/S.Y.
0.56 /S.Y.
21,866.88
25,000.00
0
26,000.00
0.56
14,560.00
66.668
TInstall
3 Install A.R. 4000 Binder
9,767/
0.95/
9,278.65
6,500.00
0
0.95
6,175.00
66.65
4 Cut
18,991 /L.F.
0.66 /L.F.
12,534.06
18,552.0
0
1
44.32
97.69
5 Adjust Manhole valve and
Mmment
136 /each
140 /each
19,040.00
124.0
0
140.00
17,360.00
91.17
6 nt- Douhl-e-Yellow
1 568 .F.
1.0/L.F.
1,568.00
p
1.0
1.888-00
120.41
Install Blue Marker
22/
24 /each
550.00
0
13.0
13.0
25.00
325.00
59.09
1 Type "B" Marker
68jeach
20 /each 1
1,360.00
p
1,540'.00
113.23
PROJECT: OVERIAY ON VARIOUS CITY S!ja=
DATE: 10-17-S8 EST. N0. 2
FROM: Oct.14, 1988 TO: Oct. 31, 1988
PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVE.
SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070
Sheet 2 of 2
CONTRACTOR: FAISCB CONS IUCTICN
ADDRESS:
Robert S. Shook/
City Eng
BID ITEM
QUANTITY
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
;DONE
PREVIOUS
EST.
WRK. DONE
THIS EST.
TOTAL
•DON
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
DUE
%WORK
DONE
REMAi
9
Paint 4" Wide &1geline
1 457
0.50 L.F.
728,50
0
1,340.0
91.96
Paint Yellow Crossmalk
2
275 /each
550.00
0
2.0
2.0
275.00
550.00
100.0
11
Paint Mite Crosswalk
2
275 /each
550.00
0
2.0
2.0
275.00
550.00
100.0
12
Install Monument Boxes
2
200 eadi
0
0
0
200.00
0.00
0.0
13
Paint Payment T
11900.00
L.S.
L.S.
RECORD OF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS -TOTAL DUE $ 173,358.22
LESS 1O% RETENTION 1
Progress Payment #1 1 -2 -8 149,341.70
TOTAL PAYMENT 156 022.40
Made By • LESS PREVIOUS PA]�II' 149,341,70
Checked. PAYMENT DUE THIS EST'.$_ 6,680.70 ALL fl
Fr I
TOTAL 149 341.70 Approved by: p `— <' `7
Robert S. Shook/
City Eng
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. IS�� ArFUnn rmrM
MEETING DATE: 12 -7 -88 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING a
i
SUBJECT: Reconstruction & Overlay of Certain City Streets
"Notice of Completion"
Recommended Motion:
Accept the subject project and authorize filing of the "Notice of Completion".
Report Summary: '
The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting on June 15, 1988, awarded
the contract for the above project to RAISCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.. The work on
the project has been satisfactorily completed. This project was overrun by
$26,302.09.due to extra excavation on La Paloma Avenue and Reconstruction of Sobey
Road.
Fiscal Impacts:
Total construction cost: $533,484.35.
Attachments:
1.. Notice of Completion.
2.. Progress Payment.
Motion and Vote:
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
City Clerk
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
N,m City of Saratoga
,� 13777 Fruitvale Ave.
°a: L Saratoga, Ca. 95070
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Raw of
up is hereby given that ..........I........... , the undersigned, ......HARRY R. PEACOCK
................................................................................................................................
.............................
.............................. Ithe agentofl * the owner....... of th............. certain lot............ piece..............., o..
r,
parcel ............. of land .situated in the CxtY.. Qf.. �' 14tQ94..........................................
.......... County of
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••.•• ..................... State of California, and described as follows, to -wit:
I
I
I
RECCONSTRUCTICN AMID OVERLAY OF CERTAIN CITY STREETS
I
�I
I
II
I�
�I I
I�
That ............................................................................................................ it
...............................
...... , as owner...... of said land, did, on the ...15th......
day of ........ J.= 19-3-8
......... ............................... ........... , enter into a contract with .........................
...................................... IV� ............................... ............................... for
................................................................................................................................
...............................
...................... �,.DV�, Ali. F1C1R.C�ItT�IDI.I:ZTY. SETS......... ...............................
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the
......... ............................... county of .................................. ............................... , State of California, on
the................. ............................... day of ................ ............................... , 19 ............;
That on the..... 7th ....... ............................... day of ......... Navanber ......................... 19 ...88.....
the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said ...................
Ili
................. .............. .....................IiAISC�i.. .ICTZX �AIy SC.......................
That the name ...... and address...... of all the owner...... of said property are as follows:
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue Ii
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
111
;n
li
;I
and the nature of ........ ............................... title to said property is ........................ ...............................
................................................................................................................................. ............................... :I
................................................. ...............................
STATE OF CALIFORNIA •••• /U,(iner .... ...... i
Pi I
ss. By .......... ................................ I;!
Countyof ..................................................... ;I
...........
being duly sworn . ......... ............................... i
says:
I am .......... (the agent of]* the owner..... of the property described in the foregoing notice. I have
read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
. day of ...................... 19 ....... l ................................................. ...............................
........................... ............................... J
' Delete words in brackets if owner signs.
Thin d000mMlt i1 only • p wal form Mich MW be RroMr for uM in rimoli, t Wtionl isnd in no MY wts, or is intendsid to
<Y, p tohrtitub for tho odoim of an wtarMy. Th. po.i,h., . not _, ;nY nerr,ntY. �iMw �tqq w iWIj j a to tM I0gl
ohnq WONdotrW'rhr of This—for-1.
Remove b Replace
9 Asphalt Concrete Driveway
10 Construct A. C. Swale
11 Construct A. C. Curb
12 Adjust Manholes
13 Build Shoulders b Conform
A. C. Driveway
2,116 S.F.
1,230 S.F.
3.0
2.50
6,348.0
3,075.0
950 L.F.
PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE
3,800.0
106 ea.
160.0
Sheet I of 2
88.37
48.42
PROJECT: RECONSTRUCTION
AND OVERLAY of VARIOUS CITY
STREETS
DATE: 11 -22 -88
EST. NO. 5
CITY OF SARATOGA
CONTRACTOR: RAISCH
CONSTRUCTION
FROM: 9 -27 -88
T0:
13777 FRUITVALE
AVE.
ADDRESS:
1105 L'Avenida
11 -5 -88
SARATOGA, CALIF.
95070
_
Mt. View, Ca. 94643
UNIT
WRK.DONE
WRK. DONE
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
%,WORK
BID ITEM
QUANTITY
PRICE
TOTAL
PREVIOUS
THIS EST.
WRK.DONE
PRICE
DUE
DONE
REMARKS
EST.
1
Road Excavation
2292 C.Y.
10.0
22,92(Y.00
29,420
0.00
2,942.0
10.0
29,420.00
128.35
2
Aggregate Base Cl. II
1550 Ton
18.20
28,210.00
1,604.50
0.00
1,604.50
18.20
29,201.90
103.52
3
2" A.C. Overlay
4960 Ton
31.0
153,760.00
5,405.75
0.00
5,405.75
31.00
167,578.25
108.99
4
Install Fabric
37,291 S.Y.
0.62
23,120.42
(1.0
0.62
16,120.00
69.72
5
A.R. 4000 Binder
11,186 Gal
1.0
11,186.00
5,300.00
0.00
5,300.00
1.00
5,300.00
47.38
6
Repair Failure Street
29,940 S.F.
1.20
35,928.00
42 587.00
.00
r16,438.00
7
Construct New Street
24,011 S.F
2.20
52,824.20
16,587.00
0.00
2.20
36,163.60
68.46
8
Wedge Cut
2,785 L.F
2.0
5,570.0
3,302.00
0.00
3,302.00
2.00
6,604.00
118.50
Remove b Replace
9 Asphalt Concrete Driveway
10 Construct A. C. Swale
11 Construct A. C. Curb
12 Adjust Manholes
13 Build Shoulders b Conform
A. C. Driveway
2,116 S.F.
1,230 S.F.
3.0
2.50
6,348.0
3,075.0
950 L.F.
4.0
3,800.0
106 ea.
160.0
16,960.0
416 tonj 60.0 1 24,960.0
1,087.00
416.00
U.UU
1.822,UU
3.00
5,466.00
86.10
0.00
0.00
1,087.00
460.00
2.50
4.00
2,717.50
1,840.00
88.37
48.42
0.00 416.00
60.00 24.960.00 100.
PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE
PROJECT: . RECONiTRUCTION A OVERLAY OF VARIOUS CITY STREETS
Sheet 2 OE
DATE:-11-22-88 EST.
FROM: 9 -25_88 TO:
NO. 5
11 -5 -88
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUTTVALE AVE,
SARATOGA; CALIF. 95010
CONTRACTOR: RAISCH CONSTRUCTION
ADDRESS: -
- >>n5 LiAvpnida _
Mt. View. Ca. 94043
]14
BID ITEM
A
QUANTITY
UNIT
PRICE
WRK:DOME WRK.
TOTAL PREVIOUS THIS
DONE TOTAL
EST. WRK,DOfi
UNIT TOTAL
PRICE DUE
7.W0RK
DONE REL',7
EST.
Install 12" R.C.P.
1485 L.F.
55.0
81.675.0 1.553.00
1,593.00
55.00 87 615.00
107.27
15
Construct Manhole
8 ea.
1,800.0
14.400.0 8.0 0.0
8.00
1-18-0-0,00 14,400.00
100.00
16
Construct Catch Basin
6 ea.
1,800.0
10,800.0 6.0 0.0
1 800.00 10 800.00
100.00
17
Construct Flat Grate
1 ea.
2,200.0
2.200.0 2.0 0.0
2. 00.00 4,400.0
2.00
19
Remove b Replace Catch Basin
Stripe Double Yellow
1 e
838 L.F.
2,500.0
2.0
2,500.0 1.0 0.0
1,676.0 1,213.00 0.0
i-nn
1
2,500-00
2.00 2,426.00
_
100.00
144.70
20
21
Paint Pavement Harking
21ntall Type "B" Markers
L.S.,
64 ea.
2 500.0
10.0
2.500.0 L.S. 0.0
640.0 224.0 0.0
L.S.
224.0
2,500.00 2,500.00
10.0 2 2450.00
100.00
3 � • 00
22
Blue Markers
13 ea.
1013.0
130.00
_
100.00
23
l Monument Box 10 a.
RECORD OF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS
200.00
2 000.00 5.0 0.0
5.0
TOTAL DUE
200.0 1,000.00
$ 533,484.35
50 8
1
July 8, 1988
$ 97,286.69
LESS 10% RETENTION 53,348.44
2
August 3, 1988
179,612.52
TOTAL PAYMENT
��180 135 91
3
4
Sept: 7, 1988
Oct. 5, 1988
139;593.59
61,573.12
Made BY: 4
Checked By. tL�
LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS 478;064.92
PAYMENT DUE .THIS EST
'
Approved by: /-
'roTAt
$480,135.91
Citv F�l sneer
PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE
PROJECT: Reconstruction & Overlay of Various City Streets
DATE: 11 -22 -88 EST. M
FROM: 9 -25 -88 TO: 11 -5 -88
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUTTVALE AVE.
SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070
CONTRACTOR: RAISM CONSTRUCria4
ADDRESS:
3
BID ITEM
QUAWITY
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
:DONE
PREVIOUS
EST.
WRK. DONE
THIS EST.
'TOTAL
•DON
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
DUE
%WORK
DONE
REMARKS
4 Install Sub Draining
401.0
18.70
7,498.70
401,0
100.0
Extra on
Sobey
5 Stabilization Fabric
518.0
0.74
383.32
518.0
0.0
6 Road way Backfill
75.0
8,0
600.00
75.0
0.
600.00
100.0
7 A. C. Berm
370.0
11.70
4,329.00
370.0
0.0
370.0
11.70
4,329.00
100.0
B Paint Double Yellow on Pd.-
L.
500.00
500.00
L.S.
0
L
500.00
500.00
100.0
9 Pot Hole on La Palama Ave.
L.S.
225.45
225.45
225.45
0.0
L.S.
225.45
225.45
100.0
100
Extra on
La Palana
Extra pm
La Palm
Remve Dirt
801.23
1.0
801.23
801.23
0.0
'
1 Sidewalk on La Palate
L.
100.00
100.00
L.S.
0.0
L.S.
100.00
100.00
100.0
Extra pn
La aacm
__ ___ SURIOML: $141437.70
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
�j
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 7, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services
SUBJECT: Green Valley Disposal Performance Audit
Recommended Motion: Move to refer the findings of the Performance
Audit to the Rate Review Committee for action as appropriate.
Report Summary: The Cities of Saratoga, Campbell, Monte Sereno, and
Town of Los Gatos entered into franchise agreements with Green
Valley Disposal for solid waste collection services in 1983. Included
in the terms of each agreement is the requirement of a performance
audit during the fifth, tenth and fifteenth years of the franchise.
Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the four cities selected the
firm of Arthur Young to perform the audit. Presented as an attachment
is a summary of Arthur Young's Report and the firm's findings and
recommendations. In general, the firm found Green Valley's performance
compared favorably to industry standards for comparable sized operat-
ions. Recommendations were made, however, where Arthur Young found
opportunities for increased productivity or improved performance.
Green Valley's response to the audit indicates that implementation
of several of its recommendations is either in progress or planned
at this time.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments: Joint Report from City Managers to their City Councils.
Motion and Vote:
�;`�V,a k 4-0,
iuw[latl►1�]i ,
TO: Campbell City Council November 4, 1988
Los Gatos Town Council
Monte Sereno City Council
Saratoga City Council
FROM: Kevin C. Duggan, City Manager
Deborah Swartfager, Town Manager
Rosemary Pierce, City Administrator
Harold Peacock, City Manager
SUBJECT: Performance Audit - Green Valley Disposal
SUMMARY
A performance audit of Green Valley Disposal Company was recently
completed by the firm of Arthur Young. Presented here is a summary of
that report and the firm's findings and recommendations. In general,
Arthur Young found that Green Valley's performance compared favorably to
industry standards for comparable sized firms. Recommendations were made,
however, where Arthur Young found opportunities for increased productivity
or improved performance. The next step for the Cities and Town is to
begin discussions with Green Valley regarding implementation of
performance audit recommendations. Green Valley's response to the
performance audit indicates that implementation of several recommendations
is either in progress or planned at this time.
nnc-xrRnrTNn
The Cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga entered into
franchise agreements with Green Valley Disposal in 1983. Included in the
terms of each agreement is the requirement of a performance audit during
the fifth, tenth and fifteenth years. Pursuant to the terms of the
agreement, the four cities selected the firm to conduct the audit which
was paid for by Green Valley.
The scope of the performance audit included: organization, management and
personnel practices; financial and administrative practices; collection
and fleet maintenance operation; and customer service operations.,
Additionally, based on early discussions with the four cities, Arthur
Young included a review of Green Valley's curbside recycling proposal at
no additional cost.
PERFORMANCE AUDIT FINDINGS
Organization, Management and Personnel Practices
Arthur Young found Green Valley's organization structure similar to other
refuse companies and organized along functional service areas.
Recommendations in the management area concern productivity improvement.
Page 2
The report found the Company interested in productivity improvement and
programs are in progress aimed at improving cost effectiveness. The
report recommends that one officer be given formal responsibility for
productivity improvement. Secondly, regarding personnel management, the
report recommended that a safety training program be designed for all
Collection Drivers and Mechanics.
Financial and Administrative Practices
Arthur Young reviewed all major financial and administrative practices
including accounting systems, billing and collection, cash management,
capital investments and data processing systems. To allocate costs among
jurisdictions, Green Valley uses a cost allocation methodology based on
time- and - motion data. Time- and - motion studies were conducted in 1984 and
1986. Arthur Young recommends a standard three -year interval be
established for these studies to correspond with the three -year rate
review cycle referenced in the franchise agreement. With respect to
capital.assets, the report recommends that the rate review committee and
Green Valley discuss guidelines for capital expenditure decisions, that
all equipment leases include buy -out provisions, that automobiles
purchased by the Company for use by the officers not be included as assets
of the Company but treated as officer bonuses, and that Green Valley
examine the cost effectiveness of a mileage reimbursement program in lieu
of providing vehicles. The report also recommends that the rate review
committee review the methodology used to estimate Green Valley's projected
revenues, expenditures and profit level, consider asking for more detail
in financial statements and explore ideas to refine projections.
Collection and Fleet Maintenance Operations
Green Valley's collection operations are divided into three sectors:
residential; commercial; and drop- off -box accounts. Arthur Young reviewed
the Company's collection productivity and found its performance to compare
favorably with other refuse operations. The report noted that franchise
requirements have a significant effect on collection efficiency and that
other collection systems suggest savings of 25 to 40 percent per household
if backyard and sideyard service options were eliminated in favor of
curbside collections. The report stated that Green Valley should explore
the use of side loading vehicles in "hard to serve" areas (currently
served by rear loaders) as the side loaders offer more maneuverability and
capacity. Arthur Young also recommended that for certain flat land
routes, the Company explore the use of front end loading vehicles and
one - person crews and that the Company continue to monitor its
semi- automated pilot program (large trash containers).
With respect to the fleet maintenance operation, Arthur Young found Green
Valley's performance to be consistent with industry standards. The report
recommended that vehicle maintenance costs be tracked by actual labor
rates, plus fringe benefits of the mechanics rather than an
approximation. A more comprehensive maintenance checklist was also
recommended for vehicle servicing.
Page 3
Customer Service Operation
Arthur Young reviewed Green Valley's customer service operations and
surveyed a sample of customers who had registered complaints to determine
customer satisfaction with the Company's complaint resolution process.
The overall observation was that Company management has a direct interest
and commitment to provide quality customer service, evidenced by
investment in an on -line computer system with immediate access to customer
records and the Assistant Manager's direct follow -up with various cases.
A majority of respondents to the customer survey gave the complaint
resolution process an overall evaluation of "good to excellent ". The
survey also showed a perception by some customers that multiple contacts
were required to resolve complaints. In the customer service area, Arthur
Young recommends that the Customer Service Supervisor implement a program
to identify and correct the cause of multiple customer contacts to resolve
a complaint, that the Dispatcher implement a program to check that
corrective actions have been properly carried out by Collector Drivers,
and that the Company enhance communication of its service policies.
Citing a high turnover in Customer Service employees, a salary survey of
those positions was suggested. The final observation in the Customer
Service area notes that the Company's office closes at 4:30 p.m. rather
than 5:00 p.m. as discussed in the franchise agreement.
Proposed Curbside Recycling Program
Arthur Young also commented on Green Valley Disposal's proposed curbside
recycling program. The report finds possible advantages with a Green
Valley operation in that the service could be integrated with current
refuse collection services. A potential disadvantage is Green Valley's
lack of experience in operating a curbside recycling program. In summary,
Arthur Young recommended that the Cities and Town drive the proposal
process by clearly defining program specifications, develop a request for
proposal and receive proposals from Green Valley as well as other
operators.
Green Valley Disposal Response
Green Valley Disposal was given an opportunity to provide comments
regarding the performance audit, and the Company's response is included as
an addendum to the report. The Company's response indicates that some of
the report's recommendations are either currently being addressed or plans
are being made to address them. Included here are reinstatement of a
safety training program, addition of buy -out provisions to equipment lease
agreements, additional data processing security measures, evaluation of
side loader vehicles for hard -to -serve areas, expansion of the use of
front end loading vehicles, expansion of the pilot semi - automated
collection program, and implementation of a program to identify and
correct the causes of multiple customer contacts for complaint resolution.
Page 4
The balance of Green Valley's comments consisted of additional information
regarding several recommendations. Additional information was provided
regarding productivity enhancement and the Company official responsible
for that function, industrial injury statistics, purposes of company
vehicles, level of detail of preventive maintenance records and revised
billing statements that provide additional information about service
policies.
BL:jw
F:Audit
February 17, 1984
Mr. David Moyles
Mayor, City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Moyles,
RE: Garbage rate increase
The city of San Jose is served
charge for residential garbage
of cans is $18.00 per quarter.
proposed increase will be $35•
tell me what makes our garbage
ot
V 3/7
by Browning and Ferris, their
collection for unlimited number
The Saratoga rates with the
00 per quarter. Can you please
twice as expensive as San Jose'?
I attended the City Council Meeting on February 15, 1984 and listened
to the gentlemen from Green Valley Disposal Co. give their reasons
for the increase. It is my opinion that Green Valley is taking
advantage of us and I would like to see them replaced by another
company. I find it hard to believe their bookeeping figures.
Have they been audited? There were too many inconsistencies in
their justification of rate increase.
A ncerned re ident of Saratoga,
Donald A. Carr
19803 Merribrook Ct.
Saratoga, CA 95070
v
V �3�
AIAW YTIO
.33
. {fit pp ^ _ __ /_
o J-�c
Aol-C-
7nrl-
Ci
. ..... . AT
-1-41-CAe4 la3L-
IT
- gy�
13 NO ~try.. as
At�
Date: February 9, 1984
Subject: (1) Road Maintenance Funding
(2) Green Valley Disposal Rate Increase
Other commitments make it difficult for me to attend public meetings you
have scheduled to address the issues of road maintenance and disposal rate
increase but I do wish to comment on both.
(1) Road Maintenance
(2) Green Valley Rate Increase
These comments are also related to the "private" road issue.
A few years ago, the approved rate structure permitted a surcharge for pickup
on "private roads Every time I paid the bill I resented that surcharge
because: (1) There was no reasonably convenient way Green Valley could get
its vehicles onto the lower reaches of Peach Hill Road (a city street) for those
Saratoga City Council -2- February 9, 1984
pickups without using Piedmont; (2) Piedmont Road is not a particularly difficult
road on which to make pickups.
Currently I am paying for unlimited service, without a "private road" surcharge.
Although the rate is fairly high, I can live with it. However, I would object
strongly to the reinstitution of a "private road" surcharge.
if
SARffATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. f S'4aa
AGENDA ITEM _71S
MEETING DATE: 12/7/88 /
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planninqi CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Waiver of Application Fee; UP -88 -014, 20490 Williams Avenue
Recommended Motion: Denial of request to waive application fee.
Report Summary: The Saratoga Parent Nursery School is requesting a
reimbursement of $400.00 for a use permit application fee to reconstruct a
climbing structure. The permit was granted November 9, 1988, by the
Planning Commission. The school explains they are a non - profit preschool.
Since the Council has only waived temporary use permit fees, waiver of the
fee for a use permit which runs with the land would be precedent setting.
Fiscal Impacts: Loss of $400.00 fee if waiver is granted.
Attachments: 1. Letter from Linda Thorsch
2. Resolution No. UP -88 -014
3. Location map
Motion and Vote
Parent
October 11, 1988
0490 Williams Avenue
:oga, California 95070
867 -9774
Saratoga Planning Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To Whom It May Concern:
The Saratoga Parent Nursery School is a non - profit, parent participation
pre - school. We rely solely on the parent's tuition to cover the cost of
running the day -to -day expenses of the school. We have an annual fund-
raiser, our Art & Wine Show. This money is used to make much needed
improvements to the school. For example, replacement of the climbing
structure which totals approximately $6,000 alone.
Due to our situation, we would like to appeal for reimbursement of the
cost of the Use Permit ($400) and a waiver for the Building Permit if
there is a cost.
We appreciate any consideration you can give regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Li Thorsch
President
Use Permit
Nc
RESOLUTION NO. UP -88 -014
A RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING USE PERMIT
20490 Williams Avenue, APN: 397 -28 -42
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Use Permit Approval to rebuild an existing
climbing structure at an approved nursery school (UP -5).
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 climbing structure 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 climbing structure and the conditions
under 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 climbing structure. 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 Linda Thorsch for use permit approval be and the
same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Obtain a building permit for construction of the climbing
structure from the City building division.
Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 3. Conditions of this use permit must be completed
within 24 months or approval will expire.
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 5. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall
3
a
UP -88 -014; 20490 Williams Avenue
become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 9th:_ day of November, 1988, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Guch, Burger, Harris, Kolstad, Tucker & Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Siegfried
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
Chairman, Planning cf&mmission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Applicant Date
4
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Jacobson
DATE 11/9/8,8 PLNG. DIR. APPRV.�
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: UP-88-014; 20490 Williams Ave.
APPLICANT /OWNER: Thorsch
APN: 397 -28 -42 Q
N
tessz
:osy{ 10 2A
J
20593 0l :�
1+0� (A)
2af 20
C� y7� -tet- Q Cep IIY (ft13) (Mlr,lb) (16117) CIO^ N ��
.*S46 ii. Z049S 2e449 110451 0409 317 24L
3 -22' 7 -2s. '317�1>t- 3377 -L 39-1.tf- 2y S�
140S1 }' 337 !t. so �4
wIL L I A M S AVE.-
CO3 �4o_VS 1. 'Dn IA 19 w
.730 0% s Q IV d
I 0 ti 0' o
fit- 14071 Q an- �: » 114 s` rte s
•s s0 ;- Itt -id c,
f4lo, 17 la 14 �b so
C21 L4 1)
14011 Q ,�� `� b ` (42)
si sei- 2L- L � w 49 1 n 1411 o
070 1 61 7 >"s -= 2 '� -
s -lL- 14101 d +>r a ,? o+ o, 01 of 141&0 c4
I � NUT AVE. - -1471YS Cava �,
So3- 4) 1 (1) i2)
20440 OV41 IL X140 117
1 1 11 09 11 20
141%1 4169 4160 z•
~ CO sl7-47 V 317 -17-18
142 S1, 10
)
14170 '!97.27 -24
N_sob-" -r-14 142
1Z ! 1m L7- 141 0321
K
M 397 -
-
27 cs
e
1
-SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. �7 AGENDA ITEM -�
MEETING DATE: 12/7/88
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: SD -88 -006 - Saviano /Bow e. Appeal of 3 lot residential
subdivision of it acres of undeveloped property located on the
southeast side of Pierce Road immediately southwest of the
intersection with Surrey Lane.
Recommended Motion: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning
Commission.
Report Summary: On October 26, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a
tentative map for the above referenced subdivision.
On November 7, 1988, the Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association appealed the
Commission's decision for two reasons;
1. the presence of the slide area should have reduced the density
• from three lots to two and;
2. a pedestrian trail should have been required.
The Planning Commission considered both issues in its deliberations. No
new evidence supports a reversal of the Commission's decision.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments: 1. Memorandum to City Council
2. Letter of Appeal
3. Planning Commission minutes dated October 12, October 26
4. Staff reports to Planning Commission
5. Miscellaneous letters to Planning Commission
6. Calculation of density less slide area received 11/17/88
Motion and Vote
6 kim:saviano
000001
s
U
Ll
•G�
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE:12 /7/88
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: SD -88 -006, Saviano /Bowie; 13502 Pierce Road
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description
The property is located in the Northwestern Hillside Residential zone
district, General Plan RHC (hillside conservation). It is 10.8 acres in
size with an average slope of 27.5 %. The tentative map which was approved
by the Planning Commission on October 26, 1988, is for three (3) lots with
building sites located on the more level area of each lot. Dense
vegetation covers the site. The Calabazas Creek traverses the southwest
corner of proposed lot A and an existing active landslide is located in the
southeastern portion of the lot which extends upslope onto two adjacent
properties.
Issues of the Appeal
1. The slide area should be deducted from the area prior to calculating
density.
Comment: Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 06.020, and Policy 2a of the
Northwest Hillside Specific Plan regarding density, only
areas classified by the City Geologist as "Md" or Mrf" are to
be deducted when calculating the site area. The site is not
classified in either zone. The Planning Commission discussed
the slide area prior to making its decision and reviewed the
City Geologist reports. They recognized that the density was
correctly calculated and conditioned the project to control
the landslide (Condition 20g, Resolution SD -88 -006).
After the Commission's action, the applicant's engineer
deducted the slide area (.45 acre) and recalculated the
density. The revised calculation still allows the three
parcels, since the slide area is also one of the steepest
areas on the lot.
000002
Memorandum to City Council
Re: SD -88 -006, 13502 Pierce Road
Including slide area Excluding .45 acre
slide area
Area of Lot 10.84 10.39
Slope of Lot 27.5% 26.2%
AC /DU 3.5 3.37
2. A rare opportunity was missed by the Planning Commission to add about
1/4 mile of pedestrian trail which would remove walkers and bikers from
Pierce Road.
Comment: The General Plan (policy CI.6.5) states that the City should
encourage, pedestrian trails and pathways along roadways in
areas where safety and aesthetics permit. The Planning
Commission addressed the issue of safety and was "reluctant
to encourage foot traffic in the area due to safety hazards."
They were aware that there were no paths north or south of
the site along Pierce Road to connect to, and none were
proposed. Furthermore, the rough terrain and the oak trees
which the Commission wished to protect, discouraged
construction of a path. Although there are no proposed
trails located along Pierce Road on the General Plan trails
map, the Commission required additional width at the bridge
over Calabazas Creek to allow pedestrians and bicyclists
do use Pierce Road to escape the vehicles by stepping off
pavement at the creek crossing. One tree is required to be
removed to accommodate the extra width.
Planning Commission Considerations
Over the course of two public hearings (October 12 and October 26), the
Commission studied the proposed subdivision in detail. They reviewed the
geologic reports and the General Plan policies and discussed the effect of
the slide area on and off -site, and conditioned the project accordingly
(20g). They discussed the road and bridge widening as they related to
tree removal and safety. The conditions as approved require maximum
preservation of the oak trees and minimal widening of Pierce Road for
safety purposes. They reviewed the layout of the subdivision and set
driveway and pad locations for future homes and required that all proposed
homes return to the Commission for design review approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning
Commission. The Commission studied the subdivision in detail, including
the issues stated in the appeal, and adopted Resolution SD -88 -006 which
contains conditions to address the concerns of the appeal.
Stephen Emslie
Planning Director
SE /kah 000003
•
b
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address:
Project Description:
i1
Date Reccd :
�_
Hearing Date:
Feer.
CITY USE 0
APPEAL APPLICATION
Decision Being Appealed:
Grounds for th/ Appeal (Letter may be at
P at s i ure
*Please do not
City offices.
sign this application until it
If you wish specific
is presented at the
appeal please
list them
ple
on a separateesheetto
be notified of this
TIIT,S AP PT MUST BE
7f�IL• DIV U!• 'fI�E UClr1SI4,
SUBMITTED l VTTFIIN TEN
(10) CALENDAR DAYS O1'
000004
•
November 5, 1988
Pierce Canyon Homeowners Assoc.
21842 Via Regina
Saratoga, Ca. 95
Saratoga City Council, NOV 7 10
Appeal of Bowi a -Sav iano #SD -88 -006 CjTy OF SARATOGA
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
We appeal the decision of the Saratoga Planning Commission at
their October 26, 1988 meeting for the following reasons:
Re: Density policies section 2.a. of the Northwest Hillside
Specific Plan.
I. The slide area has not been subtracted in the density
calculation..
2. The calculation of slope shall be done for the entire
parcel prior to the slope density calculation.
Subtraction of as little as 0.3 acre would result in the reduction
of the subdivision from three lots to two lots.
F
re r`v or tvn wa-a-
a'l
Z/ � / Signed: 6' ,� , j+��,r, �vuc , i 1 e m` h r e s. C HA
Signed:
eve de
5 illl
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8
OCTOBER 12, 1988
12. SD- 88406 Bowie, 13602 Pierce Road, request for approval of subdivision of approxi-
mately 11 acres of undeveloped property into 3 lots. Each lot is proposed to
be approximately 3.6 acres in size. The property is located on the south-
east side of Pierce Road, immediately southwest of the intersection with
Surrey Lane. NHR zone (northwestern hillside residential, General Plan
designation RHC (residential hillside conservation. A Negative Declaration
has been prepared. Continued from September 14, 1988.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioners Burger reported on the land use visit; Commissioner Siegfried provided additional
information on the area and Pierce Rd.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 12, 1988; she
suggested Condition 7 be amended to add "...along the project frontage and submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval."
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:12 P.M.
Mr. Ralph Saviano, Applicant, stated that he took issue with the following Conditions:
Conditio c 20, 3 • Lot C was within the required pad elevation; Applicants would take care the
problem on Surrey U. which entailed drainage of the hillside was corrected
Condition 5. b: Placed an unreasonable burden on the Applicant since there was no under -
grounding of utilities along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd; costs would be prohibitive. In addition, a
• neighbor had an existing overhead utility pole which would interfere with the undergrounding
Condition 16: Applicants did not question the need for widening the bridge; however, this project
would have little or no impact on the bridge and yet they were being required to absorb the heavy
costs of improvement. Applicants asked that a per lot fee be levied in lieu of the bridge widening.
Mr. H.E. Hunzinker, 13929 Pierce Rd, Saratoga, commented as follows:
- Cited existing traffic hazards on Pierce Rd; widening the road would cause the removal of trees
Felt that this issue should be addressed at this time
- Suggested a pedestrian walkway be installed to remove pedestrians from the road
- Felt the slope area formula should be applied to this site; he noted the existing slide area
- Noted the low areas which collected excess water; drainage of these areas must be considered
Mr. Willem Kohler, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Assoc., cited his previous testimony on this
project and asked that no trees be removed from this site; furthermore, he felt that if the road were
widened, the incidents of speeding would be increased.
Mr. Steve de Keczer, 13415 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, commented on Geologic Anal, ia as follows:
- Objected to information indicating that flooding was very minimal on -site; such was incorrect.
- Site was listed as not being in a flood plane; his property, only 20 ft. away was in a flood area.
- Questioned whether a detailed, geologic investigation had been conducted.
- Concluded with a request that no widening of Pierce Rd. be done opposite his property; he was
already severely impacted by traffic hazards /accidents
Asked that any flooding and/or slides be corrected before development on -site occurred
Ms. Dora Grens, Old Oak Way, Saratoga, reviewed the topography and history of this area and
cited existing traffic hazards.
sMr. Bob Ben hle j}, 21055 Sarahills, Saratoga, called attention to his recent letter. He and his
neighbors were concerned regarding the existing slide in this area and asked that such be repaired.
Ms. Marge Stia went on record as being concerned about the existing slide in the area. 0 0 0 0 0 6
Mr. Kohler questioned whether the existing slide had been properly surveyed.
An unidentified speaker stated that the road widening proposed was about a foot wide; he did not
feel that such would impact the roadway. He asked that landscaping be trimmed back to increase
sight line. He reviewed the geologic studies completed on his property.
Mr. Joe Crosby, Civil Engineer, Geologist, stated that they were aware of the slide and the flood-
ing problem; hey suggested lot pads be moved to alleviate the flooding condition; grading and
drainage control would further alleviate this situation. He reviewed remedies for repair of the slide
and added that the slide was about one -third above the property line of the site in question.
Mr. de Keczer added that the slide would have to be repaired from the bottom up.
Mr. H.E. Hunzinker added that an uncorrectable geologic hazard existed on this site.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 12:15 A.M. Passed 7 -0.
The City Attorney noted that the slide traversed the property line; the City could not condition the
Applicant to repair the slide on the adjacent property. The question put to William Cotton Assoc.
was whether the development in any manner aggravated or activates the slide and the answer was
no; would the development in any way be jeopardized by the slide and the answer was no.
Commissioner Harris noted thatthe improvement widening the road and bridge could create more
hazards, namely, the illusion of a safe road; the narrow bridge served as a safety factor since cars
were required to slow down. She was reluctant to encourage foot traffic in the area due to safety
hazards. The City Attorney responded that safety was not created.by maintaining an unsafe condi-
tion; roads must be improved at some point.
Commissioner Burger commented as follows:
- Piecemeal road improvements were of concern; a minimal bridge widening would be acceptable
- Questioned undergrounding utilities and suggested a deferred improvement agreement
- Agreed that the slope should be shaved to increase the sight distance •
Commissioner Siegfried commented as follows:
- Agreed that a deferred improvement agreement was desirable
- The recommended road improvement of approximately one -half to a foot in width would not
significantly impact the trees nor change the character of Pierce Rd
Some widening of the bridge was required; suggested a Study Session be held on this issue
Questioned the argument that a repairable landslide would not be corrected because a portion of
such was on an adjacent property owners site
- Shaving the slope and removal of the underbrush was required to clear the sight line
Commissioner Kolstad fully concurred with Commissioner Siegfried's comments.
Chairperson Guch commented as follows:
Felt the bridge should be widened since the opportunity presented itself
- Did not object to the Applicant's proposal to leave the house as sited and relocate the driveway
on Lot C
- Agreed that the slope should be shaved to increase the sight line
Was favorable to a deferred improvement agreement
Suggested that the road improvements be further considered at a Study Session
Planner Caldwell stated that the above issues could be addressed in the Conditions; the item requir-
ing additional information (slides on the site) was contained in the geologic reports; Staff would
present information at the October 26th Meeting, without a Study Session.
000007 a
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6
OCTOBER 26, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Chairperson Ouch noted the grave concerns regarding project density and the flexibility allowed in
the Conceptual Design Approval to permit the Applicants to creatively address this concern.
Break: 9:35 -9:55 P.M.
9 SD488 -006 Bowie, 13602 Pierce Road, request for approval of subdivision of
approximately 11 acres of undeveloped property into 3 lots. Each lot is
proposed to be approximately 3.6 acres in size. The property is located on
the southeast side of Pierce Road, immediately southwest of the intersection
with Surrey Lane. NHR zone (northwestern hillside residential), General
Plan designation RHC (residential hillside conservation.) A Negative
Declaration has been prepared. Continued from October 12, 1988.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 26, 1988..
The City Attorney suggested Condition 20 be amended to add "g. Perform work to stabilize
landslide areas on -site as recommended or approved by the City Geologist."
The City Engineer cited the letter of Wm. Cotton Associates, Aulttst 26, 1988, and suggested that
if Conditions were amended, the City Geologist's wording 'landslide control measures"I be
incorporated.
The City Attorney noted the implications of the slide area which extended over property lines; he
suggested that language be added that the Applicant shall exert a good faith effort to negotiate an
agreement with neighboring property owners for repair of the slide.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:05 P.M
Mr. Ralph Saviano, Applicant, reiterated testimony given October 12, 1988 and added that the
landslide involved throe property owners; he did not object to paying his fair share of repair costs.
He added that widening the road would result in pedestrians /cyclists stopping in the area adjacent
• to his property since it would be the only resting place for several miles.
The City Attorney responded that a Condition could be imposed requiring the Applicant to grant an
access easement to adjoining property owners, if necessary, to facilitate repair the slide. The
Applicant had no objection to such a Condition.
f
Mr. Willem Kohler, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association, stated that the slide on -site had not
been subtracted from the topographic area prior to site calculations; there was an active landslide on
this Property. In response to Chairperson Guch, he stated that the Homeowners Association
would accept a widening of the bridge and would be favorable to separate pedestrian/ cyclist path.
Mr. Steve de Keczer, 13415 Pierce Rd., reviewed his letter of October 23, 1988; he objected to
allowing the maximum density on this site.
Mr. Robert Binkley, Civil Engineer, cited his recent letter of October 25, 1988; he felt it would be
appropriate for the stabilization and/or repair of the slide to begin on the Applicant's property.
W. Kohler reiterated concerns raised above.
Mr. de Keczer reiterated comments stated above.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:35 P.M. Passed 6 -0.
Commissioner Burger asked to see some widening of the bridge and noted the loss of an Oak tree.
the City Engineer responded that the Oak was heavily eroded and undermined by the Creek. He
presented engineered drawings for widening the bridge and road improvements.
Chairperson Guch and Commission Harris had concerns regarding the widening of Pierce Rd.
Commissioner Siegfried noted that the opportunity presented itself to improve /widen the bridge.
Chairperson Guch favored a separate pedestrian pathway; she cited the safety of such.
Planner Caldwell reviewed standard street widths from the Subdivision Ordinance; a 26 ft. wide
bridge with a 4 ft. separate pedestrian pathway would meet minimum standards of the Ordinance.
11111'1
s
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 26,1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 7
Commissioner Siegfried suggested approval of the Application with the following amendments:
- Half street widened to 13 ft. width with no tree removal without approval of the Commission
- Bridge widened to 26 ft. with a separate pedestrian pathway
Landslide area be stabilized allowing adjacent property owners access to the Applicant's pro-
perty to facilitate such work
Planner Caldwell confirmed that Lot C had a 423 pad elevation.
SIEGFRIEDBURGER MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6 -0.
SIEGFRIEDBURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-88 -006 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION
AMENDING CONDITIONS TO REQUIRE THAT THE HALF STREET BE WIDENED TO 13
FT. WIDTH WITH NO TREE REMOVAL WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION,
BRIDGE TO BE WIDENED TO 26 FT. WITH A SEPARATE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY,
LANDSLIDE AREA TO BE STABILIZED ALLOWING ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
ACCESS TO THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY TO FACILITATE SUCH WORK Passed 6 -0.
.j
000009
•
r
of
•
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Kathryn Caldwell
DATE: 10/26/88 PLNQ DIR. APPRV.�
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -88 -006 • 13502
Pierce Rd.
APPLICANT /OWNER: Saviano /Bowie
APN: 503 -15 -066 Q
N
V 000010
PLANNER'S WORKSHEET
Trails and pathways map checked
-7vicinity/locator map included
Dimensions shown on plot plan
/Adjacent structures
/Directional arrow
Trees labelled
'Plans reflect field conditions
t!LkHeights shown on cross sections
t- IIAConsistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans
_LL}Natural and finished grade on cross sections
Height of underfloor & attic areas included in floor area calculations
t4A Roof pitch shown
`/All sheets included ,in submittal with required reductions
• t""IAColors submitted
Staff Reports
conditions from other agencies /department correct
'Consistent figures throughout report
History files examined
Correct address & application number on all pages of the report
'Description consistent with advertisement
/Plans labelled
/Order of attachment consistent with list
All attachments included
Typographical errors corrected
✓
Dates on the resolutions correct
Applicant notified of recommendation
SApplicant notified that staff report available Fri. 3 -4:00 P .m.
A:checklist 000011 6/88
•
•
to
ugu'ff @2 0&MZ1zQ)S&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission DATE: 10/26/88
FROM: Kathryn Caldwell, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: SD -88 -006, 13502 Pierce Road - 3 lot subdivision
BACKGROUND: At the meeting on October 12, 1988, the Planning
Commission requested further information and clarification in the
areas of traffic and circulation and geology. The City Engineer
will be present at the meeting on October 26, 1988, to discuss the
issues with the Commission.
Traffic /Circulation - The subdivision conditions will produce an
engineered improvement plan showing Pierce Road widened to 26 feet
throughout the length of the subdivision. The plan will show a range
of 0 -8 feet of widening, with an average widening of 2.7 feet. All
trees will be plotted and the improvement plan will be .submitted to
the Commission for final approval, before the final map can be
filed. The developer will be required to widen half of Pierce Road,
to provide 13 ft. of pavement between the centerline and the edge of
pavement on the applicant's site. The applicant has indicated that
the bank can be laid back in two (2) areas to provide more
visibility down Pierce Road. Condition #32 on Resolution SD -88 -006
address this issue.
Bridge Widening - Condition #26 requires replacement of the bridge
over Calabasas Creek to a full 26 foot width and a 4 foot pedestrian
way. This new bridge will be part of the improvement plans
submitted to the City. South of the property another bridge
crossing Calabasas Creek will be replaced through a condition on the
Teerlink Subdivision. The effect of the " Teerlink" bridge is to
"soften" the turn to improve the safety on Pierce Road.
Pedestrian Paths - The only area where pedestrian access is being
proposed is across the bridge. Elsewhere along the project frontage
no pedestrian access is proposed. North and south of the site along
Pierce Road there are no paths to connect to and none are proposed.
Underground Utilities - Presently there are no underground
1 000012
utilities on Pierce Road and the applicant requests that he be
excused from the requirement. Staff agrees that a deferred
improvement agreement is adequate at this time. Condition #33 t
addresses this issue.
Geology - Reference was made to the Northwestern Hillside Specific
Plan (incorporated into the General Plan) with regard to the
landslide on proposed lot A. The concern was that the lot should
not be developed, due to geologic constraints. The documentation
relative to this specific property, however, does not prohibit the
subdivision:
1) The General Plan policies (NH Specific Plan) called for an
action program to "Design and /or revise ordinances to carry out
the, above policies for entire Specific Plan Area" (pg. 11).
Following adopting of the General Plan, the NHR zoning
regulations were approved,. to implement the Specific Plan
(Section 15- 14.010(e)]. Among other things, the NHR zone
references the "Ground Movement Potential Maps, as adopted by
the City in Section 16- 65.020" (Building Codes) and requires
geologic and soils reports for any development.
2) The Ground Movement Potential Map shows the site to be
classified Sun, Ps, and Sbr. In accord with City Code, the City
Geologist has reviewed geologic and soils reports prepared for
the subdivision and recommends "geologic and geotechnical
approval of the proposed building sites" even though the
measures "do not constitute a full repair or a complete .
stabilization of the active landslide." Essentially, the
location of the lot lines does not affect the stability of the
slope. The building sites are logically placed on the flatter
areas of the lots, close to Pierce Road. The measures "are
designed to control the future behavior of the landslide,
therefore, the future owners.of Lot A and the upslope neighbors
will have to coexist with the landslide." (William Cotton
dated 9/15/88).
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the project by approving the Negative
Declaration and Resolution SD -88 -006. The applicant will improve
Pierce Road to minimum safety standards and stabilize the earth on
his property.
Attachments: 1) Resolution SD -88 -006
2) Negative Declaration
3) General Plan Policies RE: NHR
4) Ground Movement Potential Map
5) Letter from William Cotton
6) Staff report to Planning Commission dated 10/12/88
41
2 000013
RESOLUTION NO. SD -88 -006
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
AP _
N# 503 -15 001 SAVIANO /BOWIE, Pierce 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 ma approval
all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD- 88- 006of this oCit lots,
WHEREAS Y� and
. this Advisory Agency hereb
subdivision, together with the Y finds that the proposed
r
is consistent with the Saratoga GeneralsPlan and withgalln specific plat'
relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use Ps Compatible
with the objectives, policies and general land use and p
in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 10/12/88
hereby made for further particulars, and being
WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the
Categorical Exemption prepared for this
currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and Project in accord with the
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections
(g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect, to through
subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord
conditions as hereinafter set forth. with
• WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
hearing at which time all interested parties were Public
to be heard and to present evidence; given a full. opportunity
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 14th day f
March, 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. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the
Map Approval. time of obtaining Final
2. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation and pa
required fees. y
3• Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 30 ft.
half street on Pierce Road.
4• Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to
required. provide easements, as
5. Improve Pierce Road to City Standards, including the following:
a. Designed Structural Section widened from existing edge of aveme
to provide at least 13 ft. between centerline and flowline nt
except that removal of ordinance size trees shall be by permit
000014
SD -88 -006; 13502 Pierce Road
only from the Planning Commission. 0
6. Construct Storm Drainage System, as shown on the "Master Drainage
Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, to convey storm runoff
to street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the following:
a. storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes.
b. storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes.
c. storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc.
7. Submit engineered plans for 26 ft. full width improvements to
Pierce Road along project frontage to City Engineer for review and
to the Planning Commission for approval. Trees shall be accurately
plotted on the plans.
8. Construct driveway approach 16 feet wide at property line flared to
24 feet at street paving. Use 2 1/2 in. A.C. on 6 in. aggregate
base.
9. Construct "valley gutter" across driveway or pipe under driveway as
approved by City Engineer.
10. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as
required at driveway and access road intersections.
11. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, •
retard or prevent flow.
12. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
13. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
a. street improvements.
b. storm drain construction.
c. bridge replacement
14. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from
Improvement Plans.
15. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval.
16. Replace bridge over Calabazas Creek at Chalet Clotilde Drive. New
bridge to have 26 foot wide travel section and 4 ft. pedestrian
way. One tree can be removed.
17. Fire hydrants: Developer shall intall 2 fire hydrants that meet
the fire district specifications. Hydrants shall be installed and
accepted prior to construction of any building final map approval.
18. Driveways: All driveways have a 14 -foot minimum width plus one foot
shoulders. 0
SD -88 -006; 13502 Pierce Road
a. Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of o & S or
better on a 611 aggregate base from a, public street to the
proposed dwelling.
b. Slopes from lit to 15% shall be surfaced using 2 1/2" of A. C. or
better on 6" aggregate base from a public street to proposed
dwelling.
C. Slopes form 15% to 17$ shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete
rough surfaced on 4" aggregate base from a public street to
proposed dwelling.
d. Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet.
19. Submit a geotechnical investigation and soils report by licensed
professional.
20. Submit detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
a. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities)
b. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.)
c. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for
• walls 3 feet or higher.
d. All existing structures with notes as to remain or be removed.
e. Erosion Control Measures
f. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
g. Perform necessary work to control the landslide areas on the
site as recommended by the City Geologist and grant a license
to adjacent property owners to enter the property for
purposes of landslide control.
21. A sanitary sewer connection will be required.
22. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Company.
23. The subject property shall be annexed to the Cupertino Sanitary
District prior to final map approval.
24. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall dedicate additional
easements as required by the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
25. Details for any storm drain outfall into the creek should comply
with Santa Clara Valley Water District specifications.
000016
SD -88 -006; 13502 Pierce Road
26. In accordance with Santa Clara Valley Water District Ordinance 85 -�
and 87 -3, the owner should show any existing well(s) on the plans.
The well(s) should be properly registered with the District and
either maintained or abandoned in accordance with District
standards. Abandoned wells shall be sealed in accordance with
District standards unless they are to be used for the proposed
development.
27. Improvement plans for` any work in the vicinity of Santa Clara
Valley Water District's right -of -way should be reviewed and a permit
issued prior to start of site construction.
28. Planning Commission design review approval is required for future
homes on Lots A, B, and C.
29. Tree removal is prohibited unless in accordance with Article 15 -50.
30. The finished pad elevations for the future homes on the three lots
shall be approximately as follows:
Lot A - 423
Lot B - 428
Lot C - 432
31. Install storm drain line from the existing culvert on lot A under
Pierce Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. .
32. Driveway on Lot C to be a minimum of 50 ft. from Surrey Lane and
hillside cut back to provide adequate site distance down Pierce
Road, as approved by the City Engineer. The bank along the inside
of the curve on Lot B, shall also be cut back to improve site
distance on Pierce Road, as approved by the City Engineer.
33. Deferred improvement agreement required for underground overhead
utilities.
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, St!
of California, this 26th day of October, 1988 by the following vote:
000017
f
0
SD -88 -006; 13502 Pierce Road
AYES: Commissioners Guch, Harris, Siegfried, Tappan, Kolstad, Burger
NOES: None
ABSENT: Tucker
ATTEST:
—Lglo�n Atelk 1144
Chairman, Planning ommission
Secretary, Planing Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted
Signature of Applicant Date
S of Own&k
Lid w)
OIL-
6
D &te t
It
EXH i f
�ADEPO AYE
eat
.4— 64- IIIIIA IAAAPWV�
u w_, ".— . (_)11Mt1 1 ; p ��
r. A M A"I
MIA AI a IAIMI►_
.nIII,IIAIAw
SIIII-
.fir
CKALEI
1p
'010
00
00,
'17
P
a.
<a .
moo-
Z
0 !L
W-M, 4
> M .
0 w
" ir •
Z w
z & iL
810-3
9
uw tero
S 1 � &_
Action Program
1. Establish a legal format for accepting open space ease-
go ments and provide a means for maintaining the open space
easements.
2. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to conform to these policies.
3. Implement agricultural zoning where appropriate to
preserve open space.
LAND MAINTENANCE
Policies
1. Benefit of residential land use in the hills falls to
hillside residents and to them should fall any extra-
ordinary costs for maintenance of the lands and features
other than City and Utility services.
Action Program
1. Consider an ordinance and procedural requirements which
ensure residents of hillside subdivisions pay the
extraordinary cost of maintenance of all non - public
facilities. Private maintenance agreements, enforceable
by the City without extraordinary public costs should be
developed and included in CC$R's.
2. Consider use of orders of abatement pursuant to police
powers to ensure private maintenance of drainage and
grading improvements (i.e. Weed Abatement Ordinance).
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Policies
1. Geologic hazards should be avoided to the fullest extent
possible by either correction or dedications of such
areas into open space. In avoiding geologic hazards,
applications proposing structures be located on lands
designated Md or Mrf or within the specific fault setbacks
as designated by the City Geologist, shall not be
approved.
0000400
10
2. Every applicant seeking approval of any construction
project within the Specific Plan Area shall at all times
have the burden of providing, to the satisfaction of the
City and its Geologist and other professional consultants,
that the proposed development will be constructed in such
manner as to be safe from known or reasonably predictable
geologic hazards which may cause injury to persons or
property.
3. The Geologic Hazards Analysis of the Upper Calabazas
Creek watershed is a planning document which may require
modification.
4. No deviations or modifications of the Maps shall be
permitted without prior written approval of the City
Geologist.
S. In locating building sites, preference should be given to
areas designated as stable (Sbr, Sls, Sun, Sex) on the
Ground Movement Potential Maps: Especially sites on
potentially moving slopes (Pmw, Ps, Pd) and moving slopes
(his) shall not be approved unless geologic and soils
engineering analysis and design provided by the develop
clearly demonstrate the long -term stability of such sit*
to the satisfaction of the City, its Geologist and other
professional consultants.
6. On questionable sites the City Geologist may require
slope stability analysis with the building site and its
immediately surrounding area having a factor of safety
against failure of at least 1.5 or equivalent, in the
event of a designed earthquake of magnitude 8.3 on the
San Andreas Fault. The City Geologist shall review and
approve all proposals to insure conformance with this
requirement.
7. The City, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Evergreen
Resource Conservation District and Santa Clara County
should immediately commence proceedings with the land -
owners for the stabilization of the abandoned quarry
areas on the Paul Masson Vineyard and Cocciardi properties
as well as other erosion reduction activities.
8. If grading proposed for a project, as specifically
approved by the Planning Commission, City Geologist and
City Engineer, corrects a geologic hazard, then roads,
driveways and structures may be located on such graded
areas as approved.
000021
11
9. Projects or portions thereof that re
maintenance activity over the that
quire a high level of
failures should generally not long-term to prevent slope
ability to perform or enforce performance ofnmainte City s
is limited.
tions that minimizetriskl�n should maintenance
principally use solu-
private structures in the event of failure.
or
10. City should continue to strictly enforce its
Ordinance through the Cit Grading
Inspection Services and control �ofsal and Department of
engineer and geologist on all projects in hillsides• by Soil
Action Program
I. Design and /or revise Ordinances to carry
Policies for entire Specific Plan Area, out the above
HYDROLOGY AND FLOODING
Policies
•
I. For site specific policies, see Site and Storm
Drainage.
2, continuenall' availaing Commission and City
flooding and erosion v iable efforts alonsecure emedyftohould
and in already developed areas, g the main Calabazas
3• Long -term maintenance of
size than would natural watercourses of smaller
District juirsdictionfshouldsbetb Clara Valle !
areas using y homeowners in dater
g private resources and with City in tributary
approval of any proposed improvements or a review and
4• Continue maintenance.
(and expand to include the Specific Plan Area
pro -rata share fees for drainage, insurin
large enough to pay all osts of c g that the
to eliminate flooding at the 100 necessary s
are
y facilitie
5• Recommend continuing support of long-term storm level.
hydrology of area. study of
Action Program
1• Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District
appropriate procedures for the above policies. to develop
s
000022
ENE
1 v.
� mill
OWE
�'"�
0 W-.MA
Rey to Map 2
AREAS OF RELATIVELY STABLE GROUND
Sbr - level ground with moderately steep slopes underlain by bedrock
within several feet of the
cover may ground surface. Soil or alluvial
Y be subject to
settlement. shallow sliding, soil creep, or
Sls - gentle to moderately steep slopes underlain by
stabilized old landslide debris. Subject to local soil naturall
and settlement.
Sun Level ground and gentle slo es
unconsolidated granular p underlain by thick
soil creep. Li material. Subject to settlement and
quefaction possible in low areas during strong
earthquakes. Stream erosion may trigger shallow landslides
Along creek banks.
Sff - Large areas of relatively stable artificial fill on flat or
gently sloping ground or in canyon bottoms. to
localized settlement where - placement might not Sub
havet met
engineering specifications.
• Sex - Generally highly expansive, clay-rich
Subject to seasonal shrink- swel, s °ils and bedrock.
settlement. May include areas of non- xpansivelmaterial and
may also occur within other map units.
AREAS OF POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE ROUND
Pmw - Steep to very steep slopes underlain by weathered, fractured
bedrock, subject to mass wasting by soil creep, slumping and
rockfall activity.
Pfs -
Ps
IT-]
LI
Large areas of potentially unstable artificial fill on
moderately steep to steep ground. Subject to localized
settlement, landsliding, and debris flow activity where
placement might not have met engineering standards.
- Gentle to moderately steep slopes underlain b
unstable material including landslide debris, colluviumtivand
weak bedrock. Commonly less than 10 feet thi
to shallow landsliding and soil creep activityck. Susceptible
- Moderately steep to very steep slopes underlain by or adjacent
to relatively unstable landslide debris, commonly more than 10
feet thick. Susceptible to deep landsliding.
FIII Il
Pdf - Steep to very steep terrain mantled with thick soil s
colluvium, and landslide debris susceptible to debris flows
Includes flows and depositional areas on flatter slopes below.
AREAS OF UNSTABLE GROUND
Ms - Moving shallow landslides, commonly less than 10 feet thick.
Md - Moving deep landslides, more than 10 feet thick.
Mrf - Moving deep landslides, more than 100 feet thick, exposed in
high, oversteepened slopes, subject to large -scale sloughing,
slumping and possibly catastrophic rock falls.
AREAS OF POTENTIAL SURFACE FAULTING
Psf - Zone of potential surface faulting and associated ground
displacement within 100 feet of a trace of the Berrocal Fault
or within 200 feet of a trace of the Shannon Fault.
000025
10
�J
s
William Cc.
and Associates
GL tCNNICAL COW' `N f3
0 n 330 Village Lane
Los Gatos, Cali' 030
(408) 354 -5542
September 15, 1988
S1038C
TO: Kathryn Caldwell, Planner
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
SUBJECT: Addendum to Geologic and Geotechnical Review
RE: Saviano Subdivision
Pierce Road, APN 503- 15-001
We have prepared this supplemental discussion to clarify our conclusions
and recommendations regarding the proposed subdivision. In our previous review
report (August 26, 1988), we noted that an existing active landslide is located within
the southeastern ' portion of Lot A. This landslide also extends upslope onto two
adjacent parcels. The proposed building area on Lot A has been located to avoid the
path of any additional movement of the active landslide.
Drainage and grading measures have been proposed to improve the stability
of the landslide on Lot A. While these measures are a positive step to increase the
• stability of the slope on which the landslide is situated, they do not constitute a full
repair or a complete stabilization of the active landslide. They are designed to control
the future behavior of the landslide, therefore, the future owners of Lot A and the
upslope neighbors will have to coexist with the landslide. The proposed landslide
control measures should not have a negative impact on slope stability.
In our opinion, the geologic and geotechnical feasibility of the proposed
residential building sites have been adequately demonstrated by the project
geotechnical consultant. We recommend geologic and geotechnical approval of the
proposed building sites.
matter.
Please contact our office if we can be of any additional assistance in this
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William R. Cotton ,tECEIyE�
Town Geotechnical Consultant
CEG 882p r, jg88
WRC:TS:mjs PLANNING DEPT
s
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOLINDATOwtERING
I V IWilliam Cot.in
and Associates
s
•
lb
GEOTECHNICAL CONW ,TS
330 Village Lane
Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
August 26, 1988
S1038B
TO: Bob Calkins, Assistant Planner
CITY OF SARATOGA AECEIVE0
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070 AUG 2 J 1989
SUBJECT: Second Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Review PLANN/NG DEPT
RE: Saviano Subdivision, 3 Lots
Pierce Road, APN 503 -15 -001
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geologic and geotechnical
review of the proposed subdivision using:
• Report on Geologic Investigation prepared by Jo Crosby and
Associates, dated July 14,1988;
• Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Snyder and
Associates, dated May 27,1988;
• Additonal Geologic Field Exploration (letter) prepared by Jo Crosby and
Associates, dated August 9,1988; and
• Geologic Cross - Section B -B' prepared by Jo Crosby and Associates, dated
August 17,1988.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office
files.
The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject property into three lots for
residential development. In our previous review report (June 15, 1988), we
recommended that a detailed geotechnical investigation be prepared by a
Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist. Our primary concerns about the
proposed development relate to the potential for continued slope instability. An
existing active landslide is located in the southeastern portion of Lot A. This
landslide also extends upslope onto two adjacent properties.
The referenced geologic and geotechnical investigations indicate that
residential development of the subject property is constrained by highly expansive
surficial materials, unstable landslide debris, shallow groundwater, weak foundation
conditions and potential inundation by flood waters. The project engineering
geologist has recommended that building pads for Lot A and Lot B be elevated to
000027
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Bob Calkins
August 2, 1988
Page 2
reduce the potential for inundation. Potential flood hazards should be mitigated to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The City, applicant, upslope property owners, and potential future lot owners
should be made aware that the active landslide on Lot A remains in a failure
condition despite the drainage and grading measures which are proposed to improve
the stability of the slope on which the landslide is situated. The proposed building
area on Lot A has recently been relocated to avoid the path . of any additional
movement of the active landslide. However, a moderate to high potential exists for
adverse impacts to existing structures located upslope and /or to property values in
the event of increased levels of landslide activity. The proposed residential
development of Lot A raises liability concerns which should be given careful
consideration by the City and all potentially involved property owners. The project
engineering geologist has concluded that slope failure may migrate into the
underlying soils which support the existing residence located directly above the
active landslide on Lot A (i.e., APN 503 -53 -059). The upslope neighbor should be
informed of the conclusions reached by the referenced geologic investigation.
The extent of developmental constraints on the subject property necessitates
detailed geologic and geotechnical investigations to fully characterize potential
hazards and to develop appropriate- mitigation measures. Based on our review of the .
referenced documents, it appears that sufficient investigation has been completed to
demonstrate the geotechnical feasibility of residential construction within the
proposed building envelopes. However, additional geotechnical evaluations and
design recommendations are needed prior to issuance of building permits on
individual lots. Liability issues associated with potential future movement of the
active landslide located primarily on Lot A, should be reviewed by the City Attorney
prior to subdivision approval. Measures to mitigate potential flooding should meet
with the approval of the City Engineer. From a geotechnical standpoint, we
recommend approval of the Tentative Map with the following conditions:
1. Liability Evaluation - The City Attorney should review liability
issues associated with City acceptance of the proposed subdivision and
residential development of Lot A. While the proposed building
envelope on Lot A has been located to avoid the path of potential
lanslide activity, existing upslope structures and /or property values
may be adversely impacted by continued landslide activity.
2. Evaluation of Flood Mitigation Measures - Elevation of the buiding
pads on Lots A and B have been recomended to reduce the potential
for inundation. Potential flood hazards should be mitigated to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The liability evaluation and review of proposed flood mitigation measures
should be completed prior to subdivision approval by the City. Please contact our
office if any additional information is needed in regard to these matters.
000028
William Cotton and Associates
f
Bob Calkins
August 2, 1988
Page 3
We recommend that the following supplemental geotechnical evaluations be
satifactorily completed prior to issuance of site development or building permits on
individual lots:
Lot A - Detailed geotechnical design recommendations and plans
should be prepared for proposed surface and subsurface drainage
improvements associated with the active landslide. Additional plans
should be prepared to illustrate: 1) proposed regrading of the toe of the
slide, and 2) grading to direct any future slide debris away from
proposed structures. Recommended geotechnical design criteria for
foundations and proposed residential improvements should be
clarified for the revised building site location.
Lot B - The project engineering geologist should evaluate the potential
for adverse impacts to the proposed residense from debris flows.
Appropriate mitigation measures should be proposed if necessary. An
elevated building pad has been recommended to reduce the chance of
inundation. Recommended geotechnical design criteria for foudations
and proposed residential improvements should be clarified for the
elevated building pad.
Lot C - The project engineering geologist should evaluate the long-
term stability of the dormant landslide deposit indicated on the City
Geologic Map. Any adverse impacts of potential slope instability in
this area should be addressed. Recommendations to provide positive
site drainage should also be prepared.
The results of these supplemental evaluations and detailed development
plans should be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Geologist
and Engineer prior to issuance of site development or building permits on
individual lots.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
WRC:TS
s 000028
William Cotton and Associates
f
•
1
File No. SD -86 -006; 13502 Pierce Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARRy
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed: 3/14/88
Application complete: 9/15/88
Notice published: 9/28/88
Mailing completed: 9/29/88
Posting completed: 9/8/88
/o�ial86
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Sections 14 -20.
15- 14.050, the applicant is requesting tentative ma approval 070 and
3 -lot subdivision of a 10.8 acre lot located in R z a
district. zone
PROJECT DISCUSSION: The project is consistent with the City's
General Plan and zoning code regulations. The City Geologist has
reviewed the proposal and other pertinent technical documents and
has recommended approval subject to conditions. No adverse
environmental impacts are expected. Planning Commission design
review approval is recommended for the future homes on the 3 lots as
set forth in the conditions for tentative map approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the project by approving. the Negative
Declaration and by adopting Resolution SD -88 -006.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Negative Declaration
3. Resolution SD -88 -006
4. Letter from applicant
5. Correspondence
6. Plans, Exhibit A
BC /kah
and Initial Study
dated 8/8/88 with Appendix A
1
0000�:o
SD -88 -006; 13502 Pierce Road
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZON_ ING' NHR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Hillside Conservation
Lot A Lot B
Lot C
LARCEL SIZE:
3.6 ac. 3.6 ac.
3.6 ac.
AVER SITE SLOPE: 32$
28$ 23$
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
per
slope density
formula): "1 3.57 acres
A. PRO_ E_CT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 10.8 acre
3 lots for residential development (i.e. three single into
homes). The subject q family
Road and southwest of Sproperty is located southeast of Pierce
to very steep and t of rY Lane and is characterized by level
• and valley floor topography. recipitous northwest- facing hillside
A large northwest - trending ridge
traverses the central portion of the
including Property. Dense vegetation
g large ordinance size oak and black walnut
found throughout the site. trees are
The Calabazas Creek traverses the
southwest corner of what is proposed as Lot A.
Lot A is proposed in the western portion of the property. The
proposed building envelope is located in the topographically low
central portion of the lot.
Portion of the 10.8 acres. Lot B is located in the central
lot is located in the site for this
northwestern termination of the existin the
located in the northeastern portion of the pr pert' Lot C is
y. A building envelope is located in the extreme the
osed
Of the lot on a gently sloping ridge.
According to the City Geologist, the
this site is potentially constrained by:
propossiodevelopment of
resulting from both active P instability
remobilization of old and dormant landslide deposits, and potential
drainage conditions lids deposits, 2) adverse
materials and 4 3) Potentially expansive surficial
the site's seismic setting.
B. Analysis
Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance - The subject
2
000031
SD -88 -006; 13502 Pierce Road
property is within Planning Area B as defined in the
General Plan. The City has adopted specific guidelines for Aea
B development including the following: "all development of
vacant sites within this area (Area B) shall be limited to
single family detached residential and conform to the density of
the surrounding residential area." Staff believes that the
applicant's proposal is consistent with the above development
guideline in that the plan complies with the City's
slope /density formula. Given the site's total area (10.8 acres)
and average slope (27.5$), according to the City's slope /density
formula, the average acres per dwelling unit for the subject lot
is 3.57. The applicant's plan calls for a density that is
slightly lower than the maximum permitted density and therefore
complies with the City's slope density formula. In addition,
staff believes the proposal conforms to the density of the
surrounding residential area in that the, immediate vicinity is
characterized by lots which are 1+ acres in size. The
applicant has proposed lots which are a minimum of 3.6 acres in
area.
In addition to the applicant's proposal being consistent with
the City's General Plan, the applicant's proposal is also
consistent with the City's zoning ordinance. For example, City
Code section 15- 14.080, sets forth minimum site frontage, width
and depth requirements for lots in the NHR zone district. Th
table below illustrates that, in each case, the applicant's
proposal far exceeds the minimum lot requirements with regards
to frontage, width and depth:
C. Geologic Analysis
One of the purposes contained in Article 15 -14, Northwestern
Hillsides Residential District, is to prevent development that
would be subject to significant uncorrectable geotechnical or
flood hazards. Given the topography of site, the threat of
flooding is very minimal.. In fact, according to the National
Flood Insurance Flood Hazard Maps, the subject site is not
within any recognized flood area. However, as stated above, the
City Geologist has identified several potential development
constraints including active landslides, adverse drainage
conditions, and the site's overall seismic setting.
The City Geologist has performed a very detailed geologic and
geotechnical investigation of the property and has concluded
that "the geologic and geotechnical feasibility of the proposed
residential building sites have been adequately demonstrated by
3 000032
Frontage
Width
Depth
Lot A
700 ft.
880 ft.
240 ft.
Lot B
250 ft.
235 ft.
700 ft.
Lot C
550 ft.
450 t.
360 ft.
Required
80 ft.
100 ft.
150 ft.
C. Geologic Analysis
One of the purposes contained in Article 15 -14, Northwestern
Hillsides Residential District, is to prevent development that
would be subject to significant uncorrectable geotechnical or
flood hazards. Given the topography of site, the threat of
flooding is very minimal.. In fact, according to the National
Flood Insurance Flood Hazard Maps, the subject site is not
within any recognized flood area. However, as stated above, the
City Geologist has identified several potential development
constraints including active landslides, adverse drainage
conditions, and the site's overall seismic setting.
The City Geologist has performed a very detailed geologic and
geotechnical investigation of the property and has concluded
that "the geologic and geotechnical feasibility of the proposed
residential building sites have been adequately demonstrated by
3 000032
SD -88 -006; 13502 Pierce Road
the project's geotechnical consultant." Consequently, the City
Geologist has recommended approval of the project subject to
conditions.
D. Applicant's Response to Proposed Conditions
Prior to the final preparation of this report, the applicant was
provided with the proposed conditions of approval,requiring
minimal improvement for a two lane throughfare per the
subdivision ordinance. The applicant submitted a letter
(enclosed, dated 8/8/88) arguing that several of the proposed
conditions were "inappropriate." Specifically, the applicant
stated that the requirement to widen Pierce Road and the bridge
over Calabazas Creek to 20 ft. between the centerline and
flowline would result in the removal of a significant number of
mature trees. The applicant stated that removal of these trees
would have a disastrous visual impact on the area by exposing
the future homes to the surrounding neighbors. At the request of
the staff, the applicant tagged the trees that would have to be
removed in order to accommodate the widening. After assessing
the impact, the condition was modified to require 13 feet of
width between the centerline and flowline and no tree removal
without permission. from the Planning Commission.
The General Plan and subdivision ordinance have pertinent
information relating to Pierce Road, General Plan guidelines for
"Area A - Mt. Eden Road," adjacent to Planning Area B in which
the site is located, states that "Pierce Road shall not be
altered in any way that would change its rural character except
for alterations needed for public safety... 11 (guideline #1, pg. 4-
2). Guideline #2 states "Removal (of oak trees] shall be
limited to that required for public safety ..." The subdivision
ordinance mandates a minimum 40 ft. pavement width for a two
lane throughfare. Pierce Road is an arterial street and has a
history of accidents and conflict with bicycles. Forty feet of
pavement would allow bicycle and pedestrian lanes and provide for
public safety. However, a significant number of trees would
have to be removed (see Appendix A, provided by the applicant).
The minimum improvement that could be considered per the
subdivision. ordinance, would be for a hillside street with 26
ft. of pavement. With this modification, one (1) 36 inch oak
( #31 on Appendix A) will have to be removed, west of the bridge
across Calabazas Creek in front of lot A. The remainder of the
road widening might be confined to the opposite side of Pierce.
Road between the bridge and the western edge of the subject
property. Trees #28 -30 and #32 on Appendix A can be preserved.
However, the Planning Commission should be aware that the 13 ft.
road width only provides for a travel lane without
bicycle /pedestrian pathsr.
s
000033
4
9 00)
SD -88 -006, 13502 OPierce Road
E. Access to Lot C
The driveway, as
distance to make
Road safely. In
driveway to Surrey
recommends the bui
show the pad at
westerly portion
Resolution SD -88 -0
shown, is haza
a left turn o
addition,
Lane will cau
lding site be
410 elevatio
of the lot.
06 addresses
rdous. There is i
ut of the driveway
the proximity of
se conflicting mov
relocated on the p
n which is locate
.Conditions #30
this situation.
nadequate site
onto Pierce
the proposed
ements. Staff
roposed map to
d toward the
and #32 of
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve
the project by. adopting the Negative Declaration and Resolution SD-
88 -006. In staff's opinion, the proposed 3 -lot subdivision is
consistent with the City's General Plan, Subdivision, and Zoning
Ordinances. In addition, based on the recommendations of the City
Geologist, staff finds that the project site is physically suitable
for the type of development proposed.
•
t
5
000034
T
•
CITY OF SARATOGA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE
___(to be completed by appl.i.cant)_.
FORM EIA -la
FILING FEE: $ DATE: o SS FILE NO: S�•� -�E
GENERAL INFORMATION:
1.
Name and address of developer or project sponsor; `Kra c""" l I P
101 "—T �T :M IFlz�
2.
Address of project: 6A
Assessor's Parcel Number:
3.
Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning
this project: Sg�
`►oar a��- la��
•
4.
Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this
form pertains:
5.
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: «„ft
6.
Existing zoning district: fJ
7.
Proposed use of site (project for which this form is filed):
Kt - 1 fl &� /1 L, Roll �3
8.
Site size: 3_ A �a;� c Ea�L_ A pprsa Id
9.
Square footage: _oF 14c,"V 40 5
10.
�OOG
Number of floors of construction: a cc i
11.
Amount of off - street parking:
12.
Attached plans? Yes No C�
13.
Proposed scheduling: ;or',�a
14.
Associated projects: AJa _vw
15.
Anticipated incremental development:
16.
If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes,
range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected:
u n i t ti —> GGG S F 00 0100 10 !► x%00 06 0,
a.
17. If commerciX-indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or
regionally quare footage of sales area, and loading
facilities:
18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and
loading facilities:
19. If institutional, indicate the major estimated employment
per shift, estimated occupancy, loadi�,ction,
cilities, and community
benefits to be derived from the project:
20. If the project involves a variance, conditional a or rezoning appli-
cation, state this and indicate clearly why the ap lication is required:
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Disco
below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary).
YES NO
LL_ _ 21. Change in existing features of any lakes or hills, or sub-
stantial alteration of ground contours.
0� ud" P,_.0 a o." Er
T
_ 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential
areas r public lands or roads.
QtsP�g
�iw cE S ire 1c'_� e k �- ,l1,)/
-tG r-o, 64 f ` 6Y'Y•t _7
23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of
project.
24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
C<,M Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
d26. Change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity,
or alteration of existing drainage patterns.
1, II u r- 'e a .1 lac
`ter
27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in
the vicinity.
YES NO
_ 28.
29.
Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more.
Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives.
30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police,
fire, water, sewage, etc.).
G1 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity,
oil, natural gas, etc.).
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.
• PCi, <1t'L. S-7 r1 OA/ ,T N - 1J4r taA
f5 t), :iL_o Or k S fL r✓.�� t
S.c
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,\commercial, etcs.), intensity of
land use (one - family, apartment houses, shops; department stores, etc.)
and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.).
Atl
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attachec
exhibits present the data and information required for this initial
evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements
and information-presented are true and correct to the best of my know-
ledge and belief.
DATE:
(Signature)
00003'7
For:
FORM EIA -lb
CITY OF SARATOGA
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(TO BE COMPLETED BY PU9LIC AGENCY)
PROJECT:_ 4 �Y,j���l� FILE NO:�j� -�Pj -�
LOCATION: jj p
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: Sftineuw
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
3. Date of Checklist Submitted: (I/Aid g$ `
fm 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: C �'' e5p452 1A
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 NC
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over -
crowding of the soil? 1�
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief /
features?
4ID�'OR (q d"a �aiu�S �,� 1►,,c !: Il IAQ 1 � — — —
d. The destruction, covering or modification o any
unique geologic or physical features? y/
OOOU:3�
l�
•
f
YES MAYBE I;C
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
3�uzRar
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the /
bed of a lake? ✓
a)a
vw
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hizards
such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground /
failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air.
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. W1111,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 surface water runoff? ✓
Cdj
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? ✓
-2-
0OW9
YES MAYBE
NC
,
d.
Change in the .amount of surface water or any
water in any water body?
V
e.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
/
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
V
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
�•
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either -
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?
VVV
i.
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
J.
Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or
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)?
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants?
v
-3-
000040
f
1
YES
MAYBE
VO
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
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
any species of animals (birds, land animals includ-
ing reptiles, fish, or insects)?
r/
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals?
/
{/
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,
/
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement
of animals?
J
d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat?
V
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases
in existing noise levels?
b• Fxo�ur of p op o se a is s
7. Light and Glare. will the proposal produce new light
or glare?
j�
-4-
000041
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
a t� erat on of the present or planned land use of an
area?
YES MAYBE `C
V `
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, /
distribUETion, density, or growth rate of the human /
population of an area? VVV
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
movement?
-5 .
000042
YES :4AYBE \0
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand /
for new parking? r/
C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation /
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and /or goods?
C; —
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, /
bicyclists or pedestrians? y
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? y/
b. Police protection?
C. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services? fir/
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: /
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
00004.3
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development of
new sources of energy?
YES MAYBE VO
V`
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. water?
Y
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
l�/
f. Solid waste and disposal?
V
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
.
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental health)?
„/
V"
b. Exposure
of people to potential health hazards?
Y
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion o any scenic vista or view open to the public,
or will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon
the qua ty or quantity of existing recreational
opportunities?
-7-
000044 •
f
1
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short -term, to the disadvantage of lonq -term,
environmental goals? (A short -term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long -term impacts will endure well into the
future..)
-8-
YES MAYBE VC
00004D
J
V -
V
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
nlmw
ORRIN "41,1111
-9-
00004b
is
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.
® I 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 GA a iA
attached sheErr 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
DATE: JOlIlBB
S ,.r► av nr.
• ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
S-10- (rev. 5/16/80)
00004'7
l
W1Z=
21055 Sarahills Drive
Saratoga, Ca 95070
October 11, 1988
Planning Commission
City of,Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Proposed development of the Gloyd /Bowie property, Pierce
Road, Saratoga.
This is to advise your Commission that a massive, active
landslide exists on the property of the proposed subject
development. Enclosed are three photos taken when a portion of
the slide was covered with plastic.
The landslide has increased greatly in scope over the years
causing damage to a neighbor's property and now, according to
several geotechnical experts, presenting a very serious threat
to our property on the hillside above.
It is our position that the landslide must be repaired. The City
of Saratoga must not approve any development of the subject
property unless the development plan includes a landslide repair
that will remove the threat to the properties above.
enclosures
tiG4G1 V r-LJ
C i i 1986
PLANNING DEP
000048
0. October 23, L988
Saratcga, Ca.
Re: Application No. and Location. SD -B8 -006: ?..',S•�;
Pierce Rd.
Dear Comm i.ssiatier s:
[
attended the 1 ;)anning Commission -neeti ig on ��;:,. l2-£?:8.
After the puo.lic .hearing portion was cic:•sed, additional
information was pre- sented oy sr-att. Since the hearing is
to be continued to Oct. .4o -bb, out r•,o put. i is comments
are to he accepte,A, 1 am suomitLing my comments ill writing.
This deve lovmen t sh(rt11 t1 not he perm: t ted the max L(wum
allowable rlensi' ,,- FtDr 1.;he following- reasons:
I. The spin ?t o.:' the Generat Plan and Specific Plan
allows for- maxilmum cienss.ty for prime property.
This, however, is a %. -Fry poor piece :;f property.
The front'.north .:ind south western portions) floods
during the winter. The rear portion is steep and
laden Hrith slides. l'he , iiver of land inoetween is
• all that can be considered for dt- velopment Aaximum
density crould nor. he permitted. for th.L�, prc,perty.
�. The Direct-7r :Manning stated that t,ne slide area
is "cont.!oi'_ -ble" arld thus should not be,, suotracted
from the property size L;efore the slope dei,slty is
taken into account. he problem wito this statement is
that the word "controllable" like other adjectives
is not black or white out. rtas shades of gray. For
example: the Colorado River is "controllable" by
Hoover Dam, out nvt controllable in a practkcal way
for a small development.
The land slides under discussion are "controliabie"
by removing the hou =e on tep of someone e.lses
property and "controlling-, the r.: _)p as well a: the
bottom of the slide. This, however, is clearly
impractical, and thus the slides are NOT CONTROLLABLF
IN A PRACTICAL (dAY. The spirit of the General Plan
and Specific an would subtract this slide area
and flood area from the nrope:•ty size before the
slope density formula i�, calculated.
Wev ,
OL' �`•� +y�� de Ke er
/
PZ 4 1141-3 Pierce Rd.
Saratoga
0000 9
•
E
21055 Sarahills Orive
Saratoga, CA 95070
October 25, 1988
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca 95070
')TANNING D&o-
RE: Major landslide at proposed Development SD -88 -006- Bowie,
13602 Pierce Road
This is to follow -up my letter dated October 11, 1988, and my
appearance at the last Planning Commission hearing. Subsequent
to your last meeting, I have perused your subject file and feel
that you should be aware of the following items:
A stability analysis of the landslide area on the subject
property performed by Joe Crosby and Associates indicates that
the area is unstable when wet. We agree with this assessment and
have observed additional movement of the landslide every winter.
The landslide originates on the subject property and is
expanding in an upslope direction through the Shull property
towards our property. The Binkleys have joined efforts with the
Shulls to achieve a landslide repair but have been advised by
several geotechnical consultants that the repair must start at
or near the base of the landslide (on the subject property). The
Gloyd /Bowie family has not been co- operative.
I am concerned that a satisfactory mitigation plan has not been
presented as requested by the City Geologist: Increased drainage
has been proposed, but drainage alone will not stabilize or even
mitigate this landslide. I have been professionally involved in
designing drainage systems for several landslides and must point
out that maintenance of any additional landslide drainage
facilities at the subject is not possible without first
repairing the slide.
I note also that repair of the landslide is feasible. We have
obtained rough repair estimates from soils engineers and
specialty contractors. The cost is high but less than one third
the value of the properties adversely impacted by the landslide.
We maintain our position that the landslide must be repaired in
order to properly mitigate the hazard. We do not object to
development of the subject property, but it is our position that
the landslide must be repaired as a condition of development.
S' erely,
G. R. Binkley
Civil Engineer
000050
A P P E N D I X A
The following chart is a
and their relationship.
on this chart are within
for newly paved area and
The list of trees starts
corner near Old Oak and
tabulation of tree sizes and road widths,
ALL measurements are approximate. The trees
the proposed City Engineer's recommendations
the respective support zone.
at Surrey and Pierce and ends at property
?fierce Roads.
Tree
Type:
Tree Diameter
(in inches):
Existing Road
Road ' Edge s &aElevation'
Width feet :
( )
Relationship:(feet):
1.
2.
OAK
OAK
6"
11.5'
14147'
3.
OAK
9
14
11.5
1447
4.
OAK
9 r:.,. �'
11.5
1648
5.
OAK
16
11.5
87+5.-
6.
of
11.5
12/ +7
7.
it
10
11.5
743
8.
to
16
11.5
9/ +3
9.
12
12.0
18/ +5
10.
"
20
12.0
8/ -2
11.
"
12.0
7/ -1
12.
to
12.0
7/ -3
13.
to
.12.0
6/ -3
14.
11
20
20
12.0
8/ -4
• 15.
to
14/ -6
16.
"
13
12.:0
4/ -1
17.
��
40 �. • , i
13�. 0
9/ -3
18.
n
8 ; :... �.c
12,.0
11/ -2
1 g�.
�
44
12.0
6/-1
NOTE: BIG TUR�1 IN ROAD
12.0 •
2 / +2 *
20.
21.
68 _J `,.: ��
11.0
2/ +6 *
22.
"
1S
11.0
12/ +3
23.
to
20
11.0
14/ +1
24.
11
11.0
8/0
25.
to
12.0
7/ -1
25.
BAY
18
12.0
14/ -2
27.
OAK
,,e20
12.0
11.0
7/ -4
1242
NOTE • RIDGE LOCATION
28.
to
��
-tom ,, 3-
24
10.0
2/ -2
29.
�o
��j
26
9.0
2/ +1
it
3b 9.0
6/ +1
32.
to
50
9.0
2/ +1
33.
7
15
9.0
12/ -1
34.
OAK
26
10.0
13.0
6/ -4
2/ -1
35.
to
56
13.0
5/ -1
*WIDENING
20
TREES
THE ROAD JUST 6' WOULD
REQUIRE THE REMOVAL
OF APPROXIMATELY
ALONE.
000051
SLOPE DENSITY CALCULATION ,
s/}V►AN 0 A- P/) So3- /S -oal
I. Contour length w1 thin NET acreage, L
Not Acrenfic n
CONTOUR
LENGTH
-Inches -
41
2 ,
!
'!
i
60c, -
IF
IS
0
L419 —
,
Ll -.4O
L.D
422
L4 6. v
.3
a.0
L4 Sk
^
2
20 0
•D
O
2.0
•1
'1 .Y
Z r
- ?
i.S
LtZan
Z b
['
T
2 ,l 2
_
U J
5 .
CONTOUR
LENGTII •,
- inches=
2 _.. •
2 ,
!
'!
0
60c, -
IF
IS
,
S=e
,
2 -
.3
i5.o
L4 Sk
^
Al &0 2
20 0
-15
b
•1
- ?
i.S
,.
1t1J777 -2
,, u6Tb-Ta-
-z.4i 77
' +.
CONTOUR
LIN 111
- Innhvs-
CONTOUR
LENGTH
- Inches-
!
'!
0
60c, -
.50
yr: �.s
i -�, 2S
S=e
,
-�s
i5.o
12
Iz,a
jjP9
b
- ?
518
qc?c 20
5?2
2
q,
1
X504 �. -
�u .�T-1
l (. -1
Z 2Z 3.25
�
-1 • a
� a I
.S
V-4
TOTAL X(MAP SCALE) =. I i �r± t 0 I
2. Averahc Slope, S
Q ■ . _.
. f_ Acrc ,)(
S= 0_00229) 1 1 (0: 0.1) ( lr, an 011 rnnn
Armi (a q )
c +n (� :) (nuarast —0.1P minus Rondwuy
Where I a Contour Interval -F't. ininus Viihlculur
(10 ft. mi ix i nwm) Arrev; E;, ;Pmcn t
s Total Con-lour LungI-h -Ft.. nil nus PanhundIn
fin a tll:T Arcin-Acre _. -.. _ , on .
lit.
f
U
I
SLOPE DENSITY rALCU1,ATION
1. Contour length wlth)n NET acreage. L
Nee- Acreacln n
CONTOUR
LENGTH
- Inches-
°
15
0
64 2 o
(MAP SCALE) - •�r�b -Go. fcen r (I )
2. Average
Slope, S
. ,
'71.'11 1/)1-0,31
5.5
— ---
3. Plu Acrencpn, :,n
0_00229)
c
11 (0: 0021. J) ( a )(4910!0 c+e�
, 45�i•
.a
a,n
4. o
(nuarnst 0.1�)
3•
minus Roadway
Where I n
Contour l ntnrva I -F !1
�, )'� '
.5
ini nus Vol, i r_u I air
gg
u 0
CONTOUR LENGTII
-
Inchos ='
.,uG7v -Tu � o
CONTOUR
Win
CONTOUR
LI:NUTH
- I nches-
TOTAL X
(MAP SCALE) - •�r�b -Go. fcen r (I )
2. Average
Slope, S
. ,
'71.'11 1/)1-0,31
— ---
3. Plu Acrencpn, :,n
0_00229)
c
11 (0: 0021. J) ( a )(4910!0 c+e�
, 45�i•
Gro. . Arc.., (a) c1)
a,n
(1'4'r)
(nuarnst 0.1�)
minus Roadway
Where I n
Contour l ntnrva I -F !1
�, )'� '
ini nus Vol, i r_u I air
(10 ft. ma,r.iruum)
�.
Arc'c`: . Eanment
I =
Total Con-lour Lund I-h -rt.
nil nus Panhand I n
fin =
tll:T ArorrAcro
an r
.
Inr,.�r�r7t O.U1 )
RR
A c./au
= _.
0000513
U U J T—
by
A4 < �0,3�.
65 •0
•
So 3
TOTAL X
(MAP SCALE) - •�r�b -Go. fcen r (I )
2. Average
Slope, S
. ,
'71.'11 1/)1-0,31
— ---
3. Plu Acrencpn, :,n
0_00229)
c
11 (0: 0021. J) ( a )(4910!0 c+e�
, 45�i•
Gro. . Arc.., (a) c1)
a,n
(1'4'r)
(nuarnst 0.1�)
minus Roadway
Where I n
Contour l ntnrva I -F !1
�, )'� '
ini nus Vol, i r_u I air
(10 ft. ma,r.iruum)
�.
Arc'c`: . Eanment
I =
Total Con-lour Lund I-h -rt.
nil nus Panhand I n
fin =
tll:T ArorrAcro
an r
.
Inr,.�r�r7t O.U1 )
RR
A c./au
= _.
0000513
by
A4 < �0,3�.
0
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fru,itvale.Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To the Members of the Council:
12127 Marilla Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
November 30, 1988
RE: DR -88 -0351 V -88 -017
J
• I'm writing to express my opposition to the granting of a var-
iance requested in the above referenced case.
Although I have another commitment on Dec. 7 and cannot attend
the public hearing, I would like my objection included in the
record.
Having some knowledge of the city's formulas for maximum
square footage allowed on hillside property, I believe those for-
mulas are reasonable when viewed from the perspective of maintaining
reasonable open space and scale in hillside areas for all Saratoga
residents as well as nearby property - owners.
The appellant in this case seeks permission for an overage of
nearly 47 percent. Appellant knew, or should have known, the maximum
buildable area under current Saratoga regulations when the lot was
purchased. To then proceed to design a house nearly half again as
large as the allowable maximum seems to flout both the letter and
the spirit of city policy. A smaller overage for justifiable design
reasons might deserve more sympathetic consideration.
As the matter stands, I oppose this request for a variance.
Since
Robert D. Ingle
•
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. y
MEETING DATE: 12/7/88
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA ITEM.'
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: GP -88 -002, ZC -88 -001; Les Maisons Provencal, 13150 Saratoga Ave.
Recommended Motion: Certify the environmental impact report, approve
Resolution GP -88 -002, amending the General Plan and introduce Ordinance ZC-
88 -001, rezoning the property to MU -PD.
Report Summary: On September 28 and October 12, 1988, the Planning
Commission conducted public hearings on the above items. The Commission
recommended approval of all three (3) items.
Fiscal Impacts•
Attachments:
Motion and Vote
None
1. Memo to City Council
2. Resolution /Ordinance for Approval
3. Planning Commission minutes dated 9/28 & 10/11/88
4. Draft EIR
12/7. Mot-.ion to certify EIR failed 2 -2; continued to 1_2/21.
12/21: EIR certified, CPA Approved, Ordinance intr_odaced 4 -0.
A: GP -002
000001
0TY'T Qo 0&%kXQ)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SAR.ATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE: 12/7/88
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: GP -88 -002, ZC -88 -001; Les Maisons Provencal, 13150 Saratoga Ave.
----------------------------------------
Project /Description
The project before the Council is to certify the environmental impact
report, amend the General Plan and the zoning designations of the former
Paul Masson winery from industrial to multiple use - planned development.
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the project.
The 27.2 acre site is bounded by Saratoga Avenue and condominiums on the
west, McFarland Avenue and an office complex on the north, single family
detached residential homes'on the east, and the Southern Pacific Railroad
tracks and proposed Highway 85 on the south. The facilities of the former
Paul Masson Winery occupy the southern half of the site including the
abandoned tasting /sales room with attached warehouses, parking area and
garden /entryway. The northern portion of the site is vineyards /orchard.
The proposed project includes construction of 79 townhomes on the northern
portion and a•senior lifecare facility at the south. The lifecare facility
contains 190 apartments, 25 cottages, a personal care component containing
40 beds and a skilled nursing component with 50 beds.
Proposed access, to the project is from a loop road from Saratoga Avenue
with connecting streets off the loop. The architectural design includes
stucco exterior with red tile roofs on single and two -story buildings,
described by the architect to be "an interpretation of the Mediterranean
and Spanish style architecture that is prevalent on the Peninsula." The
Planning Commission is working with the applicant on the details of the
site and architectural plans.
Analysis
I. EIR - The draft EIR, Response to Comments and Planning Commission
minutes are included in the Council packet. The EIR analyzes the
environmental impact of 84 townhomes, 204 apartments and 36 cottages
with 3 cul -de -sacs serving the townhomes. The proposal before the
City Council has reduced these densities and shows a looped road
through the townhomes with one cul -de -sac instead of three.
Therefore, some impacts (traffic, public service and fiscal) will be
rtflli
GP -88 -002, ZC -88 -001; Les Maisons Provencal
slightly reduced, and the.concern about the safety and emergency
access problems (pg. 73 -75) from 3 cul -de -sacs over 500 ft. in length
has been eliminated.
On Wednesday, December 7th, the Consultants from LSA, Inc. will
review the details of the EIR with the Council. Following the public
hearing, the Council should evaluate the EIR and find that the report
adequately assesses the impacts and proposes mitigations for the
project.
II. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Background: In 1986, following several public hearings, the City
adopted the MUPD zoning ordinance, specfically designed for the
subject site, as noted by the 25 acre minimum site requirement. The
limitations in the ordinance stipulates that: 1) single family or
multi - family dwellings be limited to 50% or less; 2) senior citizen
housing; including common dining and recreation facilities and
facilities rendering health care services and medical treatment for
patients be limited to 50% or less; 3) schools be limited to 50% or
less; and retail use and offices are limited to 15% or less. These
limitations were designed to ensure that development of the property
would be compatible with the residential character of the City in
that commercial development was not to be intensified, and industrial
development would be eliminated, and only uses which were not
impactful would be considered. The 15% office and 25% athletic
facility were perceived as buffer uses between Highway 85 and the
residential uses. Although the ordinance was adopted as part of the
City Code, the General Plan amendment was delayed until such time as
a proposal was submitted to the City.
Amendments
1. The text of the General Plan describing "Area F, Quito" (pg. 4-
17) and "Guideline for Area Development" (pg. 4 -19) is proposed
to be amended as follows:
Pg. 4 -17, paragraph #1 -
Area FL Quito
The Quito area is bounded on the north and east by Quito Road, on
the south by the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR), and on the
west by Saratoga Avenue. The majority of the Quito area was
subdivided in the late 1940's and early 19501s. The predominant
zoning is R -1- 10,000. In terms of land use, Area F is the most
diversified in the City. Quito contains the City's only
*industry, the Paul Masson Winery- Along Saratoga Avenue is
located one of ...
*site designated for multiple use - planned development.
000003
GP -88 -002, ZC -88 -001; Les Maisons Provencal
Pg. 4 -19, guideline #7 -
The property at the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and
McFarland Avenue * eurrently occupied by the Paul Masson Winery,
* *shall remain industrial. Existing City ordinances shall be
amended to provide for public hearings and notification of same
prior to the issuance of permits for any future ** *industrial
development either through the use permit or design review
process.
*formerly
* *is appropriate for a mixture of uses, including senior housing
** *mixed use
2. The land use map must be amended from the LI (light industrial)
to MUPD (multiple use planned development) designation.
III. REZONING
Once the General Plan is amended, the property should be rezoned for
consistency with the General Plan. The attached ordinance would
establish the MUPD zone designation, consistent with the General
Plan. The development standards of Article 15 -21 would then apply to
the project.
The Council will note that the proposed rezoning will establish only
the former Masson property as MUPD. The Planning Commission is
currently studying appropriate zone designation of a single family
lot currently zoned M (Limited Industrial) and is surrounded by the
proposed project. The rezoning will change only the former Masson
site from M to MUPD as the Planning Commission recommendations
regarding this remaining single family residence will be presented to
Council at a later time.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing: 1) certify the EIR per
Resolution 2529; 2) approve the General Plan amendment per Resolution GP-
88 -002; 3) approve the rezoning by introducing Ordinance ZC -88 -001.
Stephlen Emslie
Planning Director
SE /kc /dsc
111'
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE LES MAISONS PROVENCAL
13150 SARATOGA AVENUE
WHEREAS, an Initial Environmental Study was completed on March 7, 1988
which determined that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment and an Enviornmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an EIR was prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21000 et. seq. and the CEQA Guidelines of the State of California for a
zone change and General Plan amendment to allow development of 84 townhomes
and a senior housing facility on 27.2 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held public hearings on the
draft EIR on 9/28/88 and 10/12/88 to review the adequacy of the document
and to accept public comment, and has recommended that the City Council
certify the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the following findings are
present:
That the City Council reviewed and considered the information
contained in the final EIR prior to its decision on the project.
That the final EIR has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
That there are no significant impacts which are not avoided or
reduced by mitigation measures contained in the final EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga does hereby certify the EIR pursuant to Section 15090 of the CEQA
Guidelines of the State of California.
The above and foregoing resolution was regularly adopted by the
Saratoga City Council on the 7th day of December, 1988 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
000005
RESOLUTION NO..
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND TEXT
TO ACCOMODATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER
PAUL MASSON WINERY SITE ON SARATOGA AVENUE
(APN 389- 11 -04, 05, 08, 09, 010)
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has determined that it is in the public
interest to preserve the residential character of the City; and
WHEREAS, in 1987, the property, formerly the Paul Masson Winery on
Saratoga Avenue, has been identified as appropriate for senior citizens
housing; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted an MU -PD ordiance specifically designed
to accomodate development of the subject site with predominantly
residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the General Plan text
regarding "Planning Area F, Quito," is inconsistent with the City's
decision regarding the property; and
WHEREAS, a conceptual development plan has been submitted to the City
for approval which includes 50% townhomes and 50$ senior lifecare facility;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the area should be
designated multiple use planned development (MU -PD) to be consistent with
the City's intent to encourage residential and senior facilities on the
site and with the conceptual development plan proposed for the property;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga City Council reviewed the Environmental
Impact Report and found there are no adverse impacts on the environment as
a result of the proposal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing in accord with
Government Code Section 65351 and reviewed the proposed amendment to the
Land Use designation and text;
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing in accord with
Government Code Section 65351 and reviewed the proposed amendment to the
Land Use designation and text;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council amends the Land
Use designation of the property shown on Exhibit A to multiple use planned
development (MU -PD) and the text as follows:
000006
Resolution GP -88 -002
Pg. 4 -17, paragraph #1 - Area F, Quito - The Quito area is bounded on
the north and east by Quito Road, on the south by the Southern
Pacific Railroad (SPRR), and on the west by Saratoga Avenue. The
majority of the Quito area was subdivided in the late 1940's and
early 1950's. The predominant zoning is R -1- 10,000. In terms of
land use, Area F is the most diversified in the City. Quito contains
the City's only site designated for multiple use - planned
development. Along Saratoga Avenue is located one of ...
Pg. 4 -19, guideline #7 - The property at the southest corner of
Saratoga Avenue and McFarland Avnue formerly occupied by the Paul
Masson Winery, is appropriate for a mixture of uses, including senior
housing. Existing City ordinances shall be amended to provide for
public hearings and notification of same prior to he issuance of
permits for any future mixed use development either through the use
permit or design review process.
The above and foregoing resolution was regularly adopted by the
Saratoga City Council on the 7th day of December, 1988, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
000007
�1wj NOR ".
;molly■ ■� ■� ■1' r.■�
� ♦� -� � 1 ■1111 ■ ■ ■ ■1
�� � � 1 ■1n1�� � 11
�+ `�■■■■■■■■■■ na, ._�, Names■
AIL
E
S �■ ■■groin `Z:tmz►l
• ■■■sa:
C 3
Irk BEEN �wiillilm.
!w iii�cii�
L • -
NP
► /��� ftIIIIImu�.���
wr1�• !'
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
REZONING CERTAIN TERRITORY OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA AND AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP, APN 389- 11 -04, 05, 08 -10
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as
follows:
Section 1: Parcel 389- 11 -04, 05, 08 -10 located at 13150 Saratoga
Avenue, depicted as a cross hatched area on the zoning map attached hereto
as Exhibit "A ", is hereby reclassified from M to MU -PD zoning district.
Section 2: This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from and
after the date of its passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the
City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 7th day of December, 1988,
and adopted at a meeting held on the day of , 19_,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved
Mayor
r
IIIIIIEi 1111111►
111111111����1 �1
'1• I
I
� � 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
Page 2
2. V -88 -028 Blair, 13303 Paramount Drive, approval of resolution for variance from
Ordinance 15- 45.030 to allow an expansion of an existing single family
dwelling up to 4,204 sq. ft. where the maximum allowable floor area is
4,050 sq. ft. Property is located in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district.
(Variance granted September 14, 1988.
-----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Tucker removed the Item, since she had previously voted against the Application.
BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF V-88-028 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 5 -1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
5. SD -88 -010 Kirkeby and Associates, Mt. Eden Road, request for tentative map approval
for a two (2) lot subdivision of 7.2 acres of undeveloped property in the
NHR zoning district, pursuant to City Code, Article 14 -15. Property
located on the west side of Mt. Eden Road approximately 1,500 ft. west of
Pierce Road.
-----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Commission dated September 28, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:43 P.M.
The Applicant had no comment to make.
Mr. William Brooks, Merrick Dr., Saratoga, cited Condition 27, second paragraph, and stated that
the City had developed the standard of an 8 ft. equestrian trail width, however, such was un-
necessary in the hillside areas and would require the developer to do a substantial cut and fill. He
asked that the Condition require the trail to be surfaced with an all weather material.
Mr. Erik Brookson, Cupertino, noted that the parcel in question would be a family estate.
Applicants did not object to the equestrian trail required nor the construction materials considered,
however, they had some concerns regarding the location of the trail on this property and did not
wish such to interfere with the beauty and/or view on -site.
HARRISBURGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 7:56 P.M. Passed 6 -0.
Commissioner Harris was favorable to requiring the all weather materials as suggested above.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6 -0.
HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF SD- 88-010 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION,
CONDITION 27 AMENDED TO REQUIRE THE TRUNK PORTION OF THE EQUESTRIAN
TRAIL AND ANY OTHER PORTION DEEMED NECESSARY BY STAFF AND PARKS AND
RECREATION COMMISSION, BE CONSTRUCTED OF ALL WEATHER MATERIAL
Passed 6-0.
Items 6 and 7 to be heard simultaneously.
GP-88 -002 Les Maisons Provencal, 13150 Saratoga Avenue, request for certification of
ZC- 88-001 an Environmental Impact Report, General Plan amendment and rezoning of
property for the former Paul Masson Winery site. The subject property
involves 27.2 acres located east of Saratoga Avenue and north of the
Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. The proposal is to amend the land use
element of the General Plan from M (limited industrial) to MU -PD (mixed
use planned development) and rezone the property from L -1 (light
industrial) to MU -PD (mixed use planned development) to accommodate 79
townhomes and a senior lifecare facility. The proposed lifecare facility
contains 190 apartments, 25 cottages, a personal care component containing
60 beds, and a skilled nursing component with 60 beds.
-
Les Maisons Provencal, 13150 Saratoga Avenue, request for approval of aconceptual
development plan for the former Paul Masson Winery site pursuant to Article 15 -21 of the
City Code.
000011
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3
SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Commission dated September 28, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:10 P.M.
Mr. Malcome Sprau, LSA Associates, addressed procedural questions and introduced Ms. Chung.
Ms. Laurie Chung, LSA Associates, reviewed the Draft Environmental fmpa t Rcpgrt (EIR).
Mr. Dennis Reichardt, Managing General Partner, Les Maisons Provencal, made himself available
for questions.
The Chair asked that Application GP -88 -002, ZC- 88-001 be addressed first.
Col. E. T Barco, Camino Barco, commented as follows:
Was favorable to the overall plan proposed
Location for this senior complex was wrong; EIR pointed out adverse air and traffic impacts
While Route 85 and a possible interchange was frequently mentioned in the Draft EIR, the
impacts from the freeway on air quality, noise and traffic were not discussed
Suggested the care facility be moved as far from the freeway as possible and streets to be a
minimum of 25 1/2 ft. wide
- Asked that the EIR and the project either not be approved or postponed until a decision on the
interchanges, the freeway and the resulting impacts were considered
BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON GP- 88-002, ZC-88 -001 AT
8:25 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Tucker cited the Model Resolution which stated that upon review of the EIR, no
adverse environmental impacts were found. She was concerned that the Draft EIR did not address
the possibility of an interchange at Saratoga Ave; the Level of Service (LOS) Rating was an E or F
at two major streets. She noted the ongoing concern of Saratoga residents regarding traffic
congestion and asked that the issue of impacts be addressed.
Vice Chairman Siegfried and Commissioner Kolstad concurred.
Commissioner Harris asked that impacts on air quality from the on/off ramps also be discussed.
Mr. Dennis Reichardt commented as follows on the possibility of interchanges at this location:
- Facility was designed with the possibility of interchanges in mind
During the course of the EIR, Cartons notified the Applicants that they intended to condemn a
three acre portion of the site whether the City allowed an interchange or not
Applicant's position was they they did not know whether an interchange was better or not; in
many cages, ambient air quality improved by the additional setbacks required
Incremental impact on air quality would not change whether there was an interchange or not
- Minutes of October 30, 1985, made clear that the project was not dependant upon interchanges.
Commissioner Burger had no objection to including statements in the EIR recognizing the fact that
there may be an interchange at Saratoga Ave: however, she was concerned that no action would be
taken on the grounds that decisions be postponed until all risks could be quantified and avoided.
Commissioners Harris and Tucker asked that the possibility of interchanges be considered.
Commissioner Kolstad noted that the EIR referenced the possible interchanges.
Mr. Malcome Sprau stated that the Draft EIR did address the potential construction of interchanges
and the im cts on Saratoga Ave. (Page 78),. air quality (Page 89) and noise (Page 96) with
discussed on Page 97.
Commissioner Tucker reiterated her request for additional information on Level of Service Ratings
with consideration of increased traffic volumes; Commissioner Harris concurred and requested
additional information on air quality impacts.
Commissioners Burger, Kolstad and Tappan felt additional information was not required.
BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE GP48 -002, ZC- 88-001 TO OCTOBER 12, 1988.
Passed 6-0.
000012
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 4
Vice Chairperson Siegfried proceeded to Public Hearings on Item 7.
Planner Caldwell advised the Commission that the project could not be approved until the Enivron-
mental Impact Report (EIR) was certified.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:58 P.M.
Mr. Bob Tucker, Project Architect, presented the Site Plan and commented as follows:
Required setbacks for the project had been meet by the Applicants
Applicants proposed to install a sound wall and landscaping in the 50 ft. setback areas
Areas within the project would be maintained by a homeowners association
With respect to thetaff Report, �n pt gal IoFmen_ t Plan;
5.,jg: fences would be installed in the townhouse area contrary to the Report
~ 3•• pjS: part of the 50 ft. area along Saratoga/McFarland Avenues referred to would
be oppen en s space and pan of this area would be private space for individual home owners
- With respect to a 30 ft. height proposed, such promoted a residential character while allowing
some latitude for increased ceiling heights which was a very desirable design feature
Based on other projects completed, he felt that the parking ratios proposed would be adequate
Col. Barco, Camino Barco, suggested consideration of an emergency access from McFarland Ave.
Mr. Andrew Beverett, Senior Coordinating Council, reviewed the historic role of the Coordinating
Council and called attention to their letter of support for this concept.
Mr. Joe Parker, The Vineyards, noted his initial enthusiasm regarding the project; however, he
now had concerns regarding air quality impacts from the possible Saratoga Ave. interchange. He
felt that the location of the project adjacent to a freeway and possibly an interchange, was foolish.
Mr. George Nedaous, The Vineyards, requested information regarding the nursing care facility.
Ms. Lisa Garash commented as follows:
Noted that the project did not appear compatible with Saratoga due to the density proposed
Questioned the relationship of the various project elements to each other
Noted the lack of recreational activities within the complex
- Open space in this project had been reduced to landscaped strips and comer landscaping
- Felt the City had not instigated a system of preserving public open space within Saratoga
EIR addressed serious traffic issues; the proposed density was greater than the surrounding
area. She questioned whether the surrounding area would be able to increase their density
- Was favorable to the concept of developing senior complexes; however, the density of the town-
house element was inappropriate
BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 9:18 P.M. Passed 6 -0.
Mr. Reichardt stated that the Ordinance provided that the conceptual development plan could be
approved in advance of certification of the EIR; certification was important at the final plan stage.
He provided additional information on the personal/skilled care facility and adjacent open areas.
Commissioner Harris commented as follows:
The proposed name of Les Maisons Provencal did not seem appropriate for Saratoga; she sug-
gested that the history of the property- -the Paul Masson Winery- -be considered
Was appreciative of the comment in the EIR. that a portion of the mural be used in the project
has sympathic to comments, of Ms. Garash regarding the nature of the townhomes and was
also conce rned that the density pro posed was not compatible with this area of Saratoga
Furthermore, she was concerned regarding the use of landscaped strips as open space and did
not see that a thee of open space was provided within the development
Objected to the 30 ft. height which added to a crowded feeling; however, she would consider a
minimal percentage of the roof at the 30 ft. height
Commissioner Burger commented as follows:
Was more concerned about density of the townhouse project than density of the care facility
A small percentage of the roof at a 30 ft. height would be acceptable if the density of the town-
house portion of the project were reduced
- Name was inappropriate; suggested the matter be referred to the Heritage Preservation Commis-
sion for consideration; suggested consideration of the name of the artist who created the mural
- Asked that interior streets be widened
- Questioned whether driveways in the townhouse area would accommodate a parked car length
Questioned whether all walkways in the senior area should be covered; suggested trellised walks
000013
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Burger continued as follows:
Noted that a response had not been made to the Commission's request for underground parking
and asked that parking be adjacent to the apartment area to reduce the walking distance
- Asked that up to two acres be provided for flower and vegetable gardens
- Suggested consideration of a non - sectarian chapel on the grounds
Commissioner Tucker commented as follows:
Asked that additional open space be provided and was favorable to a garden area
Questioned maintenance of the rear property area and suggested the project maintain this area
- Concurred that inadequate street widths existed, causing cats to be parked on the sidewalk area
Felt the proposed staff/employee parking allotment of 45 spaces would be inadequate
- Asked that the Applicant secure a contract with a life care organization prior to development; she
was concerned regarding the project if such an agreement were not secured
Commissioner Tappan commented as follows:
Concurred that the name proposed was inappropriate and asked that the project be tied to the
former use of the site by Paul Masson Winery or use of the mural artist's name
Was unfavorable to the architectural design proposed and cited an incongruous mixture of
traditional and contemporary elements
Objected to the differentiated color of the walkways from a safety point of view
- Noted the critical role of landscaping in the project to mitigate noise and pollution; he was
favorable to the meandering walk along Saratoga Ave.
Commissioner Kolstad concurred with the above comments and added:
Asked that the name of the project be easily pronounced
- Noted concern regarding the density proposed
Suggested removal of the rear yard fencing to create a greater feeling of open space
- Was not favorable to the colored sidewalks proposed
Asked for significant increase in parking proposed; he was reluctant to grant any variance for
parking requirements
Vice Chairperson Siegfried was greatly concerned regarding the density of this mixed use project;
due to the siu of the townhouse units and number of bedrooms proposed, the project would be
very dense. Such could be addressed by increasing the open space and reducing the number of
units. He felt that parking may be adequate if the density were reduced.
HARRISMJCKER MOVED TO CON'T'INUE PC- 88-003 TO OCTOBER 12, 1988. Passed 6 -0.
MISCELLANEOUS:
Article 15-45 - Design Review Ordinance - Assessment of Administrative Review Process.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Memorandum of September 28,198&
The Chair rrox000��ttized 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.
Comp» ssioner Siegfried suggested they write Staff outlining their concerns regarding any
difficulties they were experiencing with the Des, gn Review Standards. Commissioner Harris
responded to W. Crowley's request for a Study Session that the Planning Commission always
welcomed new information but she did not care to get into further argument with the developer
about the size of the homes. She had passed the Ordinance as it was.
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..."
Procedtues for notifying neighboring properties:
I. Insert, "...closest neighboring properties as determined by the Planning Department..."
5. Amended to read, "If 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..."
000014
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
MISCELLANEOUS Continued
Page 6
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PC -88 -004 ADOPTING PRO-
CEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE. (ARTICLE
15-45) AS AMENDED. Passed 6 -0.
I. Committee -of - the -Whole Report - September 6,1988, -Noted and filed.
2. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of September 7,1988, - Noted and filed.
3. Letter from Wayne Jerves re: traffic problem at the intersection of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd.
and Sea Gull Way, - Noted and filed.
Oral by Commission-
Commissioner Harris reported on the City Council Meeting of September 21, 1988.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:04 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol A. Probst - Caughey
000015
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 3
10. GP -88 -002 Les Maisons Provencal, 13150 Saratoga Avenue, request for certification of
ZC-88 -001 an Environmental Impact Report, General Plan amendment and rezoning of
property for the former Paul Masson Winery site. The subject property
involves 27.2 acres located east of Saratoga Avenue and north of the South-
ern Pacific Railroad tracks. The proposal is to amend the land use element
of the General Plan from M (limited industrial) to MU -PD (mixed use
Planned development and rezone the property from L -1 (light industrial) to
MU -PD (mixed use planned development) to accommodate 79 townhomes
and a senior lifecare facility. The proposed lifecare facility contains 190
apartments, 25 cottages, a personal care component containing 60 beds, and
a skilled nursing component with 60 beds.
City Attorney noted the concern regarding the specificity required for a conceptual design approval;
the Conceptual Design Plan was compared with the Final Design Approval. Requirements of the
Ordinance were reviewed.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:12 P.M.
Planner Caldwell advised the Commission that the General Plan Amendment, Environmental Im-
pact Report (EIR) and the rezoning of the property could be considered fast; Ms. Cheung of LSA
Associates would discuss the response prepared to the Commission's inquiries.
Ms. Lori Cheung, LSA Associates, reviewed the
- unu,c: i cvci or aervice Killings at project entrance, t'ruitvale/Saratoga Ave. intersection and at
Saratoga/Cox Ave. intersection; mitigations for the latter intersection were noted
- Air Quality: with a Saratoga Ave. interchange, the Saratoga/Cox Ave. intersection was subject
to further violation of carbon monoxide standards; mitigation measures described in the EIR.
Commissioner Harris questioned the suggested mitigation measure of installing an additional traffic
lane on Saratoga Ave; there did not seem to be adequate room to accommodate such. Ms. Cheung
stated that the traffic engineer would have to address the issue; she agreed that it was conceivable
that if there was insufficient room for the additional traffic lane suggested, there would be no
mitigation for the existing Level of Service Rating of F.
Commissioner Harris cited the Response to County of Santa Clara Transportation Agee y1 Letter
Response 3 and questioned how this statement had application to the proposed development;
seniors would be using the bus system thus, it seemed appropriate that the project appplicant fund
improvements. Ms. Cheung responded that LSA viewed such as pertinent; however LSA did not
feel that the project applicant should be required to fully fund the required improvements. She felt
that the portion of funding required should be determined by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Harris cited the Draft_ Environmental Impgct Report (EIRL Internal Circulation 10.,
and questioned the historical research which indicated that the amount of proposed on -site parking
should be adequate. Ms. Cheung responded that she. believed that the traffic engineer had
extensive experience with other senior citizen pro ects; n addition, City standards were usually
higher than required for a project of this type. rmm. ... ner Harris noted that when another
Commissioner visited three similar projects, parking was woefully inadequate.
Commissioner Harris noted that the Draft EM Off -Site Circulation, 2., "The eastbound Cox Ave.
intersection approach should be restripped to provide an exclusive left, an exclusive through and a
combined through/right -turn lane ;" the constriction of this interchange was cited. Ms. Cheung
confirmed that there was sufficient room for the recommended improvements with restriping; the
exclusive lanes would improve the traffic flow.
Commissioner Harris questioned whether mitigations could be recommended when, in fact, they
were not possible. The City Manager responded that the question was to what extent the project
reduced Level of Service Ratings; the pro)ect impact on the environment, not the environment on
the project, needed to be considered. The Level of Service Rating on Cox Ave. would be reduced
by an interchange on Saratoga Ave., irrespective of the project under consideration. The question
to be addressed to the consultants was "To what extent did the traffic projected for this develop-
ment further deteriorate traffic on Cox, and Saratoga Avenues should the interchange on Saratoga
Ave. be constructed."
Ms. Cheung responded that LSA Associates was predicting that the existing Level of Service
Rating D would remain even with construction of this project.
0000,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6
OCTOBER 12, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
The City Attorney stated that the proposed mitigation measures should be possible. The other
alternative would be to state that there was an impact that could not be mitigated; therefore an
overriding consideration would have to be found to allow the project.
The City Manager stated that there may be other methods to increase the capacity of the inter-
section; examples were cited. He suggested the City reserve to itself for an extended period of
time, a requirement that the applicant assume responsibility for required mitigations since the traffic
this development would place on Saratoga Ave. was unknown at the time.
Mr. Wade Hover, Attorney for Mr. Passantino, commented as follows:
- Passantino property, an integral part of the rezoning area, had been virtually ignored; Mr. Pass -
antino wished to be included in all discussions or hearings on this issue
Environmental Impact Report did not address impacts on the Passantino property, for example,
access to the property from Saratoga Ave.
Chairperson Guch informed the speaker that Study Sessions and/or other Hearings had not been
previously held on the Conceptual Development Plan. Mr. Hover stated that he and his client
wished to be included in discussions on the Ordinance as well; Commissioner Burger noted that all
Study Sessions/Hearings on the Ordinance Amendment had been widely publicized and noticed.
Mr. Hover objected that the property could not be rezoned without noticing property owners; the
project under consideration required a rezoning. He was unfavorable to a General Plan Amendment
without consideration of the Passantino site; secondly, the project proposed would enormously
impact his client's property. A Public Hearing was an inadequate forum of r necessary discussions.
The City Attorney reviewed the procedures accompanying the General Plan Amendment; however.
the City could not dictate to the Paul Masson property owner how an adjacent property (not owned
by the Applicant) could be used and/or incorporated. It was legitimate for the speaker to address
undesirable traffic impacts on his client's property; the Commission would have to consider how
Mr. Passantino's property would be reclassified.
Mr. Hover reiterated that the EIR did not address the ingress/egress of his client's property.
Mr. Dennis Reichardt, Managing General Partner, Les Masions Provencal, responded that formal,
written offers of purchase had been made to Mr. Passantino and were refused; he expressed
appreciation that the City had not imposed a requirement that they buy the property in question.
Mr. Passantino stated that only tentative plans were presented for his review and no solid offer to
purchase his property had been made by the Applicants.
The City Attorney noted that the above dialogue was irrelevant to the project under consideration.
He added that the driveway of the Passantinos was not being impaired by this project; to the extent
that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressed the total traffic increase of the development,
it addressed the issue.
Planner Caldwell noted that by virtue of the testimony, the Passantino property would be added to
the EIR; she confirmed that their access would not be restricted by this project.
Mr. Andrew Beverett, Senior Coordinating Council, commented as follows:
- Offered services of the Senior Coordinating Council to resolve any difficulties that may arise
- Consideration of other senior complexes indicated that adverse air quality had not been found
Ms. Dora Grens, Old Oak Way, Saratoga, stated that her mother had implored her not to place her
in a similar location as proposed for this complex.
Mr. Hover reiterated his position that a General Plan Amendment rezoning the property would
have a tremendous impact on this client's property. He did not feel.a rezoning was necessarily
required; the proposal under consideration could be accomplished under a Planned Development.
In response to Commissioner Kolstad's question, Mr. Hover commented as follows:
Wished the access routes to be changed entirely so that his client's property was not affected
- Wished to change the ambiance of the Conceptual Plan to insure that a club house or similar
activity were not placed directly adjacent to the rear of his client's property
Wished the Commission to consider the fact that an attempt was being made to change the
zoning of his client's property if not by direct means then forcing such a change
- Confirmed that he did not wish a zoning change for any part of the entire area
000017
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
OCTOBER 12, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Reinhardt stated that this project would not interfere with Mr. Passantino's access anywhere
near the interference from the prior use by Paul Masson Winery; secondly, the EIR did address the
impacts on the neighborhood
Mr. Hover restated his concerns as to whether the EIR addressed the traffic impacts on his client;
Commissioner Siegfried responded that the EIR could be amended to address this issue.
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 10:15 P.M. Passed 7 -0.
The City Attorney stated that the EIR was required to address traffic impacts; it was a matter of
interpretation whether an individual parcel of property was to be addressed.
Ms. Cheuns stated that written comment had not been received from area residents; with respect to
the Passanttno property, LSA Associates felt the analysis presented was sufficient.
Planner Caldwell reiterated that testimony given at this Hearing became part of the EIR. She
reviewed the Passantino property and the existing traffic situation; the signalized intersection at the
project entrance was sufficient mitigation to allow the Passantino's adequate and safe traffic
movements. If the Commission accepted that the Pawantino site was a single family residence and
had been incorporated into the EIR, the EIR was not subject to further review by the Commission.
Mr. Hover insisted that he be allowed to speak on the issue and refused to take his seat.
The Meeting was recessed from 10:20 - 10:50 EM.
The City Attorney advised the public that the Public Hearing was closed.
Ms. Cheung summarized the Environmental Setting Potential impacts and Mitigation Measures
from the Environmental Impact Report.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that the amended EIR adequately addressed his issues of concern.
Commissioner Harris reiterated concerns regarding the proposed traffic mitigations and
recommended consideration of other, more appropriate mitigations.
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO ADOPT A MINUTE MOTION RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
Passed 6 -1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting.
Commissioner Tucker stated that she dissented due to concerns regarding air quality.
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF GP -88 -002 PER THE
MODEL RESOLUTION Passed 6 -1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting.
BURGER/SIEGFRI D MOVED APPROVAL OF ZC- 88-001 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION
Passed 6-1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting.
11. Les Maisons Provencal, 13150 Saratoga Avenue, request for approval of a conceptual
development plan for the former Paul Masson Winery site pursuant to Article 15 -21 of the
City Code.
Mr. Dick Oliver, Dividend Development Corporation, stated that in view of the lateness of the hour
Applicants requested a Continuance of this Item, with a Study Session to be held
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE LES MAISONS PROVENCAL TO OCTOBER
26, 1988, WITH A STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD OCTOBER 18, 1988. Passed 7 -0.
12. SD- 88-006 Bowie, 13602 Pierce Road, request for approval of subdivision of approxi-
mately 11 acres of undeveloped property into 3 lots. Each lot is proposed to
be approximately 3.6 acres in size. The property is located on the south-
east side of .Pierce Road, immediately southwest of the intersection with
Surrey Lane. NHR zone (northwestern hillside residential, General Plan
designation RHC (residential hillside conservation. A Negative Declaration
has been prepared. Continued from September 14, 1988.
Commissioners Burger reported on the land use visit; Commissioner Siegfried provided additional
information on the area and Pierce Rd.
000018
ti-
A
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
LOS GATOS -SARATOGA
� & 4C
P. O. BOX 2865, SARATOGA, CA 95070 - 0865
PHONE: 408 - 867- VOTE
4e�l t
'd
ZL
1_7 -7-
Ize
,It
r
SARATOGA AREA SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL
P. 0. Box 3033, Saratoga, CA 95070
December 21, 1988
Ms. Susan Guch, Chairman
Planning Commission, City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Ms. Guch= Subj.: City Council Agenda for 12/21/88 , Item
8 -A: EIR, General Plan Amendment and Rezoning
- Former Paul Masson Winery Site
By now you have doubtless heard of the City Council's favorable
action on the subject item last night.
For the Planning Commission's record, I am attaching a copy of
a letter which provided the Council an update on the Senior
Coordinating Council's position in this matter.
The letter, I believe, is self explanatory, with the exception
that further clarification may be appropriate in Item 5 -B, which
relates to mitigation technology. The letter states: "While
this technology has its limits, it is highly desirable to the
extent that it is economically feasible... ".
The technology referred to is not that of "scrubbing ", which
is highly effective in lowering carbon monoxide levels under
laboratory conditions but which does not appear to be commer-
cially feasible. Instead it refers to the placement of the air
intake point for the medical unit's circulation system at a
location some distance from the freeway; in order to minimize
the intake of polluted air. This point should not be too close
to the Cox Avenue intersection, since pollution levels tend to
go up as this point is approached.
Respectfully,
A. J. Beverett
Chairman, Special Committee
Encls.
,-7), Copy to: City Council
SARATOGA AREA SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL
P. 0. Box 3033, Saratoga, CA 95070
December 21, 1988
Mayor and City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Public Hearing, 12/21/88: Prospective Senior Citizens
Continuing Care Facility
In view of recent developments, the Board of Directors of the
Senior Coordinating Council has voted to provide the City Coun-
cil an updated commentary on the Senior Council's position. The
restatement, as given below, strongly reiterates our long stand-
ing views. In addition, it introduces some refinements brought
about by the new developments.
1. There is now stronger evidence than ever of a need for this
type of facility in Saratoga. The evidence includes the
increases in our senior population, the out - migration of
Saratoga seniors to other communities offering facilities
more suited to their needs, the backlog of applications
for admittance to continuing care facilities in other commun-
ities, and construction of new facilities in these communi-
ties. In Los Gatos, for example, final plans for a second
facility will be presented to the City Council in January.
2. From a social and market point of view, the Paul Masson
Champagne Cellars site appears ideally suited to the
continuing care center. Moreover, it is highly doubtful
that any other undeveloped site in Saratoga is worthy of
consideration as an alternative location. The choice
facing the City may well be ''this or nothing ".
3. From what has been said, the Senior Coordinating Council
understands that the primary remaining concern in the minds
of City Council members about the site stems from prospective
automobile exhaust from the freeway and Saratoga Avenue.
More specifically, the focus of the concern is the exposure
of occupants of the medical component to carbon monoxide.
The critical question appears to relate to the extent to
which carbon monoxide levels at the site will be increment-
ally higher than the general levels in the Saratoga area.
4. We have discussed this matter with, among others, chemical
engineers and pulmonary specialists in the field of medicine.
They have informed us that establishing any arbitrary empiri-
cal standards would not remove the uncertainties from the
picture. The questions involved include: (a) what is the
highest acceptable average hourly emissions peak (in parts
per million; (b) what is the highest number of hours per
day and days per year that such levels can be tolerated; and
1
(c) how are these factors interrelated, that is, if one is
lower, can the others be higher?
5. The Senior Coordinating Council has high hopes that the
problem can be resolved, despite its technical aspects,
on a judgement basis to the satisfaction of the City
Council - -if not by December 21- -then by a reasonable time
thereafter. This can be done by three means.
> Firsts anecdotal evidence_ We are in the process of
developing an impressive list of senior centers, hospitals,
convalescent hospitals, and medical buildings - -as well as
residential homes and apartments - -that are close to
heavily traveled thoroughfares. These locations are the
result of many judgement decisions that were made after the
assessment or risk factors. This principle can be applied
to the development of guidelines for the Saratoga site.
> Seconds by mitigation technology to be installed by the
developer. While this technology has its limits, it is
highly desirable to the extent it is economically feasible,
since it can provide significant relief.
> Third by further use of outside expertise. We have
strong reason to believe that further useful information
can be obtained from sources such as the Bay Area Air
Quality Control Board, Stanford University, and the
research library of Good Samaritan Hospital. We are op-
timistic that this information can allay the the remaining
concerns among City Council members.
6. The Senior Council understands that if the City Council
approves the Environmental Impact Report scheduled to be
voted on on December 21, this will not preclude the City
from imposing subsequent conditions on the developer (includ-
ing conditions relating to air pollution) at a later stage.
7. In view of the foregoing, the Senior Coordinating Council
urges the City Council to take the following action on
December 21.
a. Approve the Environmental Impact Report and General
Plan Change
b. Inform the developer that ,an acceptable level of
mitigation technology (economic factors considered)
will be a subsequent condition imposed by the City.
C. Urge the developer, the Senior Coordinating Council,
City representatives, and the public to develop and
present to the City staff such further information re-
lating to the problem as they think might be useful.
d. Inform the developer that the City reserves the right
to prescribe further conditions relating to other aspects
2
of the development. Among these conditions are City
approval of the operators and operating policies of the
facility and the projected financial costs to seniors
expecting to live in the facility, including up -front
buy -in costs and subsequent monthly costs.
We thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
A. J. Beverett
Chairman, Special Committee
3
Lsa
Mayor Karen Anderson
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
( r/
Environmental Assessment
Transportation Engineering
Resource Management
Community Planning
Environmental Restoration
December 20, 1988
RE: Health Effects of Air Pollution on Senior Citizens
Dear Mayor Anderson:
In reply to the Saratoga City Council's concern expressed in the public
hearing of December 1988, regarding the health effects of air pollution,
particularly carbon monoxide, our firm would like to provide some
clarification and additional comments on this matter.
Several air pollutants have been identified which can cause adverse
health effects (respiratory problems) in humans. Ozone, resulting from
chemical reactions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides in the presence of
sunlight, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide can cause irritation to the air
passages, difficulty in breathing, and eventual long -term damage to the
respiratory system. Carbon monoxide (CO), which can be much more readily
absorbed by the red blood cells than oxygen, can result in shortness of
breath, headaches, and dizziness. Irritation to the respiratory system would
generally result from elevated levels of total suspended particulates. The
adverse effects of air pollutants can also increase the susceptibility of
individuals to respiratory infections.
Federal and state ambient air quality standards to control pollutants are
based upon epidemiological studies. These standards are the levels of air
quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the
public health and welfare. Land uses such as schools, hospitals, and
convalescent homes are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air
quality because the young, the old, and the infirm are more susceptible to
respiratory ailments and other air quality - related health problems than is the
general public.
In the South Bay, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide are currently not a
problem in the area. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
does not expect these standards to be exceeded in the future. Total suspended
particulates would only pose a local problem if a major construction project
or industrial plant were located near sensitive receptors. However,
construction is typically short term and mitigation measures, such as water
❑ 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 • Irvine, California 92714 • (714) 553 -0666
X 157 Park Place • Pt. Richmond, California 94801 e (415) 236 -6810
lsa
spraying and tarpaulins on haul trucks, can satisfactorily reduce total
suspended particulates.
Ozone is the most severe air quality problem in the Bay Area, especially
in northern Santa Clara County, where concentrations occasionally have
approached the first -state Health Advisory Level (0.2 parts per million; the
Federal Ambient Air Quality Standard for one hour is 0.12 ppm while the State
Standard is 0.10 ppm). The problem is expected to become worse in the future
as growth occurs in the area. Ozone concentrations recorded at the BAAQMD's
Los Gatos monitoring station indicate that the ozone problem is widespread in
the southern Bay Area and is not site specific.
Carbon monoxide, primarily emitted by motor vehicles, generally follows
the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Concentrations
of this pollutant are also influenced by meteorological factors such as wind
speed and atmospheric mixing. The one -hour and eight -hour CO standards have
been occasionally violated in the Santa Clara Valley. According to the BAAQMD,
the eight -hour standard has been exceeded two -to -three times per year for the
last three -to -four years by approximately 10 -to -20 percent. "Hot spot"
monitoring by the BAAQMD in the San Jose area has revealed that CO may become
trapped under a regional inversion. Under these conditions, CO concentrations
throughout the affected area will be relatively high. This condition may
extend as far west as Saratoga which is currently at the edge of the affected
area. Existing background CO concentrations in the project vicinity are low
compared to those measured in downtown San Jose.
In the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Route 85
Transportation Corridor Pro.iect completed in July 1987 by Caltrans and the
Federal Highway Administration, modeling and analysis of air pollutants
forecast from the project do not appear to pose a problem. Caltrans data of
receptors indicated that CO levels adjacent to the freeway would be 8.7 -8.8
pp,.. for an eight -hour average, just below the 9.0 ppm state and federal
standard. Air quality is expected to improve markedly within 100 feet from
the freeway as CO disperses and becomes diluted with other atmospheric gases.
Further, because of the prevailing northerly winds, areas north of the planned
freeway, including the proposed Les Maisons Provencal project site, could be
expected to experience fewer adverse effects from CO pollution.
Current evidence indicates that air quality in the vicinity of the
proposed Les Maisons Provencal project would not exceed state and federal
standards as a result of the planned construction of State Highway 85. It is
acknowledged, however, that the overall background quality of air in the South
Bay area will decrease in the future.
Lsa
When there are periods of high concentrations of air pollutants in the
South Bay area or there are Health Advisory Alerts, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the BAAQMD recommend that the elderly and the
infirm should not engage in heavy exercise or physical exersions.
During the public hearing, the City Council requested that methods be
looked at for filtering outside air for indoor use. According to the EPA,
there are presently no economically feasible methods to adequately filter
large volumes of outdoor air to improve the quality through removal of CO and
other pollutants (Mike Stenberg, Director of Air Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 1988). Moreover, the EPA also cautions that
indoor air may contain levels of other harmful pollutants such as formaldehyde
and volatile organics.
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your concerns about air
quality resulting from the project.
Sincerely,
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Malcolm J. Sproul
Principal
MJS /BL /bl(CIS801)
Saratoga Area
S� SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL
SCC P. O. Box 3033• Saratoga, California 95070
(408) 867 - 3438 A 57
Mr. Dennis Reichart January 16, 1989
Les Maisons Provencal
13150 Saratoga Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Reichart Subject: Prospective Senior Continuing
Care Complex
As you know, the Senior Coordinating Council has given strong
support to the prospective complex in its conceptual stage,
and the conceptual plan has been approved by the City. Now that
you are in the process of developing your final proposed plans,
we believe it is proper to inform you and appropriate City
representatives of our concerns at the present stage. We hope,
that these concerns can be taken into account.
The concerns are discussed briefly in Attachment 1 (which is
not intended as an all- inclusive list). The discussion is not
intended as a criticism of you or your organization. In some
cases the concerns may simply reflect unanswered questions
which are in our minds and which can be answered by passing
along information. In other cases they may warrant further
study or investigation.
We are sending copies of this letter to various City repre-
sentatives we believe would have an interest. Some of the con-
cerns have to do with issues which the Planning Commission may
consider to be outside its primary sphere of responsibility.
These issues, which might be described as "social" issues, are
doubtless within the City Council's sphere of interest. We
appreciate the willingness shown by the developer's representa-
tives and City representatives to work together in pursuit of
goals which are common to us all.
You will note that the scope of this communication largely
excludes the "townhome" side of the prospective development,
since seniors are far less directly involved there.
We would appreciate your comments, together with any timetables
you may be in position to provide.
A. Beverett
Chairman, Special Committee
CC: City Council
City Planning Commission
City Manager
City Planning Director
City Legal Counsel
Betty Eskeldson
President
SOME CONCERNS RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF THE
PROSPECTIVE CONTINUING CARE COMPLEX
1. Operator of Continuing Care Facility
We understand that the you have not selected or recommended
an operator of the Senior side of the complex.
We believe that this is probably the most important re-
maining factor having to do with the success or failure
of the undertaking. We have reviewed numbers of
successes and numbers of disappointments and failures in
continuing care operation. We propose the following as
essential criteria in the selection of an operator.
(a) Operator should have a good reputation.
(b) Operator should have extensive successful experience
in continuing care operation. An operator with a good
track record is greatly to be desired over relative
newcomers.
(c) Operator should have adequate financial resources.
(d) Operator must accept permanent (or at least long
range) responsibility. Fly -by -night or get- in -and-
get -out operation is strictly unacceptable.
(e) It would be highly desirable to have an operator
that is a non- profit organization (and better yet an
operator sponsored by a religious organization)
if other criteria can be met. The existing,continuing
care complex in Los Gatos is operated by such an organi-
zation (Episcopalian). The prospective second complex
in Los Gatos is to be operated by another (Baptist).
This type of organization has developed a good
reputation throughout the country. It typically
imposes no requirements relating to religious
beliefs or lack of them as a condition of entry.
It provides facilities for worshipers of all faiths.
It has proven that it can provide adequate financial
resources and capable management.
We hope that the list of such operators can be fully
investigated and exhausted before another type of
operator is selected.
2. Risks Associated with Proximity of Freeway
a. Noise
Insofar as we are aware, all concerned have agreed that
the noise factor can be sufficiently mitigated by various
screening and insulation measures.
We are not yet awaare of all the engineering and archi-
tectural details of how this will be done, and we would
like to know more.
b. Exhaust Pollution
- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
It is our understanding- -based on discussions with
City representatives in work sessions, public hearings
and individual contacts- -that the primary pollution
risk of concern to City Council members is that of the
effect of carbon monoxide upon non- ambulatory occupants
of the medical component.
All agree that the general air.quality in the South Bay
area is considerably less than ideal. The specific
question here is whether the prospective carbon
monoxide levels in the medical component would be enough
higher than those in another location (say a half mile
away) to cause significantly higher adverse impacts on
bedridden seniors. The question thus relates to the
incremental adverse impacts associated with the site.
We have made initial contacts with physicians, and with
representatives of Good Samaritan Hospital and Bay Area
Air Quality-Management District. Those contacts have
thus far led to some tentative conclusions.
(a) Good scientific research that will provide absolute
and final answers satisfactory to all concerned may
be non- existent. There is reason be believe, how-
ever, that continued search of the literature may
turn up further guidelines that are helpful in the
exercising of judgement.
(b) The tentative majority judgement (although not the
unanimous judgement) of professionals contacted thus
far reflects doubt that the addded carbon monoxide
risks associated with this site are great enough to
warrant discarding the site on the basis of this
factor alone. Supporting rationale can be provided.
(c) We understand that further study and research are
now under way and /or under consideration, including
a model of carbon monoxide dispersion as related to
distance from pollutant source (freeway). We are
hopeful that such study and research can provide
sufficient information to allay the concerns ex-
pressed by City Council members.
3. Economic Factors as Viewed by Prospective Residents
Below are some of the important factors about which no
specific information is yet available.
2
a. Initial buy -in costs (for units of the various sizes)
b. Monthly fees
C. Services included in costs
d. Depreciation /Appreciation factors associated with
unit ownership
e. Conditions of sale or transfer.
The above factors are obviously interrelated. For
example, if an owner's equity interest in a condominium
should erode to zero over a period of, say, five or ten
years, that could be offset by either lower buy -in costs,
lower monthly fees, or more services - -or some combination
of these.
4. Design Factors as Related to Residents' Economic Resources
One of the most common questions we get from seniors about
the project is "Will only the financially elite and upper
crust be able to-afford it?".
We are aware that with today's land and construction costs,
residency can not be offered to those with financial
resources below certain levels. At the same time, we
believe that many of the City's present seniors are probably
only marginally qualified.
We believe that every effort should be put forth to make
the facilities and services of the complex available to
as many of these seniors as possible.
We suggest that two possible avenues be investigated to
see if they might prove feasible:
(1) Design and construct more smaller size units
(2) Offer prospective residents options containing
fewer services and lower costs
Perhaps other avenues are available. If so, we strongly
suggest that they be investigated.
5. Design Factors Related to Seniors' Functional Needs
We have not reviewed with anybody such factors as size
and capacity of joint kitchen and dining facilities and size
and capacity of recreational facilities. We have some in-
formation about the skilled nursing and personal care
facility.
We understand that your architect, Mr. Tucker, has had
experience in designing continuing care facilities in other
locations. If you and he agree, it might be appropriate
for him to meet with our representatives and representatives
of the City to discuss this subject.
6. Construction and Completion Schedules - Townhome Side
vs. Senior Side
We do not know the timing of your schedules.
We strongly suggest that the construction of the two
components not be scheduled sequentially, that is, the
townhome side first and the senior side second.
We realize of course that the "percentage of completion"
factors for the two sides can not be maintained exactly the
same during all phases of the construction. We believe,
however, that there should not be substantial lags in the
development of the senior side; and that each side should
be considered of equal importance in the planning process.
7. Design Factors Relating Primarily to City Standards
This category includes such factors as setbacks, open
space, architectural style, roof heights, circulation
patterns and landscaping. It applies to the townhome as
well as the senior side of the development.
The Planning Commission and Planning Staff represent the
City in the analysis and discussion of these factors.
The Senior Coordinating Council will be glad to provide
such inputs as it can when called upon.
n.
SARATOGA AREA SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL
P. 0. Box 3033, Saratoga, CA 95070
December 21, 1988
Mayor and City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Public Hearing, 12/21/88: Prospective Senior Citizens
Continuing Care Facility
In view of recent developments, the Board of Directors of the
Senior Coordinating Council has voted to provide the City Coun-
cil an updated commentary on the Senior Council's position. The
restatement, as given below, strongly reiterates our long stand-
ing views. In addition, it introduces some refinements brought
about by the new developments.
1. There is now stronger evidence than ever of a need for this
type of facility in Saratoga. The evidence includes the
increases in our senior population, the out - migration of
Saratoga seniors to other communities offering facilities
more suited to their needs, the backlog of applications
for admittance to continuing care facilities in other commun-
ities, and construction of new facilities in these communi-
ties. In Los Gatos, for example, final plans for a second
facility will be presented to the City Council in January.
2. From a social and market point of view, the Paul Masson
Champagne Cellars site appears ideally suited to the
continuing care center. Moreover, it is highly doubtful
that any other undeveloped site in Saratoga is worthy of
consideration as an alternative location. The choice
facing the City may well be "this or nothing ''.
3. From what has been said, the Senior Coordinating Council
understands that the primary remaining concern in the minds
of City Council members about the site stems from prospective
automobile exhaust from the freeway and Saratoga Avenue.
More specifically, the focus of the concern is the exposure
of occupants of the medical component to carbon monoxide.
The critical question appears to relate to the extent to
which carbon monoxide levels at the site will be increment-
ally higher than the general levels in the Saratoga area.
4. We have discussed this matter with, among others, chemical
engineers and pulmonary specialists in the field of medicine.
They have informed us that establishing any arbitrary empiri-
cal standards would not remove the uncertainties from the
picture. The questions involved include: (a) what is the
highest acceptable average hourly emissions peak (in parts
per million; (b) what is the highest number of hours per
day and days per year that such levels can be tolerated; and
1
,1
(c) how are these factors interrelated, that is, if one is
lower, can the others be higher?
5. The Senior Coordinating Council has high hopes that the
problem can be resolved, despite its technical aspects,
on a judgement basis to the satisfaction of the City
Council - -if not by December 21 - -then by a reasonable time
thereafter. This can be done by three means.
> First, anecdotal evj4ence. We are in the process of
developing an impressive list of senior centers, hospitals,
convalescent hospitals, and medical buildings - -as well as
residential homes and apartments - -that are close to
heavily traveled thoroughfares. These locations are the
result of many judgement decisions that were made after the
assessment or risk factors. This principle can be applied
to the development of guidelines for the Saratoga site.
> Seconder by mitigation technology to be installed by the
developer. While this technology has its limits, it is
highly desirable to the extent it is economically feasible,
since it can provide significant relief.
> Third, by further use of outside expertise. We have
strong reason to believe that further useful information
can be obtained from sources such as the Bay Area Air
Quality Control Board, Stanford University, and the
research library of Good Samaritan Hospital. We are op-
timistic that this information can allay the the remaining
concerns among City Council members.
6. The Senior Council understands that if the City Council
approves the Environmental Impact Report scheduled to be
voted on on December 21, this will not preclude the City
from imposing subsequent conditions on the developer (includ-
ing conditions relating to air pollution) at a later stage.
7. In view of the foregoing, the Senior Coordinating Council
urges the City Council to take the following action on
December 21.
a. Approve the Environmental Impact Report and General
Plan Change
b. Inform the developer that an acceptable level of
mitigation technology (economic factors considered)
will be a subsequent condition imposed by the City.
C. Urge the developer, the Senior Coordinating Council,
City representatives, and the public to develop and
present to the City staff such further information re-
lating to the problem as they think might be useful.
d. Inform the developer that the City reserves the right
to prescribe further conditions relating to other aspects
2
'A
of the development. Among these conditions are City
approval of the operators and operating policies of the
facility and the projected financial costs to seniors
expecting to live in the facility, including up -front
buy -in costs and subsequent monthly costs.
We thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
A. J. Beverett
Chairman, Special Committee
3
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM i
MEETING DATE: December 7, 1988
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Resolution Ordering Abatement of a Public Nuisance by
Removal of Hazardous Weeds
Recommended Motion:
Adopt resolution ordering abatement.
Report Summary:
The attached resolution represents the second step in the weed
abatement process for this season. The County has sent the
owners of the parcels requiring weed abatement notices informing
them that the weeds must be abated, either by the owners or by
the County. The notice also informed them that they may present
objections at tonight's public hearing.
Fiscal Impacts•
None to City. County recovers costs from administrative portion
of fee charged.
Attachments:
Resolution.
(List of parcels requiring weed abatement is available at City
Clerk's office.)
Motion and Vote:
11
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �l_ �� AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: 12 -7 -88 CITY MGR. APPROVAL Are
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
j
SUBJECT: FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL FOR SD 87 -021,
ALTA VISTA AVENUE, DAVID E.S11I0,1AN
Recommended Motion:
Approve Resolution No. SD 87- 021 -02 approving Final Building Site Approval.
Report Summary:
1. Owner is constructing second story to existing house.
2. Owner has completed all conditions for Final Map Approval.
3. Owner has paid all fees.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
1. Resolution.'SD 87- 021 -02.
2.. Resolution Approving Tentative Map.
3. Location Map.
Motion and Vote:
RESOLUTION NO. SD 87- 021 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF ESHLEMAN
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1:
The 14,616. square feet parcels shown as Lot 23 on Tract Map at
Williams Subdivision recorded in Book of Maps Page 69 and submitted to the
City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as one '(1) individual building
site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and
passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the
vote:
• AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
L
day of , 19 by the following
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
RESOLUTION NO. SD -87 -021
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
14130 Alta Vista Avenue
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the
Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of one lot,
all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -87 -021 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 4/27/88 being
hereby made for further particulars, and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the
(Categorical Exemption) 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
tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as
hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 30th day of
October, 1987 and is marked Exhibit C in the hereinabove referred file,
be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said
approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the
Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 27th day of
April, 1988, at which a quorum was present, by the following vote:
AYES: HARRIS, GUCH, SIEGFRIED, BURGER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: TUCKER, KOLSTAD
ATTEST:
Chairman, Planni Commission
Secretary, Planning Commission
A:RESTM
1
SD -87 -021, 14130 Alta Vista Avenue
EXHIBIT A
2
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1.
The applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within
30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall
be void.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - ENGINEERING DIVISION
- N.A. Existing Lot of Tract.
2.
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).
- Done with Tract Map.
3.
Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft.
half- street on Alta Vista.
- N.A.
4.
Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as
required.
- See Deferred Improvement.-_4
'
5.
Improve Alta Vista to City Standards.
6.
Construct standard driveway approaches
- N.A.
7,
Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
- See Deferred Improvement.
8,
Engineered improvement plans required for street improvements.
- Paid.
9.
Pay plan check inspection fees as determined from improvement
plans.
- Done.
10.
Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required
improvements, described in Conditions 5, 6, and 8.
- With Building Permit.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS _ SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
\
11.
A sanitary sewer connection will be required.
- With Building Permit.
12.
Existing septic tank(s) must be pumped and backfilled in accordance
with Environmental Health standards. Contact the district
sanitarian for final inspection upon completion.
- Existing Water Service.
13.
Domestic water shall be supplied by SJWW.
2
SD -87 -021, 14120 Alta Vista
SPECIFIC CONDITION - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Done. 14. A flood control easement as required by S.C.V.W.D. shall be
dedicated to District prior to final map approval.
SPECIFIC CONDITION _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT
15. Tree removal is permitted only in accordance with the City Code
Section 15- 50.050.
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted
Signature of Application Date
97
DEFERRED It•ICRovi7vU'NT Ar- RrUlrNT nY ONNCR OR HIS
SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO CONSTRUCT LAND
DEVELOPM1•:NT TMl11(OV1:MFNTS
Project identification: SD 87- 021 -02
This agreement between the CITY OF SARATOCA, hereinafter referred
to as CITY, and DAVID ESHLEMAN
hereinafter referred to as 'Owner ".
WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property described in Exhibtt
"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. ACREE•MENT 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 in this area
done at once, 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 ",3 ". (Cross out improvements that are not re-
quired.)
1. Curb and gutter + 11.
2. Sidewalks
3. Driveways 12,
4. Street grading, base and
paving
S. Storm drainage facilities
r.. 1 pl a r1 �^s
8. Underground conduit with
wi.•ing and pull boxes
9. Bnrrlcades and other improve-
ments needed for traffic safety
10. Street trees a-id other improve-
ments between curb and property
Relocation of existing fences,
signs and utilities
Paynent of a pro rata share of
the costs as determined by the
Dept, of Public Works of a storm
drainage or street inprovement
which has been, or is to be,
provided by others or jointly
provided by owner anti others
where such facility benefits the
property dt:scribcd in Cxhibit "A"
�GFf
C. l.hvn Che Direct.ur of 1'ul,lic ldurks dvtcrmina:: that the rc:asans
for the deferment of the improvements as set forth in Section II nn lonl;crr
exist, he shall noLLfy Owner in writing to commence their installation and
construction. The . notice •sliall l.e mailed. to the current owner or o;whers
of tl{e land as shown on the latest adopted county assessment roll. The
notice shall describe the work to be done by owners, the time within which
the work shall commence and the time within which it shall be completed.
All or any portion of said improvements may be required at• a specified
time. Each Owner shall participate on a pro rats 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 amouncto be paid and the time when payment must be made.
III. PERPORMNCE OF TILE 14ORK
Ci Owner agrees to perform -the work and make the payments required by
ty a s 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
shall be done in accordance with City pstandards nine effect fats the Ttimeothe
improvement plans are submitted for approval. .Owner agrees to coranm
and complete the work within the time specified in the notice given by the
Director Of Public Works and to notify the City at least 48 hours prior to
i 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 COOPERATIVE PLAN
da'ner agrees to cooperate -upon notice. by City with other property
owners, .the City and other public agencies�to provide the improvements
set forth herein under .a joint cooperative plan including the formation
of a local improvement district, if this method is feasible to secure the
installation and construction of the improvements.
V REVIEW OF REOUIREMENTS
If Owner disagrees with the requirements set forth in any notice
to commence installation of improvements he shall, within 30 days of the
date the notice was mailed, request a review of the requirements by the
City Council. The decision of this Council shall be binding upon both !
the.. City and the Owner.
VI MAIt;TE\ANCF. OF IMPROVE' fE• NTS
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 arc installed within rights -of -way or ease-
ments dedicated and accepted by resolution of the City, after the expira-
tion of one year from date of satisfactory completion, Owner to maintain
said improvements at Owner's sole cost and expense at all
such acceptance by City. times prior to
Olwncr agrees to provide any necessary temporary drainage facilities,
access road or other required imorovements, to assume responsibility for
the proper functioning thereof, to submit plans to the appropriate City
agency for review, if required, and to maintain said improvements and
facilities in a manner which will preclude any hazard to life or health
or damage to adjoining property.
VII. BONDS
Prior to approval of improvement plans by the City, Owner may be
required to execute and deliver to City a -faithful perfortnaficc bond and
.a labor and materials bone! in an nrAount and form acceptablelto City,.to
be released by City Council in whole or in part upon completion of 111e
work required and payment of all persons furnishing labor and materials
in the performance 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. INDE;N, ITY -
The Owner shall assume the defense and indemnify and save haralless
the City, its officers, agents and employees, from every expense, liability
or payment by reason of injury, including death, to persons, or damage to ,
property suffered through any act or omission, including passive negligence
or act of negligence, or both, of the Owner, his. employees, agents, con -
.tractors, subcontractors, or his employees, agents, contractors, subcontrac-
tors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them, or
• arising in any way from the work called for by this agreement, or any part
of the premises, including those matters arising out of the deferment of
permanent drainage facilities or the adequacy, safety, use or non -use of
temporary drainage facilities, the performance or non - performance of the
work.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has executed this agreement as of
CITY OF SARATOCA
(Individual)
STATE OF CALIF ORNIA SS.
COUNTY OA�
r�/ �%lM^'\ F a/y�41(n
On QQC4 _ s i Int before me, the under -
signed, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
W lAd iA N 65M A.1AtJ
W /` . QOM At3
t
W
n
Npersonally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
,0 evidence) to be the person(s) _ whose name \subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged that
executed the same.
I WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
STC ar Name (Typed or Printed)
QC) 616. �19C.OG+O�CIC+OC+OCL9CC'J6sClC�
OFFICIAL SEAL
I MILLER
NOTARY PUBLIC -CALIFORNIA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
My arrodssion Expires March 12, 1991
pOOCl6i0060C JCfi)C+OCOC490CJGX9C+OGOOCkX
(This area for official notarial Beall
0
VII. BONDS
Prior to approval of improvement plans by the City, Owner may be
required to execute and deliver to City a -faithful performarice bond and
•a labor and materials bond in an amount and form acceptableito City,.to
be released by City Council in whole or in part upon completion of the
work required and paymnent of all persons furnishing labor and materials
in the performance 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. INDEM, M
The Owner shall assume the defense and indemnify and save harmless
the City, its officers, agents and employees, from every expense, liability
or payment by reason of injury, including death, to persons, or damage to ,
property suffered through any act or omission, including passive negligence
or act of negligence, or both, of the Owner, his employees, agents, con-
tractors, subcontractors, or his employees, agents, contractors, subcontrac-
tors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them, or
arising in any way from the work called for by this agreement, or any part
of the premises, including those matters arising out of the deferment of
permanent drainage facilities or the adequacy, safety, use or non -use of
temporary drainage facilities, the performance or non - performance of the
work.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has executed this agreement as of
CITY OF SARATOCA
MAYOR
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this agreement as of
// O `O
06ner
(This document to be acknowledged with signatures as they appear on
deed of title.)
APPROVED AS TO FbFU:
4r IV
t `
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. �S- 313
MEETING DATE: 12/7/88
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA ITEM FA
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: DR -88 -079; Leckrone, 19521 Douglass Lane, Appeal of Planning
Commission Approval to Construct a 2nd Story Addition
Recommended Motion: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning
Commission.
Report Summary: On October 26, 1988, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing and approved a design review permit for Daniel and Helena Leckrone
to construct a 2nd story addition to their home.
On November 4, 1988 Mrs.Mary Ann Welch appealed the decision citing a
violation of deed restrictions, an unreasonable interference with views and
privacy, and excessive bulk of the proposed structure.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Motion and Vote
A:leckrone
Memorandum to City Council
Planning Commission minutes dated 10/26/88
Resolution DR -88 -079
Staff report to Planning Commission
Questions submitted by appellant, received 10/26/88
Letter of Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Welch, received 10/26/88
Appeal letter with attachments
Correspondence received.
01-30001
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE: 12/7/88
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: DR -88 -079; Leckrone, 19521 Douglass Lane, Appeal of Planning
Commission approval to construct a second story addition
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background /Description
Daniel and Helena Leckrone submitted an application for design review to
construct a 2nd story addition to an existing home. During the hearing,
the applicant agreed to install additional landscaping to reduce the
potential impact of the structure.
The site is a 35,937 sq. ft. lot in an established neighborhood of mixed
one and two -story single - family dwellings. The parcel is bordered by
mature landscaping consisting of trees and shrubs resulting in the
impression of a solid wall of vegetation on the rear and sides of the
property. Topography of the site is level. A 4,000 sq. ft. home with a
pool in the rear yard is currently located on the site.
Issues of the Appeal
The following are comments from the appellant's letter to the City:
1. The CC &R's of the homeowners association were not used as part of the
approval process.
Response: Deed restrictions are accords voluntarily entered into by the
various property owners of the homeowners association. The City is
under no obligation to consult declarations of restriction in rendering
decisions and unless the City is named as a beneficiary of the CC &R's,
it cannot enforce private agreements. These restrictions are enforced
by the homeowners and are subject to California Civil Statutes. As a
result, the Planning Commission did not consider the applicant's deed
restriction in their decision. (Note: Deed restrictions to this
subdivision allow homes 2 -1/2 stories high).
2. An unreasonable interference with views and privacy.
Response: The second story addition is proposed to be located nearly
200 feet from the appellant's home. At this distance, the addition
will not intrude into or violate the neighbors privacy. The appellant
also claims a 50% loss of a current westerly view to the mountains from
000002
r
Memo to City Council
Re: DR -88 -079; Leckrone, 19521 Dougalss Lane
r
this project which measures 35 feet by 27 feet and less than 26 feet
high. The Commission considered the claim of lost views by the
neighbors and found it not to be significant.
3. The perception of excessive bulk.
Response: The proposal would occupy approximately one -third of the
footprint of the existing home. The project design incorporates
elements of the Residential Design Handbook guidelines such as varied
roof lines, horizontal architectural features, and compatible
proportion and design to the neighborhood. The project is also
consistent with the guideline that encourages variety in design to
avoid monotony of regularly spaced buildings at uniform height. The
two -story element on only a portion of the home provides relief to the
roofline of single story structures without overwhelming existing
residences. Finally, setbacks from property lines are in excess of the
minimum required for the zone district, which serves to minimize the
height of the structure. In spite of these features, the Commission
adopted an additional condition to the permit requiring further
landscaping to soften the addition.
Alternatives to the second story addition include various schemes that
would maintain the present one -story design. The first alternative
would add a wing to create a "U" shaped home. This would require
filling in the swimming pool and reducing the size of the rear yard.
Extending the garage westerly to the minimum sideyard setback is an
alternative. This would require the relocation of the overhead garage
doors from the western end to the southern, front, of the house. The
new orientation of the doors would be toward Douglass Lane.
The staff has concluded that these alternatives are less desirable than
the proposed second story addition. Filling in the existing pool and
excavating at another location to replace the pool is not a practical
solution. Extending west from the garage would create a long, unbroken
ridge line and the unpleasing architectural feature of garage doors on
the front of the home.
Finally, the Council should be aware that the elevations have been
slightly modified since the Planning Commission meeting in order to
make the second story addition more compatible with the existing home.
These changes, structurally minor in nature, include different size and
shaped windows, a peaked roof over the first story addition and the
addition. of support beams under the deck. These architectural
improvements have blended the second story addition with the existing
home.
Memo to City Council
Re: DR -88 -079; Leckrone, 19521 Douglass Lane
Recommendation:
Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. The
Commission considered all issues and made the required findings to approve
the project.
Steph n Ems lie
Planning Director
A:Leckrone
000004
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 26, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Consent Calendar
Page 3
ISBURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. Passed
Comma er Siegfried absent.
Commissioner Harri ' grated her concern and added that covered parkin ted.
Chairperson Guch also qu ed the visual impact of the proposed ort; Staff was unaware of
existing vegetation along Pinnac
Planner Caldwell suggested a Condition be a ohibit outside storage in this area.
The City Attorney confirmed that the Co ion urisdiction over the carport in this Appli-
cation. Consensus reached to Contin is Item pending a earance by the Applicant.
HARRISBURGER M TO CONTINUE DR -88 -059 TO NOV R 9, 1988, Passed 5 -0-
;ggfried mmissioner ' rted absent.
URGER MOVED TO RECONSIDER DR -88 -079. Passed 5 -0 -1, Comm ner
absent.
5. DR -88 -079 Leckrone, 19521 Douglass Lane, request for design review approval to
construct a 988 sq. ft. second story addition in the R -1- 40,000 zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Total floor area proposed to be
5,400 sq. ft.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Commission dated October 26, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:05 P.M.
Ms. Maryanne Welch, 19520 Kenosha Ct., presented a written statement and commented:
Reviewed communications she received regarding this Application
Expressed sympathy for the Applicant's loss during the fire; however, she was the only home-
owner affected by this addition of a second story addition
Existing shrubbery and landscaping was insufficient as viewed from her kitchen window
Was in a planned community with a green belt and was unfavorable to the design proposed
Questioned the impact on the value of her home and asked that a real estate person assess such
Mr. Dan Leckrone, Applicant, commented as follows:
- From the existing roof, he could see the neighbor's roof line; there was no privacy intrusion
- Felt that the proposed second story structure could probably not be viewed from his neighbor's
yard due to the screening provided by a series of trees
- Concluded that there would not be view intrusion for the neighbor
- Confirmed that vegetation would screen the proposed addition
BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. Passed 6 -0.
Commissioner Burger noted that 90 ft. existed between the addition and the neighbor's home; in
addition, there was heavy landscaping; if impacts occurred it would be to the property to the west.
Commissioner Tappan suggested consideration of liquid ambers or similar trees to soften any
impact of the facade; he questioned whether the rear neighbor had a view of the Applicant's site.
Commission Harris was favorable to a Condition requiring plantings near the house; she concurred
that there was substantial distance between the homes and existing landscaping was substantial.
Planner Caldwell confirmed the Commission's intent was to soften, rather than screen, the addition
HARRISBURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -88 -079 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION,
ADDING A CONDITION THAT STAFF EVALUATE LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THE
REAR YARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS ADEQUATE FOLIAGE TO
SOFTEN THE FACADE OF THE ADDITION. Passed 5 -0 -1, Commissioner Siegfried abstaining
8. Les Maisons Provenca ,
development plan for the former
City Code.
;approval of a conceptual
pursuant to Article 15 -21 of the
reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 26, 1
000005
Design Review
RESOLUTION NO. DR -88 -079
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has
received an application for design review approval of plans to
add a second story at 19521 Douglass Lane, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required
to support said application, and the following findings have been
determined:
-The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site
does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding
residences in that the site is located in a level neighborhood
that does not enjoy significant views.
-The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of
the surrounding residences in that the siting of the second
story and presence of landscaping, screen the dwelling from
adjacent neighbors.
-The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree
removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no tree or soil
removal or grade changes are proposed.
-The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in
relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the addition of
the second story covers only a small portion of the residence.
-The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with
those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning
district in that other two -story residences are present in the
area.
-The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar
access of adjacent properties in that the proposal is to
maintain existing setbacks and conform to City height
restrictions.
-The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion
control standards in that no grading of the site is proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
000006
r
DR -88 -079; 19521 Douglass Lane
connection with this matter, the application of Daniel Leckrone
for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject
to the following conditions:
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on
Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference.
2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a
zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department.
3. Landscaping to soften the rear elevation shall be planted in
the line of site between the home to the rear and the second
story. Landscaping to be approved by the Planning Director.
Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 3: Construction must be commenced within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this
resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted
to the Building Division when applying for a building permit.
Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 26th day of October 1988 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners, Guch, Harris, Burger, Tappan, Kolstad
NOES: None
ABSENT: Tucker
ABSTAINING: Siegfried
Chairperson, Planning C ission
A T T ST:
Sec etary, 151an'ning"Tdommission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Applicant Date
5
00000'7
01
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Jacobson
DATE: 10/26/88 PLNG. DIR. APPRV.�
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -88 -079; 19521 Douglass Lane
APPLICANT /OWNER: Leckrone
APN: 397 -16 -062 Q
I 1
(6)
117753
0)
(4)
CI)
37(6
19701
1 g651) 19607
14400
19700 19644
3Q7- li -5O 397-17-51
397-/6-75
397 -/6-73 397-1(o-72
19565
19 5 19
(3%
OCQ
397 -/� -71
397-1(6-70
v
19752 y) C
8
C
(7) ( 8) Ct)
1448-7 14455
1442(6
W')
397-x7 -S3 317.17 -52
•997 -/6 -77
3117 -17 -0%
14452
=
397 -r7 -22
1962$
C�3)
397 -I(o
(20) 397 -16 -G7
C 3)
14448
14475
19 520
�6) BLACK
(8)
(!9)
017-17 07
317- /6-68
397- /6 - 69
L�
997 -/
377 -/2 -54 14462
/445o
19 700
397 -/7 SS
wo I ..r
5(c
347 -16-78
397-/6
4 545
397-17.21
•
Cr o)
�) �:
3'17-17-0&
I)
(9) 14
19 759
70-7
(il)
14625
Cl2)
(13
9521 f
397- /(0,a2- 397
-16-80
397-16-64
19573
397 -16-(w 3
i
LN.
Dovc L- I-►-t•
CI)
C/o) (9)
(q
14-43)
14400
19700 19644
3Q7- li -5O 397-17-51
• 397 -17-59
-/7-
397 -/7-05
397 -/7 -23
v
(7) ( 8) Ct)
1448-7 14455
1442(6
14451
397-x7 -S3 317.17 -52
j,7 -17 -58
3117 -17 -0%
14452
=
397 -r7 -22
J
C 3)
14448
14475
�6) BLACK
317 -17 -57
017-17 07
(j)
14484
(4J
377 -/2 -54 14462
/445o
397 -/7 SS
397--Y?-
5(c
14494
4 545
397-17.21
•
✓
�) �:
3'17-17-0&
J �
J�
0
0
J
IL
File No
PLANNER'S WORKSHEET
,/ Trails and pathways map checked
✓ Vicinity /locator map included
/Dimensions shown on plot plan
kJO Adjacent structures
✓ Directional arrow
,\JO Trees labelled
✓ Plans reflect field conditions
✓ Heights shown on cross sections
•
✓ Consistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans
✓ Natural and finished grade on cross sections '
Height of underfloor & attic areas included in floor area calculations
Roof pitch shown
All sheets included in submittal with required reductions
Colors submitted
Staff Reports
Conditions from other agencies /department correct
✓ Consistent figures throughout report
✓ History files examined
Correct address & application number on all pages of the report
_ /Description consistent with advertisement
✓ Plans labelled
✓/ Order of attachment consistent with list
✓ All attachments included
Typographical errors corrected
/Dates on the resolutions correct
-//Applicant notified of recommendation
.✓ Applicant notified that staff report available Fri. 3 -4:00 p.m.
A:checklist ()00009 6/88
t
L�
File No. DR -88 -079; 19521 Douglass Lane
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY•
Application filed:
8/26/88
Application complete:
9/16/88
Notice published:
10/12/88
Mailing completed:
10/13/88
Posting completed:
10/6/88
•
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 45.060,
applicant proposes to construct a 988 sq. ft. second story addition
to include 412 sq. ft. of deck.
PROJECT DISCUSSION: The project meets all City zoning regulations.
This site is suitable for the development of a second story to the
existing dwelling. Due to the design of the addition, the structure
will not appear excessively bulky. All of the required findings can
be made. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Resolution DR -88 -079.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution DR -88 -079
3. Plans
MJ /dsc
Approval of application by adoption of
1
000010
0
DR -88 -079; 19521 Douglass Lane
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD - Residential
Very Low Density
PARCEL SIZE: 35,937 sq. ft.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Level slope
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: -0- Cu. Yds.
Fill: -0- Cu. Yds.
Cut Depth: Ft.
Fill Depth: Ft.
MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Redwood siding to match existing
residence painted light tan with dark brown trim.
LOT COVERAGE:
HEIGHT:
SIZE OF
STRUCTURE:
PROPOSAL
25% (8,984 sq. ft.)
26 ft.
1st Floor: 4,000 sq. ft.
2nd Floor: 1,400 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 5,400 sq. ft.
CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
35% (12,578 sq. ft.)
26 ft.
5,688 sq. ft.
SETBACKS: Front: 41 ft. Front: 30 ft.
Rear: 53 ft. Rear: 45 ft.
Right Side: 20 ft. Right Side: 20 ft.
Left Side: 48 ft. Left Side: 20 ft.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to repair an existing
home damaged by fire, enlarge a 3 -car garage, and construct a 988
sq. ft. second story addition including 412 sq. ft. of deck. The
second floor is proposed to cover approximately one -third of the
existing home and be located 48 feet from the nearest side property
line and 100 feet from the rear property line. The border of the
site is characterized by mature landscaping consisting of trees and
shrubs. The impression made is one of a solid wall of vegetation on
the rear and sides of the property. The topography of the entire
neighborhood is relatively level.
Due to the location of the second story, amount of landscaping, and
flatness of the area, there is not expected to be any loss of
privacy by nearby residents. Furthermore, there would be no loss of
2
000011
ri
DR -88 -079; 19521 Douglass Lane
views with construction of this project.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval by adoption of Resolution DR -88 -079.
3
000012
a
M-",
- -�
i
i
J
. ...........
l
A
Ile-
0000ia
I
s
-.0-10-40000,
uwllmwll
'-7
wl
e. -7oe
__!_� �_ �__���_ -tea
--"0-0 1-6
rte- - -- - - --
I
i
,j.
City of Saratoga
Attn: Planning Commission
Re: 19521 Douglass Lane
Saratoga, California
Lot No. 13
Gentlemen:
May 13, 1988
On Monday night, May 2, the Leckrone family residence
located at 19521 Douglass Lane was damaged by a fire which
destroyed and /or severely damaged the south end of the
residence, including the garage. The Leckrone's have explained
to us their plan to rebuild their home as soon as is humanly
possible and have discussed with us their desire to reconstruct
the damaged area as a two story structure.
I have no objection to the proposed reconstruction and urge
you to expedite whatever approval process is appropriate to
enable its prompt completion.
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Welch
19520 Kenosha Court
Lot No.
cc: Daniel E. Leckrone
Enclosure: Plat 5150
00001
l -
N sr i
C ° r
10
�q s
b'Aeh,
aj ofyp` Acre
o � q� /64'4 r � ° • � � "
a, .� a4ye e\ •�5�,; •KENOS,';
OIL N 8
A oil "d was frtWvd for this SuWiv;sim bg 114 fir,.
of Aeylwids R Amu Wes, dated Mard11972. ealilkd,"Sea
h,mtlratisn h tends of Gvp ON. Whole ! Deuglon
A mwk Saratoga, Osliferw
N e
Y
O �
O
ado's
4 4r,.
?
0004
'k*s
4s C - •.• a% 41A?Itr� 1s ey,�
I � #� � � ��4,1y (•0� co;'e'D�
�i r���q 4,., • , , ; IS
ages "' Aei•r
7-.7 ¢ N CL 4 0 91 ~•ems �` 8b ?00 h 4
OUC
)Ism u, �!
a AVEN� -
MOTES ACID LEGEND \�
Tte blue bade lim WkQfn Ur bomdq of krd snbdlvided a @k ewp /
The area within IN blue border Une is 17.424 tent JF_
All ditimm end dnKnsion, rt it - In feet and decilaek 111er•E /
PM Indimaies Public W1111 tmmeld y1�ri e
SSE k76mk1 Smilary Sever Eo—vk
SOE Ildiute Sion Dmisage 15- a
e Wiaaio a W km pp 6annm111ei
• bdiaetet a W M gip nee 1 food wkr Aff iu mkt f
• Wimles a sledeld CiN Nowell Is be vL %
• Wirota a stedord Gty aerensA toed r
ALSO NOTE: Lets n 11M 22 ON Priwk Coo— Oa Spec
6EOR� S. NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES J
��WILG 21G1NC�r0 -PLAN NE.RS•SURYBYOR4
LJ �_ eu m • a.. ..0 • .. r— M . - w_ wow
`1813tI
Nr
r�
BASIS OF_ BEARIN63
Th beorirg,rl6rIGIC1; d tM unlerUrc d Oollglax Rverast re ssl:
Aveew is sheen rqm Mwt c°lain map efitkd'Trecf ih6D'tl,tfc,•
filed in bmh 2I1 of Mayt el Pope 24 in 1k efi;ts sf tic Cauntg
Recorder of to CW% Of Swte Clem. State Of CoGfemie, "s Woo
as the basis of bearings stwan UPon fhb map
C� AC T V]®. D A 45 0
CONSISTING OF TWO SHEETS
BEING ApOrtTION OF THE QUITO RANCHO AND
LYING ENTIRELY WITHINTHE CITY OF
Cv- APATOGA, CALIFORNIA
SCALM r-10(7 ^�j, ^ —�
1b
/c
CU (NE
DATA
IM
DELTA
LENGTH RADIUS
NO I
DELTA
LET76TN RADIIS
1
649114
4409
'Am
9
19333, I
zmat
Gom
ar3rzr
4697
loan
2s
I993sr
rn 9s
55Om
rwisr
I26
19-05
21
rtZa
aa.bs
seam
a
rWr
4555
team
72
6'Sta3
62 j1
2Am
s
lavrsr
9942
smm
z5
s�D
1I.
_atm
G
tevrsr
nue
,0_D
24
54Nr3
40 CD
4200
7
6
70347
Irmw
4300 52Um
" !tom
25
K
66.1407
Bn92r
2362
S6.9
mm
40x0
1m; r
215
Woo
—
6assar 4611
3"3r 156.11
4400
220m
10
29,&74
7192 150.00
21
it
m
64M
Mp_
MUD
t?
SO
!1
12.35rr
IMS'
H37Y,
4853
IK 06
Ste
26000
imm
IBDm
12
Q'IB27
13
509T2r
BJT1 ,AID
to
ID-CM
M157
r30ID
92
2r•S3r
Gies
1600
n
35'7537
eon
nom
1
20'
ism
uom
w
19333,
211.(6
620m
!4
Gf5r1D
tom
t000
rt
4z)10
462+ 6r00
is-
to
mco,
316
bmm
115
2 ►1334
Is5!
4lJD
ii
56
UrMS4
93328
336D rA00
46� 26000
C� AC T V]®. D A 45 0
CONSISTING OF TWO SHEETS
BEING ApOrtTION OF THE QUITO RANCHO AND
LYING ENTIRELY WITHINTHE CITY OF
Cv- APATOGA, CALIFORNIA
SCALM r-10(7 ^�j, ^ —�
1b
/c
Appeal Application
Mary Ann Welch and
5150 Homeowners Association
(Ken Rothmuller - President)
Project File No-
DR-88-079
Mr_ & Mrs_ D_ Leckrone
Second Story Addition with Deck
000021
Name of Appellant:
Address:
' Telephone:
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address:
Project Description:
(TA
Date Received:_
Hearing Data:(
• Fee _
' CITY 'USE Ot
APPEAL APPLICATION •
M4Qy AMW W EL.Cq
5150 140ME-oopG - -pS A %(X , k
1 (oZS �--i- RES I DEM
MQ4wQS I) nQr
_lC DIt VOUOLACSS I_Aldr-
-
PG-t,K
Li
Decision Being Appealed: 4-PPQ VA OP Qpf�t.l CA.-10
D2 8 8- O07�1 C-S16(N A4210 A, 0 L l U6.
11 PL`R.NtiZ
• Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
ire
*Please do not sign this applicat ;on until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific pp
appeal please list them on a separate be notified of this
TIIIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUDDtITTCD WITUIN TEN
11 U. A' U
10) CALENDAR DAYS Or
000022
File No.
APN
AUTHORIZATION FM PUBLIC NOTICING
I. k/W f2� 1u1y1.1,G -2 M42 ANIJ ��1�.}}
A , as appellant on the above file and
property known as JLpN 300 -1(0 - 06 7- , bereby authorize Engineering
Data Services to do the legal noticing on the above file.
Date: Signature.
000023-
DR 88 -079 Leckrone Project Appeal
First, we appologize for not bringing some of these issues up at the Planning
Commission's design review meeting. There are several reasons why these
issues are being raised late in the approval process:
1. Individuals in the 5150 Homeowners Association were approached
individually by Mr. Leckrone, not as a group. Mr. Rothmuller suggested very
early in the process, a general meeting for a presentation and group
discussion.
2. Several people were told that Mary Ann Welch agreed with the proposed
project. Since she was one of the closest neighbors who would be affected,
others in the Tract felt they should have no reason to object. Ms. Welch
never signed any letter agreeing with the project because she had not seen
the plans to base her decision.
3. Incomplete information was presented to the homeowners. For example
the idea of a balcony and the multi- window rear part of the addition was a
surprise to a majority of us. This was discovered after the design review
meeting.
4. We thought the Planning Commission would consult the CC&Rs as a part of
the process. We did not understand that it was our responsibility to present
the relavent sections.
5. Many of us had vague feelings that the plan was "ugly ", but had difficulty
expressing this in a concrete and more objective way. After the design
review, the appropriate Zoning Regulations and the Commission's Staff
report helped us quantify our objections.
6. Once people begain openly discussing the project, many more concerns
were raised.
7. None of us fully understood the process.
The appeal is based on two issues. First, the CC&Rs of the Homeowner's
Associated were not used as a part of the process. Second, we disagree
with the planning commission findings as they relate to the Zoning
Regulations (15- 45.080).
000024
i
DR 88 -079 Leckrone Project Appeal
The CURS of Tract 5150 were not taken into consideration.
The CC&Rs place additional restrictions on construction and additions for
Tract 5150. In particular, the modifications must be approved by the
homeowner's architectural committee (refer to the next page). Since George
Day is no longer a part of the decision making process, a poll of all of the
homeowners in the 5150 Non - Profit Corporation was taken after they heard
all of the facts concerning this project. The results were:
Approve of the addition = 3
Disapprove of the addition = �Y tZ , Qu4MtJJ1_'-'
Did not choose to vote = 1
oY
Total = 16
A major of homeowners do not approve of Lechrone's proposed second story
addition.
2
000025
5150 Homeowner's Association Vote on Leckrone's Second
Story Addition
On November 3, 1988 a meeting of the 5150 Homeowners Association to
discuss the proposed second story addition to the Leckrone's residence
(Application Number DR-68 -079). A vote was taken at this meeting to
determine whether the homeowners (acting as the . Architectural Control
Committee specified in the CC&Rs) where FOR or AGAINST the proposed
building addition. Following that meeting those people unable to attend or
be contacted were asked for their opinion. The following tally summarize
the 16 homeowners of the 5150 Homeowner's Association.
Name Attended Vote Signature
Noy 3, 1988
Meeting
OCCOOGO00000 CCCCCGOGOC GCCCO 0000000000 CO�°OOOO / /
Cohen No
Paley Proxy Agains�>
RossiE NO �:1 ,r:..,s7
Apgar Proxy Against
Nasan Proxy For
Spiro Naz
Saj jadi No
Blaseck Yes Against
Clover Na
Tam Proxy Abstain
Rothmuller Yes Against
Gingerich Yes For
Leckrone Yes For
Welch Yes Against
Hinshaw Yes Against
Archdeacon Yes Against
000026
A(12,Tdv-y Or 6 Q
000027
Kenneth Rothmuller
19625 Douglass Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
Ken & Mary Jane:
DANIEL E. LECKRONE
19521 Douglass Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
( Lot #11)
June 1, 1988
Stopped by Monday afternoon to bring you up to date on our
apres fire reconstruction plans, but no one seemed home.
I have had a chance to meet with each of our next door
neighbors - -- the Gingerichs, Wessons, Lahonns, Welches, and
Hinshaws - -- and they are all in favor of our proposed second
story addition.
I will continue trying to reach each of you personally, but
in the interim let me ask that you sign and return the attached
letter in the enclosed envelope so that I can try to speed the
review and permit process with the city.
Best ards,
i
Daniel E. eckrone
DEL /ggi
reconst
Enclosure: Letter to City of Saratoga
� NC—Alf" - to P(..AtIA
OP,
- 4oMEOcJ� C-*S
000028
City of Saratoga
Attn: Planning Commission
Re: 19521 Douglass Lane
Saratoga, California
Lot No. 13
Gentlemen:
May 13, 1988
On Monday night, May 2, the Leckrone family residence
located at 19521 Douglass Lane was damaged by a fire which
destroyed and /or severely damaged the south end of the
residence, including the garage. The Leckrone's have explained
to us their plan to rebuild their home as soon as is humanly
possible and have discussed with _us their desire to reconstruct
the damaged area as a two story structure.
I have no objection to the proposed reconstruction and urge
you to expedite whatever approval process is appropriate to
enable its prompt completion.
cc: Daniel E. Leckrone
Enclosure: Plat 5150
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Rothmuller
19625 Douglass Lane (Lot #11)
000029
j
u
� D
,1 t
X
•
4 po I's Q ftls
Q#a4� �aa f r �'►r . J (b�
id
M
E Q�yq o ZIA.
ih
4� q
•
BASIS OF 01631HGS
The bo6j.UMM of sr uslrlwm of D"IM how mom
Mu Ill shm qM W wkW "sOW Tied ULOKok'
fiW In Idl tM of Mqr d hr t& IN tK die of to Gry
halo of M owliq d seed chafl.h d t slerw••. We
. h lows of loerlssM &M WM Flo r'*
CURVE DATA
to
SOIL NOTE
MMUMM
AADn6
NO
A Mil NWI us InPWW Iw MG vM1a6M 14 1k her
M16TH
RIMS
1
d krik a Awe »w. . &W Mrdk 1pt.lilwi. -A
Aim
bro
a
6wfipHw IM Unk of G" DO& FDIIwY 11 Dy4r
r0eq
VH
[ •
Mew Uw4k WAnia•
"M
^
71
g
a
H
r4i
rsm
I
uss
r
iam
raw
srN
O :�'�ny
sr
•
Smm
Q `
II.Sr
.gym
�e�4R4r • ~ • r
z
,xi
•�,,1e
..
trxOS
nm
4
It
rc
7
.nres
Re
56 IM
m
&00
♦ Q�d �r
,. 4,r i
\ 4 ��.�'`�
A � %
KENOy�,':'�r� ..e M�� V 4,� i
�� 4°99 ._ •\ � � ,� _ ,aF.�- .'� � �r
4 po I's Q ftls
Q#a4� �aa f r �'►r . J (b�
id
M
E Q�yq o ZIA.
ih
4� q
•
BASIS OF 01631HGS
The bo6j.UMM of sr uslrlwm of D"IM how mom
Mu Ill shm qM W wkW "sOW Tied ULOKok'
fiW In Idl tM of Mqr d hr t& IN tK die of to Gry
halo of M owliq d seed chafl.h d t slerw••. We
. h lows of loerlssM &M WM Flo r'*
CURVE DATA
to
DELTA
MMUMM
AADn6
NO
DELTA I
M16TH
RIMS
1
6Ntlq
Aim
bro
a
Iymu
r0eq
VH
cmno
Sam
um
play
"M
71
g
a
H
r4i
rsm
I
uss
r
iam
raw
srN
r L
sr
d
Smm
f.-M
II.Sr
.gym
pm
am
z
,xi
..
trxOS
nm
:MM
SIDm
It
rc
7
.nres
Re
56 IM
m
&00
vrrx
WNW
.en
MAI
a
U=
to
Glow
n
.m
Ir
rlj'
QZ,
1 ur•
inn,
411
L
r
fen
AD
L'
tsfr
bU' f
+ed
Sl!
l am
VON
M
IM' M
150M
r
�
w
6
rrorev
.r: :nsx
u
k1aA
4m
II
v W
r+rx
o
S
MOO
iskm
TOMMIS. . e
1U. w IN bwk 1 of lord reblivM M ib sop. r
llr as W" Mr lover UWE I N b frost am /
PM 111 1, 1 - kag a" w� ie MI r+l lrei1r11 Mrw� `� C� , C� CJ ®. 0 5O
It ��b 'f" *f CONSISTING OF TWO SHEETS
Enrsrd t3EINQ ^PORTION OR -119 CARTO RANCHO M40
• lovisb•Mtlow *nrarulnl ol, LYING VMAVILYWff"IN%Two CITY OF
• waft •..161sbNil .Nreewerskt SAMATOGA, CALIFORNIA
. � . sw•+.�1 ah ner...l w k .i
• blambs r sboir101, .rrrld�•d � / SCA A P•100' � N•wn4ssrr
ALSO N7Tl:Lsle ft IM >7 of lrlorsl C+ll"'m OM Sf"K �J/ e
6LORQ9 S. NOLTaP AND ASSOCIATES 7
WILQ1QiNC —A"'P HHERf-BURVay no �;a ✓¢(SI /J .� /�� 3.a /•..�..• //may+ 1�/� /'7 �r /f a
• Y. •Y1(1W • W' Ole" •
Q
C)
Mon, Jun 20, 1958
Daniel E. Leckrone
19521 Douglass Lane
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Dear Dan:
received your letter dated June 1, 1988 concerning your proposed repair
and alteration of your existing home (plat 5150, * 13). Since you are
planning a major change to a two story design, this should fall under the
5150 Homeowner's Association CC & R's (see enclosed section). We don't
have a architectural control committee, but I believe, given the location of
your home at the corner of Douglass, all of the homeowners should have
input (not just the few surrounding neighbors). I would suggest you put
together a site drawing of how the addition would look from the street and
present this at our next homeowner's meeting (sometime in early July).
Sincerely,
Ken Rothmuller
President 5150 Homeowner's Association
cc: City of Saratoga Planning Commission
000031
california Land Title Company I 4332098
Escrow Number 12396 -JR
After recording DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS 715 return to file 9,^t"K
This Declaration made and dated this 19th day of July
1972, by GEORGE W. DAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
a corporation
WHEREAS, said party is the owner of a certain tract of land
situate in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of
California, described as follows--:.-
That certain Tract entitled `Tract No. 5150 which Nap was
filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of
Santa Clara, State o� ,..'_'.fornia, on May 25, 1972 in Book 302 pages
9 and 10 thereof, re arenee is hereby tads, and
igZRBAS, said party is about sell property shown on said Nap
which they desire to subject to certain restriction+, eonditiona,
covenants and agreements between themselvee and the purchasers of
said property, as hereinafter set forth=
HSN THEREFORE said party declares that the property shown'on
said leap of "Tract No. 5150" is held and shall be conveyed.
subject to restrictions, conditions, covenants, charges and agree-
s wants set forth in the Declaration, to -wit:
PART A. RESIDENTIAL AREA COVENANTS.
E A -1 Land use and building type. No lot shall be used '
except for residential purposes. No building shall be used except
for residential purposes. No building shall be erected, altered,
placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached
single- family dwelling not to exceed two and one- half.storiea in
height.
A -2 Architectural Control. No building shall.be erected,
placed or altered on any lot until the construction plans and
specifications and a plan showing the location of the structure
have bean approved by the architectural control committee estab-
lished by PART B of this Declaration as to quality of workmanship
and materials, harmony of exterior design with existing structures,
and as to location %:ith respect to topography and finish grade
elevation, and has received Design. Review Approval by the
Saratoga Planning Commission including proposed setbacks, perimeter
and interior fencing, common green and private landscape areas,
and all other re irements of Section 13.3 -1 of NS -3 Saratoga
Zoning Ordinance No fence or wall shall be erected, placed
or altered on any lot nearer to any street than the minimum
building setback line unless simi'arly approved. Sideyard fences
.shall not exceed six (6) feet in .,eight, and shall conform to the
frontyard setback lines as set forth herein. Rear line fences
-shall be in conformity with those installed'by the subdivider, or
if any other fence is installed it shall be subject to the
approval of the board of directors of the Improvement Association,
hereinafter mentioned, except as shown on the site development plan
dated 24 January 1972, Exhibit "Y ", file C -148 on file with the
planning department of the City of Saratoga, internal fencing on
the individual lots shall be limited to fifteen percent (15%) of l
the area of the lot in addition to protective fencing for the
J=aediate swimming pool area.
000032,a
;c
�y� J
TW @Eq MO ZU00Z
July 21, 1988
13777 FRUITVALE :\ VENUE . SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA —)5070
(408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ken Rothmuller
19625 Douglas Lane
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Dear Mr. Rothmuller:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
We have received the copy of your letter to Mr. Leckrone dated June
20, 1988, which you carboned to the Saratoga Planning Commission.
Although there is no application on file which is subject to the
Planning Commission approval, we have placed your letter under
written communications for 7/27/88.
Thank you for notifying the Planning Commission of your concerns.
Cordially,
Kathryn '/Caldwell
Associate Planner
KC /dsc
000033-
MR. AND MRS. DANIEL E. LECKRONE
19521 Douglass Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
MEMORANDUM
To: All Members
5150 Homeowner's Association
From: Dan and Helena
Date: August 30, 1988
Helena and I would like to thank each of you for your
patience and help over the past several months. We have talked
with most of you regarding the reconstruction and are pleased
that our plan to add a second story addition over the garage area
has your support.
Construction will be beginning soon so the mess will
probably get worse before it gets better. To give you an idea of
what the finished product will look like, we've enclosed a copy
of the architect's drawing of the front of the house. We are in
the process of identifying fire resistant building materials and
fire control systems and would be happy to make all such
information available to you if you have an interest. We've
learned the hard way about the fire statistics surrounding
attached garages and shake roofs.
Please feel free to call either Helena or me if you have any
questions.
Mme{ PVAE
Enclosure: Copy of architect's drawing �55� � PiAT
000034
.I J iII
Ma2 �-NA —�
�' / `I�
�I III f
. - -- ., - - -��
Lj
D
Z
Z
d
d
Lj
--California Land Title Company 4332098
Escrow Number 12396 -JR
After recording DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
return to file
This Declaration made and dated this 19th day of July
1972, by GEORGE W. DAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
a corporation
WHEREAS, said party is the owner of a certain tract of land
situate in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of
California, described as follows:
That certain Tract entitled "Treat No. 5150 which Map was
filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of
Santa Clara, State of 6...1!fornia, on May 25, 1972 in Book 302 pages
9 and 10 thereof, re arence is hereby made, &Ad
WHEREAS, said party is about sell property shown on said Map
which they desire to subject to certain restriction+, conditions,
oovenanta and agreements between themselves and the purchasers of
said property, u hereinafter set forth:
1IW/ SWEREFORE said party declares that the property shown on
said Map of *tract No. 5150• is held and shall be conveyed,
subject to restrictions, conditions, covenants, charges and agree -
srats set forth in the Declaration, to -wit:
PART A. RESIDENTIAL AREA COVENANTS.
A -1 Land use and building type. No lot shall be used
except for rem a purposes. No building shall be used except
for residential purposes. No building shall be erected, altered,
placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached
single - family dwelling not to exceed two and one- half_staries in
baight.
A -2 Architectural Control. No building shall be erected,
placed or altered on any of until the construction plans and
specifications and a plan showing the location of the structure'
have been approved by the architectural control committee estab-
limbed by PART 8 of this Declaration as to quality of workmanship
and materials, harmony of exterior design with existing structures
and as to location with respect to topography and finish grade
elevation, and has received Design Review Approval by Che
Saratoga Planning Commission including proposed setbacks, perimete
and interior fencing, common green and private landscape areas,
and all other recuirements of Section 13.3 -1 of NS -3 Saratoga
or al on any lot nearer to any street than the minimum
buildinq setback line unless simi`arly approved. Sideyard fences
-shall not exceed six (6) feet in aseight, and shall conform to .the
frontyard setback lines as set forth herein. Rear line fences
-shall be in conformity with those installed'by the subdivider, or
if any other fence is installed it shall be subject to the
approval of the board of directors of the Improvement Association,
hereinafter mentioned, except as shown on the site development plan
dated 24 January 1972, Exhibit •Y•, file C -148 on file with the
planning department of the City of Saratoga, internal fencing on
the individual lots shall be limited to fifteen percent (15%) of
the area of the lot in addition to protective fencing for the
immediate swimming pool area.
PART R. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE.
a�
2-1 Membership. The Architectural Control Commaittee.is
composed or George V. Day, Muriel Day, and Louis E..Lsto, C/O
George W. Day Construction Co., Inc., 14651 Big Basin way,
Saratoga, California 95070.
A majority of the committee may designate a representative to act
for it. In the event of death or resignation of any member of the
committee, the remaininq members shall have full authority to
designate his successor. Neither the members of the committee nor
its designated representative shall be entitled to any compensation
for services performed pursuant to this covenant. The committee
shall act until, at the election of the committee, the =rs of
the committee shall be transferred to the non -profi a n +
to which ra erance s hereinafter ma e.
000036
DR 88 -079 Leckrone Project Appeal
We disagree with the Planning Commission's Findings of Article
15- 45.060 of the Zoning Regulations in the following areas:
(a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy
Welsh's view of the Santa Cruz Mountains will be directly affected.
Approximately 50% of her current view will be lost by the second story
addition.
Currently, the only portion of each others house that can been seen from
their respective backyards is the top of their roof lines. If the second story
addition is erected, the large view windows in the rear of the second story
addition will look directly into Welsh's backyard and rear living areas of
their house. In addition the proposed 8 foot balcony /deck will further
reduce both parties privacy during the long, out door season in Saratoga.
Both parties will suffer reduced privacy with this addition.
The privacy issues was addressed by the commission with the suggestion of
adding some landscaping to create a privacy "wall ". Twenty foot high and
very dense plants would have to be added to create this affect. It takes
time for plants to mature to this level and this additional landscaping would
not promote the "open" feeling encouraged by the CC&Rs. Over time, these
landscape "improvements" would only decrease the view of the mountains
from the Welch "s property.
The planning commission tour (as stated in the minutes of the design review
meeting on October 26) of the proposed addition did NOT cover any other the
houses to the rear of the Leckrone project, so the privacy and view issues
were not fully explored. The following pages illustrate the privacy and view
issues, including excerpts from the Residential Design Handbook of the City
of Saratoga.
3
000037
.1 Angredient-�• . in the quality of
in l tara�toga. Privacy
problemsd impacts should be
_ :-.:rii 7yed . and addressed in the
initial --design stage, not with
q t n, measures ,_ proposed
ate=tbOught.
= molar -:; a tentionshouldlrbe given
vacy' concerns' :. on ' sub=
,._.
. sthndard small; :_.and
Aa, loft, s. -�.rt: __ - `•.
4.
sr� :�
a.
co
DO'S
• tAiwiwzc 4tc&VA-4m
U)i vkdo Uvs #ja
KVWAbOV.AA
• &riad ufper
• Qu Stn4alm-ILt
kAha-vso fo -ei roi*
Lnew
ratkcra+0sA�
Et vi tw.
DON'T'S
• hv►d wiKdow a44A
thdW-V%M k4, n,6
4f4A* i *CLGr Privacy.
M WeA 661bptk-
.:,. � �L�"�L�III�I�I�1
Mei
Welch's
House
Drawing shown to
scal e
.........................................
.............--.T::
10' bushes
100 Feet I
Property Line
95 Feet
Leckrone's
Second Story
Addition
I V to
second
story
"A
044"
10
C)
C)
C>
DR 88 -079 Leckrone Project Appeal
(c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk
The Report to the planning commission indicated that "the structure will not
appear excessively bulky... ". We disagree. if the site plan is consulted, it
shows the house is position on an angle with the closest point to the street
being the garage and the second story addition. This will be the first thing
you notice as you walk or drive by. The second story covers 1/3 of the
house. Refer to the following photo with the two story addition overlay and
excerpts from the design handbook.
A simple way to reduce the bulk is to make a single story addition. There is
more than enough'land on the Leckrone property to recreate a single story
version of additional rooms.
4 000042
POLICY.1
The bulk of a ...structure . is
related to its floor area,
height, design and relation-
ship to its surroundings. A
structure is perceived to be
bulky. vhen these elements are
combined in .such a '.vay as to
create a residence that is out
of scale, visually and struc-
turally, with `� nei hborin
residences and its..ovn. -na ura
setting. -The .residence then
appears massive," blocky, and
overwhelming to the eye. The
purpose. ., of this policy is to
ensure the.,.maximum integratiori__-
of structures with their natu-
ral and built environments.
000043
I:
IN
Poky 1 TECHN QUE #3: Use materials and c
olors to reduce bulk
DO'S
• `ao�i�rh GlevafioO6 by
us,v�q chi
rnokt�ia.Us.
• Use vta#ura.(,- u�Per
fou,Kdeuliows�iWd («ucr
rr{-iows 06 haus�.
• Use ma;teHalp, +Pna*
arcate Inec- i�v�#a;Q.
pv°I�srttwvs.
DON'T'S
• Awed la►`�e
sije
Avoid vcr�icdl orienta#icn
o6Akateviale; ow
L�*f areas.
• Dowt rte{ o,,,
I,�.Kdsca�SVAA +a
reduce, b
YES
NO
s
Before the addition:
After the addition. This is not compatible with original design
::- r.;::; :::: :::;::• :::::::.:....... :.or the rest of the residences..................
.................................................. ......................... ...... .
............... . ... .
................................................................................ ...............................
. ............... .....
000045
I
DR 68 -079 Leckrone Project Appeal
M Compatible bulk and height
The proposed second story addition will not be compatible in terms of bulk
and height with other neighboring structures. This issues was not directly
addressed in the Report to the Planning Commission. There is NO two story
residential structure on Douglass Lane within four blocks of the Leckrone
residence (refer to photos of both sides of Douglass lane on pages S to 12.
All of residences on the street are low roof, large, sprawling "George Day"
ranch designs. Within the 5150 Tract (refer to photos of all houses in the
tract on pages S to 1(0 ), there is only one, original partial two story design
out of 16. Additional setback provision were made for this and the adjacent
house. There is also one partial two story addition, but it is set way back
from the front property line and it joins the Novokovich's ranch in the back.
There are no windows in this addition which face the adjoining property.
Both of these houses are attractive two story designs which look good by
themselves and within the neighborhood setting. Guidelines from the design
manual are included which address the bulk concept.
5
000046
P-oNcy 1
TECHNIQUE #S: Design structure to fit with existing neit or mod
DO'S
• � cow�p�a�tible. uti
ib ►tied' rasiridoaFip
b�`ut s�it�iad� be,
cvvv�a�4-ib{e..
Is
DON'T'S
• Amid over4e vKi
0rusi-i rtSidt,��cu
• bo vim- -6
Va ediM
or 5+-wd ov,#-
0
0
C)
-14
YES
TIM
NO
r--:l rn it El 0
a
V
11
(41)
1'� 7 5 3
c!)
!4)
(3) C!)
c1)
f1) CIO) C1) Co
14-431
19701
11659 /9(607
117-r7-os
W
117 -17 -2]
317- /i.•70
�17'l1. -73 317- 11.'f! 1'156 5
I� 5 11
��
c» (6) to
S17•�v-71
31)-/(0 -70
j
14452
o
177-�7'LZ J
I�
I,�s2 J►
14444
(16)
co SL ACy-
317 -17 -07
C1) 14494 W
r�1
1445o
317 -12 -l4 14462
117- � 7 • Sys 597 -� �- S1.
�te) 717 -lb -G7
1157Vrib)
C,.)
397 -l7 -21
317.17 -06
iu
(r,) _
317 -1V -6b
14 Szc�
'3'1 7- 16 - 69
1170 0
e' w
317 -1(. -78
317-K
Co
t�
14751 1470
317- /(o -iL 317-11.-10
14[,25
9?7- 1i. -64
14573
4521
,7 /ri-t.2
9•17-rL -G�
i �
L N.
Do v t,.A55 L �t
f1) CIO) C1) Co
14-431
11644
14400 714700o V7 -17-51 �17'17•+�
117-r7-os
W
117 -17 -2]
J
c» (6) to
144 87 14 � s s �.
Ct) 317•!7 -S3 317 -17.52 1444 7 a1
7-17 -
317-17 ov
j
14452
tL
177-�7'LZ J
U-
14444
144701
co SL ACy-
317 -17 -07
C1) 14494 W
r�1
1445o
317 -12 -l4 14462
117- � 7 • Sys 597 -� �- S1.
14444
4 54 s
397 -l7 -21
317.17 -06
000064
. _r �,a, -ter :,,.�•, :.Ne .... � .. � ,, .... .. • �— `..: fix'.
k= ,.� .
t {Xr:.'4' dlil- :ni.:f .�.l +:Mai= .. b�..!`•�Cif.Y
@�'� � n �„ v i�...w_'li. } �" Ys Y -x " - �• .-..�r C _. •`t,+ ~ 5
. rah
i .
-• .. r )Wd:' 'PiFY/Ae°••.. °+6R: y�d}'�'r�Rp�'c;'r+K
A_
•�����_ f
Jcw
AM
IL
.a a
- i:l_ _ .,.T by : }�.r•t , rte, e -
� to
p"Prol
ti y,,
"o-NCI
4N
AIK fP
J
. . _ _ -__'-- = __�– �„o...M'a'e�•d .•a,;ca_c;• :x;41;
F
;� ���'�'� 'ltF,�xY .. ��� �+ Y � t .f.4- �rr �L v � -r+, *•'� ''t^~Ff"�' ,y��^�b�"�i`t �+
,; -�.
_
d' t
tia
.t.
.r
1 ._
- _ _
• - � iWj � r .
Sall
h
' Y. �
.W ,� ,
� �.' .: yy
*lam' - � a � :,.� � ':,`%� '��,., 'K
�. �, s `.'
��. -.. 111Y14"+tfYrs - � •r w•ur ..
�� � , -
. -r'tY • f �'��-
... .... •c. %_
_ ••rte Y•` �� � J� iC � r•. ^F'Y s
- ` a 14 ,�i�'�'
ti o �`. '� }
- +` ��,.
•�: . r
�. i . t �,
.
®• , ;
... � ... _ �ry.
�, � E¢•`
:.1 °:- ....- T
.• :��i' e
�'.t,�T.'0. .. ..
?� ��� _.. u4. . .
�"� _ .
���` +a,
. 3�I�"+�'r ++r k 1 G}"ti "p p t .ham �
-4 v }.� :J`:'��fi, �` {. s , ;_ �`�' a rm� `' r � � `"�'t°¢ rEw+�'�`;4.S;�h
<.�' =' �
IT
mp
„sx.. fir.. i�1� BEY
a:
I
r M
K
t „s2
Ce)
I 1 moo
000057
Barbara N. Hinshaw
19576 Kenosha Ct.
Saratoga,Ca. 95070
City Council
City of Saratoga
1377 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
November 22, 1988
Re: Design Review No. 88 -079 (Leckrone) appeal
Dear Council,
As an adjacent neighbor to Mr. and Mrs. Dan Leckrone, my husband
and I strongly object to the proposed second story addition to their
home. Although we sympathize with the Leckrone's fire loss, their
proposed addition, with wrap around deck, does not fit into the general
architectural scheme of our #5150 Planned Community.
Our development was originally approved with manditory common
greens which is open space maintained by the homeowners group. The
object was to give the neighborhood an open rural feeling with privacy.
The proposed addition destroys both these concepts. The Leckrones
have a very large flat lot and could do much building, within the
setbacks, without going up.
We have a two story home, but it is not an addition, we don't
have a wrap around deck, and most important, it was approved in the
original development plan with no objection. In order to build our
two story house the planning commission imposed much greater side
yard setbacks for our neighbors so there wouldn't be a conjested look.
With the proposed Leckrone addition, there is no room for greater
setbacks, hence a conjested look.
We join the majority of the homeowners in #5150 Planned Community
and ask that you deny the Leckrones a permit to build a two story
addition as it doesn't fit into the architectural scheme of our
neighborhood and will cause a lack of privacy and a conjested look.
Sincerely,
Barbara N. Hinshaw
000058
JoHN R. ARCHDEACON
19628 Kenosha Court
Saratoga, California 95070
30 November 88
Ci y Council
13777 F ruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Subject: Design Review No.88 -079 (Leckrone) Appeal
Council Members:
My wife and I endorse as emphatically as we can the view -point of Ms.
Maryanne Welch who objects to the alterations and building plan Mr.
Leckrone proposes for his home.
Ms. Welch's objections that the second story addition to Mr.Leckrone's
garage would literally eradicate her privacy and adversely impact on the
visual aesthetics of the low silhouette of this community have real merit.
Mr. Ken Rothmuller, incumbent president of our 5150 homeowner's
association, and I have independently verified Ms. Welch's contention by
establishing lines of sight between various points in the rear of her home
and the balcony and window levels of the proposed second story addition to
Mr. Leckrone's home.
Some degree of architectural mutilation of a community may happen
with the passage of time, but I urge the Council to apply preventive
measures now to mimimize if not block it by recognizing Ms. Welch's
position.
Signed,
�John R. Archdeacon
Molly T. Archdeacon
000059
RFCF.1VEr)
PLANNING DEPT.
APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council City of Saratoga
FROM: Dan and Helena Leckrone
DATE: December 1, 1988
RE: Application No. DR -88 -079
19521 Douglass Lane
APN 397 -16 -062
Cover Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 -9
Exhibits:
A Declaration of Restrictions, Parts A and B.
B (not used)
C Plan View
D -1 Site'Section.
D -2 Lesh landscape analysis.
E Photo - View from Welch window with overlay.
F Sketch of front of addition.
G Chronology.
H Letters of support for addition.
\del \resp.ldec2
1
=j
SUMMARY
I. THE PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
( "DOR ") HAVE BEEN SCRUPULOUSLY COMPLIED WITH AND HAVE IN NO
WAY BEEN INFRINGED OR AVOIDED. . . . . . . . 3
A. Two -Story Structures Are Specifically Contemplated
By Part A -1 Of The Declaration Of Restrictions. . . 3
B. The Architectural Control Committee Mechanism Has
Been Complied With . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. THE FINDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THE
PROJECT DOES NOT UNREASONABLY INTERFERE WITH THE
PRIVACY OR VIEWS OF THE SURROUNDING RESIDENCES ARE
CORRECT AND SHOULD BE AFFIRMED IN THEIR ENTIRETY. 5
A. Privacy. The Two Houses Are 195 Feet Apart And
Separated By Multiple Tiers Of Tall, Dense
Landscaping. The Narrow Gap Which Permits A Small
(8' x 151) Portion Of The Addition To Be Seen From
The Welch Kitchen Window (and vice versa) Will Be
Immediately Closed Off With A Mature Clump Of White
Birch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B. View. No Portion Of The Addition Will Rise Above
The Existing Landscape Horizon And Therefore Cannot
Materially Impact The View Of The Hills From The
Welch Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
III. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN PROFESSIONALLY DESIGNED AND
REFINED TO AVOID ANY APPEARANCE OF BULK OR HEIGHT. . . . 6
IV. THE RESULTING STRUCTURE WITH ITS TWO -STORY GARAGE END
WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD STRUCTURES, NEARLY
20% OF WHICH ARE TWO STORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
V. BEFORE $20,000 WAS SPENT PLANNING THE ADDITION, THE
FEELINGS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS WERE SOLICITED
AND NO OBJECTIONS WERE REGISTERED . . . . . . . . . . . 8
VI. IN SUMMARY, THE APPELLANTS HAVE RAISED NO ACCURATE,
RELEVANT, OR MEANINGFUL OBJECTIONS TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AND IT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 9
\del \resp.ldec2 2
000061
t
I. THE PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
( "DOR") HAVE BEEN SCRUPULOUSLY COMPLIED WITH AND HAVE IN NO
WAY BEEN INFRINGED OR AVOIDED.
A. Two -Story Structures Are Specifically Contemplated By
Part A -1 Of The Declaration Of Restrictions.
The Declaration of Restrictions ( "DOR") applicable to
Tract No. 5150 contains at PART A (titled "RESIDENTIAL AREA
COVENANTS" and attached as Exhibit A) the substantive provisions
relating to land use and building 'type, establishing a variety of
standards and limitations with respect to the construction and
use of the subject properties. Each and every such standard or
limitation has been complied with, including specifically the
stipulation of section A -1 limiting construction to single family
dwellings ... "not to exceed two'and one -half stories in height".
The DOR thereby specifically approves and contemplates two -story
structures, contrary to Appellant's assertion that the area was
planned as a one -story neighborhood.
B. The Architectural Control Committee Mechanism Has Been
Complied With.
Section A -2 entitled "Architectural Control" undertakes
to regulate development,by providing that construction plans and
specifications are to be approved by the Architectural Control
Committee established by PART B of the DOR as well as by the
Saratoga Planning Commission. PART B of the DOR is entitled
"Architectural Control Committee" and provides at section B -1
that (see Exhibit A):
- "The Architectural Control Committee is composed
of George W. Day, Muriel Day, and Louis E. Leto
(emphasis added) ... "; and that,
\del \resp.ldec2 3
000062
- "In the event of death or resignation of any member,
the remaining members shall have full authority to
designate his successor."
Since the morning after the fire destroyed the south end of the
residence in question, Mr. Leto (a member of the Architectural
Control Committee) has been deeply involved in the design and
engineering of project as it was ultimately approved by the
Planning Commission, and he has agreed to serve as the General
Contractor to oversee the construction and assure that it com-
plies in all particulars with the DOR.
To assure that the letter of the DOR as well as the
spirit has been complied with, the Architectural Control
Committee will probably have approved the plans and specifica-
tions under review by the time of the Hearing.
Thus, the contention of the Appellants that the DOR
(referred to by the Appellants as the "CC &Rs ") has somehow been
infringed or violated is incorrect. Further, Appellants provide
no explanation for the assertion that Mr. Rothmuller has somehow
replaced the Architectural Control Committee established by the
DOR.
It is interesting to note that the DOR also provides
that even if the Architectural Control Committee becomes inactive
and fails to act on a request within 30 days, "approval will not
be required and the related covenants shall be deemed to have
been fully complied with." The DOR thereby assures that it is
the action of the Planning Commission which is controlling rather
than the action or inaction of the Architectural Control
Committee.
\del \resp.ldec2 4
000063
II. THE FINDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THE PROJECT
DOES NOT UNREASONABLY INTERFERE WITH THE PRIVACY OR VIEWS OF
THE SURROUNDING RESIDENCES ARE CORRECT AND SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED IN THEIR ENTIRETY.
A. Privacy. The Two Houses Are 195 Feet Apart And Sepa-
rated By Multiple Tiers Of Tall, Dense Landscaping.
The Narrow Gap Which Permits A Small (8' x 151) Portion
Of The Addition To Be Seen From The Welch Kitchen
Window (and vice versa) Will Be Immediately Closed Off
With A Mature Clump Of White Birch.
As is apparent from Exhibit C, the boundaries with all
adjacent properties are characterized by tall, dense landscaping
most of which ranges from 20 -40 feet in height and 10 -15 feet in
depth, is evergreen in character, and creates a complete visual
barrier. The rear property line, however, has one section
approximately 25 feet in length within which the existing land-
scaping is only about 10 feet high and 8 feet thick. Even though
the buildings are nearly 200 feet apart, it is possible to stand
at the Welch kitchen window and through a narrow 10 foot 'gap in
the Welch trees, see the top half of the easternmost third of the
second story portion of the addition - -- an area about 15 feet
long and 8 feet high (Exhibits D and E). And from that vantage
point it is possible to get a long range (2001) view of the Welch
kitchen window.
In an effort to avoid even this nominal privacy issue,
the Applicant has undertaken two corrective measures outlined by
Lee Lesh landscape consultants (Exhibit D, paragraph 3).
- The planting of a mature 20 feet .tall clump of birch
trees having a head approximately 15 feet in width
which will provide complete screening of the narrow
sight envelope (cost $1,200); and,
- An intensified feeding and watering program which
will increase the height of the existing 10 foot
oleander hedge to 14 feet within 24 months (cost
$1, 000) .
\del \resp.ldec2 5
000064
These will provide a double layer of screening and no portion of
the addition will be visible during any season of the year from
the Welch window.
B. View. No Portion Of The Addition Will Rise Above The
Existing Landscape Horizon And Therefore Cannot Materi-
ally Impact The View Of The Hills From The Welch Prop-
erty.
Because of the mature landscaping throughout the neigh-
borhood, the view of the Santa Cruz mountains from the Welch
kitchen window does not begin until approximately 15 degrees
above ground level (see Exhibit E photograph.) The roof line of
the proposed addition will only rise to approximately 10 degrees
above ground level. Therefore, no portion of the proposed second
story addition will even approach the landscape horizon repre-
sented by existing landscaping. Consequently, no portion of the
Welch window's view of the Santa Cruz mountains could be impacted
by the proposed second story addition. It is physically
impossible - -- without regard to the additional screening dis-
cussed at item A above with respect to the narrow horizontal
sight envelope being screened to avoid even any nominal privacy
issue.
III. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN PROFESSIONALLY DESIGNED AND REFINED TO
AVOID ANY APPEARANCE OF BULK OR HEIGHT.
The sketch presented as Exhibit F presents a much more
realistic view of the proposed dwelling than do the relatively
stark architectural elevations. The sketch reflects existing
landscaping as well as the fact that the two -story portion of the
house sits some five feet below street level. The Applicant has
incurred the expense of a cosmetic redesign of the front facade
\del \resp.ldec2 6
000065
4
in an effort to even further increase the harmony of the design
and materials and to avoid any appearance of unnecessary bulk.
IV. THE RESULTING STRUCTURE WITH ITS TWO -STORY GARAGE END WILL
BE COMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD STRUCTURES, NEARLY 20% OF
WHICH ARE TWO STORY.
Every effort has been made by trained professionals to
incorporate the design, materials, and the feeling of the exist-
ing structure into the new structure and to assure aesthetic
harmony. Of the three houses which bound the subject property,
one - -- the Hinshaw's - -- is a two -story structure which was a
part -of the neighborhood from the beginning. A second two story
structure was added within the 5150 plat within the past three
years.
While the existence or non - existence of other two -story
structures is certainly not controlling,'the myopic observation
reported by the Appellants should be corrected. Within the
neighborhood served by Douglass Lane from Fruitvale, there are
probably at least 50 residences of which approximately 10 are
two -story structures, representing about 20% of the dwellings in
the neighborhood.
As indicated earlier, the existence or non - existence of
other two -story structures is largely irrelevant given the mature
character of the landscaping in the neighborhood. For instance,
the Hinshaw's two story home which is immediately adjacent to the
Applicant's property is quite simply not visible and therefore of
no concern.
\del \resp.ldec2 7
11i1��
V. BEFORE $20,000 WAS SPENT PLANNING THE ADDITION, THE FEELINGS
OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS WERE SOLICITED AND NO OBJEC-
TIONS WERE REGISTERED.
The Applicant went to great lengths to assure that the
nearby neighbors were given an opportunity to voice any possible
objection before substantial time and over $20,000 was invested
in the project. As is reflected in the Chronology at Exhibit G,
as the planning process began most neighbors within 500 feet - --
including specifically Ms. Welch and Mr. Rothmuller - -- were
contacted to determine if they would have any objection to the
addition of a second story to the portion of the premises being
rebuilt. No objection was raised by any such individual includ-
ing specifically the Appellants Welch and Rothmuller.
In fact, most of the property owners in the 500 foot radius
signed a letter addressed to the Planning Commission requesting
that it expedite plan approval and the issuance of a building
permit. (See Exhibit H) Ms. Welch was never asked to provide
such a letter. Mr. Rothmuller responded by suggesting that a
street elevation of the plan when developed be made available to
all members of the Homeowners Association. However, he regis-
tered no objection to the project.
The first set of the final plans emerged in late July and
were reviewed in detail with Mr. Rothmuller. Once again he
voiced no objection.
As a further courtesy to the members of the Homeowners
Association, a copy of the street elevation together with a brief
update of the status of the project was sent to each. No objec-
tion was raised or suggested by anyone until Ms. Welch appeared
at the Design Review Hearing after the project had been approved
and voiced a wide spectrum of objections.
\del \resp.ldec2 8
•
000067
a
w
VI. IN SUMMARY, THE APPELLANTS HAVE RAISED NO ACCURATE,
RELEVANT, OR MEANINGFUL OBJECTIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMIS-
SION'S RECOMMENDATION AND IT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.
Every effort has been made to assure that the project in
question complies in all particulars with all applicable rules
and regulations. Not only have minimum standards been complied
with, but they have been exceeded in such areas as the specifica-
tion of a report -in alarm system, a fire -proof roof having the
appearance but not the danger of wooden shakes, and the re-
roofing the entire structure to assure aesthetic harmony from day
one.
The proposed addition was scrutinized carefully by the
Planning Commission Staff which concluded that all design regula-
tions have been complied with, that the site was suitable for the
development of a second story, that the design was appropriate,
that there would be no loss of privacy to nearby residents, and
that there would be no loss of view.
Although the Applicant had no obligation to do so, from the
outset it solicited objections from neighbors. The Applicant
provided information on several occasions and never received a
single objection. On the contrary, Applicant received nearly a
dozen letters of support. Not until after some $20,000 had been
spent on the project by the Applicant, and not until after the
Planning Commission had adopted the recommendation of the Staff
and approved the project was any objection voiced. Then and only
then did Ms. Welch and Mr. Rothmuller emerge.
It is respectfully submitted that there exists no meritori-
ous objection to the project as approved, and that this appeal
should be rejected and the finding of the Planning Commission
affirmed.
\del \resp.ldec2 9
November 30, 1988
Mr. and Mrs. D. Leckrone
19521 Douglass Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Dan and Helena:
It is unfortunate that your reconstruction and addition has not proceeded in
a timely fashion. As homeowners, we would like you to get your house
repaired, but we also expect you to follow the restrictions and procedures
in the 5150 Homeowner's CC &Rs. These CC &Rs were drafted for the common
good of all of the homeowners so that the initial concept of this
development would be preserved into the future.
The procedures for additions and reconstruction are quite clearly spelled
out in the CC &Rs. Since you are a lawyer, I would expect that the provisions
in A -2 and B -1 were fully understood. Unfortunately, you did not comply
with the these procedures. The steps which should have been followed,
included:
1. Submit a full set of plans (front, back, side, top, etc.) to the
Architectural Control Committee. In section B -1 it states that
this responsibility and powers shall be "transferred to the non - profit
corporation..."
2. The committee would review the plans and either approve or
disapprove the proposal. .
3. If the plans were approved by the committee, then they would be
submitted to the city, along with the committee's recommendation.
These steps were NOT followed. Instead, approval letters (pre- written by
you) without any plans were supplied to the homeowners for their signature.
Another letter with only a front view was supplied much later for "their
information ", not their approval. This letter further indicated that work
�lfl,'
would begin soon, implying all the necessary approvals have been satisfied.
I requested twice that you make a presentation to all of the homeowner's
with your plans, but you never accepted my offer.
Finally, at the last homeowner's meeting, information collected from the
city files by another homeowner was presented. This was the first time a
majority of homeowners had an opportunity to review, in detail, your
building plans. After reviewing this information, an overwhelming majority
of the homeowners (75 %) disapproved of your proposal. The reasons for
disapproval were many, including: reduced privacy and restricted views by
adjacent neighbors, visible night -time lights, poor appearance, excessive
bulk close to the street, lack of harmony with other houses in tract, and
reduction in property value.
The appeal will be heard next week at the Saratoga City Council meeting.
We fully expect the council to overturn the planning commission's ruling. In
the unlikely event that this does not happen, we have sought legal advice for
follow -on actions. An injunction to prevent any construction and the legal
process for enforcing 5150's Homeowner's CC &Rs are the next logical steps.
These actions will only delay your construction and cost the homeowner's
money, neither of which is a very satisfactory outcome. I strongly suggest
you reconsider your addition plans in light of the homeowner's reactions.
You certainly have more than enough land to extend you house to the rear for
your recreation and exercise room. This would eliminate the homeowner's
objections and would seem to offer you a number of advantages over your
present, including: easy access to the backyard and pool area, complete
privacy, elimination of wasted space for stairs, and a far better return on
your investment.
I hope you will consider the issues raised and proposals offered in this
letter. The sooner this matter is settled, the better for you and the entire
tract.
Sincerel ,
G(JIG�tJ
en Rothmuller
President 5150 Homeowners Association
r
., r
000010
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: 12/7/88
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA ITEM K3
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
V -88 -017, DR -88 -055; 21425 Tollgate Road; Achkar - Appeal of the
SUBJECT: Planning Commission decision denying variance and design review
applications to allow a new 7,661 sq. ft. home where 5,220 sq.
ft. is the maximum allowed
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Recommended Motion: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning
Commission.
Report Summary: On October 26, 1988, the Planning Commission denied
variance and design review applications for a new 7,661 sq. ft. two -story
single family home in the NHR zoning district. The maximum area allowed on
the lot per Ordinance 15- 45.060 is only 5,220 sq. ft. The applicant
appealed the Planning Commission decision.
Fiscal Impacts•
Attachments:
Motion and Vote
A:achkar
None
1. Memo from the Planning Department
2. Appeal letter dated 10/31/88
3. October 26, 1988 Planning Commission meeting minutes
(amended on 11/9/88)
4. Report to the Planning Commission, 10/26/88
5. Plans
000001
0919W o1 O&M °
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE: 12/7/88
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: V -88 -017, DR -88 -055; 21425 Tollgate Road, Achkar
Background /Description
On 10/26/88, the Planning Commission denied design review and variance
applications for a new two -story home in excess of the allowable floor
area. The Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings and
denied the applications with a unanimous vote.
Project Description
The proposed home is located on Tollgate Road, one lot away from Deer
Springs Court. An existing long driveway leads to a fairly level area on a
designated major ridge line, where the home is proposed to be located. The
remaining site is characterized by moderate to steep northwest facing
slope. The level area of the lot is bare while the slopes are vegetated
with shrubs and oak trees. An open space easement 60 feet wide at the
maximum, exists at the eastern corner of the lot, and a 30 -40 ft. wide
slope easement exists along the front property line.
Analysis of the Appeal
The applicant based the appeal to the City Council on the design of the
house which, in the opinion of the applicant, is compatible with the
surrounding homes, will not impact the adjacent homes, and all the
neighbors support the application. The applicant feels that the proposal
meets the criteria of the design review regulations, except for the size.
Response: The Planning Commission was unable to make the required variance
findings regardless of the design of the home. They recognized that the
subject lot was not exceptional in size, shape or topography, which are
findings necessary to justify the variance. The allowable floor area for
any lot in the City over 10% in slope must be adjusted based upon the lot
size and slope.
Moreover, the limitations on this lot including slope and open space
easement and the location of the lot at a major ridge line, should not
allow a home excessive in size. The applicant could develop the lot and
000002
Memo to City Council
Re: V -88 -017, DR -88 -055; Achkar, 21425 Tollgate Road
build a home of reasonable size (5,220 sq. feet). All the new applications
for homes submitted after 11/9/87, when the amendment to the design review
ordinance became effective, including those in the NHR zoning district, are
restricted in floor area relative to the size and average slope on the lot.
The proposed home was to be about 47% over the allowable floor area.
Granting the variance would constitute a special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other lots in the same zoning district. At the
10/26/88 meeting, the Planning Commission also indicated that the adjacent
large homes would not be approved today after the new design review
ordinance became effective.
Design Review Findings
The required design review findings cannot be made, primarily because the
proposed home would exceed maximum allowed development and impact the
adjacent home to the rear. Since the subject site is immediately
adjacent, at the rear, to the R -1- 40,000 zoning district, a variance for a
larger home would be incompatible with the smaller homes allowed in the R-
1- 40,000 district. Further, the proposed 7,661 sq. ft. home was designed
around a courtyard which increased the bulky appearance of the home. In
addition to the size of the home, its location on a major ridge line could
extend the impact of the home on its surroundings. A reduction in size of
the home by 2,441 sq. ft., to meet the Code restriction and a reduction of
height to meet the subdivision height limitation of 21 ft. at the maximum,
will significantly mitigate the perception of bulk and the impact of the
home, in such a prominent location, on the surrounding area.
Other Consideration
An amendment to the CC &R's was approved by the Council on 7/9/85 to allow a
two -story home on the subject lot ( #12). However, the height of the home
was limited to 21 ft. maximum and not to exceed an elevation of 981 ft.,
unless approved by the City. The proposed home is 26 ft. in height.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision
of the Planning Commission. The applicant can resubmit plans for a new
home at any time.
Step en Emslie
Planning Director
SE /ta /dsc
000003
11
101 S;
$
Date Received:
Hearing Date:
Fee :
CITY USE
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant:
Address:
�.4To f it /7 J
Telephone: L4
Name of Applicant: _Cub,
Project File No.:
Project Address:
- a '
Project Description: �jp .0�
Decision Being Appealed: r
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
- � L
^Y,i�'• + +�A'L ' S- signature
AV
V GCv�
*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.
/ 0� TIITS APPI.TC,%TION MUST BE SUBMITTED IVITI-11N TEN 10 CALENDAR DAYS Or.
b�O
r' U, D,\ • L U
KV-
000004 .
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8
OCTOBER 26, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Rose reiterated his claim that other developments had not had the same requirements imposed;
he was agreeable to a Continuance in order to present information from his engineers.
HARRISBURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE SUP -87 -001.2 TO DECEMBER 14, 1988. Passed
6 -0.
12. DR -88 -005 Arhkar, 21425 Tollgate Road, request for design review approval of a new
V -88 -017 two -story single family home in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of
the City Code. Variance approval is requested to allow 7,661 sq. ft. floor
area where 5,220 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed per Chapter 15 of the City
Code.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 26, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:38 P.M.
Ms. Fenelli, Representing the Applicant, commented as follows:
- Reviewed the Application and presented slides of the pad elevations
- Pad elevations were approved in the General Grading Plan at the time of Subdivision Approval
- The pad elevation under consideration was established with the agreement that only a single
story house would be permitted
- Noted site constraints, concluding that there was virtually no place to move the house on the lot
- Lowering the pad 8 ft. would require removal of 16,000 cu. yds. of soil
- Adjacent homes, square footages and slope percentages were compared with this proposal
- Perception of bulk: Applicant would be making no change to the contours of the site; the only
grading required would be under the present pad in order to construct the garage, wine cellar
and mechanical equipment room; perception of this house would be a one story house
- Confirmed that proposed house was compatible with adjacent homes; noted the view of the
house as one approached from Tollgate Rd.
- Preservation of Natural Landscaping: landscape plan of Applicant was reviewed
- Residential Privacy: every effort had been made to maintain a low profile
- View Impacts: only one home would be impacted by this house
- Believed that Design Review Criteria had been followed with the exception of floor area ratio
- Reviewed Variance Findings presented by the Applicant and submitted a petition and letter
Ms. Lynn Sprague cited the following concerns:
- Perception of bulk: cited view of the house as one approached such
- Square footage allowed: if variances were granted, a precedent could be set
Mr. Sheldon Glen, Lot 10, stated that the homeowner should be able to maximize the use of site;
there were no traffic problems and the proposed structure would not impact other homes.
Ms. Emil Acquilus, Lot 13, cited traffic hazards from the narrow road.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:55 P.M. Passed 6 -0.
Commissioner Harris stated the Commission did not view square footage as the only measure of
evaluating a home; however, this was the only tool available in addition to the Design Review
Guidelines. She reviewed the considerations regarding Lot 9 and stated that she could not make
the Variance Findings required.
Commissioner Siegfried concurred; homes previously approved would not be approved today.
Commissioner Burger also could not make the required Findings; she suggested that the design be
reduced and brought back to the Commission for consideration.
BURGER /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO DENY V -88 -017. Passed 6 -0.
BURGER /HARRIS MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR -88 -055. Passed 6 -0.
000005
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Tsvia Adar
DATE: 10/26/88 PLNG. DIR. APPRV.
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -88 -055, V -88 -017; 21425 Tollgate Rd.
APPLICANT /OWNER: Achkar
APN: 503 -28 -122 Q
Ira ■
'+
I
]n •I ++ ) +I -1'91 )tl1a+ apt-go •9t
•Lr1/ tltlrl pd t1t
T
u2al W> +/r
l.1� 1Jr9e r -6-,f :il 6-(I
,..
1WI
t `Y,{+ (11 91
vof -ss -++ i�
!n
1f1,
LIT
f,
G o
Y17
03.
26-99
-A•
..•=
(I)
rlv
1 +L7
O +' °'
1W'1
(Itl
L1115 \2Z
,d �� 'p
.
y
a•IYw
503
�•�•M
,�
A`
♦�� 921
q
00
I+NA
N51p
•
•
M1
M1'n• lef
got-.- a�
101 -t1
II
I
also
, +310
17!71 (1)
f9n•tt•ta
ql
(m
,JY17
1
I
2 sn
of -99•711 IH
M -,.
1). W. w
,e1 -at -It
,
1199{
�
SIt01 (f01
l'O afCH! ilOal p9)
f.l•I.. 9a
1.9.22.11 M-H -ti
!*
I.a01 4) l
tatted
••
(to
''�Y
�EEPyrEL
al�l.■L
(9)
I.asaty ,araM1.t� ^�
t,otr
,v *mm
fofsl of +° :
nt +la frfr C
+r. 9
N 9.N fif
sir,
In at
13)
7of•ai -.1 1 +616 tq
r f •)
Atr
p�,o
t1a
r Mt -ai•ef ),
1,.
t � ,
111.
I.ao1 c1u
uaaf2fat
{IIt�A1
0'
/O1 -aa -�O 117t. ( ■1
1921 -ta -oa
61.6-2 +ee
�,
a
91111
fA
O
V.
M9i1J.
L,a
[111111)
�e +NV
sop, /{�j, +•
.a �Jf fi
4 4
n n1- �e yv v
sr
J u11{fil
L1Cp <n) -1f•e�
x111, f.6- 91•a9f A
fOf - ♦ °- b FJ K M•
f.f -1t•�1
_...w war
me
File No. }� -"��� V%$2-17
PLANNER'S WORKSHEET
JTrails and pathways map checked
✓ vicinity /locator map included
✓ Dimensions shown on plot plan
Adjacent structures
Directional arrow
Trees labelled
Plans reflect field conditions
Heights shown on cross sections
Consistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans
✓ Natural and finished grade on cross sections
V Height of underfloor & attic areas included in floor area calculations
Roof pitch shown
LAll sheets included in submittal with required reductions
✓ Colors submitted
Staff Reports
✓ Conditions from other agencies /department correct
V Consistent figures throughout report
✓ History files examined
V Correct address & application number on all pages of the report
Description consistent with advertisement
Plans labelled
Order of attachment consistent with list
V/ All attachments included
V Typographical errors corrected
Dates on the resolutions correct
JApplicant notified of recommendation
✓ Applicant notified that staff report available Fri. 3 -4:00 p.m.
A:checklist 6/88
I ,Ift
File No. DR -88 -055, V -88 -017; 21425 Tollgate Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed: 5/23/88
Application complete: 7/25/88 (The applicant requested that
staff schedule the application for the
10/26/88 Planning Commission meeting)
Notice published: 10/12/88
Mailing completed: 10/13/88
Posting completed: 10/6/88
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests design review approval
of a new two -story single family home in the NHR zoning district per
City Code Section 15- 45.060 (a)(1) and (3). Variance from Ordinance
15- 45.060, is also requested to allow 7,661 sq. ft. floor area where
5,220 sq. ft is the maximum allowed.
PROJECT DISCUSSION: The proposed home exceeds the allowable floor
area by 2,441 sq. ft. and overbuilds the lot. No exceptional
conditions exist on the lot that can serve as grounds for the
variance approval. Granting the variance will constitute special
privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other lots in the NHR
zoning district, submitted after 11/9/87.
The proposed large home is designed around a courtyard with fairly
long elevations (104 ft. and 116 ft.) and will appear massive and
incompatible with the adjacent homes, mainly with the homes to the
rear within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. In addition, the home
is placed on a major ridge line and will stand out further and
impact 'the surrounding area. The home should be moved below the
ridge elevation so as not to extend 8 ft. above the top of the ridge.
Staff is unable to make the required design review findings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
applications.
ATTACHMENTS:
Denial of the design review and variance
1. Staff Analysis
2. Applicant's variance findings
3. Plans, Exhibit A
TA /dsc
1
I II1.
DR -88 -055, V -88 -017; 21425 Tollgate Road
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: NHR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential
Hillside Conservation
PARCEL SIZE: 1.393 acres (60,679 sq. ft.)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 26.2%
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 1404 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 10 Ft.
Fill: -0- Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: -0- Ft.
MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior: Light Champagne Beige
stucco #69, dark beige "Kingfish" #05 -400. Roof: Red -brown tile.
PROPOSAL
LOT COVERAGE: 24.6% (14,927 sq. ft.)
HEIGHT: 26 ft.
SIZE OF
STRUCTURE:
Cabana:
Lower Floor:
First Floor:
TOTAL:
SETBACKS: Front:
Rear:
Right Side:
Left Side:
260
sq.
ft.
1,243
sq.
ft.
6,158
sq.
ft.
7,661
sq.
ft.
107 ft.
81 ft.
45 ft.
26 ft.
CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
15,000 sq. ft.
26 ft.
5,220 sq. ft.
Front:
30
ft.
Rear:
60
ft.
Right Side:
20
ft.
Left Side:
20
ft.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed home is located on Tollgate Road,
one lot away from Deer Springs Court. An existing long driveway
leads to a fairly level area on a designated major ridge line, on
which the home is proposed to be located. The remaining site is
characterized by moderate to steep northwest facing slope. The
level area of the lot is bare while the slopes are vegetated with
shrubs and oak trees. An open space easement exists at the eastern
corner of the lot, and a slope easement exists along the front
property line.
Variance Findings
Staff is unable to make the following variance findings:
The subject lot is not exceptional in size, shape or topography.
The allowable floor area for any lot in the NHR zoning district must
be adjusted for the lot size and slope
F,
DR -88 -055, V -88 -017; 21425 Tollgate Road
Moreover, the limitation on this lot by slope and open space
easement, and by the location of the lot at a major ridge line,
should not allow a home excessive in size. The applicant can
develop the lot and build a home of a reasonable size of 5,220 sq.
feet. There are other homes in the NHR zoning district which are
restricted in floor area relative to the size and average slope on
the lot. All the new homes submitted after 11/9/87 are subject to
the same floor area standard. There are other homes in the vicinity
which exceed the allowable floor area according to the current
zoning ordinance. However, these homes complied with the code
requirements at the time of submittal. The home on 21449 Tollgate
Road, approved in 1980, exceeds the current allowable floor area by
2.4 %, and the home at 14599 Deer Springs Road, approved in 8/87, is
about 10% over the current allowable floor area. The proposed home
will be about 47% over the allowable floor area. Granting the
variance will constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other lots in the same zoning district.
Design Review Findings
The proposed home will overbuild the lot and overwhelm the adjacent
home to the rear. The lot is immediately adjacent at the rear to R-
1- 40,000 zoning district, and will be incompatible with the homes
allowed on smaller lots. The proposed 7,661 sq. ft. home is
designed around a courtyard which increases the bulky appearance of
the home. In addition to the large size of the home, its location
on a major ridge line will extend the impact of the home on its
surroundings. The home should be relocated at least 8 ft. below the
top of the ridge line elevation (Ordinance 15- 14.110(a)).
Road Access
The existing driveway and the inside radius of the driveway is not
adequate for the fire access and should be widened to meet Saratoga
Fire District standards.
Grading
The proposed amount of grading is 1,404 cu. yds. and 10 ft. deep.
It is required mainly at the garage area and to widen the narrow
access driveway and the turnaround area. The applicant's intention
is to lower the pad elevation by the garage area in order to reduce
the slope of the existing driveway which is narrow and steep and
does not meet the Fire District requirements.
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the variance and design review applications.
3
00001..0
FILE NO.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
(Supplement to Variance Application)
Variance applications are requests to construct structures or create lots,
parking spacings, etc., that do not conform to the regulations of the
zoning district in which the site is located. Five (S) findings must be
made to obtain approval. (Additional findings are required for variances
pertaining to signs and parking). The findings point to the special
circumstances that would cause unnecessary hardship and difficulties
inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The
special circumstances pertain to the physical characteristics of the site,
including site size, dimensions, shape and topography. The circumstances
are to be site specific and not pertain to all properties within the zoning
district.
Please describe in clear, concise language how your project would meet the
required findings below:
1. A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance.
'Ile Cbjecti*le cf the a IxEr oe is to xe:bm the pareptim cf bulk by xwb= q the height and
Sias cf a residmm 'Il e U _qhape desyi,.c�n of this build=, cueaotly udriinda� the vis�ral =rrtim
Cf the b�uldLn3 f= �y d mctirn, `� reb red=rxT the Pareptim & bilk. Adam to the
34-Me fXt s't rrbrd wm d cmag .V restr-ict the Uyim area withait c aisii7T aN pmurtml dzl g'
in the bulk cf the have.
2. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that are
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the
property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same
zoning district, (The exceptional circumstances are not a result from
actions of of the owner.)
�. - ■• q- -� _a� ��- •• - �•tr •• •i y �.a••a�■, �i• ••. =• -•:.r .a ?11 -•� -� •.lncl�_�. 1
• • •� •� ■� -- �• • • •� • • • - • c • i a - • - ••- r MM - r • • •
0 Zile
•� • = a •- • - �_tr•_r •v •i •
3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same
zoning district.
laaa- - .� •- rye- •i -� i� •i •oil om •one
w•_•r • •• • 1.1 c- • ■•- - •i aaM •a••.•
1 = - - •-- �=-+• - a ••• • ■•
041 6 1- • • 1 111 -• • - .•
1■- •,per ••11 =- .• r• • ■• ••� / -f •• n...•a.• a -a •- p- -• .�a- •••.r•- .• •• .• • r
6 000011
4. Granting the Variance "will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning
district.
M3V c 1E the Lots umthm this szxhvimm have a lam porti,m cf the Ict qn is quite std.
Rr tract part, steep areas are in c�ez space Itit 1!11
sia� �atiam. 21is lot has a large and flat building pad 41ich easily y�mcbbes in
the
wi y M gnxum �
portirn crF the Lot is no greabed than the �' °D� ai flat
cf buildiM site a wage ai the adjaoent lc is
S. Granting the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
- •Ir. . •1 ■ - .� •- goals- M Y - • -
6-s • a • - r1 - • •- a ■- it • _
Z ON
■• • •r r c_ •� • • n c i� i -
I hereby certify that all the information contained in the supplement is,
to my knowledge and belief, true and cor41,1.1XI14- ectly represented.
Name A •
Signature
000012
12127 Marilla Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
November 30, 1988
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: DR -88 -055; V -88 -017
To the Members of the Council:
I'm writing to express my opposition to the granting of a var-
iance requested in the above referenced case.
Although I have another commitment on Dec. 7 and cannot attend
the public hearing, I would like my objection included in the
record.
Having some knowledge of the city's formulas for maximum
square footage allowed on hillside property, I believe those for-
mulas are reasonable when viewed from the perspective of maintaining
reasonable open space and scale in hillside areas for all Saratoga
residents as well as nearby property- owners.
The appellant in this case seeks permission for an overage of
nearly 47 percent. Appellant knew, or should have known, the maximum
buildable area under current Saratoga regulations when the lot was
purchased. To then proceed to design a house nearly half again as
large as the allowable maximum seems to flout both the letter and
the spirit of city policy. A smaller overage for justifiable design
reasons might deserve more sympathetic consideration.
As the matter stands, I oppose this request for a variance.
Since
Robert D. Ingle
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. /5' ,3J AGENDA ITEM L
MEETING DATE: December 7, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
j
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PARKING RESTRICTIONS ALONG SARATOGA
AVENUE AT LUTHERIA TW
Recommended Motion: ,
Adopt Resolution No. MV- , prohibiting parking along a portion of the
southeasterly side of Saratoga Ave. at Lutheria Way.
Report Summar
There presently exists a limited sight distance problem for vehicles entering
Saratoga Avenue from Lutheria Way. This problem initially is caused to a certain
extent by 2 large oak trees located on both sides of Lutheria Way and when there
are vehicles parked along Saratoga Avenue in this. area, the problem is compounded.
By restricting parking along the southeasterly side of Saratoga Avenue for 115 feet
southwesterly of Lutheria Way and for 130 feet northeasterly of Lutheria Way, the
problem will be lessened.
The Public Safety Commission supports this proposed parking restriction.
Fiscal-Impacts:
The cost to place the "No Parking" signs on Saratoga Avenue at Lutheria Way
should amount to approximately $150.00 and would cane from the Traffic Safety
Budget (3033- 3010).
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. MV
2. Memos from Public Safety Comni.ssion.
3. Memos from City Engineer.
Motion and Vote:
•
0
RESOLUTION NO. MV-
RESOLUTION PRDHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION
OF SARATOGA AVENUE AT LUPHERIA WAY
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
Section 1: The following portions of street in the City of Saratoga are
hereby declared to be congested areas and the following limits for parking
of motor vehicles are hereby established for said portions of said street.
NAME OF STREET
Saratoga Avenue
Saratoga Avenue
DESCRIPTION
Southeasterly side between the
southerly line of Lutheria Way
and 115 feet southwesterly.
Southeasterly side between the
northerly side of Lutheria Way
and 130 feet northeasterly.
PARKING LIMIT
No Parking Anytime
No Parking Anytime
This section shall beccue effective at such time as the proper signs and /or
markings are installed as delineated above.
The above the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of
1988, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
13777 FR1`ITVALE AVENUE • S,- \R,-\ "I-OG,-\, CALIFORNIA 950 0
(408) 867 -3438
November 18, 1988
To: City Engineer
From: Community Services Director
�4
r ,
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
Subject: Proposed Parking Restrictions along Saratoga Avenue
at Lutheria Way
You will recall that you submitted a report to the PSC for con-
sideration at their October meeting recommending that parking be
eliminated for specified distances on either side of Lutheria Way
along Saratoga Avenue because parked cars made it difficult for
traffic leaving Lutheria Way to travel on Saratoga Avenue to
observe cross traffic. At the October meeting of the Commission,
the Commissioners asked that the property owners be notified
regarding your proposal, and given an opportunity to show cause
why the City should or should not take the actions you recommend-
ed. Based on the information you provided me, I wrote letters to
all of the property owners outlining the details of your propos-
al, and inviting them to attend the PSC meeting.
At its regular meeting on 11/14/88, the PSC reconsidered your
recommendation on this issue. They noted that none of the
residents invited to come to the meeting were in attendance. In
light of this, they chose to support your staff recommendation to
specifically prohibit parking along the SE side of Saratoga
Avenue for 115'in a SW direction from Lutheria Way, and for 130'
NE of Lutheria Way as you proposed in your original 9/28/88
report.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
jm
cc: PSC
Er -man, Dorseyg a
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Director of Ccm nzdty Services DATE: 10 -24 -88
FROM: City Engineer
SUBJECT: proposed parking Restriction on Saratoga Avenue
at Lutheria Way
In response to the public Safety Commission's concern regarding the
property owners being affected due to the proposed parking restriction
on Saratoga Avenue at Lutheria Way, there are no residences fronting
Saratoga Avenue within the limits of the proposed restriction. Both
of the homes where this restriction is proposed front on Lutheria Way,
of the two other homes; one to the southwest of Lutheria Way fronts
on Saratoga Avenue with no proposed restriction along its frontage;
and the other hame fronts on Juniper Lane with no restriction proposed
for its Saratoga Avenue side.
Attached is map showing the above addressed homes in question, along
with the proposed parking restrictions.
Let me know if you need any additional information on this matter..
S. Shook
City Engineer
RSS /df
Attachment
SCLI G �
13 zdo
S�
�03
FD7- 24-23.
J
N
397 -24 -42
C.-W1z
C14232 Saea,.jy�-,q
Wi //� s, Currie H.
Hawthorne Farm
Or /ea n , Va.
0 397-23 -36
Sullivan, Margot J.
14221 LutheriQ ivy.
Sara to ga , G a. 9� G 7C
03 .397 -24- Z3
Hoover, Char /es R.
/420o Luflaer,a 14/y.
Sara tv 94 � C«. 950 /C
3 9 7 -24- 4,Z
Ishi hQr.2, Mak!
14199 ✓4 n ipc''r _ /r,
�y
2fr.
V'��
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
(408) 867.3438
October 20, 1988
To: City Engineer
From: Community Services Director
' S� � 'LA 9070
IL MEMBERS:
OCT 21 1988 MarthaAClevenger
CITY pp David Moyles
SARATOG onald Peterson
CITY ENGINEER'S- peryCL- Sturzman
Subject: Proposed Parking Restriction on Saratoga Avenue
at Lutheria Way
This is in response to your memorandum of September 28, 1988, to
the Public Safety Commission concerning the above referenced
subject.
At the regular meeting that the Saratoga Public Safety Commission
held on October 10, 1988, the Commission unanimously decided to
table this matter until their November 14 meeting. Because your
recommendation involved the establishment of a no parking zone
along Saratoga Avenue, the Commission felt that the affected
property owners should be informed of this proposal before any
action is taken. The Commission felt that a total of four
property owners along Saratoga Avenue on either side of Lutheria
Way would be affected and asked that they be informed of the
matter coming before the Commission on November 14.
Please follow up on the Commission's request. If you would
Prefer that I notify the property owners of this meeting, I will
be happy to do so as soon as you provide me with their names and
addresses. Please feel free to contact me if you have any ques-
tions.
jm
cc: Erman Dorsey
PS
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Public Safety Commission DATE: 09 -28 -88
FROM: City Engineer
SUBJECT: Proposed Parking Restriction on Saratoga Avenue
at Lutheria Way
We have been requested, by a resident of Lutheria Way to prohibit
parking along a portion of Saratoga Avenue at its intersection with
Lutheria Way.
Presently, there are very large oak trees on the southeasterly edge of
Saratoga Avenue located at both sides of Lutheria Way. Recently one of
the two large oaks southwesterly of Lutheria was removed as it was dead.
The existing trees along with any vehicles parked along Saratoga Avenue
in this area present a difficult sight distance for vehicles needing to
enter Saratoga Avenue from Lutheria Way.
We recommend that parking be prohibited along the said southeasterly side
of Saratoga Avenue for 115 feet southwesterly of Lutheria Way and for 130
feet northeasterly of Lutheria Way. This prohibition of parking is not
going to completely eliminate the sight distance problem, but it will
certainly improve it.
There is no accident history at this location of which the limited sight
d stance was factor.
S. Shook
City II�g' mpr
1 Attac nnent
V
_ V
P �
O GP.
XI
1 Z- Z4 "Tiar, k Oak
TOO
SCALE:
6a ' /Oo K
o "
P �
5 /
��6 Z
lo�c � oad oOA
� flCe �ecen t!y
/rmb✓ed.
O . �
DRAWN BY
f 00,-s ax
APPROVED BY
1
CITY OF SARATOGA s`A`E
HOR. 1 = Showi7
STANDARD DRAWING VERT. 1 =
DATE
Y127/ee
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1S�3'� ;
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: Dec. 07, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering
j
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR STOP SIGN ON ST. CHARLES STREET AT SIXTH STREET
Recommended Motion:
Adopt. Resolution No. MV- establishing a stop intersection at St. Charles
and Sixth Street.
Report Summary:
Resulting from a request, by a.citizen, to consider installing a stop sign on
St. Charles Street at its intersection with Sixth Street, a review was conducted
by staff.
This intersection has narrow approaches and limited sight distance and motorists
use St. Charles Street as a "short cut" from Oak Street to Sixth Street.
Although there is no accident history at this intersection, a stop sign should
be installed on St. Charles'Street @ Sixth Street in order to more clearly establish
right-of-way.
The Public Safety Commission unanimously supports the installation of a stop
sign on St. Charles Street at Sixth Street.
Fiscal-impacts:
The cost to place a stop sign and paint the.appropriate markings would amount
to appoximately $150.00 and would come from the Traffic Safety Budget (3033 - 3010).
Attachments:
1.,. Resolution No. MV-
Memo from Public Safety Commission.
3. -Memo from City Engineer. ,
Motion and Vote:
RESOLUTION NO. MV-
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE INTER.SECI'ICN OF
ST. CHARLES STREET AND SIXTH STREET AS A STOP INTERSECTION
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTICN I. The following intersection in the City of Saratoga is hereby
designated as a stop intersection.
St. Charles Street All vehicles traveling on St. Charles St.
southerly bound shall stop before entering
Sixth Street.
This section shall become effective at such time as the proper signs
and /or markings are installed.
The above and foregoing was passed and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Saratoga.at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of December,
1988, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
�0
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
November 18, 1988
To: City Engineer
COUNCIL MEMBERS
I Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
" efv David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
From: Community Services Director
Subject: Request for Stop Sign on St. Charles at 6th Street
This is in response to your memorandum dated 11/3/88 to the PSC
which made the recommendation to install a stop sign on St.
Charles Street at its intersection with 6th Street in order to
more clearly establish the right -of -way for traffic on 6th
Street.
At its regular meeting on 11/14/88, the Saratoga PSC reviewed
Your report, and unanimously decided to support your staff recom-
mendation.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Fri
nwi��ql
... . •
jm
cc: PSC
00 (5&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Public Safety Commission DATE: 11 -3 -88
FROM: City Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Stop Sign on St. Charles at Sixth Street
We have been requested, by Mrs. Joseph Ryan of 15325 Norton Road,
to consider installing a stop sign on St. Charles Street at its
intersection with Sixth Street. With the recent construction of
condominituns on St. Charles Street, there is considerably more
traffic coming out of St. Charles Street at Sixth Street; also
vehicles use St. Charles Street as a "short cut" from Oak Street
to Sixth Street.
the physical characteristics of this intersection, i.e. narrow
approaches and limited sight distances, cause the "cannon sense"
driver on St. Charles Street to cane to a full stop before entering
Sixth Street.
Although there is no accident history at this intersection, we are
recce rending that a stop sign be installed on St. Charles Street at
its intersection with Sixth Street in order to more clearly establish
right -of -way. Under Section 21800(b) of the California Vehicle Code
a driver on a ternunating highway (road) shall yield to vehicles on
the through highway (cross street).
Ro S. Shook
City Engineer
RsS /df
Attachment
L� CAT /OH MAP
*fO,OOSED STOP 514;Al
_ST CHART Es ST, OJT S /XTy ST.
v '
� e � A\e
13777 FRL'IT\/'ALE A\' LIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867'3438
NOV 04 1986 COUNCIL MEMBERS:
November 4, 1988
Mrs. Joseph Ryan
15325 Norton Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mrs. Ryan:
Karen Anderson
CITY OF SARATOGA Martha Clevenger
CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE David Movies
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
This is to inform you that your request for the City to install a
stop sign on St. Charles Street will be considered by the
Saratoga Public Safety Commission at their regular meeting on
November 14, 1988. This meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. and will
be held in the "Senior Lounge" portion of the Saratoga Community
Center (directly behind City Hall). You are welcome to attend
this meeting in support of your request.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
�ToddW. Ar4�bw
Community Services Director
jm
cc: Public Safety Commission
City Engineer
L,21�. Traffic Technician
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.3
MEETING DATE: 12 -7 -88
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
i
SUBJECT: FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL FOR SD 88 -012
OAK PLACE, CHARLES CHEATHMI
Recommended Motion:
Approve Resolution No. SD 88- 012 -01 approving Final Bulding Site.
Report Summary:
1. SD 88 -012 is ready for Final Building Site Approval.
2. Owner has completed all conditions for Final Building Site.
3. Owner has paid all fees.
Fiscal-Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
1., Resblution SD 88.- 012 -01.
26 Resolution Approving Tentative Map.
3. Location Map.
Motion and Vote:
RESOLUTION NO. SD 88- 012 -01
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Charles Cheatham
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1:
The 10,002 square feet of .Parcel shown as Lot B on Parcel Map,
Prepared by Edward Hahamian and submitted to City Engineer, City of Saratoga,
be approved as one (1) individual building site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and
passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the
day of 19 by.the following
vote:
• AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
0
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
r r
RESOLUTION NO. SD -88 -012.
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
BUILDING SITE AT 14458 OAR PLACE
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 -012 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 11/9/88 being hereby made for further
particulars, 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 the
16th day of June, 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:
- Done.
1. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
- N.A. Existing Map.
2. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation and
pay required checking and recordation fees.
3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a
25 ft. Half - Street on Oak Place.
4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements,
as required.
- See Deferred
IMProvement Agreement.
5. Improve Oak Place to City Standards, including the following:
A. Designed structural section between centerline and
flowline
B. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (V -24)
C. Pedestrian Walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.)
M
SD -88 -012; 14458 Oak Place
- With Building Plans
.
Construct standard driveway approaches.
pproaches.
7
Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
- N.A.
8.
Engineered improvement plans required for-street improvements.
- Done.
9.
Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from
Improvement Plans.
- Done.
10.
Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required
improvements in #5
- With Building Plans
above.
11.
Convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse as
approved by the City Engineer.
12.
Provide adequate site distance and remove obstructions of view
as required at driveway
and access road intersections.
13.
Applicant shall remove fence from the public right -of -way and
obtain an
encroachment permit for the new driveway.
- N.A.
14.
Existing septic tank(s) must be pumped and backfilled in
accordance with Environmental
Health standards.
15.
Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Works.
Done.
16.
The applicant shall
showing the location and final map
dintendeduseof approval,
wellslato
the SCVWD for review, certification and registration.
- With Building Plans.
See P.G. & E. Letter
17.
The applicant shall pay appropriate fees to West valley
Sanitation District
I
for connection to the sanitary sewer.
*
18.
The existing 3/4 inch gas service line shall be relocated in
accordance with P.G.& E.
requirements, prior to final map
approval.
19.
Design review approval by the Planning Commission shall be
required for
any structure on the subject site.
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.
City
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
and other Governmental entities
must be met.
-* 18. Use existing cottage
to live
until ccanpletion of house. Then P.G. & E. will decide
to remove or use gas
line for the new connection. Cottage will be demolished after
completion of new house.
SD -88 -012; 14458 Oak Place
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 Commission, State ofDCalifornia, this day ogallove°gmber,P19881by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Guch, Burger, Harris, Kolstad, Tucker & Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Siegfried
ATTEST:
Chairman, Planning mmission
Secretary, Planning Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Applicant Date
J
)< %ew -TTo f7 ewe
04 1
_ -x� \ a� I I �
r c •s I �o-I ►.eeNT
Ff
4'4•
Liecaa l.cwTVO ,u FiC(D 8y., 3/
U.u.yy wyYp $at.nca A�.Rr. \ Fl, I. .. .
Q^. ^Tb C4.�3Tr ^ Nom!.. �ON�Ia• ` ^�. .'bid` �� , _\ I
WtTwaT R3t►.+pn.t ` i�"_...,� . , ` ,_ � ` E ,.:.` ..�1r_�t.yti �� �. '
D moor at- tlat -Atla) �'t• !� i'
50t..t[tc .
ToJ4STj,rc: Se�tvc N� R . ecew
OCLtlIL '<Mrl4N SOC.wC.: 7Z
/L-%i Dt � is FsTiseccs�s��. t'*Y �.
-.se � W� ya Zy• I
cant wra tAnpwQ . I
� �• X11 i 77/ \ :. t'•t..
��1.�: fCIV s tYr
SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TRACT NO SD NO 88 -012
Storm Drain Fees $ 600.00
Park & Recreation Fees - 1,300.00
Plan Check & Inspection Fees 200.00
Final Map Check Fees $ 0.00
DEFERRED I14rROVPMENT A IMMENT nY OWNER OR HIS
SUCCESSORS IN 1NTE REST TO CONSTRUCT LAND
DEVELOPMENT iMPROMIENTS
Project identification: SD 88-012
This agreement between the CITY OF SARATOGA, hereinafter referred
to as CITY, and MR. CHUCK CHETHAM
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, MEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
I. AGREEMENT BINDING ON SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST
This agreement is an instrument affecting the title and posses-
sion of the real property described-in Exhibit "A ". All the terms, cove-
nants and conditions herein imposed shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the successors in interest of Owner. Upon any sale or division
of the property described in Exhibit "A ", the terms of this agreement shall
apply separately to each parcel and the owner of each parcel shall succeed
to the obligations imposed on Owner by this agreement.
II. STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
A. City and Owner agree that the improvements set forth in this
section may be deferred because:
The public interest is served by having all improvements
along Oak Place done at once, 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 "B ". (Cross out improvements that are not re-
quired.)
1. Curb and gutter
2. Sidewalks
3. Driveways
4. Street grading, base and
paving
5. Storm drainage facilities
kXX)BMXi=XxmKRM&X:P*
>MWxitaQ at #Jt30&
31xXa &Jtitk*A"JEJt2tXX
8. Underground conduit with
wiring and pull boxes
9. Barricades and other improve-
ments needed for traffic safety
E#39aanexxX ==xxaax3czXkKKAxgax=a.
sacixxbc4ax�aeRO�x�ciC�aacA »Flcx> xstlRgp�c
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"
C. When the I)ircc-.t.ur cif I'uhlic Works dctcrmLnc:n that the rc:asons
for the deferment of the improvcmc'nts as set forth in Section II no longer
exist, he shall notLfy Ownc•r in writing to commence their installation and
construction. The .notic'e •shall I:e mailed. to the current owner or o� hcrs
of the land as shown on the latest adopted county assessment roll. The
notice shall describe the work to be done by owners, the time within which
the work shall commence and the time within which it shall be completed.
All or any portion of said improvements may be required at' a specified
time. Each Owner shall participate on a pro rata basis in the cost of the
improvements to be installed. If Owner is obligated to pay a pro rata
share of a cost of a facility provided by others, the notice shall include
the amountto be paid and the time when payment must be made.
III. PERFO&`t4NCE OF THE 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 And specifications for the improvements to be prepared by com-
petent persons legally:-qualified to do the work and to submit said improve
ntent plans and specifications Tor approval prior to commencement of the c
work described in the notice, and to pay City inspection fees. 'The work
shall be done in accordance with City standards in effect at the time the
improvement plans are submitted for approval. .Owner agrees to commence
and complete the work within the time specified in the notice given by the
Director Of Public Works and to notify the City at least 48 hours prior to
start of work. In the event Owner fails to construct any improvements re-
quired under this agreement, City may, at its option do the work and 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. J0114T COOPERATIVE PLAN
Owner agrees to cooperate upon notice-by City with other property
owners,.the City and other public agencies .to provide the improvements
set forth herein under a joint cooperative plan including the formation
of a local improvement district, if this method is feasible to secure the
installation and construction of the improvements.
V REVIEW OF REOUIRE'ENTS
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
Ithe.City and the Owner.
VI T1AI;;TENAl7CF. OF IDLPROVE:fENTS
City agrees to accept for maintenance those improvements speqified
in Section II which are constructed and completed in. accordance with City
standards and requirements and are installed within rights -of -way or ease -
mcnts dedicated and accepted by resolution of the City, after the expira-
tion of one year from date of satisfactory completion, Owner to maintain
said improve at Owner's sole cost and expense at all times prior to
such acceptance by City.
01 --ner agrees to provide any necessary temporary drainage facilities,
access road or other required improvenents, to assume responsibility for
the proper fu-- ictioning 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.
VII. UONOS
Prior to approval of improvement plans by the City, Owner may be
required to execute and deliver to City a faithful performance bond and
-a labor avid materials bond in an amount and form acceptable%to City ,_to
be released by City Council in whole or in part upon completion of the
work required and pa)-ent of all persons furnishing labor and materials
in the performance 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. INDEINITY
The Owner shall assume the defense and indemnify and save har-mless
the City, its officers, agents and employees, from every expense, liability
or payment by reason of injury, including death, to persons, or damage to ,
property suffered through any act or omission, including passive negligence
or act of negligence, or both, of the Owner, his employees, agents, con-
tractors, subcontractors, or his employees, agents, contractors, subcontrac-
tors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them, or
arising in any way from the work called for by this agreement, or any part
of the premises, including those matters arising out of the deferment of
permanent drainage facilities or the adequacy, safety, use or non -use of
temporary drainage facilities, the performance or non - performance of the
work.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has executed this agreement as of
CITY OF SARATOCA
MAYOR
I14 WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this agreement as of
• November 14 1988
Owner Charles R..Cheatham
(General)
ir on
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11
COUNTYOF Santa Clara I SS.
i
• On November 14, 1988 before me, the undersigned, a No
TB Lary Public in and for said
State, personally appeared Charles R. Cheatham
W
K
W
I
W R9[ W*XkrAP ltrt�t7K &r proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)
a to be the person _ whose name is subscribed
to the within instrument and acknowledged that
Vi
executed the same.
ITNESSImy hand and offi�i:al seal. OFFICIAL SEAL
\�"� yn0 LEEANN MICHAEL
Signatur (�I� li, NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA
�— Principal Office in Santa Clara Count
Leeann Michael My Commission Expires April 6. 1990
OFC -2056 Name (Typed or Printed)
rtn�..,.. ra orr w
EXHIBIT "A"
r1he certain real property situated in the County of Santa Clara,
State of California, more particularly described as follows:
Parcel B as shown on the Parcel Map was filed for record in the
office of the Recorder at the County of Santa Clara, State of California,
in Book 585 of Maps, at Pages 30 and 31.
54 r w
1. In rove Oak Place to city standard.
2. Construct 4' wide concrete walkway.
3. Construct storm drain as required by the Engineer.
4. Provide all utilities overhead and underground.
■ to
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Tsvia Adar
DATE: 11/9/88 PLNG. DIR. APPRV
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -88 -012, DR -88 -061; 14458 Oak Place
APPLICANT /OWNER: Cheatham
APN: 397 -22 -009
LD
1+440
20 20C
PL.
•.I t 997- 24-40
397-Z4-
OAK
1...
i)7 (3) Cot
7) Cpl
377-27-19
(9)
04 A3
� 10� i 7.24-41
317 -of• "99
8 1441 14490
}
1
01.
'Y
J
347-27-30
O
41? i
03 04
02
09
-
2Z 79�-
14301 �s d ? `jr 4t
g 14Z
�j 'i
317''!x'
? ° •117-lS
o1 �f .7 #.7
Z
--Z --
pR
£
k.14-
14333 >> 6
CA t s)
�? 44) 317-23
927-
317 -27-
19
14347 - 14 U49
397- 3t -Or°
35
1434 5 14 Z60
37 -1- 19 317-Ze- SIT. 23'31
3
Q
°I
317-3-
it n
3972/'
3287
��
O .
397-4
i t. 2G t V
.s
%i� J 119 391-1 t43
Q
�►
CV
3 23 (y) �' 'M
~ ^h
ti 3ro�
397 -
ry'� ry o
42 �tlo ')It.
A T gg 7 yF
tfs
µ39f
IA 375 317oe1 C p`_
� op •1
397'SI-
317
14 -
05
46
(itst3ar5)
19
397'Z2.-2.5 Ql 1 .,4° 317-23 "� 3f1�1' %,�r�'t
10 5972 7"44 00 ^y w
1 p ° `y� 9 ,y°�Z1° .0 p 3,, of
q� 'ftt ` * Wri5�tt.1 9�rY4 y3V�21 .4,to y'1 �� �' 44 tj`
� ,f1 X13. A 9 ryp.Z 71i 1i y� �? Q �j44, 70
.. Oir 341 397.22- r 3417 (15r if.r 17
� k�
I
1+440
20 20C
PL.
•.I t 997- 24-40
397-Z4-
OAK
1...
i)7 (3) Cot
7) Cpl
7rfi)
(9)
04 A3
� 10� i 7.24-41
317 -of• "99
8 1441 14490
}
1
01.
14478
Q7
14474
4b p
03 04
02
09
-
N
C3)
20385
1446b
X07
317- 21- 09 397- 2f - L�1
2035
(1)
1469
3?7-2Y-u!
(2)
317-3-
3972/'