HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-1985 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTS0
AGENDA BILL NO. 773
DATE: 1/28/85 (2/6/85)
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Rd.
C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUB Conditional Final Building Site Approval, Tract 7655
Brookview School Site, RADOi'�CA DRIVE ,L 36 lot__�_____N___._.
Issue Surnn3.ry
1. The Tract 7655 is ready for final approval
2. All bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the City
except cash bond for landscaping.
3. All requirements for city departments and other agencies have
been met except landscape plan.
'Recomendation
Adopt resolution No. 1554 -02 attached, approving the conditional
final map of Tract 7655 and authorize excution of contract improvement
agreement.
Fiscal Impacts
NONE
Exhibits /Attachrmnts
1. Resolution No. 1554 -02
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Location Map
Council Action
2/6: Approved 5 -0.
3
RESOLUTION NO. 1554 -02
RESOLUTION APPROVING /FINAL MAP OF
TRACT 7655 CONDITIONAL
WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of Trac-t 7F55
Brookview School Site having heretofore been filed with this City
Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and
easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completes
and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require-
ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of
California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of
approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save
and except as follows:
1. Provide Landscape Plan
2. Provide Cash Bond for Landscaping
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
(1) The aforesaid final amp is hereby conditionally approved. Said
approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final
upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth
immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance
with Section (3) hereof.
(2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said
final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by
the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected
pursuant and subject to Section $66477.1 of the Government Code of the
State of California.
(3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept
ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted
and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and
releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter
into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and
sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of t
ON
estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public
ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS -60
as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently
on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The forr
and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be
as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City
Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe-
cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city.
(4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require
ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and
with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized
and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map
and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced
and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day
of , 19 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
::tq.,)F�3
Ire-
REPORT TO PLANNING, COMMISSION
* *Revised: 6/6/84
*Revised: 4/25/84
City of Sara#ega DATE 4/3/84
APPP.OVED BY: i(� Commission Meeting: 4/11/84
DA'ils
i"
SUBJECT SD -1554 INI*
- M�Tand =1 617=Di-s�i ct, 12301 Radoyka Drive
(Brookview School Site) - Tentative Subdivision Approval - 36 lots
ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative Subdivision Approval for 36 lots.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Final Subdivision Approval, Design Review Approval for each
residence, Building Permits.
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION
ZONING: R -1- 10,000
GENERAL PLAN: Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M -10)
SITE DATA
PARCEL SIZE: 12.3 acres with proposed lots ranging from 10,000 to 21,200 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Most of the project site is a mowed grassy field used.
for general playground activities. A variety of trees have been planted on site with
the most significant being Monterey pines and redwoods which form a corridor on San.
Palo Ct. and Radoyka Drive; coast live oak on the south central border; and a fan palm
near the parking lot.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Approximately 1%
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: Approximately 15,000 Cu. Yds. Fill: 15,000 Cu. Yds.
Cut Depth: 2 Ft. on southern edge Fill Depth: 1 Ft. on northern
edge
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
Circulation: Two accesses have been provided for the site by removal of an existing
home on Kosich Drive. There are no cul -de -sacs, so that the 15 unit or 500' rules do
not apply.
Report to the Planning Comm-is`sion 4/3/84
SD -1554 - Moreland School Dist., Radoyka Dr. Page 2
Traffic: The General Plan requires a cumulative traffic study for any subdivision
of 5 lots or more. This study has been done as part of the required Environmental
Impact Report. It states that "The project will generate about 360 vehicle trip ends
per weekday, with 36 of these during the p.m. peak hour..... Existing uses at the site
generate about 150 vte - during the p.m. peak hour. The project would decrease the num-
ber of vte to the site during the p.m. peak hour by about 114..... Traffic increases
from cumulative development and decreases from the project would not be sufficient
enough to change the level of service at any of the four (4) intersections.analyzed."
(EIR pp. 14 -15)
Design Considerations: The Subdivision Ordinance states: "Not as a mandate, but as
a statement of future policy on all-matters concerning the design and improvement of
sites and subdivisions, the following shall generally not be approved;
...(b) A subdivision of gridiron design, or a subdivision having double
frontage lots;
The layout of the lots is similar to surrounding subdivisions. Lots, 16, 17 and 18 have
potential double frontage on San Palo Ct. and a proposed street. Staff has recommended
conditions for no frontage on San Palo Ct. This design was submitted to save the ex-
isting stand of pine and redwood trees along San Palo Ct. A previous submittal, show-
ing 35.1ots, did not result in potentially double fronting lots, but several trees were
to be removed.
At your Committee of the Whole on April 3, 1984, you expressed interest in placing a
landscape easement on the four (4) corner parcels opposite Obr.ad Drive, entering into
the proposed subdivision. Staff also indicated another potential place for a land-
scaping easement on San Palo Court, in anticipation that fencing will be placed in the
rear yards and that some landscaping should be in place to mitigate the visual impacts
from San Palo Court. Recommended Conditions VIII. D, E and F would handle the review
of the proposed landscaping and its eventual maintenance.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all re-
quirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against. the
public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.
An Environmental Impact Report was certified by the Planning Commission as adequate on
/84. A Notice of Determination will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's
Office when this project is approved. Since the project has been certified to have a sig-
nificant impact on the environment, one or more of the following finds must be made:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project
which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identi-
fied in the completed environmental impact report.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or
can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Report to the Planning Comm ,n
.SD -1554 - Moreland School Disc., Radoyka Dr.
4/3/84
' Page 3
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1554 (Exhibits "B -1
and C" filed February 1, 1984) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. Comply with Standard Engineering Conditions dated
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPME14T DEPARTMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval.
B. Submit "Tract Map" to City for checking and recordation (pay required_
checking and recordation fees).
C. Provide for a 25 ft. half - street dedication on all streets.
D. Provide easements as required.
E. Improve all streets to City Standards, including the following:
1) Designed Structural Section 18 ft. between centerline and flowline.
2) P.C. Concrete Curb and Gutter (R -36)
3) Undergrounding existing overhead utilities.
F. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and
as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street,
storm sewer or watercourse, including the following:
1) Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes.
2) Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes.
3) Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc.
G. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches.
H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required.
at driveway and access road intersections.
I. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or pre-
vent flow.
J. No direct access allowed onto San Palo Ct. from lots.
K. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
L. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1) Street Improvements
2) Storm Drain Construction
M. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans.
N. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed
within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
0. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
Report to Planning Commissic... --
SD -1554 - Moreland School Dist., Radoyka Dr.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
4/3/84
Page 4
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional.
1) Soils
2) Foundation
B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit
being issued.
C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1) Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing
and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities)
2) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.)
3) Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls
3 ft. or higher.
4) All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed.
5) Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data,
location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - .COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements
of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated November 22, 1983.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
A. Extension of.existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire
protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants.
B. Developer to install 3 hydrant(s) that meet Central Fire District's specifi-
cations. Hydrant to be installed and accepted prior to issuance of building
permits.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected
by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation
District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted
with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A: Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location
and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits.
B. Comply with Mitigation Measures shown on Exhibit "E ", attached, prior to
issuance of building permits.
Report to Planning Commiss•i�,., 4/3/84
SD -1554 - Moreland School Dist., Radoyka Dr. Page 5
C. Prior'to issuance of building permits, individual structures shall be re-
viewed by the Permit Review Division to evaluate the potential for solar
accessibility. The developer shall provide; to the extent feasible, for
future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the sub-
division.
*D. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way and pro-
posed 10'landscape easements that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping
fencing and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Permit Review Division
for review and approval. Landscaping adjacent to extension of Obrad shall
act as an entry way to the subdivision. No fences within the easement are
to exceed 3 ft. in height. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be
installed and established within 90 days of completion of the right -of -way
improvements.
*E. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the
City for those landscaped areas within the landscaping easements at the
extension of Obrad and the public right -of -way on San Palo Ct. The appli-
cant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a minimum of one year after
which the homeowners association shall be responsible for maintaining the -
landscaped areas.
*F. All individual lot owners shall be required to become members of a homeowners
association for the express purpose of maintaining all landscaped areas within
the public right -of -way and landscape easements. The C.C.& R's of the home-
owners association shall be reviewed and approved by the Permit Review Division,
prior to final approval.
*G'. No 2 -story residences are allowed on Lots 30 -36 and 16. Fifty per cent of
the remaining lots may be two -story as allowed through a public hearing
Design Review on which lots may contain second stories. One story residences
shall be a maximum of 20 ft. in height and two -story residences shall have a
maximum height of 25 feet.
*H. The rear yard setback on Lot 36(adjacent to the southerly property line) shall
be a minimum of 15 ft. with a 20 ft. average setback preferred.
*I. An S gate to allow access to Prospect High School shall be constructed at the
end of San Palo Court as approved by Campbell Union High School District and
the City Engineer. Prior to Final Map Approval, all properties within 300 ft.
shall be noticed and given time to comment on the S gate. Any objections will
be forwarded to the Planning Commission for Design Review of the gate.
**J. The extension of Obrad Drive to be closed during construction of the subdivision.
After the filing of the Notice of Completion on the tract, it is to be.open for
regular access.
IX. COMMENTS
— A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances.
Approved: //� �', --/
_ ;.• C
Kathy KerdUs
Planner
KK /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 4/11/84
F3
LOCATION MAP OF
TRACT 7655
Z B
0 0-
•
z
z
0
G-
o�
t7 J J
y
i
• •M rye
ONw TwY [T
O
SvrL=
i
�cF
0
a ..
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. 7 Dept. Hd.
DATE: January 25, 1985 (February 6, 1985) C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT:Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: TEERLINK RANCH, TRACT 6781
Issue Summary
The developer requested interpretation and relief from certain conditions
of Tentative Map Approval from the Planning Commission. The Commission,
after hearing the developer's arguments, made a determination as described
in the attached Staff Report.
'Recoidation
Review the conditions with the applicant and approve, modify or disapprove
the Planning Commission's determination.
Fiscal Impacts
N/A
Exhibits /Attacinents
1. Letter of Appeal
2. Staff Report dated February -1, 19.85, attaching letter from PG &E
3. Staff Report dated January 4, 1985
4. Exhibits
Council Action
2/6: Made decisions on all items except Parcel A and scheduled for 2/20.
2/20: Denied request to include Parcel A in site area density calculations.
RECEIVED
JAN 211985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address:
Project Description:
Date Rcceived:
Hearing Date:
Fee
CITY USE ONLY
�-?�-l06R
APPEAL APPLICATION
Decision Being Appealed:
Grounds for the Appeal (Lette�'may be attached):
PP'e lat -'s Signatur
*Please do not sign this appl(jsc--tion until it is presente�'at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BF SUBMTT`'L:D WITHIN T17N (10) CALENDAR DAYS 01:
"1'111: lla'1'l Ul�l'lII? I)I i I .Fo _
GERA" AND LAMBERT, INC.
• 141 FIRST STREET • DRAWER A.G.
LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 941 -4141
January 30, 1985
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Calfiornia 95070
Honorable Council Members:
We are appealing certain conditions recently imposed by the Plan-
ning Commission on Tract #6781 and also request relief from, and clarifica-
tion of, other staff requests brought to our attention since the Planning
Commissions meeting. Without such relief, the financial projections for
this subdivision which permitted the widening of the bridge crossing Pierce
Road are so far exceeded with respect to costs as to make this subdivision
financially unfeasible. Our financial projections were based on anticipating
similar improvement conditions as were imposed on other subdivisions in the
immediate area with identical tentative map conditions. The conditions
actually imposed far exceeded the anticipated requirements.
The appealed conditions are as follows:
1) The Planning Commission has requested all utility poles on our
subdivision frontage to be undergrounded. This has not been imposed on
other subdivisions in the area. Other subdivisions have been required
only to remove underground poles which need removal due to road improve-
ments. As can be seen from the attached exhibits, it is possible to
improve all roads without the removal of any poles.
2) Staff has required, and the Planning Commission has upheld, an.
interpretation of "practical widening" of Pierce Road to mean as much as
physically possible. This necessitates guard rails, removal of trees, and
modification of drainage channels, all at considerable cost and, in addition,
in my view, creates unacceptable hazards for drivers on Pierce Road.
3) With respect to open space easements, a semantic definition is
required. The Planning Commission has implied that accessory structures
are not to be allowed within the open space easements. These open space
easements were imposed due to soil conditions and not due to scenic pro-
tection. The City Attorney and I have agreed as to the form of an open
space easement with covenants which, in my view, satisfies the City's and
our requirements. You are asked to ratify this interpretation.
•
• City Council -2- . January 30, 1985
4) Staff has asked for an indemnity agreement from Mr. Teerlink's
son who is the present owner of the house and parcel which are not a part
of this subdivision. This indemnification is intended to hold the City
harmless from flooding of Mr. Teerlink's son's house due to the instal-
lation of the subdivision improvements. Neither I nor Mr. Teerlink have
any legal way to impose this condition on Mr. Teerlink's son. In addition,
the subdivision improvements do not change the direction of water flow nor
the total land drainage area into the channel near Mr. Teerlink's house from
that previously existing.
5) Staff has requested us to reimburse the City the sum of $30,000
for the installation of a 60" culvert done by the City some two years ago.
This culvert would not cost us more than $7,000 to install if it were
done in conjunction with our subdivision improvements. The staff has
further requested storm drainage fees of $25,300 which should be offset
by the installation of this culvert which is an out -of -tract improvement.
6) Staff has requested that we pay plan check and inspection
fees for the bridge.widening which we are doing for the benefit of the City.
7) Staff has requested a 20% surcharge against normal plan check
and inspection fees.sinoe.a previous developer was not required by the City
to pay for plan check and inspection fees for his improvement.plans on the
same property. We do not feel we have any responsibility in this regard
as we were not in title at the time, were not using the same engineer, and
do not have the same improvement plans.
8) Our improvement plans currently show a concrete curb and gutter
along our entire Mt. Eden Road frontage. If installed, this will be the
only section of the street in the area, either on Pierce or Mt. Eden which
will have concrete curb and gutter. Adjacent subdivisions have installed
concrete curbs and gutters at their entrances and, of course, in tract,
but have not been required to do so along any lengthy street frontage.
Removal of this concrete curb and gutter requirement, together with minor
shifting (approximately one foot) of Mt. Eden "street improvements away
from our property line will not only avoid the necessity for removal of
any existing utility poles, but will also prevent destruction of nearly
every major tree near the corner of Mt. Eden and Pierce.
We believe these requests are in keeping with the spirit of prior
discussions with the.City Council and request your approval thereof.
Sincerely,
• TEERLINK RANCH, LTD.
GERARD & LAMBER INC.
General Par e.
=tan G. Lamber
President
�4
o�
SA • �
O
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 2 -01 -85
COUNCIL MEETING: 2- 06•-85
SUBJECT: Tract 6781, Teerlink Ranch, Appeal of Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
Following is a summary of the Planning Commission's deliberations
relative to the request for interpretation of the conditions for
the Teerlink Ranch, Tract 6781. Item numbers refer to those
items listed in the November 12, 1984 letter from Lea
Engineering.
1. The Planning Commission preferred to eliminate Parcel A,
rather than creating a parcel that was substandard for the
zoning district. There was concern that.at some subsequent
time it might be argued that it was a nonconforming site
created by the City and, therefore, should be buildable.
The City Attorney advised that these concerns could be
eliminated by labeling the lot "This is not a building
site."
During all of the discussion of this item, it was my
understanding that, because of the establishment of the
early warning system, this site was no longer needed or
wanted by the Saratoga Fire District. In subsequent
conversations with Chief Kraule, I find that that is not the
case and that the Saratoga Fire District does indeed wish to
have this parcel granted to them. Therefore, to comply with
the original intent of the creation of this Parcel A, the
map should be modified so as to dedicate this land to the
Saratoga Fire District.
2. Because of topographic constraints, the applicant requested
that a portion of the equestrian /pedestrian path near
Pierce Road be relocated to the opposite side of Mt. Eden.
The Planning Commission was agreeable to this shifting of
the pathway, but in the larger sense felt that it was
unnecessary to have the trail along Mt. Eden reach all the
way to Pierce Road, inasmuch as there is not sufficient
width along Pierce Road to condition it from Mt. Eden in
Report to City Council
Teerlink Ranch, Tract 6781
February 1, 1985
Page 2
either direction. Further, there was concern about the
sight distance around the corners at this intersection.
They are suggesting that the pathway not go all the way to
Mt. Eden and have requested the Parks and Recreation
Commission to comment on this.
3. The developer has requested a 2 -1/2:1 slope in lieu of the
3:1 slope specified in the zoning standards. Their soils
investigations indicate that the soil in this area can
maintain that somewhat steeper slope. Upon reviewing the
exhibit presented by the developer's engineer, the
Commission felt that the additional ground disturbance to
create the 3:1 slope was unnecessary and has approved the
2 -1/2:1 slope.
4. The developer wishes to change the designation of "open
space easement" to "nonhabitable areas ". The purpose of
this would be to allow accessory structures, fences, pools,
etc. to be constructed in these areas. The Planning
Commission clarified that it is exactly that type of
activity that is not desired in the open space easements
and, therefore, denied the request to change the
designation.
5. The developer has requested that Pierce Road be narrower
than the 26 feet maximum conditioned in the Tentative Map,
i.e. 21 -22 feet. He cites the fact that the Parnas
Subdivision to the south was not required to perform such
widening.
It was pointed out that the condition for the Parnas
Subdivision was similar, in that it calls for the roadway
to be widened as possible to a maximum of 26 feet. Those
portions of the Parnas development that could be widened to
that width were in fact widened. However, the majority of
the Parnas Pierce Road frontage has severe topographic
restraints, in that the slopes on the upward and downward
side of Pierce begin right at the edge of pavement and are
abrupt. To widen the pavement in those areas would have
required tremendous amounts of grading and environmental
damage, and, therefore, such widening requirements were not
imposed. For the majority of the frontage of Pierce Road
on the subject tract it is quite possible to widen to a 13
ft. half width, and the Commission verified that condition
with the stipulation that there be appropriate pavement
tapering for any widening or narrowing of the pavement.
6. The developer requests that utilities not be undergrounded
along Pierce Road. Again he cites that the Parnas
- 2 -
Report to City Council
Teerlink Ranch, Tract 6781
February 1, 1985
Page 3
Subdivision to the south was not required to perform such
undergrounding.
Again the Commission observed that in fact on a portion of
the frontage the overhead facilities were undergrounded.
However, a large portion of the frontage of the Parnas
development was originally conditioned several years before
the Parnas Corporation came in with their Tentative Map of
the San Jose Water Works property, when it was owned by
Marie Gaspar. Apparently the conditioning for that area
did not include the requirement for undergrounding. The
Planning Commission determined that the portion of the
utilities that are actually fronting on the property, plus
those connections to the next poles off of the frontage,
were to be undergrounded.
I have requested a clarification of the estimate that Mr.
Lea obtained from PG &E of $200 -$250 a running foot for the
underground conversion. I am enclosing a copy of the
January 24, 1985 response to that inquiry. You will note
that the estimate is of the order of magnitude of $57 a
foot, rather than the verbal estimate that was given to Mr.
Lea.
It should be noted that the developer did not seek clarification
of these conditions from Staff or the Planning Commission prior
to the preparation and submission of the improvement plans for
this tract, but apparently did his financial planning on the
basis of assumptions which were not tested until such time as the
improvement plans had been submitted and reviewed by Staff.
RSS:cd
Attachment
t S. Shook
Director of Community Development
3
�
�� . 4
RECEIVED
JAN 29 1985
COMMUNITY PEVELOPMENT
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
(M: %R" � T RD -+- 10900 NO. BLANEY AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 • (408) 973.8930
January 24, 1985
Mr. Robert Shook
Public Works Department
1377 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
SUBJECT: Undergrounding Overhead Electric pole line on
Pierce Road - Corner Mt. Eden Road to South of Teerlink Way
Tract 6781, Saratoga
Dear Bob:
We have completed a preliminary review to underground the overhead pole
line on Pierce Road, corner of Mt. Eden Road to South of Teerlink Way,
Tract 6781.
The Order of Magnitude cost associated with converting approximately
1,050 feet of overhead electric transmission and distribution facilities
to underground is approximately $60,000. This work will be done in
accordance with our Electric Rule 20 -B, copy attached.
The cost stated in this letter is preliminary and is submitted for
initial discussion purposes only. It is applicable for 90 -day period
from the date of this letter and is not offered as a firm quotation.
Final and firm cost figures will be developed and contracts prepared
after the job is engineered.
If you have any questions, please call me at (408) 973 -8930,
extension 300.
Sincerely,
Arthur A. Pasquinelli
New Building Representative
cc: Lea Engineering Gerard Homes
3583 Investments Blvd., Ste. 7 141 lst Street
..Ilayward, CA 94545 Los Altos, CA 94022
D
63 -6203 NO. Yi
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
San Francisco, California
Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 7854-B
Canceling Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 6915-E
RULE No. 20
REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND FACILITIES
A. The Utility will, at its expense, replace its existing overhead electric facilities with underground
electric facilities along public streets and roads, and on public lands and private property across
which rights of way satisfactory to the Utility have been obtained by the Utility, provided that:
1. The governing body of the city or county in which such electric facilities are and will be located
has
a. Determined, after consultation with the Utility and after holding public hearings on the subject,
that such undergrounding is in the general public interest for one or more of the following
reasons:
(1) Such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of over-
head electric facilities;
(2) The street or road or right -of -way is extensively used by the general public and carries a
_heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic;
(3) The street or road or right -of -way adjoins orpasses through a civic area orpublic recreation
area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public.
b. Adopted an ordinance creating an underground district in the area in which both the existing
and new facilities are and will be located requiring, among other things, (1) that all existing
over' 4d communication and electric distribution and service facilities in such district shall be
remoi'ed, (2) that each property served from such electric overhead facilities shall have installed
in accordance xvith the Utility's rules for underground service, all electrical facility changes on
the premises necessary- to receive service from the underground facilities of the Utility as soon as
it is available, and (3) authorizing the Utility to discontinue its overhead service.
2. The Utility's total annual budgeted amount for undergrounding within any city or the unincor-
porated area of any county shall be allocated in the same ratio that the number of overhead meters
in such city or unincorporated area of any county bears to the total system overhead meters. The
amounts so allocated may be exceeded where the Utility establishes that additional participation on
a project is warranted. Such allocated amounts may be carried over for a reasonable period of time
in 'communities with- active undergrounding programs. In order to qualify as a community with an
active undergrounding program the governing body must have adopted an ordinance or ordinances
creating an underground district and /or districts as set forth in Section A.l.b. of this rule. Where
there is a carry -over, the Utility has the right to set, as determined by its .capability, reasonable
limits on the rate of performance of the work to be financed by the funds carried over. When
amounts are not expended or carried over for the community to which they are initially allocated
they shall be assigned when additional participation on a project is warranted or be reallocated
to communities with active undergrounding programs.
3. The undergrounding includes both side of a street and extends for a minimum distance of one block
or 600 feet, whichever is the lesser.
Upon request of the governing body, the Utility will pay for the installation of no more than 100 feet
of each customer's underground electric service lateral occasioned by the undergrounding. The
governing body may establish a smaller footage allowance, or may limit the amount of money to be
expended on a single customer's electric service, or the total amount to be expended on all electric
service installations in a particular project.
(continued)
Advice Letter No. 910 -E Issued by Date Filed Sept. 22, 1982
Decision No. 5201018 W.1lf. Gallavan Effective Oct. 21, 1982
Vice- President —Rates and Valuation Resolution No.
l
r-
1
l
79� -211
aA -6103 NO. ft
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
San Francisco, California
Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 6229 -E
Canceling Original Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 4386 -E ;
RULE No. 20
REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND FACILITIES
(Continued)
B. In circumstances other than those covered by A. above, the Utility will replace its existing overhead
facilities with underground electric facilities along public streets and roads or other locations mutu-
ally agreed upon when requested by an applicant or applicants when all of the following conditions
are met:
1. a. All property owners served from the overhead facilities to be removed first agree in writing
to have the wiring changes made on their premises so that service may be furnished from the
.underground distribution system in accordance with the Utility's rules and that the Utility may
discontinue its overhead service upon completion of the underground facilities, or
b. Suitable legislation is in effect requiring such necessary Hiring changes to be made and author-
izing the utility to discontinue its overhead service.
2. The applicant has:
a- Furnished and installed the pads and vaults for transformers and associated equipment, conduits,
ducts, boxes, pole bases and performed other work related to structures and substructures in-
cludiYrg%breaking of pavement, trenching, backfilling, and repaving required in connection with
the installation of the underground system, all in accordance with the Utility's specifications,
or, In lieu thereof, paid the Utility to do so; and
b. Transferred ownership of such facilities, in good condition, to the Utility; and
c. Paid a nonrefundable sum equal to the excess, if any, of the estimated costs; exclusive of
transformers, meters and services, of completing the underground system and building a new
equivalent overhead system.
3. The area to be undergrounded includes both sides of a street for at least one block or 600 feet,
whichever is the lesser, and all existing overhead communication and electric distribution facilities
within the•area will•be, removed. -
C In circumstances other than those covered by A. or B. above, when mutually agreed upon by the
Utility and an applicant; overhead electric facilities may be replaced with underground electric
facilities, provided the applicant requesting the change pays, in advance, a nonrefundable sum equal
to the estimated cost of the underground facilities less . the estimated net salvage value and deprecia-
tion of the replaced overhead facilities. Underground services will be installed and maintained as
provided in the Utility's rules applicable thereto.
D. The term "underground electric system,, means a-a electric system with all wires installed under-
ground, except those wires in surface mounted equipment enclosures.
A 1,,;— Tin + +n, - VT r.A(1 M,
- -- - — -- - -- --- — aOaucu uy
Decisions N.os. 85497 & 85788 W. Al. Gallavan
Vice- President —Rates and Valuation
Date Filed June 3, 1976
Effective July 3, 1976
Resolution No.
�:%
-
a,
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 1/4/85
Commi"lon Meeting: 1/9/85
SUBJECT: Tract 6781 Teerlink Ranch - clarification of conditions.
At your December 18, 1984 study session you reviewed the November 12,
1984 letter from Lea Engineering concerning several conditions of ten-
tative map approval. For the record it would be appropriate for you
to take formal action on these questions. Following is a summary of
Staff's understanding of the consensus of these matters.
1 - How should Parcel "A (the original fire station site) be
delineated.
- City Attorney is satisfied with a notation on the..map that
indicates "this is not a building site ".
2 - Relocate a portion of equestrian /pedestrian path near Pierce
Road, to be relocated to opposite side of Mt. Eden.Road.
- No objection. Suggest Park and Recreation Commission re-
view possibility of path not reaching Pierce Road. Stop
it near the Mt. Eden Road entrance to subdivision.
3 - Allow 2�:1 slopes in lieu of 3:1 as specified in:.zoning stan-
dards.
- Mr. Lea to provide exhibits depicting the difference that
this change will make.
4 - Why not call the "open -space easements" "non- habitable areas,"
and allow accessory structures, swimming pools etc.
- Open -space easements is the designation to be used.
5 - Request the widening of Pierce Road be maximum of 21 -22 feet
instead of the required condition "widen as much as possible
up to a maximum of 26 feet."
- Stay with original condition with tapered widening and
narrowing rather than abrupt changes.
6 - Request that utilities not be undergrounded.
- Underground those portions which actually front on property
and the connection to the nearest off - frontage poles.
Report to Planning _:inmission .1/4/85
Tract 6781, Teerlink Ranch Page 2
If these reflect your understanding you should vote to verify them.
If not they should be modified to correctly state the condition and
then be approved.
Attached is a copy of the November 12, 1984 letter from Lea Engineer-
ing.
RoberV S. Shook
Director of Community Development
R5S /kah
Enclosure
A<-,� . � I?.. LEA ENGINEERING
`��� CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS
3583 Investment Blvd., Suite 7
Hayward, California 94545
(415) 887 -4086
November 12, 1984
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
At:tn: Robert Shco;c
Director of Community Devel.opme.it
Sub;ect: Tract No. 6781
Pierce Road and Mt. Eden RoZd
Dear Bob:
RECEIVED
NOV 15 1984
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Several items have become apparent during preparation of
actual improvement plans for the subject project that
should be clarified and /or discussed with the City. Please
review these and instigate a quick review or discussion
with the appropriate parties. We are working under a
significant time pressure because of construction loan
deadlines and both myself and Alan Lambert, the developer,
will make ourselves available for meetings as necessary.
1. If the City does not wish to allow Parcel A,
the original fire station site, to exist as
a substandard lot, we should include it with
the adjoining Lot 7 and record, simultaneously
with the subdivision map, a lot line adjustment
between Lot 7 and the adjoining Teerlink
residence.
2. The proposed sir. -foot equestrian and pedestrian
path on Mt. Eden Road should be constructed
within the public right -of -way on the north side.
of the paved way rather than on'the south side.
The sout;L side location would involve removal
of attract —ve native trees and a significant
amount of grading near the intersection with
Pierce Road. We would, of course, provide
construcLion'of the pathway.
_ �. LEA ENCCIi EERING
CIVIL ENGINEERS. LAND SUKVEIORS
3583 Investment Blvd., Suite 7
Hayward, California 94545
(415 ) 887 -4086
-2-
3. The proposed slopes on the revised tentative
map are 2 -1/2:1 (maximum) rather than 3:1. This
revision has been approved by the soils engineer.
The effect on a rolling site.such as this one is
to significantly reduce grading yardage and the
extent of disturbed slopes while involving only
minor visual difference.
4. The open. -space easements are defined and necessit-
ated by areas of prior slope instability, remedial
measures for which we are undertaking with our
improvements. We feel these areas should be shown
as "non- habitable" areas, which would allow such
improvements'of minor visual profile as small
outbuildings and swimming pools while prohibiting
construction of residence.
5.. The improvements to Pierce Road should be
compatible with the recent improvements between
the project and Congress Springs Road. Specifically,
the road bed can be widened to 21 -22 feet in a
practical manner but would.require considerable
grading and construction to achieve greater width.
Maintaining this width would also lessen the need
for any guardrail construction, none of which was
provided in the recent improvements. We wish to
provide a new full street section where widening
occurs and overlay the entire width of Pierce Road
as required in the Conditions of.Approval. Finally,
we wish to treat the overhead utility lines along
Pierce Road the same as those adjacent to the_' recent
improvements; namely, allowing them to remain .
because of the difficulty of terrain and the multiple
crossings of Pierce Road they make. Of the'six poles
along the Pierce Road frontage four are on the
opposite side of the street. The one pole which
needs relocation is at the intersection of Pierce
and the proposed Teerlink Drive. This pole not only
carries the Pierce Road Line but also the-connecting
line along the intersecting Palamino Drive.
LEA ENGINEERING
CIVIL ENGINEERS. LAND SURVEYORS
3583 Investment 81vd., Suite 7
Hayward, California 94545
(415) 887 -4086
-3-
(con't.)5. We would like to relocate this pole to the
southeast corner of Pierce and Palamino.
Alternatively, we could provide an island in
our new intersection and allow the pole to
remain in its present location, although the
visual impact of the lines would be much less
if the poles were relocated. Incidentally;Art
Pasquinelli of P.G. & E. has given us preliminary
�s *imates of the costs of underground lines. along
Pierce Road of $200, to $250, per running foot,
an absolutely prohibitive figure.
Again, we are very concerned about time schedule and would
appreciate anything you.could do to expedite responses to
these items.
VK ery truly yours,
Jeffr
Civil Engineer
cc: Alan Lambert, Teerlink Ranch Limited
Heber Teerlink
JCL /mn
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. 77(o Dept. Hd. P6—
DATE: 1/23/85 (2/6/85) C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT:_ Community Development
SUBJECT AGREEMENT FOR PLAN CHECKING SERVICES
C. Mgr.
Issue Summary
Review and approval needed to enter into a contractural agreement with
Design and Engineering Services to perform necessary building plan checking.
Recommendation
Approve and authorize execution of this contract agreement
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Staff Report 1/21/85
2. Contract Agreement
Council Action
2/6: Approved 5 -0.
0 3, ASPIS+A�f,,Qii SSe: ao �O
€33 Ii��3 @���tt; `�a � '/ 11//— �`1 ^..11� ,11 ^11r � \` -J / / ^� ,`//�_�1V�11 / / / /•/ ♦+ ^````
Qq
c�'6�
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 1/22/85
COUNCIL MEETING: 1/30/85
SUBJECT: Contract with DES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is proposed that the City of Saratoga enter into an agreement with
Design and Engineering Systems, Inca to perform required building
plan review for.the City of Saratoga.
It is felt that by using Design and Engineering System it would give
the City of Saratoga, Building Division maximum flexability and latitude
in its plan review process in that the City would have no obligation
to send any specific quantity or number of plans to Design and Engineering
Systems, and if requested D.E.S. would provide only that portion of
the plan review process requested by the City.
The following is a summary of the proposed agreement with Design and
Engineering Systems, Inc.
I. HANDLING AND TURNAROUND TIMES
A. Plans picked up by D.E.S. within 24 hours
B. 10 working days on residential with two (2) dwelling units or
less and non - residential less than 5000 sq. ft.
C. 15 working days on all larger projects
D. 5 working days on rechecks of items in "B ".
E. 10 working days on rechecks of items in
II. FEES
A. Full Plancheck - 92% of Plancheck fee collected allowing 8%
of fee to be retained by the City to cover administrative costs.
B. Structural Plan Check only - 460 of plan check fee collected.'
C. Energy Plan Check only - 23% of plan check fee collected.."
Report to the Mayor & City Council
: P-Contract with D.E.S.
1/22/85
Page 2
The above mentioned fees would represent a minor increase (less than
2%) to the City, but no increase in fees or costs to the applicant.
It should be further noted that Design and Engineering Systems does
not have any minimum fees on any projects of any size. The fees are
as stated above and in the contractural agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council approve the attached contract agreement
and execute same.
APPROVED:
Steven R. Harpe
Senior Inspector
SRH /bjc
C.C. Agenda 1/30/85
AGREEMENT FOR PLAN CHECKING SERVICES
The CITY of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"CITY" and Design and Engineering Systems, Inc., a California corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "D.E.S. ", on this the day of
in the year nineteen hundred eighty -five, do hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES.
1.1. D.E.S. agrees.to provide the CITY with plan checking services as
described herein.
1.2. Documents submitted by.the CITY to D.E.S. will be plan checked by
D.E.S. for compliance with the current edition of the Uniform
Building Code as adopted by the CITY, the State Energy Conservation
and Handicapped Access Regulations (as contained in the current
edition of the State Building Code, Title 24, California
Administrative Code), and any additional local ordinances or
regulations governing building requirements effective in the CITY
.and designated by the CITY in writing to be included in the scope
of plan checking services provided by D.E.S., hereinafter referred
to as "governing codes ".
1.3. The CITY shall be sole judge as to which plans and specifications,
or portions thereof, shall be reviewed by D.E.S., and nothing
contained in this agreement shall be deemed a commitment by the
CITY to utilize any particular quantity or frequency of services by
D.E.S.
ARTICLE 2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF D.E.S.
2.1. Performance of plan checking services in a diligent and
professional manner, in accordance with standard practice for such
services.
2.2. Interfacing with the CITY's designated representatives as necessary
to execute plan checking services in accordance with the CITY's
requirements, as set forth herein.
2.3. Interfacing with permit applicants or their representatives to
clarify plan check comments.
2.4. Performing, within the turnaround times specified in this
agreement, plan checking services for each project submitted, and
providing to the CITY a letter of plan check comments listing those
items deficient in complying with requirements of the governing
codes.
2.5. Performing, within the turnaround times specified in this
agreement, plan rechecking services for revised project documents
submitted in response to initial plan check letter, and providing
to the CITY a recheck letter. Recheck letters shall list any items
not adequately addressed in the response package.
Page 1 of 7
SRAGREEMNT
r '
2.6. Providing to the CITY approved plan check project documents and a
letter of approval for each plan check project once all plan check
comments have been adequately addressed by the permit applicant or
his representatives.
ARTICLE 3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY
3.1. Providing D.E.S. with two copies of any local ordinances or
regulations governing building requirements effective in the CITY
and designated by the CITY in writing to be included in the scope
of plan checking services provided by D.E.S.
3.2. Providing D.E.S. with one copy of all project documents needed to
perform plan checking services for each plan check project,
including plans, structural and energy calculations, specifications
and soil reports.
3.3. Instructing D.E.S. in writing, for each project, the scope of plan
checking services required (e.g., full plan check, structural only,
energy compliance only).
ARTICLE 4. PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING OF PLAN CHECK PROJECT DOCUMENTS
4.1. D.E.S. shall be responsible for pick up of plan check project
documents from the CITY to D.E.S. at the expense of D.E.S. A
representative of the CITY shall advise D.E.S. when documents for
each plan check project are ready and available for transmittal. A
D.E.S. messenger shall be dispatched within twenty -four (24) hours
of such advisement, excluding weekends and holidays.
Alternatively, the CITY may elect to transmit plan check project
documents by CITY messenger, independent courier or U.S. Mail, but
in such event, the costs of such transmittal shall be borne by the
CITY and the time of actual receipt by D.E.S. shall be used in
determining the turnaround times set forth hereinafter.
4.2. Plan check, recheck and final approval letters prepared by D.E.S:
and plan check project documents shall be returned to the CITY by
D.E.S. messenger, independent courier or U.S. Mail, at the election
of D.E.S. The time of actual receipt by the CITY shall be used in
determining the turnaround times set forth hereinafter.
ARTICLE 5. TURNAROUND TIMES
5.1. Turnaround times between receipt by D.E.S. of plan check project
documents and receipt by CITY of first letter of plan check
comments are as follows:
5.1.1. A maximum of ten (10) working days for residential
projects of two (2) dwelling units each or less and for
nonresidential projects containing five thousand
(5,000) square feet of building area or less.
5.1.2. A maximum of twenty (20) working days for residential
projects of three (3) dwelling units each or more and
for nonresidential projects containing more than five'
thousand (5,000) square feet of building area.
Page 2 of 7
SRAGREERNT
5.2. Turnaround times between receipt by D.E.S. of revised project
documents submitted in response to plan check letter and receipt by
CITY of recheck letter are as follows:
5.2.1. A maximum of five (5) working days for residential,
projects of two (2) dwelling units each or less.and for
nonresidential projects containing five thousand
(5,000) square feet of building area or less.
5.2.2. A maximum of ten (10) working days for residential
projects of three (3) dwelling units or more and for
nonresidential projects containing more than five
thousand (5,000) square feet of building area.
5.3. Turnaround times specified hereinabove shall be extended for such
periods of time in which D.E.S. is awaiting documents or
information to be submitted to D.E.S. by the permit applicant, the
CITY or their representatives.
ARTICLE 6. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
6.1.. D.E.S. will also provide to the CITY, upon request, the following
services:
6.1.1. Structural inspections of projects under construction
in the CITY for conformance with project documents.
6.1.2. Meeting with CITY representatives and /or permit
applicants or their representatives to review
requirements of governing codes for projects in
preliminary design or working drawings stages.
6.1.3. Such other additional consulting services as the
parties may agree.
ARTICLE 7. FEES
7.1. Fees to be paid to D.E.S. by the CITY for the services herein
described are as follows:
7.1.1. For full plan checking services on a project, as
previously described herein, sixty percent (60 %) of the
building permit fee as calculated in accordance with
Table No. 3 -A of the current edition of the Uniform
Building Code. Building valuations shall be as
determined in accordance with the CITY's current
valuation tables.
7.1.2. For structural plan checking; services only on a
project, thirty percent (30 %) of the building permit
fee as calculated in accordance with Table No. 3 -A of
the current edition of the Uniform Building Code.
Building valuations shall be as determined in
accordance with the CITY's current valuation tables.
Page 3 of 7
SRAGREEMNT
7.1.3. For energy compliance plan checking services only on a
project, fifteen percent (15 %) of the building permit
fee as calculated in accordance with Table No. 3 -A of
the current edition of the Uniform Building Code.
Building valuations shall be as determined in
accordance with the CITY's current valuation tables.
7.2. Alternatively, as requested by the CITY and agreed to by D.E.S. on
a project -by- project basis, payment for plan checking services may
be arranged on a time and materials basis, in accordance with the
current D.E.S. Schedule of Charges (copy attached). D.E.S. shall,
upon request from the CITY, provide the CITY with an estimated
number of hours required for completion of such projects. D.E.S.
invoices for such projects shall include a breakdown of costs.
7.3. Fees shall be billed and forwarded with first letter of plan check
comments for each project.
7.4. Fees indicated under Section 7.1. above include initial plan checks
and one recheck for each project. Second and subsequent rechecks
shall be billed on a time and materials basis in accordance with
the current D.E.S. Schedule of Charges (copy attached). D.E.S.
shall, upon request from the CITY, provide the CITY with an
estimated number of hours required for completion of such recheck.
D.E.S. invoices for such rechecks shall include a breakdown of
costs.
7.5. Fees for additional services described under Article 6 of this
agreement shall be billed monthly on a time and materials basis in
accordance with the current D.E.S. Schedule of Charges (copy
attached). D.E.S. shall, upon request from the CITY, provide the
CITY with an estimated number of hours required for completion of
such additional services. D.E.S. invoices for such additional
services shall include a breakdown of costs.
7.6 The CITY agrees that all bills submitted shall be paid within
thirty (30) days of receipt.
ARTICLE 8. EXCLUSIONS
8.1. The following shall be excluded from the scope of services to be
provided to the CITY by D.E.S:
8.1.1. Plan checking for zoning, mechanical, electrical,
plumbing, or civil (grading, utilities, site work)
aspects of projects.
Page 4 of 7
SRACREEMNT
8.1.2. Providing any design or engineering services, or
producing any drawings or calculations.
8.1.3. Providing any guarantees, warranties or similar
representations as to the quality, accuracy or
completeness of documents submitted for plan checking.
8.1.4. Plan checking of additional project documents submitted
after D.E.S.'s final approval of project documents,
such as manufacturer's shop drawings, that contain
detailed construction information relating to aspects
of the project D.E.S. has already reviewed, unless
specifically requested as additional services in
accordance with Article 6 of this agreement.
8.1.5. Site visits or inspections of plan check projects,
unless specifically requested as additional services in
acccordance with Article 6 of this agreement.
8.1.6. Providing any other services not otherwise included in
this agreement or not customarily furnished in
accordance with generally accepted plan review
practice.
ARTICLE 9. CLARIFICATION OF PLAN CHECK ITEMS
9.1. D.E.S. performs plan checking in accordance with its interpretation
and knowledge of the governing codes. In the case of disputes in
interpretation or application of the governing codes, final
decisions lie with the governing agency (e.g., the.CITY, the
California Energy Commission) and the authors of the governing
codes (e.g., the International Conference of Building Officials).
ARTICLE 10. CHANGES IN PROJECTS
10.1. If the scope of any project submitted to D.E.S. for plan checking
is changed significantly subsequent to its initial submittal, fees
and turnaround times shall be equitably adjusted.
10.2. Changes in project scope determined by D.E.S. to be minor in nature
shall not require adjustment of fees or turnaround times.
ARTICLE 11. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
11.1. To avoid any possible conflict of interest, D.E.S. will not provide
plan checking services for any project for which project documents
were prepared by D.E.S., or in which D.E.S., or any of its
shareholders, directors, officers, agents or employees hold any
direct or indirect financial interest.
Page 5 of 7
SRAGREE14NT
ARTICLE 12. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
12.1. D.E.S. is, and at all times shall remain, an independent
contractor, and not an official, agent or employee of the CITY. As
such an independent contractor, neither D.E.S. nor any of its
shareholders, directors, officers, agents or employees shall be
entitled to any salary, fringe benefits, workers' compensation,
retirement contributions, sick leave, insurance or other benefit or
right connected with employment by the CITY, or any compensation
other than as provided in this agreement.
ARTICLE 13. SUBCONTRACTORS
13.1. D.E.S. acknowledges that its special skill and expertise is a
material consideration for the CITY entering into this agreement.
D.E.S. shall not assign, subcontract or delegate to any other party
the performance of any services to be rendered by D.E.S. under this
agreement without the prior written consent of the CITY.
ARTICLE 14. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT
14.1. This agreement may be modified by mutual consent of the CITY and
D.E.S. in the form of written addenda signed by representatives of
both parties.
ARTICLE 15. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
15.1. This agreement may be terminated by either the CITY or D.E.S. upon
thirty (30) days written notice.
15.2. D.E.S. shall be paid by the CITY for all services performed prior
to termination of this agreement within thirty (30) days of such
termination..
ARTICLE 16. GOVERNING LAW
16.1. This agreement shall be subject to and interpreted in accordance
with the laws of the State of California.
ARTICLE 17. INSURANCE
17.1. D.E.S. shall, at all times during the term of this agreement,
maintain in full force and effect a policy or policies of errors
and omissions and general liability insurance, in form and amount
and issued by an insurance carrier satisfactory to the CITY. Each
such policy shall provide for thirty (30) days prior written notice
to the CITY of any cancellation, reduction of coverage or other
material change in the terms and provisions thereof. The CITY
shall be provided with a certificate of insurance for each such
policy.
Page 6 of 7
SRAGREEMNT
ARTICLE 18. INDEMNITY
18.1. D.E.S. shall indemnify and hold the CITY, and its officials, agents
and employees harmless from and against any and all claims,
demands, causes of action, expenses or liabilities, including
attorneys' fees, arising out of any error or omission by D.E.S. or
non - performance by D.E.S. of its services hereunder.
ARTICLE 19. ATTORNEYS' FEES
19.1. In the event of any suit, action or proceeding brought by either
party for breach of any term hereof or to enforce any provision
hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover their
reasonable attorneys' fees.
ARTICLE 20. ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT
20.1. This agreement is hereby accepted by the undersigned parties:
THE CITY OF SARATOGA DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC.
By: By:
Date: Date:
Page 7 of 7
SRAGREEMNT
DESIGN & ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC. SCHEDULE OF CHARGES
The rates shown on the schedule of charges are reviewed each January and June and are then
reissued if modified. Unless other arrangements have been made, charges to all projects, including
those continuing from the previous schedule, will be based on the latest schedule of charges.
PERSONNEL CHARGES
Individual billing rates, based on actual salaries, are used in determining project charges. Current
billing rates for various employee classifications are as follows:
Personnel
Principal, Associate and
Senior Design Engineer
Structural /Architectural
Draftsperson /Tech n iciar
Support Services
Project Manager
Designer /Senior Draftsperson
Hourly Billing Rate
$40-$60
$40-$50
$30-$45
$25-$35
$15-$25
Personnel charges are for technical work. Charges are made for technical typing and for the time
and costs of compiling and printing reports and drawings. Direct charges are not made for general
secretarial services, office management, accounting and maintenance, since these items are
included in overhead.
MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES
The following charges are in addition to personnel charges:
Car, per mile
$ 0.30
Printing and Reproduction, per sheet
Xerox copies
$ 0.15
Blueprints
$ 0.75
Mylar prints
$18.75
Sepia prints
$ 4.10
Charges for special or unusual outside services are computed on the basis of cost plus 10 %. Some
examples of such outside services are:
Telegrams or long distance telephone calls Meals and lodging
Transportation on public carriers Shipping charges
Consultants
These billing rates are determined in accordance with Manual No. 45C of the American Society of
Civil Engineers.
.
m
CITY OF SARATOGA
' '7
�7
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: January 29, 1985 (February.6, 1985)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT:. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS MAPPING REPORT
Issue Sunntiary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty
C. Mgr.
Additional input was requested from the three consultants who submitted
proposals to perform mapping services. That input has shown that there
was clear understanding of the request. The Terratech firm proposes to
perform the work at a substantially lower cost because of their intense
interest.
Recon mndation
1. Approve the proposal of Terratech for the Geologic Hazards Mapping
Program in the South and West Hillside Areas.
2. Authorize the Community Development Director to issue the authorize-
. tion to proceed.
Fiscal Impacts
Not to exceed $18,000
Exhibits /Attachimnts
1.
Report from
Director of Community Development
dated January 29; 1985
2.
Request for
Additional Information dated December 21, 1984
3.
Supplemental
Data, Terratech, William Cotton,
JCP
4.
Report from
City Manager on original proposals
dated November 29, 1984
S.
Letter from
Terratech, dated January 29,1985,
regarding charge rates
Council Action
2/6: Awarded to Terratech 5 -0.
£;_.
1
A
A•
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 1 -29 -85
COUNCIL MEETING: 2 -06 -85
SUBJECT: Geologic Hazards Mapping Project
Per your request, this office requested additional information,
clarification and reconfiguration on the proposals for providing
Geologic Mapping Services. Attached are these resubmittals from
Terratech, JCP and William Cotton. Also attached is our report
on the original proposals.
It is clear from their explanation that Terratech is very
interested in performing this project and is willing to do so at
a, much reduced cost. This is a very reputable firm and,
therefore, I believe we can anticipate a quality product from
them. Otherwise I would be concerned that there would be budget
problems, requests for extras and /or an inadequate product. An
additional safeguard is that we have the previous mapping for
comparison and to which this work has to dovetail.
Based on the above, I feel that Terratech will provide a quality
product at a substantial savings and recommend you award the
contract to Terratech for a contract amount not to exceed
$18,000. I include the recommendation to do the total area,
rather than either of the two parts.
Robert . Shook
Director of Community Development
RSS:cd
Attachments
Qq
1:3777 I HUF1 VA1.1_,: ,%.VENU}; S:�h3:1'1'OGA,.C:�i.I1 0}iI\'I.'� 95070
(-10H) H07- :3.1:313
December 21, 1984
JCP
7246 Sharon Drive
San Jose, CA 95129
Attn: James C. Prendergast
RE: G_ologic niappinj of a portion of 5aratoya
coII C 1. ?111011 :
COUNCIL. 1V1EM31,:16:
Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
Virginia Laden Fanelli
Joyce Hlava
David Moyles
Enclosed find a copy oi- the staff report to the City Council con-
cerning the proposals for performing goologic mapping in the City
of Saratoga. As you can soc there is a wide variation between the
low and high estimates. I am not including the proposals but there
was a wide variation in the detail of these proposals also. It,
is primarily for that reason that the staff recommendation was
to award to other than the low proposal.
The variation in cost estimate covered the City Council to be un-
easy about awarding this work to any of the three firms submitting
proposals. Therefore they have directed staff to request you to
provide addition:.11 information as to the work effort you have based
your proposal on. As you can see the per diem rates are sub -
stantially the same which leads to the conclusion that it must
be time rather than rates which result in this difference.
The Council determined to not proceed with alternate one as des -
cribed in our request for proposal. They did request however
that there be another breakdown of the proposal. This would
split the original "Proposed mapping Area" into two areas with
cost estimate for each area separately and combined if the total
cost would b` difforent then simply adding the two.
These areas are defined as being Northwest of Saratoga Avenue -
Big Basin Way and Southeast of that same division line.
You are requested to submit this. additional information to clari-
fy your proposal and break up the proposal into the two defined
areas. Please submit this information by Jailuary 9, 1985 for
review by City Council at their January 16th meeting.
`Thank you for your patiuncc and assistance.
Vey r ly yo4
l:obcrt S. Shook
Director of Community Devc Anent
,.r
1365 VANDER WAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95112 (408) 297 -6969
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Attention: Mr. Robert S. Shook
RECEIVED
JAN 0 8 1985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
January 8, 19b5
P8601/84
Subject: Breakdown of the Proposal for the Proposed Geologic Mapping
of a Portion of Saratoga, California
Dear Mr. Shook:
In response to your letter, dated September 21, 1984, requesting a
division of our proposal into two areas with a statement of the amount we
have budgeted for each area, we have prepared the following.
One area is located Northwest of Saratoga Avenue -Big Basin Way and the
other Southeast of that division. If there are two separate areas, we
anticipate that our field mapping and report writing time would be
increased. We propose to study and map the area Northwest of Saratoga
Avenue -Big Basin Way for $8,000.
We estimate our fee for mapping the area Southeast of Saratoga Avenue -Big
Basin Way separately will be $15,000.
Our original budget of $18,000 is presented for the mapping of the entire
study area at one time.
Because of our sincere desire to obtain the City's commission to
undertake this project, we have developed a budget based upon reduced
hourly rates. Three factors influenced our decision to reduce our fee
below normal rates. They were: _
(1) Project size.
(2) The time of year, and our staff is not fully scheduled.
(3) This particular project is one that holds a great deal of
scientific interest for our geologic staff.
i.
January 8, 1984
P860/84
- 2 -
We hope that you and
an indication that w
importance, or as an
is not the case. We
be justifiably proud
come.
Yours sincerely,
TERRATECH, INC.
0. Ae- �
John D. Mattey
JDM /smp
the City Council will not interpret our "iow bid" as
do not understand the scope of the work or its
indication that we intend to skimp the work. This
plan to produce maps and a report of which we will
and which the city will find useful for years to
'1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
v
a
0
i
i
O
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS INVESTIGATION
CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
January 8, 1985
William Cotton and .associates
William Cotton
and Associates
Mr. Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mr. Shook:
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
January 8, 1985
P1574
IiUMMuryICL QI aLOOMENr
In response to your request dated December 21, 1984, we are submitting this
letter to supplement our proposal for geologic mapping services, dated August 30,
1984. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the level of effort associated with the
various tasks outlined in our original proposal. More specifically, this letter will
serve to further describe the importance of the individual tasks outlined in our
proposal, as well as delineate the number of man - hours, labor costs, and expenses
associated with each task.
At your direction, we have divided the original "Proposed Mapping Area" into
the two study areas, Study Area I and Study Area II, located northwest and southeast
of Saratoga Avenue -Big Basin Way, respectively (see Plate 1). We have included
detailed cost estimates for each of the three alternatives (i.e., Proposed Mapping
Area, Study Area I, Study Area II) in Appendices A, B, and C. The total cost
estimates for the three study areas are:
STUDY AREA I $20,596.00
STUDY AREA II $24,645.00
PROPOSED MAPPING AREA $32,830.00 (Original Budget)
You will note that the investigative costs are not simply proportional to the
relative size of the individual study areas. This is because the time required to
perform many of the investigative tasks is not reduced proportionally with the areal
size of each area. For example, preliminary tasks such as compilation of existing
geotechnical data and aerial photoanalysis will have to be completed for each study
area, and the cost will not necessarily be a function of the size of the individual field
area. Some costs, especially those related to specific tasks directly dependent on the
size of the individual study areas (e.g., engineering geologic field mapping, map
preparation and drafting, etc.) have been significantly reduced. It is our opinion,
however, that it would be most cost effective for the City to complete an
investigation of both study areas as originally proposed.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
1.
1 Mr. Robert S. Shook January 8, 1985
Also of importance is the consideration that both the "west" hillside area
(portion of Study Area I) and the "south" hillside area (portion of Study Area II) have
been impacted by slope movement processes over the past several years, and will.
undoubtedly be subject to similar landslide hazards in the future. Both regions also
contain lands that are characterized by relatively gentle topography, however, such
areas are also potentially constrained by other geotechnical hazards (e.g., faulting,
flooding, expansive soils, etc.) that warrant early detection. Consequently, we
believe that both hillside areas merit, and would benefit from, a detailed geologic
hazards investigation.
DISCUSSION OF PROJECT TASKS
The following descriptions are intended to supplement the detailed descriptions
of project tasks presented in Section 3.0, Technical Approach and Methodology, of
our original proposal.
PHASE I - INITIAL PROJECT RESEARCH
Task 1 - Project Planning and Coordination
The first task of the project will be to review and coordinate all phases of the
geologic hazards investigation among the members of the project team. At this time,
specific sub -tasks will be assigned to appropriate project team members, and
deadlines established, to ensure that the project is completed in an efficient and
timely manner. Also at this time, a system of communications will be established to
keep appropriate City personnel informed as to the progress of the technical work.
Task 2 - Compilation and Analysis of Basic Data
The purpose of this task is to establish the level of basic geologic and
geotechnical data that already exists for the project area. The task is of primary
importance in that it will define the general geologic conditions of the study area,
highlight areas of particular geologic concern, and allow us to better allocate the
limited amount of time available for field geologic mapping.
Task 3 - Compilation and Analysis of Aerial Photographs
Analysis of aerial photographs will serve to supplement and enhance the
geologic data base compiled during the previous research task. Stereoscopic aerial
photographs are particularly well- suited for the identification of large dormant and
old landslide features and fault trace lineaments. Analysis of historic aerial
photographs proved to be of the utmost importance during our previous investigation
of the Upper Calabazas Creek Watershed (1980) and the Congress Springs Landslide
Complex (1977).
1 William Cotton and Associates
I.
Mr. Robert S. Shook January 8, 1985
1 PHASE II - FIELD INVESTIGATION
Task 1 - Preliminary Field Reconnaissance
A field reconnaissance of the study area will be jointly conducted by all
members of the project team following the completion of the basic data compilation
' and aerial photographic analysis. At this time, field traverse routes will be assigned
to team members and data collection methods standardized. The joint field
reconnaissance will promote uniform data collection throughout the study area- and
ensure the highest quality final product.
Task 2 - Engineering Geologic Field Mapping
The key element, and most costly task, of our Geologic Hazards Investigation is
the Engineering Geologic Field Mapping program. The field mapping program will
verify, supplement, and enhance all the basic geologic data acquired up to this point.
It is absolutely essential that the entire study area be field checked to confirm that
the geologic earth materials, bedrock structure, and all potential geologic hazards
have been identified and accurately portrayed.
PHASE III - GEOLOGIC ANALYSIS AND REPORT PREPARATION
Task 1 -, Geologic Hazards Analysis
This task involves the analysis of all the geologic data acquired through the
field and research phases of the project. Careful and thorough analysis will be
required to ensure that all potential geologic hazards have been identified and
properly characterized on the final geologic maps. Ground Movement Potential Maps
that reflect the relative slope stability and seismic hazards of the study area will
then be derived from the geologic maps. It is important that the Ground Movement
Potential Maps be prepared using the same methodology and standard of care that we
used in the preparation of the Upper Calabazas Creek project.
Task 2 - Preparation of Draft Report and Maps
The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of our geologic hazards investi-
gation will be presented to appropriate City personnel in draft form for review and
comment. The draft report will include working copies of the Geologic and Ground
Movement Potential map folios.
Task 3 - Preparation of Final Report and Maps
Upon receipt of the City's review, a Final Report with accompanying Final Map
Folios will be prepared incorporating the City's comments and suggestions.
1 William Cotton and Associates
�1
C'
1
i
-4-
Mr. Robert S. Shook January 8, 1985
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
Detailed cost estimates for our investigation of the "Proposed Mapping Area"
and for "Study Area 111 and "Study Area 2T1 are attached as Appendices A, B, and C,
respectively. The stated costs of direct labor, materials, and travel, reflect our best
estimate of anticipated man -hours and expenses at the time our original proposal was
prepared and are to be considered as "not -to- exceed" figures. Our services, however,
will be billed on a time - and - expenses basis in accordance with our previously
submitted Schedule of Charges. Our final billings, therefore, will reflect any
variations in either labor or expense costs.
We trust that above discussion of project tasks, and the attached detailed cost
estimates, will serve to clarify the scope and costs of our proposed Geologic Hazards
Investigation. If you have any further questions regarding any aspect of our proposal,
please do not hesitate to contact us.
WRC:WLF:kt
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William R. Cotton
Principal Engineering Geologist
William L. Fowler
Senior Engineering Geologist
1 William Cotton and Associates
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED MAPPING AREA
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
PHASE I - INITIAL PROJECT RESEARCH
Task 1- Project Planning and Coordination
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
4 hours @ $75 /hr.
$
300.00
Senior Geologist
10 hours @ $55 /hr.
$
550.00
Staff Geologist
12 hours @ $50 /hr.
$
600.00
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, reproduction, etc.
$
10.00
TOTAL
$
1,460.00
Task 2 - Compilation and Analysis of Basic Data
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
10 hours @ $75 /hr.
$
750.00
Senior Geologist
20 hours @ $55 /hr.
$
1,100.00
Staff Geologist
25 hours @ $50 /hr.
$
1,250.00
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, reproduction, etc.
$
50.00
Travel:
Miles - 200 miles @ $.35
$
70.00
TOTAL
$
3,220.00
William Cotton and Associates
A
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Task 3 - Compilation and Analysis of Aerial Photographs
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
10 hours @ $75 /hr.
$
750.00
Senior Geologist
20 hours @. $55 /hr.
$
1,100.00
Staff Geologist
32 hours @ $50 /hr.
$
1,600.00
Estimated Expenses:
Aerial photography acquisition costs
$
100.00
Travel:
Miles - 200 miles '@. $.35
$
70.00
TOTAL
$
3,620.00
PHASE I TOTAL
$
8,300.00
PHASE II - FIELD INVESTIGATION
Task 1 - Preliminary Field Reconnaissance
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
6 hours @. $75 /hr.
$
450.00
Senior Geologist
12 hours @ $55 /hr.
$
660.00
Staff Geologist
21 hours @ $50 /hr.
$
1,050.A0
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, map reproduction, etc. $ 30.00
Travel:
Miles - 200 miles @ $.35 $ 70.00
TOTAL $ 2,260.00
William Cotton and Associates
e
v
s
a
Task 2 - Engineering Geologic Field Mappin
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
20 hours @ $75 /hr.
Senior Geologist
80 hours @ $55 /hr.
Staff Geologist
90 hours @ $50 /hr.
Estimated Expenses:
Misc. field supplies, photography costs
Travel:
Miles - 1200 miles @ $.35
TOTAL
PHASE II TOTAL
$ 1,500.00
$ 4,400.00
$ 4,500.00
$ 130.00
$ 420.00
$ 10,950.00
$ 13,210.00
PHASE III - GEOLOGIC ANALYSIS AND REPORT PREPARATION
Task 1 - Geologic Hazards Analysis
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
20 hours @ $75 /hr. $ 1,500.00
Senior Geologist
30 hours @ $55 /hr. $ 1,540.00
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, reproduction, etc.
TOTAL
$ 120.00
$ 3,160.00
William Cotton and Associates
0
a
v
e
i
Task 2 - Preparation of Draft Report and Maps
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
15 hours @ $75 /hr.
$
1,125.00
Senior Geologist
35 hours @ $55 /hr.
$
1,925.00
Technical Illustrator
65 hours @. $32 /hr.
$
2,080.00
Word Processing
18 hours @ $30 /hr.
$
540.00
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, reproduction, stationery, etc. $ 1,130.00
TOTAL $ 6,800.00
Task 3 - Preparation of Final Report and Maps
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
4 hours @. $75 /hr.
Senior Geologist
4 hours @ $55 /hr.
Technical Illustrator
5 hours @ $32 /hr.
Word Processing
5 hours @ $30 /hr.
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, reproduction, etc.
TOTAL
PHASE H TOTAL
TOTAL NOT -TO- EXCEED COST
$ 300.00
$ 220.00
$ 160.00
$ 150.00
$ 530.00
$ 1,360.00
$ 11,320.00
$ 32,830.00
William Cotton and Associates
e
0
0
i
A
a
t
i
v
APPENDIX B
STUDY AREA I
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
PHASE I - INITIAL PROJECT RESEARCH
Task 1- Project Planning and Coordination
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
4 hours @ $75 /hr. $ 300.00
Senior Geologist
10 hours @. $55 /hr. $ 550.00
Staff Geologist
12 hours @. $50 /hr. $ 600.00
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, reproduction, etc. $ 10.00
TOTAL $ 1,460.00
Task 2 - Compilation and Analysis of Basic Data
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
6 hours @. $75 /hr. $ 450.00
Senior Geologist
10 hours @ $55 /hr. $ 550.00
Staff Geologist
16 hours @. $50 /hr. $ 800.00
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, reproduction, etc. $ 50.00
Travel:
Miles - 200 miles @. $.35 $ 70.00
TOTAL $ 1,920.00
William Cotton and Associates
t
0
e
i
i
a
e
i
s
i
Task 3 - Compilation and Analysis of Aerial Photographs
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
4 hours @ $75 /hr. $ 300.00
Senior Geologist
12 hours @ $55 /hr. $ 660.00
Staff Geologist
16 hours @ $50 /hr. $ 800.00
Estimated Expenses:
Aerial photography acquisition costs $ 100.00
Travel:
Miles - 200 miles @ $.35 $ 70.00
TOTAL $ 1,930.00
PHASE I TOTAL $ 5,310.00
PHASE H - FIELD INVESTIGATION
Task 1 - Preliminary Field Reconnaissance
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
4 hours @ $75 /hr. $ 300.00
Senior Geologist
8 hours @ $55 /hr. $ 440.00
Staff Geologist
12 hours @ $50 /hr. $ 600.00
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, map reproduction, etc. $ 30.00
Travel:
Miles - 100 miles @ $.35 $ 35.00
—r
TOTAL $ 19405.00
William Cotton and Associates
v
s
a
0
1
1
1
1
Task 2 - Engineering Geologic Field Mapping
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
8 hours @ $75 /hr. $ 600.00
Senior Geologist
50 hours @ $55 /hr. $ 2,750.00
Staff Geologist
50 hours @ $50 /hr. $ 2,500.00
Estimated Expenses:
Misc. field supplies, photography costs $ 130.00
Travel:
Miles - 500 miles @ $.35 $ 175.00
TOTAL $ 6,155.00
PHASE 11 TOTAL $ 7,560.00
PHASE III - GEOLOGIC ANALYSIS AND REPORT PREPARATION
Task 1 - GeolOLric Hazards Analvsis
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
12 hours @ $75 /hr.
Senior Geologist
22 hours @ $55 /hr.
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, reproduction, etc.
TOTAL
$ 900.00
$ 1,210.00
$ 120.00
$ 2,230.00
William Cotton and Associates
Task 2 - Preparation of Draft Report and Maps
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
10 hours @ $75 /hr.
$ 750.00
Senior Geologist
26 hours @. $55 /hr.
$ 1,430.00
Technical Illustrator
38 hours @ $32 /hr.
$ 1,216.00
Word Processing
14 hours @ $30 /hr.
$ 420.00
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, reproduction, stationery, etc. $ 550.00
TOTAL $ 4,366.00
Task 3 - Preparation of Final Report and Maps
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
4 hours @ $75 /hr.
Senior Geologist
4 hours @ $55 /hr.
Technical Illustrator
5 hours @ $32 /hr.
Word Processing
5 hours @ $30 /hr.
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, reproduction, etc.
TOTAL
PHASE.III 'DOTAL
TOTAL NOT -TO- EXCEED COST'
$ 300.00
$ 220.00
$ 160.00
$ 150.00
$ 300.00
$ 1,130.00
$ 7,726.00
$ 20,596.00
William Cotton and Associates
0 all
s
3
s
t
i
s
v
i
APPENDIX C
STUDY AREA II
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
PHASE I - INITIAL PROJECT RESEARCH,
Task 1 - Project Planning and Coordination
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
4 hours @ $75 /hr. $ 300.00
Senior Geologist
10 hours @ $55 /hr. $ 550.00
Staff Geologist
12 hours @ $50 /hr: $ 600.00
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, reproduction, etc. $ 10.00
TOTAL $ 1,460.00
Task 2 - Compilation and Analysis of Basic Data
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
8 hours @. $75 /hr. $ 600.00
Senior Geologist
12 hours @. $55 /hr. $ 660.00
Staff Geologist
20 hours @ $50 /hr. $ 1,000.60
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, reproduction, etc.
Travel:
Miles - 200 miles @. $.35
$ 50.00
$ 70.00
TOTAL $ 2,380.00
William Cotton and Associates
a
e
a
Ell
s
1
1
1
Task _3 - Compilation and Analysis of Aerial Photographs
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
6 hours @ $75 /hr. $ 450.00
Senior Geologist
16 hours @ $55 /hr. $ 880.00
Staff Geologist
18 hours @ $50 /hr. $ 900.00
Estimated Expenses:
Aerial photography acquisition costs $ 100.00
Travel:
Miles - 200 miles-@ $.35 $ 70.00
TOTAL $ 2,400.00
PHASE I TOTAL $ 6,240.00
PHASE II - FIELD INVESTIGATION
Task 1 - Preliminary Field Reconnaissance
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
4 hours @. $75 /hr. $ 300.00
Senior Geologist
8 hours @ $55 /hr. $ 440.00
Staff Geologist
12 hours @ $50 /hr. $ 600.00
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, map reproduction, etc. $ 30.00
Travel:
Miles - 100 miles @ $.35
$ 35.00
TOTAL $ 1,405.00
William Cotton and Associates
e
0
a
s
v
Task 2 - Engineering Geologic Field Mapping
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
12 hours @ $75 /hr. $ 900.00
Senior Geologist
60 hours @ $55 /hr. $ 3,300.00
Staff Geologist
60 hours @ $50 /hr. $ 3,000.00
Estimated Expenses:
Misc. field supplies, photography costs $ 130.00
Travel:
Miles - 800 miles @ $.35 $ 280.00
TOTAL $ 7,610.00
PHASE IT TOTAL $ 9,015.00
PHASE III - GEOLOGIC ANALYSIS AND REPORT PREPARATION
Task 1 - Geologic Hazards Analysis
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
16 hours @ $75 /hr.
Senior Geologist
26 hours @ $55 /hr.
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, reproduction, etc.
TOTAL
$ 1,200.00
$ 1,430.00
$ 120.00
$ 2,750.00
William Cotton and Associates
a
s
s
a
a
u
a
A
1
1
1
1
1
e
L
Task 2 - Preparation of Draft Report and Maps
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
12 hours @ $75 /hr.
$ 900.00
Senior Geologist
30 hours @. $55 /hr.
$ 1,650.00
Technical Illustrator
50 hours @. $32 /hr.
$ 1,600.00
Word Processing
16 hours @ $30 /hr.
$ 480.00
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, reproduction, stationery, etc. $ 780.00
TOTAL $ 5,410.00
Task 3 - Preparation of Final Report and Ma
Direct Labor:
Principal Geologist
4 hours @ $75 /hr.
Senior Geologist
4 hours @. $55 /hr.
Technical Illustrator
5 hours @ $32 /hr.
Word Processing
5 hours @ $30 /hr.
Estimated Expenses:
Photocopy, reproduction, etc.
TOTAL
PHASE III TOTAL
TOTAL NOT -TO- EXCEED COST
$ 300.00
$ 220.00
$ 160.00
$ 150.00
$ 400.00
$ 1,230.00
$ 9,390.00
$ 24,645.00
William Cotton and Associates
T
7i
-,-ti I L-�
A- ONE
L
j:
CAII BAZAS! 'CREEK
j STUDY AREA' AREA
"-(WCA -1 98b)
V
i.
v
'71
Z
Z 7-pl
SA Ti
IC A
0
4j
-X
j-,
Is
N
t
V
J:
'M
P NQ �A
P .0 POSED
i )`CONGRESS SPRIN�' EA
R
AREA;
x'S
S
N --N, KNI!, r;r
.49
William Cotton and Associate
INDEX MAP
CITY OF SARATOGA
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS INVESTIGATIONS
CFO L PL At L NO
Bn I 'F`10JECTNO
30, P 1574
EXPLANATION
Active Landslide -- Reviewed by
WCA, March, 1983
J
Previously Mapped Areas
U�l
NOTES
Base map of U.S Geological Survey
7.5 nimule TOP091.11)h,c Series' Castle Pack Ridge•
Cupertino. Lus Cato,• and S111 J-1e West Olad,angles:
1:24.000.
-N-
0 2000
11_� ��
4000
JCP
GEOLOGISTS •ENGE`rEERS
7246 Sharon Drive o San Jose, CA 95129 o (408) 446 -4426
January 9, 1985
Proposal No. JCP- 5032 -1
Robert S. Schook
Director of Community Develop.
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Re: Geologic Mapping of a Portion
of Saratoga
Dear Mr. Schook:
As per your December 21, 1984 letter we are submitting an ammended
proposal based on the changes detailed in our December 21 letter
as well as a cost saving development within our firm.
We understand that the City Engineer and the City Manager feel
that William Cotton & Associates has the most direct and relevant
experience relative to mapping in the City of Saratoga. We re-
spect that opinion but wish to state that this firm and others,
spend a large portion of their working time dealing with the types
of maps that the City wishes to develop as well as many other
types of geologic maps. This firm and others are very competent
to use, understand and modify such maps and do so on a daily
basis. The abilities and capabilities necessary to develop such
maps are not extraordinary in nature and William Cotton & Asso-
ciates is not the only firm capable of developing such maps effi-
ciently and economically.
The area northwest of Saratoga Avenue -Big Basin Way is approxi-
mately one -half the size of the southeast area but has a great
deal more landsliding and more complex geology than the southeast
area. Therefore, after our review of the two areas the cost of
each area will be approximately the same. However, if only one
area is mapped then several of the scopes of work such as "re-
search", that would be utilized for the entire area must still be
completely performed for the smaller area. We estimate that a an
additional cost of approximately 10% would be applicable if only
one area is authorized. Refer to our Table contained herein below
for a break -down of costs.
We have recently (September 1984) obtained the services of a
geologist by the name of Jeff Bachhuber. Mr. Bachhuber has com-
pleted his schooling for a masters degree at San Jose State Uni-
versity with the exception of his thesis project. Mr. Bachhuber's
thesis project was to develop geologic maps for planning and land
use for a portion of the City of Scotts Valley. However, since
working with this firm during the fall of 1984, he has changed his
thesis area for mapping to a portion of the foothills of Saratoga.
Upon receipt of your December 21, 1984 letter he contacted his
graduate advisor, Dr. Williams of San Jose State University, who
agreed that the City's project of mapping the Saratoga Foothills
could be utilized as his thesis.
If we can utilize Mr. Bachhuber's thesis work in conjunction with
this study to develop geologic maps, a significant savings can be
obtained. After discussion with Mr. Bachhuber- we have arrived at
an understanding that 50% of his work on the project would be
without cost to the City. Of course, the other 50% of work he
would be paid at his normal wage. Such an arrangement should not
affect the quality of work as the same supervision would be imple-
mented and this firm would still have the same responsibilities
for timely performance and,-quality of work. Such an arrangement
is also to Mr. Bachhuber's benefit as work on his thesis can be
accelerated and he can earn income at the same time as he is doing
his thesis. Based on an analyses of time which Mr. Bachhuber
would be putting into the project. Two hundred and eighty -two
(282) hours at his charge out of $45 an hour, $12,666 would be
involved. One -half of that amount is $6,333. Therefore, we can
decrease our overall cost by $6,333.
SUMMARY
Bid for Proposed Mapped Area
northwest and southeast area $ 34,500.00
Cost savings by using Mr. Bachhuber's thesis time 6,333.00
TOTAL FOR PROPOSED AREA ADJUSTED: 28,167.00
Cost for northwest area 14,083.50
Estimated cost for southeast area 14,083.50
Note: If only one area is authorized
increase cost by $1,408 (10 %)
Thank you for consideration of our firm and we look forward of
being of service to you. If you approve of the scope of work and
cost of this proposal, please return to our office one signed copy
of this proposal.
Init-,
If you have any questions concerning this proposal please call our
office (408) 446 -4426.
JCP /jm
Copies: Addressee (3)
Approved By:
Very truly yours,
& GEOLOGISTS, INC.
ast
il Engineer 29608
ologist 955
Date:
JCP
JCPI
GEOLOGISTS -ENGINEERS
7246 Sharon Drive - San Jose, CA 95129 0 (408) 446 -4426
August 30, 1984
Proposal No. JCP -5032
Robert S. Schook
Director of Community Development
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Re: Request for Proposed for Geo-
logic Mapping of a Portion of
Saratoga, California
Dear Mr. Schook:
In accordance with your request, we are submitting this proposal
to perform geologic mapping of a portion of The City of Saratoga.
The proposed work includes initial project research, field stud-
ies, geologic analyses and compilation of the final report and map
as outlined in the request for proposal.
Scope of Work
Described below is our evaluation of the work necessary to adequate-
ly map the surface and subsurface geology of a portion of The City
of Saratoga. The work described applies to both the "Proposed
Mapping Area" as well as "Alternate One ". Separate estimates of
fees for both these areas are included.
Qualifications and Capabilities
JCP - Engineers & Geologists, Inc. has had extensive experience per-
forming both geologic and soils investigations within The City of
Saratoga (149 studies to date). This work has included both
surface and subsurface geologic and geotechnical stdies. Much of
this work is published and available to the City as specific site
reports. Other data is unpublished and only available to JCP -
Engineers & Geologists, Inc. All data available to us will be
presented in the final report and map.
JCP- Engineers & Geologists, Inc. has performed over 149 geotechni-
cal and geologic studies within the Saratoga City limits. Some of
the data accumulated suggests that modifications be made to the
upper Calabazas Creek watershed study. Specifically, the location
of the Berrocal Fault, which was based on published data, is some-
what incorrect. Studies done since 1980 have encountered the
fault at its true location which is somewhat to the southeast of
the "Previously Mapped Area ".
We suggest that The City authorize, in conjunction with currently
proposed geologic mapping, upgrading of the applicable portions of
the 1980 upper Calabazas Creek watershed study.
Costs
The costs estimated by JCP- Engineers & Geologists, Inc. to com-
plete the proposed work are outlined in Section V. Estimated fees
for performing the work on the "Proposed Mapping Area" total
$34,500. Estimated fees for performing the work on the "Alternate
One" area total $16,500. These fees are "not to exceed" figures.
Manpower
The resources available to JCP- Engineers & Geologists, Inc. will
allow the proposed work to be accomplished within the time con-
straints imposed by the City. The key personnel involved along
with brief biographies are attached as Appendix A.
We will be prepared to consult with and attend a reasonable number
of meetings with the City Council, Planning Comission and City Ad-
ministrative Staff in connection with completion of the project.
In addition, we are prepared to provide proof of insurance cover-
ages as specified in the request for proposal.
WORK — DESCRIPTION
I. Initial Project Research
A. Compilation of geologic, soils, groundwater and
engineering data
1. U.S.G.S.
a. geologic maps
b. Water Resources Division data
C. professional reports and studies of area
2. California State Division of Mines & Geology
a. geologic maps
b. engineering data
C. groundwater /soils studies
3. Santa Clara County
a. reports
b. County data
4. City of Saratoga
a. City's reports & data
b. any reports available to us by outside consultants
5. In -House
a. soils & geologic reports
b. unpublished data from our files
PJCP-
B. Photointerpretation
1. Collection of appropriate air photos of area
a. U.S.G.S.
b. Santa Clara County
c. NASA - Ames
(i) . infrared
(ii). color /BW
d. Fairchild Collection
e. Pacific Aerial Survey
f. U.C. Santa Cruz
2. Selection of most useful air photos for mapping
geologic problem areas within City
3. Reproduction and enlargement to appropriate mapping
scale (1" = 200') of photos selected
4. Use of photos in mapping and transferring data
collected on photos to map
II. Field Studies
A. Identification of unstable areas for field reconnaissance
studies
1. Air Photos studies
2. Previous work and research
B. Field reconnaissance studies and field mapping
1. Road cuts
2. Creek - drainage exposures
3. Private property and survey
(with owners permission only)
4. Subsurface information collected in Research (I)
III. Geologic Map and Report Preparation
A. Evaluation and finalizing all technical data
B. Transferring and plotting of data from various sources
on base map
C. Drafting of final maps on MYLAR
D. Report writing
0 a
t: A.
E. Proofing, editing and reproduction
IV. Ground Movement Potential Map and Report Preparation'
A. Evaluation and finalizing all technical data
B. Transferring and plotting of data from various
sources on base map
C. Drafting of final map on MYLAR
D. Report writing
E. Proofing, editing and reproduction
V. Cost Estimates
A. Proposed Mapping Area
1. Initial project research
a. technical
(i) labor (rate includes overhead)
0'7
103 hours @ $45* /hour 4,635'`
12 hours @ $55 /hour 660
4 hours @ $75 /hour 300
$ 5,595
(ii) expenses
(a) mileage
(b) materials
(c) reproduction
500
b. photointerpretation
(i) labor (rate includes overhead)
52 hours @ $55 /hour
2,860
(ii) expenses
(a) photo procurement
(b) reproduction & enlargement
(c) materials
950
2. Field Investigation
a. Preliminary work to identify unstable
areas
needing field reconnaissance
* From Schedule of Charges and Terms attached as Appendix B
J( !
W labor (rate includes overhead))//
*570V0
45 hours @ $45 /hour
2,025
12 hours @ $55 /hour
660
2 hours @ $75 /hour
150
2,835
b. Field studies
(i) labor (rate includes
overhead)
208 hours @ $45 /hour
9,360
(ii) expenses
(a) mileage
(b) materials
950
3. Map and Report Preparation
a. Evaluation & Finalizing
data
(i) labor (rate includes
overhead)
50 hours @ $45 /hour
2, 250 y�'7,
15 hours @ $55 /hour
825
6 hours @ $75 /hour
450
3,525
expensese
(a) materials
(b) reproduction
300
b. Drafting, writing and editing
(i) labor (rate includes
overhead))
50%
117 hours @ $45 /hour
5,265
12 hours @ $55 /hour
660
8 hours @ $75 /hour
600
6,525
(ii) expenses
(a) materials
(b) reproduction)
1.100
Total for "Proposed Mapping Area ":
$ 24,500
B. Alternate One
1. Initial Research *
$ 900
2. Field Studies
9,600
3. Report and Map Preparation 6,000
Total for "Alternate One ": $ 16,500
* These figures are subtotals based on similar expense and
labor breakdown as in the previous section for the cost
estimates for the "Proposed Mapping Area ".
The cost of services for performing the above described scope of
work will be billed on either a task basis or time card basis,
whichever is more desirable to the City. However, we do require a
30 (thirty) day remittance for cash -flow control purposes.
Our professional services will be performed, our findings obtained
and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally ac-
cepted engineering and geologic principles and practices. This
warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or
implied.
We thank you for consideration of our firm and look forward to
being of continuing service to you. Note the schedule of charges
and terms attached as Appendix B. If you approve of the scope of
work and cost of this proposal, please return to our office one
signed-,copy of this proposal.
If you have any questions concerning this proposal please call our
office (408) 446 -4426.
Very truly yours,
W CP -ENG ERS & GEOLOGISTS, INC.
James C. Prendl ast
President
JCP:jm
Copies: Addressee (3)
Approved by: Date
eTCP i
JCP
GEOLOGISTS-ENGINEERS
7246 Sharon Drive e San Jose, CA 95129 o (408) 446 -4426
RESUME OF
JAMES C. PRENDERGAST
EDUCATION
• University of California, Riverside; B.A., Geology
o California State University, San Jose, M.S., Civil
Engineering (Soil Mechanics and Foundation and
Geological Engineering)
REGISTRATION
• Registered Civil Engineer (California)
o Registered Geologist (California)
• Certified Engineering Geologist (California)
• General Engineering Contractor, California License #386631
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
• American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
s Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG)
• Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI)
• Saber Society
Mr. Prendergast has been in the geology and soil engineering field
for 14 years and has worked on a wide variety of engineering and
geologic projects. Mr. Prendergast has performed geologic studies
for earth dams, tailing dams, groundwater pollution, pipelines,
dewatering projects, high -rise buildings, construction on steep
slopes, land development and subdivision engineering and geologic
studies, Special Study Zone Fault studies, landslide studies,
roadway alignment studies, quarry location and quality of material
studies in addition to other projects.
JCP
GEOLOGISTS • ENGINEERS
7246 Sharon Drive o San Jose, CA 95129 o (408) 446 -4426
RESUME OF
ROBERT G. WILSON, III
EDUCATION
s University of California, Santa Cruz, B.S., Geology
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
• Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG)
• Saber Society
EXPERIENCE
Mr. Wilson has been employed as the staff engineering geolo-
gist for JCP- Engineers & Geologists, Inc. since the Fall of
1978. He has been involved in all aspects of the studies
produced by the firm, including engineering geologic and soil
& foundation studies. The firm specializes in hillside de-
velopment and Mr. Wilson has extensive experience relative to
landslides, fault studies and distressed properties.
j -1
GEOLOGISTS • ENGINEERS
7246 Sharon Drive o San Jose, CA 95129 o (408) 446 -4426
RESUME OF
MARC M. DRUCRMAN
EDUCATION
e Somona State University, B.S., Geology
PROFESSIONAL. SOCIETIES
e Geological Society of America (GSA)
e American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)
e Association of Earth Science Editors (ASE)
e Association of North Bay Scientists (ANBS)
(1981 Excellent Paper Award)
EXPERIENCE
Geological mapping with United States Geological Survey;
Watershed Studies and Wild and Scenic River studies for Cali-
fornia Department of Water Resouces; Field work for and prep-
aration of environmental impact reports for P.G. & E., U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Northern California Power Associa-
tion; Co- Author, "Preparation of Grain Mounts ", Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology; Geochemical exploration for gold and
mercury deposits; Two years of extensive experience with JCP-
Engineers & Geologists, Inc. performing field and office stud-
ies relative to fault traces, landslides, new construction and
construction supervision.
JCP
GEOLOGISTS • ENGINEERS
7246 Sharon Drive o San Jose, CA 95129 o (408) 446 -4426
RESUME OF
WALTER E. DIBBLE, JR.
EDUCATION
s B.A., Geology, University of California, Riverside
s Ph.D., Geology, Stanford University
EMPLOYMENT
® JCP- Engineers & Geologists, Inc. (engineering geology
and mineral exploration)
® Petrophysical Services, Inc. (core analysis for oil
industry)
e Postdoctorial scholar at Stanford University
e U.S. Geological Survey, Lithium Project
o Research Assistant at U.S. Geological Survey
e U.S. Marine Corp
PUBLICATIONS
e List Upon Request
EXPERIENCE
Dr. Dibble has had a wide range of experience in several
fields of geology including mineral exploration, geologic
mapping, research and engineering geology. Mr. Dibble has
extensive experience in geologic mapping studies and project
management.
JCP- ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS, INC,
1i DULE OF CHARGES AND TERMS
PERSONNEL CHARGES
Principal $ 75 /hour
Project Engineer and Project Engineering Geologist 55 /hour
Field Geologist and Engineering Technician 45 /hour
Non - Technical Assistant 26 /hour
EQUIPMENT CHARGES
Automobile
MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES
$ .40 /mile
APPENDIX B
Drilling services, printing and reproduction, special and consultant fees, permits, insurance equipment
rental and other similar project related costs are billed at cost plus 15 percent.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLIENT AND CONSULTANT
The Consultant, ,ICP- Engineers 6 Geologists, Inc., is retained by the Client to study the geology and /or
subsurface soil. conditions and to consult with him regarding his project or problem. The Consultant's
services are for the benefit of the Client, but the extent of those services is limited by the funds made
available by the Client for the studies. The Consultant has a public responsibility to porf.orm his work
in conformance with the accepted standards of professional care, but beyond that must make evaluations of
cost versus risk. Where deemed appropriate, the Consultant will present these evaluations to the Client
so that he may choose the degree of risk appropriate to this own economic evaluations. Whether or not
such consultation hetween the Client and Consultant takes place, it is recognized that, since the cost
savings belong to the Client, so must the risks belong to the Client. Both the Client and the Consultant
recognize that, clue to the pract.ical economic limitation on the scope of the studies, factors that might
have affected some of the decisions may remain undiscovered.
WARRANTY
The Client recognizes the inherent risks connected with construction. In performing their professional,
services, JCP- F.nginocrs ti Geologists, Inc. will use that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised,
under similar cirrtnnstances, by reputable members of their profession practicing in the same• of slmila:
locality, No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made or intended by the proposal for consul tin -1
services or by furnishing oral ur written reports of the find' rigs made.
LiA'itI1.I'PY
Our liability to the Client for injury or damage to person or properties arising out of work perform,!
for the Cl tent and fnr which Ienal Iiahi 1.1 tv may he found to rest anon us, other than for n[ofensional
errors and omissions, shall be limited to our general liability coverage. Our liability for any alleq ?,d
error, omission or professional shortcoming shall be limited to those acts or alleged acts for which it
can be shown that we did not perform with the competence and thoroughness usual to the geology and soilt7
6 f,nnnrlations engine• ring professions.
In the event III Cli•ant makes a claim, at law or otherwise, against JCP - Engineers 6 Geologists, Inc, for
any alleg,�d error, omission, or other acts arising out of performance of our professional services, and
Client: fails to prove such claim upon final adjudication or settlement, then the Client. shall pay all
costs incurred by JCP -Enq ineers 6 Geologists, Inc. in defending themselves against the claim, including,
but not limited to, personnel- related costs, attorney's fees, court costs, and all other claim- reLatad
expennen. In the event that legal action of any kind arises relative to this study and requires ti—
services of JCP - Engineers 6 Geologists, Inc., or James C. Prendergast, the fees for such consulting
services will be according to our current schedule of charges and terms. In the event of rlepositions,
atbitration h,,ar ings, court appearances, etc., our fees will be $300 for each 4 hour period or portion
thereof.
We will not h,� liable for damage, or. injury arising from damage, to subterranean structures (pipes,
tanks, telephone cahlen, etc.) the locations of which are not called to our attention and correctly shown
on the plans furnished us in connection with the work performed by us.
INVOICES
Invoices for our services will be submitted at our option, on a monthly basis or when the work is
completed. Invoices will be due immediately, but will not be delinquent if paid within 10 days from
which the invoice is dated. If payment is not so made, a service charge will be due on the amount of the
invoices at th•- maximum rate permissible by law from the date of the invoice until the same is paid. 11
suit is filed, a reasonable attorney 's fee, to be set by the court, and other costs incurred in collect-
ing any delinquent account, shall be included in any judgment in favor of JCP - Engineers 6 Geologists,
Inc.
SAMPLES
All samples of soil and rock will be disposed of after insuance of the report unless the Client advises
JCI'- Engineers 6 Geologists, Inc, otherwise. I1pon request, JCP - Engineers & Geologists, Inc. will d,•l,iv,rr
the samples to the client., Charges collecr, or will store them for an agreed storage charge.
COPIES OF ADDITIONAL COPIES OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED REPORTS
The cost of additional copies of report previously issued will be determined on a tim,• and material
basis with a minimum of $12.00 for the first copy and $6.00 for each additional copy. ���
CAB 2s � Qq
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 11/29/84
COUNCIL MEETING: 12/05/84
SUBJECT: Geologic Hazards Mapping Project
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
SUMMARY
The 1984 -85 budget includes an appropriation of $30,000 for a
geologic hazards mapping program in the southern and western
slope areas of the City. A similar program was completed in the
late 1970's for -the northwestern slope area of Saratoga. The
results of the earlier study have enabled the City to identify
areas of real or potential risk for ground unstability, high
seismic hazard or flooding. Based on the results of that mapping
effort, the'City's development regulations have been modified to
require that prospective development in areas of real or
potential hazard first identify the degree of hazard and the
means for mitigation as part of the application process. In
areas of actual hazard, the type and density of development. is
restricted.
The current appropriation is intended to complete the geologic
hazards mapping program in the remaing portion of the City
anticipated to include real or potentially hazardous conditions.
This is the area known as the south and western hillside area.
Three bids have been received from the twelve Requests for
Proposals mailed in July, 1984. Of these, the bid of William A.
Cotton and Associates is believed to be the most responsive and
the best qualified to undertake the project.
Report to Mayor and City Council Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the Proposal of William A. Cotton and Associates for
the Geologic Hazards Mapping of the South and West Hillside
areas of Saratoga.
2. Appropriate the additional sum of $2,830.00 from the General
Fund Reserve to cover the "not -to- exceed" Proposal Bid.
3. Authorize the Community Development Director to proceed with
the proposal contract.
ANALYSIS
Benefits of the Project: Undertaking this project will enable
the City to identify areas of real or potential hazard in the
South and Western hillside areas in a manner similar to that
which was accomplished for the Northwest Hillside area. The
earlier project in the Northwest area has enabled the City to
increase the degree of protection of public and private property
from the hazards identified and increase public awareness of the
potential for such hazards prior to making development decisions.
The "value" of these benefits is incalculable in reducing or
eliminating future real or potential liability of the City under
the existing legal framework.
RECOMMENDED CONSULTANT
Three proposals have been received from the firms of William
Cotton and Associates of Los Gatos; Terratech, Inc. of San Jose,
and JCP, Inc. of San Jose. The City Engineer recommends the
proposal of Cotton and Associates as being the most responsive to
the study requirements and likely -to provide the City with the
best overall results. I concur with the City Engineer's
recommendation and find further that the Cotton firm offers the
best experience for the project. This firm also performed the
Northwest Hillside Mapping project for the City. The following
chart compares the major features of the three proposals:
Report to Mayor and City Council
Page 3
On the basis of evaluating the proposals, the City Engineer and
City Manager concur that William Cotton and Associates has the
most direct and relevant experience and that the organization of
the work and methodology are most likely to produce the most
responsive report and recommendations for the City. Copies of
the proposales received are attached.
i
.
WayVe Dernetd
City anager
3m
Attachments
Terratech,
Wm.Cotton
J.C:P.
Inc.
& Assoc.
Inc.
"Not -to- Exceed" estimate
of cost of work (not
including Alternate 1)
$18,000
$32,830
$34,500
Typical Fees:
Principal Geologist
$75 /hour
$75 /hour
$75 /hour
Project Engineer
$65 /hour
$60 /hour,
$55 /hour
Tech. Draftsmen
$29 /hour
$32 /hour
$45 /hour
Expense Charges:
At Cost plus
150
15Q
15
On the basis of evaluating the proposals, the City Engineer and
City Manager concur that William Cotton and Associates has the
most direct and relevant experience and that the organization of
the work and methodology are most likely to produce the most
responsive report and recommendations for the City. Copies of
the proposales received are attached.
i
.
WayVe Dernetd
City anager
3m
Attachments
1365 VANDER WAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA95112 (408) 297 -6969
January 29, 1985
P860/84
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Attention: Mr. Robert S. Shook
Subject: Hourly Charge Rates for the Proposed
Geologic Mapping for a Portion of Saratoga, California
Gentlemen:
As stated in our January 8 letter, because of the project size, the
relatively slow time of year and the interest of the project, we have
reduced the normal amount of our hourly rates applied to this project.
We feel the amount will be somewhat interpretive depending on how the
project is proceeding but the intent is to reduce our staff and senior
geologist charges by 15%. At this rate the hourly fee for a staff
geologist becomes $38.25 and a senior geologist becomes $50.00.
All direct.cost for this particular project such as obtaining
stereoscopic aerial photographs and mileage will be billed at direct cost.
Sincerely,
TERRATECH, INC.
John D. Mattey
JDM /smd
.FeFCEIVFp
JAN 3 0 1985
CnMMiIN►TY npVFLnpMFNr
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO
DATE: 1/25/85 (2/06/85)
DEpARTmENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Att .
C. Mgr.
-------------------- L-----z ----------------------
SDR -1585, A -1040, V -680 & LL #6, Albert & Ann or-inc - Parcel Behind 19605 Glen Una
SUBJECT: Dr., Appeal of Applicant of Denial of Variance and Appeal by David J. Morrison of
all AParov_als of Pro (Lct
------------------ - - - - --
Issue S - Applicant received Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval to build
a one story house on a lot of record behind their existing home and lot. In order to retain an
arbor, garage and cabana on the lot with their existing home, they requested several variances
and a lot line adjustment.with the lot to the rear as well as building site and design review
approval. The Planning Commission granted the variances and lot line adjustment for the arbor
and garage, but denied the variances necessary for retaining the cabana. The applicants are
appealing the denial of the variances for the cabana, making the findings on a letter attached
to their appeal. Their neighbor, Mr. Morrison, is appealing all the approvals on the project
objecting to; 1) the 20' sideyard setback from his property, 2) the maximum new construction
being allowed, and 3) the granting of variances in the setback area as a poor precedent and on
a nonconforming lot. Petitions against the subdivision and 5 zoning variances that would faci-
litate it are attached to this appeal, signed by 11 citizens.
The project does not involve a subdivision, but rather 2 lots of record. The exchange of land
in the lot line adjustment is an equal exchange.
Recommendation:
1. Determine the merits of the appeals and uphold or reverse the decision of the Planning
Commission.
2. Staff recommended approval of SDR -1585, A -1040 and the portions of V -680 for the existing
garage. Given approval of the variance for the cabana; staff recommended approval of the
lot line adjustment, subject to a list of conditions.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Appeal letters 5.. Exhibits
2. Staff Reports for SDR -1585, A -1040, V -680 & LL #6 6. Correspondence received on project
3. Resolution Nos. SDR- 1585 -1, A- 1040 -1, V- 680(A) -1, V- 680(B) -1,
V- 680(C) -1, V- 680(D) -1
4. Minutes dated 1/9/85
Council Action
2/6: Granted morrisonEdesign - review appeal; denied Morrison variance and lot line adjustment
appeal; denied Lorincz appeal on cabana;. all 4 -0.
J
RECEIVED
JAN 181985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL APPLICATION
Date Received: — /F- J
Hearing Date: <=
Fee /
CITY USE ONLY
}`�[3 J 6;
���G
Name of Appellant: � �-c. ll�cl
Address: � / •
Telephone:,S S
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address:
Project Description:
Decision Being Appealed:
Grounds for t -e Appeal (Letter may be attached):
Appellant's Signature
*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.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IVITHTN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DA'Z'E O1, THE DL'-CISION.
RECEIVED
JAN w 1 1985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL TO SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL FOR A VARIANCE
PROPERTY OWNERS: ALBERT AND ANN LORINCZ
JANUARY;18, 1985
THE GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. THE CABANA FOR WHICH SETBACK VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS AN ATTRACTIVE,
SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURE APPROXIMATELY 30 YEARS OLD WHICH BLENDS
AESTHETICALLY AND ARCHITECTURALLY WITH THE ADJACENT HOME, POOL AND
WOODED AREA. A CONTIGUOUS SOUND -SIGHT BARRIER IS CREATED AROUND THE
POOL BY THE ENCLOSURE FORMED BY THE HOUSE, ARBOR AND CABANA.
2. THE PRIVACY AND QUIETNESS THAT THE CABANA PRESENTLY PROVIDES IS A MOST
DESIRABLE ASSET FOR THE IMMiEDIATELY ADJACENT PROPERTIES. POOL GEAR,
INCLUDING HEATER, MOTOR, ELECTRIC POOL COVER CONNECTIONS, VACUUM AND
CHLOIU NATING EQUIPMENT ARE SAFELY HOUSED WITHIN THE STRUCTURE, REMOVAL
OF THE CABANA WOULD NECESSITATE SUBSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION FOR THIS
EQUIPMENT.
3. SINCE THE CABANA HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR OVER 30 YEARS WITH NEVER A
COMPLAINT OR NEGATIVE COMMENT WHATSOEVER FROM ANY NEIGHBORS OR OTHER
SOURCES, WE STRONGLY URGE THAT A FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF THIS APPEAL
BE GRANTED.
4. THE ONLY NEIGHBORS IN ANY WAY AFFECTED BY THE CABANA ARE IN COMPLETE
AGREEMENT THAT THE CABANA BE RETAINED.
A. .
i Date Received:
t,r ; Hearing Date
i REC�1V ED Fee
CITY USE ONLY
ENT
co
MMUNITy DEVEi Op
r t
APPEAL-APPLICATION
Name o f A .•
,., ppellant . �f�f�� /c�
r rl1 [ _
'Address
Telephone 7 (% (/
(!mil JG
Name of Applicant:''.
V_ a
Project File No. `j 15945 Q L
Project Address
Projte t Description. TG(/(/ 0,F1111 P �iV
„,Y`•I �' L( r-ivl &nom !G •lA/li �' / l
;! V0V-I GiL� c
3 0 vi &16'e�yrie
Decision' B Baled. C• ..
` ( /T /(L /a�'I �-(//AJ ea led: f2 r%C'� I/(itJ, 4 ' c �iG�1 �rz
G • �.... I'� `/ C G” / �� ��• I 1
VV
n Grounds for, the Appeal -�etter may be attached)
f� 1�� , : I • S��`%l ��T=�� ����� �C�� ���C •TAN ���2ir��
'fir, t . I ti.• �. 11i I
p ellant' Si n tu re
ir
*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.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
HE DATE OF THE DECISION.
RECEIVED
JAN 23 1985
COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT
David & Terri Morrison
19590 Juna Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
January 22, 1985
City Council
City Of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Council Member,
I am opposed to the above application as are six of the eight closest neighbors.
The sole intent of this appeal is to request the City Council to give equal
consideration to the immediate neighborhood, as is given to the applicant rela-
tive to the applicants request for-five major variances, lot line adjustment,
and a 20' setback on proposed construction involving two non - conforming lots.
The Glen Una neighborhood was nearly fully developed prior to the 1956 incor-
poration of Saratoga. The average lot size in this 46 lot neighborhood is 1.54
acres. Zoning calls for a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet (one acre).
Only five lots, including two lots of the applicants, in this 46 lot neighborhood
are non - conforming. In addition, typical setbacks are 60' to over 150'. Variances
are almost non - existant due to the large lot sizes.
The applicant has 12 acres improved with a 55 year old, two story house of 3,326
square feet, detached garage, pool, cabana, shed, arbor, and greenhouse.
The 12 acres is legally two adjoining non - conforming lots. Parcel two fronts on
Glen Una Drive and includes most of the improvements. Parcel one is a flag lot
adjoining to the rear.
The applicant intends to sell their existing 3,326 square foot residence on 3/4
acre and build a 3,762 square foot house on the 2/3 acre rear lot.
In order to build as proposed, the applicant has requested the following:
1. A lot line adjustment between the two non - conforming lots.
2. Building site and design review of parcel 1 (flag lot to be built on).
3. Six major variances effecting the non - conforming lot, parcel 2, which is
improved with most of the improvements, as follows:
City Council
January 22, 1985
Page 2
Variance
Required
Effects
Comments
24'
60'
Garage
Entire 660 sf garage lies
within setback area.
15'
60'
Cabana
Entire 576 sf cabana lies
within setback area.
35'
60'
Arbor
Entire 330 sf arbor lies
within setback area.
17'
20'
Cabana
Corner of cabana lies
within setback area.
10'
20'
Garage
1/2 of garage lies within
setback area.
43%
35% Max..
Surface
Non - conforming lot with
Impervious
Water
major improvements results
Coverage
in high coverage.
I would like to comment on the applicants request as follows:
4
1. The lot line adjustment is opposed since it allows maximum new construction yet
does not eliminate any of the six variances, nor reduces the proposed 20' setback
from my property.
2. The building site and design review on parcel 1 is opposed for the following
reasons:
A. The proposed house is only 20' from my rear property line yet is 65' from
parcel 2 which is also owned by the applicant. I feel the new house should
be at least 60' from my property to insure privacy and neighborhood compat-
ability and consistency. (See attached proposal)
B. The flag lot (parcel 1) is at right angles to all surrounding lots. According
to city code, a 20' sideyard is allowed. My home has a 65' setback. Since
parcel 1 has room for a 60' setback it appears reasonable not to crowd the
proposed house as close as possible to my house, but use a setback which is
typical and compatable with existing homes.
C. The applicant has a proposed 350' long private paved drive leading to a
three car garage. If the house were 60' from my property with the garage
on the opposite side of the house, the driveway could be shortened by 130'
thus providing 2,000 sf more open landscaped open space, less impervious
coverage and provide nicer esthetics.
3. The six major variances are opposed for several reasons:
A. The granting of major variances, where entire buildings lie within the
setback area, is a poor precedent as it is not compatible or consistent
with existing land use.
B. By allowing variances of this magnatude, a non - conforming lot, parcel 2,
will become even more non - conforming and has an adverse effect on esthetics
and values within the neighborhood.
f City Council
January 22, 1985
Page 3
C. Granting major variances upon request is a green flag for other residents
of Saratoga to convert garages, build sheds, add to existing structures,
etc., all without a permit and then apply for an automatic variance years
later.
In summary, in an effort to have continued compatability within the neighborhood, I
feel a lot line adjustment between two non - conforming lots is unjustified. Six
monumental variances constitute a major exception within the neighborhood and a 20'
setback for the proposed construction where 60' to 150' within the neighborhood are
typical does not reflect a low density atmosphere. A 60' minimum setback from my
property would be acceptable and compatible with existing setbacks.
The following immediate neighbors oppose the application of Ann Lorincz and have
signed the attached petition.
David Morrison
19590
Juna
Lane
Terri Morrison
19590
Juna
Lane
Dr. Stephen.Fox
19630
Juna
Lane
Lynda Fox
19630
Juna
Lane
Tom Gwin
19621
Juna
Lane
Janice Gwin
19621
Juna
Lane
Roger Erskine.
19581
Juna
Lane
Dorothy Erskine
19581
Juna
Lane
Helen Thomas
19625
Glen
Una Drive
Marjorie Thomas
19625
Glen
Una Drive
Ruth Alter
19511
Glen
Una Drive
My wife, Terri, or myself and /or Dr. Fox and Mrs. Fox will be happy to meet any time
with any of the council members to discuss this appeal, preferably at my residence
at 19590 Juna Lane for an inspection of Ann Lorincz's property and my adjoining
property and a general view of the character of the neighborhood. My home phone
(408)354 -6759, work (408)996 -0872. Dr. Fox's home phone (408)354 -5658.
Very truly
i
v(
David J. M
Att'd:
enclosure
mmm
Neighborhood lot size map.
60' setback proposal for proposed house.
Signed petition.
(•Z to
� Ac i cos �
«. ! ROAD
\ I U � o
tr /iCr ZS � ► '� v±•' � ; �. Z one ���r
A
Ac eE- 1 ' U �. ° 3
SA R ATOGA - LOS GATOS
t.0 .0 _
� , ACEC F ' ' i r;,' 1.0 It 6� 3.0
p 4C4Z& ' ,:`\ r1 PC¢[ � cg's I Actzt
W.
(•� a =� ,�-
.g s' AGR� 18 Z �
JI iO�i �¢9
� µ
° °G -- - - - - -- -- •P�� �• [fK-w �r ALL- oL
- r -1✓� A„ '1.1 *' - - - ----- - - - - -' s �y °�+R. d�',`Z
b yam. Ac et' F y
bc
.�•' t , � ..� " 1. Z5� o y (-� UU h c. 3 7 i7 Z
�� _, '" RcK.E SAS •,o /
IN 4%&
5.0
AG C4F:
A
T
!1c,ce E
AC- e
4
_. t3G22
Z 60 At .a
Z. 6 ,4c¢g�
1
Jowl Tat" w,— �
CO.�? /
\�"\p 4 a
Acxz 'ac. �• G„ �J UM4 t�LEtG�(3a�.t -laaD, SF�►�ATD C A
4 • _ Avc�A �E L.0 T' s ►zE t •54 AG�c.S
Z-3 oa' 3 3 Z(0
7j
\F
v+
I
N
Mop= el��vrJ zE51oENCt \
?COL.
FD X
I �LAG�c1- ZOU� '
i
TNoMA,'5
YACW
-2-51,
-L I N C -c 40,600 M � ►�
qU
'5�EP
-77, 7 3
P7ko I�ahr✓p
µ0VLi�
�31
OwE2 �AgA►dA
�fSDM- \
a GE L- Z
-�/4 wCIZE
Z,-Z S, F.
ZOW I �J 6-7 4U,6/00
U NA O k-
zU' '5Er�1,Ac;L, j
V•
Z? LAfL_
zo'
�i WIM
Pax-
!(1
i�
!Q
7'7'
I-1 IN to a- l
-
L9 'A
35 �
MOI?-ie
t Ac
r
MORRISON DAVID J
19590 JUNA LN
SARATOGA CA
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408)867 -3438
95070
NOTICE OF HEARING
51005021
CITY OF SARATOGA'S PLANNING'COMMISSION announces the following
public hearing on WEDNESDAY the 9TH day of JANUARY , 1985
at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale
Ave., Saratoga, CA., a copy of which application is on file in the
Permit Review Division at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA.
SDR -1585, A-169(0- ALBERT B. AND ANN LORINCZ - 19605 GLEN UNA DRIVE
"GRANT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, BUILDING SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL
TO CONSTRUCT A ONE -STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON LOT BEHIND 19605
GLEN UNA DRIVE AND VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR 241, 15' AND 35' REAR YARD
SETBACKS FOR AN EXISTING GARAGE, CABANA AND ARBOR RESPECTIVELY WHERE
60' IS REQUIRED AND A 17' AND 20' SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING
CABANA AND GARAGE WHERE 20' IS REQUIRED AT 19605 GLEN UNA DRIVE, IN
THE R-1- 40,000 ZONING DISTRICT AS PER ORDINANCE NS -3."
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The following residents of Saratoga are in opposition to the proposed subdivision
of the above 1 112 acres into two 3/4 acre lots in our 1 acre minimum zoned neighbor-
hood. We oppose the above 5 zoning variances that would facilitate this subdivision:
` . HOMEOWNERS :NAME
ADDRESS
FOUR PETITIONS RECEIVED WITH A TOTAL OF
11 NAMES.
1•�•w� 9
1
C
REPORT TOJ)LANNING COMMISSION ,a tocl
APPR0VET) ' Revised 1/9/85
DATE: 1/4/85
APN: 510 -05 -10 -- - - -- 1/9/85
Commission Meeting:
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SDR -1585, A -1040, LL #6, for Parv--el _ 1, behind
19605 -Glen Una Drive, V -680 for Parcel 2, 19605 Glen Una Drive,
APPLICANT: Ann Lorincz
PROPERTY OWNER: Albert & Ann Lorincz
------------------------------------------------------------7----------------
ACTION REQUESTED: Lot Line Adjustment, Building Site and Design Review
on parcel 1 and Variance /Use Permit Approval for 24 ft., 15 ft. and 35 ft.
rear yard setbacks for an existing garage, cabana and arbor, respectively,
where 60 ft. is required, and a 17 ft. and 10 ft. sideyard setback for the
existing cabana and garage where 20 ft. is required.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Variance Approval required for the
percentage of impervious coverage on Parcel 2 and Building Permit required
for Parcel 1.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorically Exempt
GENERAL.PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density Single Family
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
EXISTING LAND USE: Parcel 1 - Vacant
Parcel 2 - Single Family Residence
PARCEL SIZE:
Parcel 1 - 28,265 sq. ft.
Parcel 2 - 33,003 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Parcel 2 is presently developed with a
single family residence, pool and various accessory structures. The lot
is relatively flat and is landscaped.
Parcel 1 gently slopes downward from left to right. Various fruit, nut
and avocado trees exist on the lot.
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Parcel 1 - 6.20. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Parcel 1 -6.20
Parcel 2 - Level Parcel 2 - LeVE
Report to the Planning mmission
SDR -1585, A -1040, V -680, LL #6, Lorincz
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut - 165 Cu. Yds
(For Parcel 1 only) Fill - 150 Cu. Yds.
PROPOSED SETBACKS:
(of Parcel 1 with Lot
Line Adjustment)
PROPOSED SETBACKS:
(of Parcel 2 with Lot
Line Adjustment)
HEIGHT: 18.5 Ft.
1/4/85
Page 2
Cut Depth - 2.5 Feet
Fill Depth - 2.0 Feet
Front - 30 Ft. Rear - 104 Feet
Left Side - 37 Feet Right Side - 20 Feet
Front - 78 Feet
Left Side - 25 Feet
for }parcel 1
Rear - 15 Feet
Right Side - 17 Feet
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 23% for Parcel 1 43% for Parcel 2
SIZE OF STRUCTURE:
Parcel 1 only
First Floor (including garage):
Second Floor:
Total:
3762 sq. ft.
0
3762 sq. ft.
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project for Parcel 1 does not meet all-Zoning
District, requirements in that-1-its area, which is a legally created substandarc
lot, is below the required parcel size for this zoning district. For the
adjusted Parcel 2, the rear yard setbacks for the existing garage, cabana
and arbor are, respectively, 24 ft., 15 ft., and 35 ft. where 60 ft. is
required, and a 17 ft. and 10 ft. side yard setback for the existing cabana
and garage.- where-20 ft. is required.. Also,- the_gercentage _ of - impervious -
coyera_ge. -,for Parcel-2--currently, exceeds the 35% standard required by the
zoning ordinance.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: For new home on Parcel 1:
Exterior Materials - Beige board and batten with dark brown trim and
used brick veneer.
Roofing Materials - Brown cedar shakes
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT # 6
The site owned by the Lorincz was split prior to 1970, when 'they acquired
it as 2 lots of record. A house and several accessory structures are located
on Parcel 2. The garage and flower arbor currently have nonconforming side
and rear setbacks respectively. The cabana crosses the property line
between Parcel 1 and 2.
The applicants now desire to build a one -story home on Parcel 1. In order
to do this they must either remove the cabana or legalize it in some manner.
Since the applicants do not wish to remove the cabana, they are proposing
a lot line adjustment switching 1971 square feet .- from Parcel 1 to Parcel 2,
and vice versa. The lot line adjustment does not impact the building of
Parcel 1 since it is a lot of record.
This lot line adjustment requires a variance.. /use permit on Parcel 2 for
1) a 15' rear yard setback and 17' sideyard setback for the cabana, 2)
a 10' side yard setback and 24' rear yard setback for the garage and,
3) a 15' rear yard- setback for the flower arbor. All of the structures
would be staying in the same location but, with the adjustments, would all be
Report to the Planning mmission
SDR -1585, A -1040, V -680, LL #6, Lorincz
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut - 165 Cu. Yds
(For Parcel 1 only) Fill - 150 Cu. Yds.
PROPOSED SETBACKS:
of Parcel 1 with Lot
Line Adjustment)
PROPOSED SETBACKS:
(of Parcel 2 with Lot
Line Adjustment)
1/4/85
Page 2
Cut Depth - 2.5 Feet
Fill Depth - 2.0 Feet
Front - 30 Ft. Rear - 104 Feet
Left Side - 37 Feet Right Side - 20 Feet
Front - 78 Feet Rear - 15 Feet
Left Side - 25 Feet Right Side - 17 Feet
HEIGHT: 18.5 Ft. for Parcel 1
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
SIZE OF STRUCTURE:
Parcel 1 only
23% for Parcel 1 43% for Parcel 2
First Floor (including garage):
Second Floor:
Total:
3762 sq. ft.
0
3762 sq. ft.
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project for Parcel 1 does not meet all..Zoning
District, requirements in that'its area, which is a legally created substanda
lot, is below the required parcel size for this zoning district. For the
adjusted Parcel 2, the rear yard setbacks for the existing garage, cabana
and arbor are, respectively, 24 ft., 15 ft., and 35 ft. where 60 ft. is
required, and a 17 ft. and 10 ft. side yard setback for the existing cabana
and garage.w ere 20 ft. is required.. Also, the.percentage of -impervious -
coverage.for Parcel.2.= currently exceeds the 35% standard required by the
zoning ordinance.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: For new home on Parcel 1:
Exterior Materials - Beige board and batten with dark brown trim and
used brick veneer.
Roofing Materials - Brown cedar shakes
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT # 6
The site owned by the Lorincz was split prior to 1970,.when 'they acquired
it as 2 lots of record. A house and several accessory structures are located
on Parcel 2. The garage and flower arbor currently have nonconforming side
and rear setbacks respectively. The cabana crosses the property line
between Parcel 1 and 2.
The applicants now desire to build a one -story home on Parcel 1. In order
to do this they must either remove the cabana or legalize it in some manner.
Since the applicants do not wish to remove the cabana, they are proposing
a lot line adjustment switching 1971 square feet from Parcel 1 to Parcel 2
and vice versa. The lot line adjustment does not impact the building of
Parcel 1 since it is a lot of record.
This lot line adjustment requires a variance.. /use permit on Parcel.2 for
1) a 15' rear yard setback and 17' sideyard setback for the cabana, 2)
a 10' side yard setback and 24' rear yard setback for the garage and,
3) a 15' rear yard setback for the flower arbor. All of the structures
would be staying in the same location but, with the adjustments, would all be
Report to the Planning ,mmission
SDR =1585, A -1040, V -68k LL #6, Lorincz
1/4/85
Page 3
located within Parcel 2. The lots would remain the same size as they are
currently since an equal amount of land is being switched, so they are-not any more
nonconformingg in size. This*lot line adjustment would improve the situation of having a
structure across a.property line assuming that the cabana is to remain. Additionally if the
Commission grants the lot line adjustment, staff is recommending a condition requiring Parcel
to take part in the deferred improvement agreement for sewers.
Prior to acting on the lot line adjustment the Commission needs to act on
the variances for the structures it would impact.
VARIANCE - V -680
The two lots addressed in the staff report are legally created substandard
lots. On Parcel 2, three accessory structures, the garage, flower arbor
and cabana do not meet current setback requirements. The cabana presently
straddles the common lot line between the parcels. A lot line adjustment
is included as part of the application so that, with the adjustment the
cabana is setback 15 feet from the rear property line of Parcel 2. This
same lot line adjustment also involves changing the rear setback of the
garage and the flower arbor. The garage setback was reduced from 46 feet
to 24 feet and the arbor's setback was increased from 8 feet to 35 feet.
The existing side setbacks of.the garage and cabana are 10 feet and 17 feet,
respectively. These setbacks'a'te unaffected by the change in property lines.
* FINDINGS:
1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Hardship
Requiring a strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance in this case
would necessitate that the three accessary structures be removed or
relocated. This would pose an unnecessary hardship for the garage since
it appears to be a legally constructed substantial structure which is
currently nonconforming with respect to setbacks. No practical difficulty
exists with the flower arbor or cabana since they could be relocated or
reduced in size.
2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances
The garage and cabana were located on the property prior to the current
owners purchase of the parcel in 1970. Because these structures were
built presumably at a time when less stringent requirements were enforced,
exceptional circumstances do exist for the garage and cabana. No
exceptional circumstances exist for the arbor.
3. Common Privilege
Denial of this variance would result in the property owners not being
able to maintain their existing garage,due to the location of an
existing or proposed property line. Thus, the applicants would be
deprived of a privilege enjoyed by other property owners in the same
district with respect to their garage. Cabanas and flower arbors are
not a common privilege in the district.
4. Special Privilege:
Due to the exceptional circumstances involving when the garage and
cabana were originally built, the granting of the variance for these
buildings would not be considered a special privilege.
Report to the Planning mmission 1/4/85
SDR -1585, A -1040, V-68(-,LL #6, Lorincz �. Page'4
5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare
The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the variance for the rear
garage per the Staff Report dated
the following conditions:
1) Variance application shall be
coverage on Parcel 2 prior to
2) The workshop shown on the sit,
and side yard setbacks of the existing
January 4, 1985 and Exhibit "B -1" with
made for the percentage of impervious
Final Map Approval.
plan for Parcel 2 shall be removed.
Staff cannot make findings 1 and 3 for the cabana nor finding 1, 2, 3
and 4 for the flower arbor and thus recommends denial of the variances
for these structures. However, if the Commission can make these
findings we recommend a third condition:
3). No second kitchen in the cabana is permitted. The existing stove in
in this structure shall be removed.
If the Commission grants one or all of the variances, staff recommends
approval of the lot line adjustment per Exhibit "B -1" dated 12/20/84
subject to the following conditions:
1. Removal or relocation of all nonconforming structures which have not
received variance approval for their setbacks.
2. Submittal of a deferred improvement agreement for hook up to the
sewer for Parcel 2 prior to recordation of the Parcel Map.
3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20' half - street
on Glen Una Drive and enter into a. "Deferred Improvement Agreement for
improving Glen Una to City Standards (.see condition II. E. of SDR -1585,
attached). If the Commission denies the variances, the lot line
adjustment is unnecessary.
Report to the Planning mmission 1/4/85
SDR -1585, A -1040, V -68f LL #6, Lorincz Page 14
5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare
The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the variance for the rear and side yard setbacks of the existing
garage per the Staff Report dated January 4, 1985 and Exhibit "B -1" with
the following conditions:
1) Variance application shall be made for the percentage of impervious
coverage on Parcel 2 prior to Final Map Approval.
2) The workshop shown on the site plan for Parcel 2 shall be removed.
Staff cannot .make findings 1 and 3 for the cabana nor finding 1, 2, 3
and 4 for the flower arbor and thus recommends denial of the variances
for these structures. However, if the Commission can make these
findings we recommend a third condition:
3) No second kitchen in the d'Abana is permitted. The existing stove in
in this structure shall be removed.
If the Commission grants one or all of the variances, staff recommends
approval of the lot line adjustment per Exhibit "B -1" dated 12/20/84
subject to the following conditions:
1. Removal or relocation of all nonconforming structures which have not
received variance approval for their setbacks.
2. Submittal of a deferred improvement agreement for hook up to the
sewer for Parcel 2 prior to recordation of the Parcel Map.
3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20' half- street
on Glen Una Drive and enter into a "Deferred Improvement Agreement for
improving Glen Una to City Standards (see condition II. E. of SDR -1585,
attached). If the Commission denies the variances, the lot line
adjustment is unnecessary.
Report to the Planning mmission 1/4/85
SDR =1585, A -1040, V -68 ,.LL #6, Lorincz Page 5
SDR -1585
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants are requesting Building Site Approval
for a single lot of record. Because of the distance to the nearest sewer
main and the cost of constructing a sewer system for this site, staff is
recommending a deferred improvement agreement for sewer facilities. This
is subject to Health Department Approval of the septic tank system prior
to Final Map Approval. The Fire District is concerned about a turnaround
for the site but is willing to consider a sprinkler system as an option.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General
Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
A Categorical Exemption was prepared relative to the environmental impact
of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination
date: December 6, 1984,
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1585
(Exhibit "B -1" filed December 20, 1984). subject to the following conditions:,
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including
without limitation, the submission of a Record or Survey or parcel map; payment of
storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect
at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable
Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference-is hereby.
made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses
compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance
of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific
Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of
Ordinance 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay
required checking & recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on
existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20 ft.
Half - Street on Glen Una Drive.
D. Improve Glen Una to City Standards, including the following:
1. Designed Structural Section 13 ft. between centerline and
flowline. (D.I.A.)
2. Asphalt Concrete Berm. (D.I.A.)
3. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities. (D.I.A.)
Report to the Planning - Lmission 1/4/85
SDR -1585, A -1040, V -680 .LL #6, Lorincz �- Page 6
E. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage
Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey
storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse: D.I.A. .
F. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using
double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate
base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling.
G. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared
to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings
or better on 6" aggregate base.
H. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under
driveway as approved by the City Engineer.
I. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view
as required at driveway and access road intersections.
J. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
K. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development
for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street.
L. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements. D.I.A.
2. Storm Drain Construction. D.I.A.
M. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement
Plans. D.I.A.
N. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required
improvements marked "D.I.A."
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
1. Foundation
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Drainage details. (.conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.)
C. Bonds required for removal of structures prior to Final Map Approval.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
A. Construct an approved turnaround that is within 150' of all portions
of the exterior wall of the first floor of all buildings. Fire
truck turnaround may not be used for any required on -site parking.
Options as approved by the Fire Chief.
Report to
SDR -1585,
the Planning -Lmission
A
1/4/85
-1040, V -680, .LL #6, Lorincz
Page 6 "
E. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage
Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey
storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse: D.I.A.
F. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using
double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate
base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling.
G. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared
to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings
or better on 6" aggregate base.
H. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under
driveway as approved by the City Engineer.
I. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view
as required at driveway and access road intersections.
J. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
K. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development
for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street.
L. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements. D.I.A.
2. Storm Drain Construction. D.I.A.
M. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement
Plans. D.I.A.
N. Enter into Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required
improvements marked "D.I.A."
III. SPECIFIC CONDITTnNS - nTVTC'Tr)N7 ()P TTTCDP(1MTn?,T c1,nT7r�
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
1. Foundation
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Drainage details (.conduit type, slope, outfal -1, location, etc.)
C. Bonds required for removal of structures prior to Final Map Approval.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
A. Construct an approved turnaround that is within 150' of all portions
of the exterior wall of the first floor of all buildings. Fire
truck turnaround may not be used for any required on -site parking.
Options as approved by the Fire Chief.
Report to the Planning mmission 1/4/85
SDR-1585, A -1040, V- 68N,LL #6, Lorincz �. Page 7
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
B. A septic tank permit for a sewage disposal system on this lot
is required prior to Final Map Approval.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing
the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD
for review and certification, -,
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITTONS - PT,ANNTNC-. nr.PARTMFNT
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
permits.
B. Applicant is to enter into recorded agreement with the City of
Saratoga agreeing to participate in the formation of a sanitary
sewer assessment district, and to connect to sewer when available.
(See Sanitation District letter attached)
C. At the time of development, applicant is to install dry and plugged sewer facilities
on site in anticipation of connection to future sewer line Sanitation District No.
4. On -site sewer improvement plans to be approved by said District prior to final
approval.
D. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures shall
be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential'.for
solar accessiblity. The developer shall provide, to the extent
feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportuni-
ties on /in the subdivision /building site.
VIII. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
Report to Planning Com lion
A -1040
12/28/84
Page 8
The project under consideration for Design Review is a.one -story Single Family Re-
sidence with attached garage. Scaling off the height of the structure to what
appears to be the cut pad, the structure's tallest point rises to 18.5 feet.
Existing residences surrounding the parcel are setback.a sufficient distance so
that no privacy impacts are anticipated. Lastly, the pool and greenhouse shown on
the site plan, would not meet side setback requirements with the proposed lot
line adjustment. It should be noted that staff is not approving this pool loca-
tion and is recommending that the greenhouse be relocated.
FINDINGS:
1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy and Compatible Inf�ill Project
- The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not
unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the
new home is to be constructed on a relatively level site and no views will
be affected.
- The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surround-
ing residences in that the home is.single -story and adequate setbacks are pro-
posed.
2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape
The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree and soil removal
and grade changes in that the home and driveway are located so as to main-
tain many existing trees. In addition, minimal grading is required.
3. Perception of Excessive Bulk
The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to
the immediate neighborhood in that the size of the residence is less than
the gross floor area Design Review Standard. Also the bulk of the home is
minimized in relation to the area of the.lot.
4. Compatible Bulk and Height
The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within
500 feet and in the same zoning district in that the residence is of compar-
able size and height to those of surrounding homes.
5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards
The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control stan-
dards in that all City requirements shall be met.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated 12/28/84
and Exhibits "B, C ", subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of building permits detailed grading and drainage plans shall
be implemented during construction.
2. Any modifications to the proposed site development plans or elevations shall
require Planning Division review and approval.
3. All conditions of the Building Site Approval shall be met.
4. The greenhouse shall be relocated so as to meet all setback requirements, or
a variance approval shall be obtained.
Report to Planning Comr lion
A -1040
' 12/28%84
Page 8
The project under consideration for Design Review is a one -story Single Family Re-
sidence with attached garage. Scaling off the height of the structure to what
appears to be the cut pad, the structure's tallest point rises to 18.5 feet.
Existing residences surrounding the parcel are setback a sufficient distance so
that no privacy impacts are anticipated. Lastly, the pool and greenhouse shown on
the site plan, would not meet side setback requirements with the proposed lot
line adjustment. It should be noted that staff is not approving this pool loca-
tion and is recommending that the greenhouse be relocated.
FINDINGS:
1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy and Compatible Infill Project
- The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not
unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the
new home is to be constructed on a relatively level site and no views will
be affected.
- The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surround-
ing residences in that the home is single -story and adequate setbacks are pro-
posed.
2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape
The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree and soil removal
and grade changes in that the home and driveway are located so as to main-
tain many existing trees. In addition, minimal grading is required.
3. Perception of Excessive Bulk
The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to
the immediate neighborhood in that the size of the residence is less than
the gross floor area Design Review Standard. Also the bulk of the home is
minimized in relation to the area of the.lot.
4. Compatible Bulk and Height
The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within
500 feet and in the same zoning district in that the residence is of compar-
able size and height to those of surrounding homes.
5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards
The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control stan-
dards in that all City requirements shall be met.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated 12/28/84
and Exhibits "B, C ", subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of building permits detailed grading and drainage plans shall
be implemented during construction.
2. Any modifications to the proposed site development plans or elevations shall
require Planning Division review and approval.
3. All conditions of the Building Site Approval shall be met.
4. The greenhouse shall be relocated so as to meet all setback requirements, or
a variance approval shall be obtained.
Report to Planning Commi( on C 12/28/84
A -1040 Page 9
.5. The pool site shown on the plot plan is not approved as part of the Design
Review. This pool location would require a variance approval by the Plan-
ning Commission.
6. Removal of any ordinance size tree requires a tree removal permit.
APPROVED
DL /KK /bjc
P.C. Agenda 1/9/85
C;�0
Diana Lewis, Planner
Kathy K rdus, Senior Planner
* Findings were made for the arbor by the Planning Commission on 1/9/85 (attached).
\ File No V- 680(C)
Lorincz
* FINDINGS: - Arbor
1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Hardship
Removal of the arbor would create an unnecessary hardship because of the
location of a large silk tree.
2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances.
The City will be revising the.zoning ordinance in the near future to
allow such structures to be located in the setback areas. The property
line could be redrawn to have the arbor meet setback requirements but the
revised lot line would not make any sense. The arbor provides privacy
between the subject site and the adjacent site.
3. Common Privilege
With the future revision of the zoning ordinance concerning arbors and
trellises, the location of an arbor in a setback area will be a common
privilege.
4. Special Privilege
There are exceptional circumstances regarding the arbor; denial of the
variance would be a denial of common privilege. Therefore, granting the
variance will not consitute a grant of special privilege.
as
a I Va.• •'.f =
wpm,
•14
r .•
CLUTICN N0. S D F -15 8 5 -1
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
ALBERT AND ANN LORINCZ
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency
under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and un-
der the Subdivision ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tenta-
tive map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of 1 lots,
all as more particularly set forth in File No. SDR -15 8 5 of this
City, and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and im-
provement, 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 gen-
eral land use and programs specified in such General Plan, refer -
enoe to the approved Staff Report dated ' January 4, 19 8 5 (amended)
being hereby made for futher particulars, and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the
(Negative Declaration) prepared for
this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions
of C)QA, 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for
the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the
20th day of December , 1984, and is marked Exhibit "B -1"
in the hereinabovereferred to 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 adop-
ted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof.held on the
9th day of January 19 84 at which a quorum
was present, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, Peterson, Schaefer and
Siegfried
Nom: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Crowther and
McGoldrick
ATTEST:
Secretary! Planning Commission
ADVI
UZ
RESOLUTION NO. A- 1040 -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FILE NO: A -1040
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an
application for Design Review Approval of a one -story single family
residence on a lot behind 19605 Glen Una Drive and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) (hzzxm_vt) met the burden of proof required
to support his said application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of
the site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits
submitted in connection with this matter, the application of ALBERT
AND ANN LORINCZ for Design Review Approval be and the
same is hereby (granted) (doxilad) subject to the following conditions:
Per the amended Staff Report dated January 4, 1985
and Exhibits B and C.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 9th day of January lg 85 by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT:Commissioners Crowther and
McGoldrick
ATTEST:
Secret, .,-Planning Zommissi.on
VARIANCE ® FILE NO.: V- 680(A)
RESOLUTION NO. V- 680(A) -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COWISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the ,City of Saratoga.Planning Commission has received
the application of ALBERT AND ANN LORINCZ .for a Variance for
a 24 ft. rear yard setback for an existing garage at 19605 Glen Una Dr.;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,
the application for .the Variance
be, and the same is'hereby
(granted) (&endcod:) subject to the following conditions
Per the amended Staff Report and Exhibit.B -1.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (the Report of Findings attached
hereto be approved and adopted) (t?bc�c�x�#t�c�tX?�Di3�Y�iXid
r4@tXk�CXO(XttX����Xi , and the Secretary be, and is
hereby directed to notify the - parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,.
State of California, this 9th day of January 19
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Crowther and
McGoldrick
ATTEST:
airman, Planning Wmission
VARIANCE
USX Wmx
RESOLUTION NO. V- 680(B) -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FILE NO.: V- 680(B)
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of ALBERT AND ANN LORINCZ for a Variance for a
15 ft. rear yard setback and a 17 ft. side yard setback for an exist- ;
ing cabana at 19 0 S Glen Tina a Drive
and
IVHEREAS,'the applicant ( (has not) met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,
the application for -the Variance be, and the same is hereby
(Zjnanx&d� (denied) subject to the following conditions:
Per the amended Staff Report dated January 4, 1985.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (t}XFXXS[g�X1�1�1�(X
(the Planning Commission could not
make all of the requisite findings), and the Secretary be, and is
hereby directed to notify the-parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,.
State of California, this 9th day of January 19 85
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT:Commissioners Crowther and
McGoldrick
ATTEST: •
J
a� ".. .'� /mac. ,. `��;c �_lL .::_:..- ,�-•- n> _,: . c S rr a.� :---
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. V- 680(C) -1
CITY OF SAR4TOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FILE NO.: V- 680(C)
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of ALBERT AND ANN LORINCZ for a Variance for
zc -Ft roar ,Tarrl �,Ptharlc fnr an arbor at 19605 Glen Una Drive
and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) (fix met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.that after careful consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,
the application for the Variance be, and the same is hereby
(granted) (Vt4ii --'ice subject to the following conditions:
• Per the amended Staff Report and Exhibit B•1.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (the Report of Findings attached
hereto be approved and adopted) (x�4�X1.ir�CicXt�XrlG�
mXxccaxccXI�) , and the Secretary be, and is
hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,.
State of California, this 9th day of January , 19 8S
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger) Harris, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Crowther and
McGoldrick
ATTEST:
airm n, la ning C ssion
File No. V- 680(C)
Lorincz
*
FINDINGS'- - Arbor
1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Hardship
Te-ifloval of the arbor would create an unnecessary hardship because of the
location of a large silk tree.
2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances.,
The City will be revising the zoning ordinance in the near future to
allow such structures to be located in the setback areas. The property
line could be redrawn to have the arbor meet setback requirements but the
revised lot line would not make any sense. The arbor provides privacy
between the subject site and the adjacent site.
3.' Common Privilege
With the future revision of the zoning ordinance concerning arbors and
trellises, the location of an arbor in a setback area will be a common
privilege.
.4. Special Privilege
There are exceptional circumstances regarding the arbor; denial of the
variance would be a denial"'of common privilege. Therefore, granting the
variance will not consitute a grant of special privilege.
VARIANCE
�1y1TX '
RESOLUTION NO. V- 680(D) -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FILE NO.: V- 680(D)
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of ALBERT AND ANN LORINCZ I I for a Variance for a
10 ft. side yard setback for the existing garage at 19605 Glen Una Dr.
and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) (has not) met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration
of maps,.facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,
the application for.the Variance be, and the same is hereby
(granted) (denied) subject to the following conditions:.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (the Report of Findings attached
hereto be approved and adopted) (the Planning Commission could not
make all of the requisite findings), and the Secretary be, and is
hereby directed to notify the-parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,.
State of California, this day of 19 ,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
- _ 1,::1 ,'T;ai;4)
H
Santa Clara Valle Water Mum
�°'"re s ,
5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY RECEIVE':.
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118
TELEPHONE (408) 265.2600 a ,�h
JAN 16 1985
January 11 , 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Shook:
Subject: Well Sealing Standards and Requirements
It has been brought to our attention that well sealing methods and procedures
inconsistent with the District's well sealing standards and requirements are
being used by some contractors in the sealing of certain wells.
The purpose of this letter is to clarify the District's requirements and its
role in the administering of the District's current Well Ordinance.
1. The Santa Clara Valley Water District administers Well Ordinance 75-
6. Under the provisions of this Ordinance, a well drilling permit must be
obtained before any well is constructed or destroyed (including groundwater
monitoring wells), unless exempted. All such construction or destruction must
have District inspection. The District requires a minimum of 24 hours
notification prior to its inspection.
2. The standards and guidelines for the construction of new wells and the
sealing of abandoned wells are the Santa Clara Valley Water District's
"Standards for the Construction of Wells, Santa Clara County ", July 19, 1977;
"Standards for the Sealing of Abandoned Wells, Santa Clara County ", July 27,
1976; and the District's "Groundwater Monitoring Guidelines ", December 1983.
In addition to the above standards and guidelines, the District can require,
where necessary, modifications or variations of the above standards, or
additional requirements. For example, it may be appropriate that well sealing
standards and requirements applicable to the Zone 2 areas of the groundwater
basin of Santa Clara County be applied to the Zone 1 area of the basin.
3. In sealing abandoned wells, the contractor is responsible for
mobilization of equipment and for bringing to the well site the tools of the
trade required for the proper sealing of wells. These include, but are not
limited to, bailers, tremie pipes, millsknife, or other approved perforating
devices, clamps, lifting nipples, pipe tongs, sealing and filler materials.
4. The following are examples of practices that are inconsistent with the
District's well standards or good well construction:
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Mr. Robert S. Shook
2 January 11, 1985
Example A: The free falling of filler material into any well (either in
well construction or well sealing) when water is present in the well, is
unacceptable. Placement of the filler .must be by methods that prevent
free fall, dilution, or separation of the aggregate from the cement when
concrete is the filler material. The use of a tremie pipe with a cement
grout pump is an acceptable method for placement of such filler material
(reference page 6, "Standards for the Sealing of Abandoned Wells ")..
Example B: In the sealing of an abandoned well, the bending or crimping
of the pump column and shaft against the boreholes in the extracting of
the column is not acceptable. Such a method causes caving -in with
bridging of the well casing. The use of a pump rig with booms capable of
properly pulling out pump columns and shafts is an acceptable method. .
Please contact me at (408) 265 -2600, extension 382, if .there are any
questions.
cholas Lyn, P. E.
Associate Civil Engineer
Design Coordination Division
C]
•
Planning Commission
Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85
SUP -3 and V -675
I (D 4
Page 8
Commissioner Harris commented that she looked back to all the
deliberations on the Second Unit Ordinance, and that was
definitely a concern throughout the City; therefore, she would
not be able to make the findings. She moved for approval of V-
675 for the variance for the rear yard setback, per the Staff
Report dated January 3, 1985, but denial of the variance for the
side yard setback and parking, based on the fact that the
findings cannot be made. Commissioner Burger seconded the
motion. After discussion of the findings for the rear yard
setback made in the Staff Report, the vote was taken on the
motion. The motion was carried unanimously 5 -0. The 10 -day
appeal period was noted. Commissioner Harris then moved to
approve SUP -3, per the Staff Report dated January 3, 1985 and
Exhibits B and C. It was noted that the approval of the Second
Unit Use Permit is conditioned upon relocating the structure and
providing a covered parking space. Commissioner Burger seconded
the motion, which was carried 4 -1, with Commissioner Schaefer
dissenting.
- 8 -
13a. SDR -1585 - Albert and Ann Lorincz, Request for Lot Line
13b. A -1040 - Adjustment, Building Site and Design Review
13c. V -680 - Approvals to construct a one -story single family
13d. LL -6 - residence on lot behind 19605 Glen Una Drive and
Variance Approval for 24', 15' and 35' rear yard
setbacks for an existing garage, cabana and
respectjyely where 60' is required and a 17' and
10' side'"yard setback for the existing cabana
and garage where 20' is required at 19605 Glen
Una Drive, in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district
------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Siegfried explained that these are two existing lots.
Staff described the lots and existing structures. They explained
•
the applications, stating that they are unable to make the
findings for the setbacks for the cabana and arbor and recommend
denial. They added that they were able to make the findings for
the garage and recommend approval with conditions. They stated
that they also recommend approval of the SDR and Design Review.
Discussion followed on the flower arbor. Commissioner Harris
gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the existing cabana.
The public hearing was opened at 10:02 p.m.
Terry Shovchek, representing Nowack & Associates, addressed the
findings regarding the cabana. He discussed the setbacks,
indicating that the variance for .the rear and side yard setbacks
only affects parcels 1 and 2, and does not affect any of the
adjacent neighbors.
Dave Morrison, 19590 Juna Lane, referenced his letter which
indicated that he and six of the adjoining neighbors are in
opposition to the project. He described the area, stating that
it is a very low density area. fie described the parcels in
question and stated that the variances would make two
nonconforming lots even more nonconforming and would have other
adverse effects to the neighborhood. Mr. Morrison discussed the
variances and stated that he feels that not all nonconforming
lots are buildable. tie commented that granting major variances
of this type would set an undesirable precedent in the City. Ile
added that Parcels #1 and #2 are located within a special zone
designated Ds, and the applicant has not identified this factor.
Mr. Morrison stated that he disagreed with the findings in the
Staff Report. He also noted that there was no provision for a
new leach field. Staff clarified that there is a condition in
the Staff Report requiring a septic tank permit.
- 8 -
0 0
Planning Commission Page 9
Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85
SDR -1585, A -1040, V -680 and LL -6 (cont.)
Mr. Shovchek noted that there are two other lots of similar size
directly adjacent to Mr. Morrison's lot. He discussed ways of
reducing the impervious coverage on the Lot #2. He stated that
the leach fields will conform with the requirements of the Health
Department.
Mrs. Lorincz explained that the arbor is open and stated that it
shades the largest silk tree in Saratoga. She discussed
reduction of impervious coverage, stating that she would not like
to remove any of their driveway since it does provide parking for
guests.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she was not concerned about the
arbor because she feels that can be an attractive asset, and the
Commission is in the process of looking at the ordinances on that
kind of situation. 'She commented that she could make the
findings on the impervious coverage. However, she stated she is
concerned about the cabana and the garage. She added that she
did not agree with the Staff Report that precedence had been set
regarding this type of situation. Commissioner Peterson
commented that on the Hall application he believed a. lot line
adjustment had been granted and a variance allowed for an
existing garage.
Mr. Morrison commented that the Hall lots are far above the
minimum zoning requirement, and their application had no adverse
effect on the neighbors.
Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously.
At Commissioner Schaefer's inquiry, Staff stated that the cabana
would not meet the standards for a second unit. Commissioner
Burger described the cabana.
Commissioner Peterson commented that.he does not like to give
variances of this type, but he is hard pressed to figure out how
it impacts the neighbors. He added that it is 125 ft. from the
neighbors' property line. Commissioner Siegfried commented that
it only impacts in the sense that there are structures relatively
close to the proposed property line, and now there is going to be
a home and other structures built on the other property. whether
or not it is visible, there may be some potential for added bulk.
However, other than that it does not impact. He added that he is
not particularly concerned about the variance for the garage,
because in fact you could structure the adjustment of the
property line to probably avoid that variance, and he thin)G there
are precedents, other than the Hall situation, where variances
have been granted to maintain existing garages. He added that he
does not know that there is any particular reason, although the
cabana is there, why it needs to stay, other than the fact that
it is a substantial structure. The fact that they are getting
the variance does allow them to go forward and build the second
lot without moving the cabana.
Commissioner Harris indicated that she agreed with the Staff
Report and would be able to make the findings for the variance
for the garage, but not for the cabana or flower arbor.
She stated that she might reconsider the flower arbor if
Commissioner Schaefer could inform the Commission about the
status of consideration of flower arbors in the ordinance.
Commisssioner Schaefer indicated that there would be something in
the next few weeks that the Commission could review. She stated
•
I*
•
•
•
0
Planning Commission
Minutes - Meeting 12/9/85
SDR -1585, A -1 -40, V -680 and LL -6 (cont.)
that the intent was the flower arbors would not
as they are open lattice work; it would be
situation. Commissioner Burger stated that her
arbor was that it actually adds to a sense
parcels.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he does
problem with the garage or flower arbor.
understands the cabana has been there; however,
than the other structures. He added that h
applicants get the impervious coverage reduced.
maintain parking with turf block.
•
Page 10
be treated as a building
treated as a landscape
impression of the flower
of privacy between the
not have any particular
He commented that he
it does have more impact
e would like to see the
He added that they could
Commissioner Burger made the findings for the flower arbor: The removal
of the flower arbor would be an unnecessary hardship because of the large
silk tree and the Commission is considering changing the ordinance.
Commissioner Siegfried added that, regarding the Hall variance, he had
indicated that the line could be drawn in such a way that he could get
the setback but you ended up with a property line that did not make any
sense. He stated that that is what happens with this situation; the rear
yard setback could be maintained but it would result in a jagged property
line. He added that that could not be done with the cabana. Commissioner
Burger added that another point was that the flower arbor does provide
privacy between the two lots. She moved to approve V -680 for the
variance for the garage and arbor, per the conditions,in the Staff
Report, and deny the variance for the cabana, based on the fact that the
findings cannot be made:" Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve LLA -6, per the Staff Report
dated January 4, 1985. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which
was carried unanimously 5 -0.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve SDR -1585, per the Staff Report dated
January 4, 1985 and Exhibit B -1. Commissioner Peterson seconded the
motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve A -1040, per the Staff Report dated
January 4, 1985 and Exhibits B, B -1 and C. Commissioner Peterson
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. Chairman
Siegfried noted that there is a condition requiring that either a
variance be obtained for the impervious coverage, or that it be reduced
to meet that allowed. The appeal period was noted.
14. C -217 - City of Saratoga, Consider amending the text of the zoning
Ordinance to allow a bulletin board not more than 20 sq.
ft. in size on the site of a school to advertise school
activities only
---------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Staff described the proposed text amendment. The height limitation was
discussed, and it was noted that this issue is not mentioned in the
amendment. Commissioner Peterson suggested a maximum of 10 ft.
The public hearing was opened at 10:42 p.m.
Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Peterson moved to adopt Resolution C- 217 -1, recommending
approval to the City Council, with the amendment of the height
limitation. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously 5 -0.
- 10 -
Planning Commission Page 11 a
Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85
MISCELLANEOUS
15. A -1011 - Cox Avenue Professional Center, Inc. (Sanfilipo), Request
for Reconsideration of Design Review Approval to construct
a two- story, 13,200 sq. ft. office building on Cox Ave.
across from Quito Shopping Center (Building "B ") in the
C -N zoning district
------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Staff reported that at the last meeting this matter was heard and
resulted in a split vote. They explained that the applicant has asked
that the matter be reconsidered this evening.
Mr. Sanfilipo, the applicant, discussed the floor area, stating that the
extra 700 sq. ft. does not add any impact to the parking. He asked that
the Commission approve a building of 12,600 sq. ft.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that the Commission is concerned about
parking and the amount of coverage on the lot as far as a precedent for
surrounding areas, which are major considerations on her part.
Commissioner Harris agreed.
Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A -1011, per the Staff Report dated
October 16, 1984, with condition #7 amended to read "A 6 ft. fence,
similar to that on the adjacent property, shall be located along the
northern property line, and a 6 ft. solid wall or fence shall be located
along the western property line, subject to Staff review and approval."
Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 3 -2, with
Commissioners Harris and Schaefer dissenting.
16. Tract 6781, Teerlink (Lambert), Mt. Eden Road, Clarification of Con-
ditions
It was noted that this item had been discussed at a study session. Staff
explained that the applicant would like the Commission to formalize the
consensus of the Commission at this study session, relative to the
conditions. They noted that an exhibit has been provided by the
applicant, showing the difference in the grading.
Jeff Lea, representing the applicant, discussed the conditions of the
Tentative Map Approval. He addressed the grading plan. Staff clarified
that a 2 -1/2:1 slope would be adequate. Commissioner Peterson asked
about the underg.rounding of utilities and improvement of Pierce.
Staff explained the undergrounding and improvements.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve the conditions, per the Staff
Report dated January 4, 1985. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written
1. Letter from Saratoga National Bank regarding A -976, asking
for reconsideration of original proposal on lighting. There was a
consensus to direct Staff to notify them to submit more details and
appropriate exhibits on their proposal.
Oral
1. It was reported that Barbara Harris has been appointed as
the new Planning Commissioner.
2. Chairman Siegfried thanked the Good Government Group for
attending and serving coffee, and the Saratoga News for attending.
RECEIVED
JAN 09 1985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
David and Terri Morrison
19590 Juna Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
January 9, 1985
Planning Commission RE: SDR -1585, A -1040, LL #6
City of Saratoga For Parcel 1, behind
Saratoga, CA 19605 Glen Una Drive
V -680 For Parcel 2
19605 Glen Una Drive
Dear Commission Member:
Five of the seven immediate neighbors, including myself, oppose the above
application. (See attached signatures #1).
My resident adjoins the entire northern boundary of the referenced property.
History:
The Glen Una neighborhood surrounding the application contains 46 homesites,
most of which were built upon prior to the 1956 incorporation of Saratoga.
The average homesite surrounding the application contains 1.54 acres. (See
attached #2).
Applicants Property:
This property contains approximately 12 acres and is improved with an existing
two story, 55 year old home of 3326 square feet, a swimming pool, 660 square
foot detached garage, 576 square foot cabana, 330 square foot arbor, 480 square
foot detached workshop and a 100 square foot greenhouse.
The applicant intends to build a one story 3762 square foot residence and
another swimming pool.
Although there is no record of survey as required by the 1966 minor subdivision
law, the 12 acre site was recorded as two lots in 1957. Parcel 2 containing
33,003 square feet (3/4 acre) and parcel 1 28,265 square feet (2/3 acre).
Both lots are legal and non - conforming. Zoning in this neighborhood is 40,000
square feet minimum.
The applicant has two non - conforming lots and would like to build on a flag
lot (corridor lot) behind their current residence.
In order to build,several variances covering both non - conforming sites must be
obtained.
I am opposed to issuance of any variances since it would make two non - conforming
lots even more non - conforming and would have other adverse effects.
Following is an outline of the requested variances:
January 9, 1985
Planning Commission
Page 2
PARCEL 2:
Variance
Required
Effects
Comments
24'
60'
Garage
Entire 660 sf garage lies
within setback area.
15'
60'
Cabana
Entire 576 sf cabana lies
within setback area.
35'
60'
Arbor
Entire 330 sf arbor lies
within setback area.
17'
20'
Cabana
Corner of cabana lies
within setback.
10'
20'
Garage
1/2 of garage lies within
setback.
PARCEL 1:
Variance
Required
Effects
43%
35%
Surface
Impervious
Water
Coverage
January 9, 1985
Planning Commission
Page 3
In addition to the major variances requested,which I feel are unrealistic and
abusive,several other factors should be considered.
1. Not all non - conforming lots are buildable for a variety of reasons.
Parcel 1 and 2 would require more non - conformity in the form of 6
major variances to become buildable.
2. The adverse effect on neighborhood property values should be considered
when major variances for non - confroming lots is considered.
3. Granting variances of this type would set an undesirable precedence in
Saratoga.
4. The entire septic leachfield for parcel 2 (existing house) is situated
on parcel 1. The applicant has no provision on the application to pro-
vide a new leachfield for the existing house they intend to sell.
5. Parcel 1 and 2 are located within a special studies zone as of January
1984. "Ds" area of high potential for earthquake- induced landslides.
The applicant nor her engineer have identified this f actor. (See attached #3) .
6. Without going into detail I take exception to the report to Planning
Commission.
Page 3 Finding 3, 4, & 5
Page 5 "Project Status"
Page 8 - Finding 1
mmm
V ry r my you
David J. Mo riso
I I.z
'Z
1.0
L
4c�
p
125
(IBC
ROAD
� 'Vdk,
PK-
Ace,& In
ell,
Iv
le lee ---------
Aced `
(Ac gtx 1, 4-
I ACAFE 1.2-5
el I
16�
Z.3
AqC. �
SARATOGA -LOS GATOS
to s 307115
lk d,
s r 3.0
q
Aam 5.0 AC-
AC4 C-6
AC eCr 6
ACZE
10 2 60 Ac.t
G PI 6, ACC9�
SAAA rVAIAJ
asl�
UM4 T`L�t��t(3oe_t -ioaD, SF�►ZATO A
4 60 -.5 L TeS
AvEe.AGG
N)
lJ
bFLUAL 11 MID LUDIC, &
FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
AS OF JANUARY 1984
REFERENCE MAP OF
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
The primary purpose of this atlas is to provide a ready reference for quick
identification of areas within officially adopted hazard zones. The zone bound-
aries were compiled from official maps available at the time of preparation, and
cannot be guaranteed as to accuracy due to changes in map scale. Also, peri-
odic revisions of the official maps are made by responsible agencies (HUD,
California State Geologist, Santa Clara County Environmental Management
Agency). THEREFORE, QUESTIONS INVOLVING SPECIFIC PARCELS AT OR
NEAR ZONE BOUNDARIES SHOULD BE ANSWERED BY CONSULTING THE
APPROPRIATE OFFICIAL MAPS OR CONTACTING LOCAL FIRMS OFFERING
DETERMINATION SERVICES.
Geologic Zones have been plotted on the 1977 Santa Clara County cadastral
base maps. The geologic zones have been taken from appropriate State of
California Special Studies Maps (1:24,000), and from the Santa Clara County
Relative Seismic stability map (1:60,000).
3 Areas of high potential for compressible soils and
differential settlement.
Dr > Areas of high potential for ground displacement
Vlong fault traces. * (light red tone)
Ds r eas of high potential for earthquake- induced
andslides.
Df Areas of high potential for salt water flooding from
failure of dikes.
Areas (not shown) of moderate to low potential
for any of the above geotechnical
hazards.
areas where dis-
closure of hazards
zone designation
is required by
seller indicated
in red.
areas where no
disclosure is
j required.
The seller or an agent for a seller of real property lying partly or wholly within
a Dc, Dr, Ds or Df zone must disclose that fact to any potential buyer. ••
CADASTRAL MAPS WITH GEOLOGIC HAZARD ZONES ARE NOT AVAILABLE
FOR REMOTE AREAS OF THE EASTERN DIABLO RANGE.
• Offldal Alquist -Prblo 5padat Studies 1►o'nes and zones established bar Same`
County akx�g pateritlally scfive.taufts.. _ s_, L _
Blank disclosure forms are available at the Santa Clara County Central Permit Office,
70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose.
•• Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 7.5, Section 2621.9, and Business and
Professions Code, Section 10176(a), (c), and Santa Clara County ordinances C12 -645,
C12.647 and C12.650.
REAL ESTATE DISTRICTS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, BOUNDARIES & IDENTIFICATIONS
APPEAR IN PURPLE ON MAP PAGES
(LEGEND)
UNIFIED OR HIGH SCHOOL DIST. BOUNDARY WEST VALLEY IDENTIFIES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
r ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIST. BOUNDARY _ _ _ _ _ MULTIPLE LISTING REAL ESTATE DISTRICT
SAN JOSE UNIFIED IDENTIFIES UNIFIED.OR HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS BOUNDARY — COINCIDES WITH SCHOOL DIST. BOUNDARIES
Mofeland IDENTIFIES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT AT TIMES
W
a-
56
55
54
53
52
51
5(
4!
19 20
21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28
29 30'
NI O
'D
CT VIA
VF",*
?KTArA LA
BURC
LOAF. NONE
SARAT
W.
A
a-
A BEAT.
S GAT Of
SO
NG
WOODO,
: •
L
IND.. S
CONG
ELL Z _IN
tc,
L.
— .,
-ff
; t ♦
wulsf
7
X
'a--
e
ns
'4
RANCHO Lh�. u
Ds
Ds
ADVE E
70, 10
Q1
LK
n*
-T&CT DR
Ems
".toz- CRI
he A,
C T
EKSIoE C, SONGA
&
Iv: zFli�A Ni
MR SID
a1v
Mont o'
RUDE
q
C,—
A"oretum
D
J '-I
ft A y
Ds,
I
inty 'INN,
"o
wi
rat 0ga
T-
4p,
'A
E 0,?
San
•
WEST VA L
TO
ChA
.4 MAGN -,EiN
r' ,,ESON
-P,, IN
O&A
23
-'P
S
Skyri
J
14.
4*y
CT
Cb
LOS GA
OS JOINT UN/ O
At
AYCS
LE C
;7r,4
E4
j1p
St
Count y
C.�, C
R
L EGE
:-e
D
no_
Park
Ds
midpeninsula
Regional Open
Space District
KIVO- 0 mc,
Wm "Amp-'s-DOR
51 $12455 !� C T
,;P
%;P ,
J
AV S 11�
T
E
VA •IMMA111 -
A
GAI.1
APT
C12
O
♦ u>
L
44; C"
nide ILI
01,
DS
O 100.
=*to
A,
X.
------ -
29 30
WeRF
125 126
22 23 24
25 26 27 2 8
` FGA
Robert Shook
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
/,r?
David & Terri Morrison
19590 Juna Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
A /P: 510 -5 -21
December 31, 1984
REF: SDR -1585, A -905
Albert & Ann Lorincz
19605 Glen Una Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
RECEIVED
JAN 0 2 1985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Dear Mr. Shook,
My residence adjoins the entire northern boundary of the above reference
property.
I am in complete opposition to the subdivision of .Dr. Lorincz's 1 1/2 acre
residential home site into two 3/4 acre lots in the 1 acre (40,000 sq. ft.)
zoning district of Saratoga for the following reasons:
1. The subdivision into two 3/4 acre lots is in violation of current zoning.
2. The cities general plan calls for minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet.
3. A 24 foot rear yard setback where a 60 foot setback is required is not a
variance but a massive disregard for zoning regulations.
4. The 15 foot rear yard setback where a 60 foot setback is required is also
inconceiveable.
5. The 35 foot rear yard setback where a 60 foot setback is required is also
excessive.
6. The 17 foot and 20 foot side yard setbacks where a 20 foot setback is required
is also inconsistant with the neighborhood.
Dr.. Lonincz's 1 112 acre lot is improved with a 45 year old two story house, attached
garage, detached garage, greenhouse, arbor, a large detached cabana and a swimming
pool.
The proposed flag lot subdivision of the 1 1/2 acre site can in no way result in
two 1 acre lots and would result in two non - conforming lots in a neighborhood of
1 to 1 3/4 acre sites.
11
I
Rot;ert Shook
SDR -1585, A -905
Page 2
A subdivision of this type which would result in two non - conforming sites in
an established residential neighborhood and would 'have an adverse effect on
neighborhood and city values and would set an undesirable precedence. for other
large lot owners who could also subdivide, sell, take a profit, at the expense
of the community, and move.
I oppose this application because it violates the existing zoning and general
plan and would have an immediate adverse effect on residential values within
the neighborhood and would set an undesirable precedence throughout Saratoga.
Enclosed is an assessors map showing my home location and.Dr. Lorincz's
property.
er. euly
i
David J. M rrison
enclosure (408)354- 59 (home
(408)996 -0872 (work
cc: Copies to Planning Commision Memebers,
Mike Flores
mm
Y in
I-<
Z
Z
W
J
Q
a
(3
/,' HALL
�.
ID Via"
jrlou) of
Ik wU 3/ 4- 14G�L�
I-er5 rl 4col� zaklllci)
r W- t v -, ,
L OP. cz
/
5 Dk 1595
A �a5 �
1
1 11 � tic T
Ac Z
0o s� Y
/A\ � __may'- -_-•� -... _
zi
�{1�1 F O X f011
W •tl� � NI
l Y414���-
14c ec
a
os
12, ti c . Ep,�l��1,�
ci (sl v .4 14,
0
r �
.11 •�i '
a'' a
i ` 1
O ,1
Y 1
lk
Is
mu
H
O
�1
i
i�
zm
Z
W
u
ac
g
1 ,
r M
� Mk
' T
O
J
J
W
T
-4
}
�
I
1
alai
J ' i
IL
i I
1
1
s
o
I�
I -
I
I 1
�
I 1
mu
H
O
�1
i
i�
zm
Z
W
u
ac
g
1 ,
r M
� Mk
' T
O
J
J
W
T
-4
}
RECEIVED
JAN 18 1985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Saratoga City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fru itvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
I/- & YO
19565 Glen Una Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
January 16, 1985
Re: Denial of a variance for an
existing cabana at 19605 Glen Una Dr.
Property Owner: Albert & Ann Lorincz
Dear Members of the Council:
We are writing in support of the appeal of Albert and
Ann Lor incz requesting a variance to retain the existing
cabana on their property. As our home and property are
immediately adjacent to the cabaiia in question, we would
appreciate the Council's consideration of our concerns
in this matter.
Because the cabana provides privacy and limits the usual
noises associated with the use of a swimming pool and
the fact that the pool equipment is maintained within
the cabana we always have been able to enjoy the quiet
we expect in this rural area.
Having resided in the Glen Una -Juna Lane area longer
than any of our neighbors, we recall the construction
of the cabana in the early 1950's. The cabana is an
attractive, well built structure which has benef itted us
by providing privacy and quiet along the western side of
our property. To remove this structure would appear
totally at odds with the City's concerns to preserve
the natural, rural atmosphere of our neighborhood. We
appeal to the Council to carefully reconsider the denial
of the variance requested by the Lorinczes.
Sincerely yours, ()p /,C
Maurice and Edith Hinman`
t
-7q AGENDA BILL ISO.
CITY OI' Sl\fb\ OGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: January 21, 1985 C. Atty.
DEPT . ,TENT: City Attorney C. Mgr.
------------------ - - - - -- ----- ---
SUaTECr: Amendment to Section 4 -115 of the City Code Pertaining to Revocation of Busi- --
ness
Licenses
Issue Summary The existing code does not provide for a revocation of a business license in
the event the licensee violates any provision of the code or any other
ordinance or regulation of the City. In addition, some of the stated
grounds for revocation now set forth in the code, the procedure for revocation,
and the distinction between revocation of a peddler's or solicitor's license
and revocation of other business licenses may be subject to constitutional
challenge. The proposed amendment is intended to correct these deficiencies.
Recommendation Adoption of ordinance.
Fiscal Imoacts None.
E- diibits /Attactrn^n is
Council Action
(a) Memorandum from City Attorney -to City Council dated January 21,
1985; (b) Proposed ordinance ;. (c) Sections 4 -115 and 4 -116 of
existing code.
2/6: Introduced.ordinance 5 -0.
2/20: -Adopted Ordinance 38.127,4-0.
ATKINSON • FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PAUL B. SMITH 660 WEST DANA STREET J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982)
ERIC L. FARASYN P.O. BOX 279 L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979)
LEONARD J. SIEGAL
HAROLD S. TOPPEL MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
GREGORY A. MANCHUK (415) 967 -6941
STEVEN G. BAIRD
ALEXANDER J. TRAFICANTI MEMORANDUM
TO: Saratoga City Council
FROM: Harold S. Toppel, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Amendment to Section 4 -115 of the City Code Pertaining to Revocation
of Business Licenses
DATE: January 21, 1985
Last year, staff encountered a situation wherein a person holding a valid
business license threatened to violate a certain provision of the City Code. Although
this particular case was resolved, it highlighted the fact that our existing code does
not expressly provide for revocation of a business license held by a person who violates
the City's ordinances. Since the entire article dealing with the issuance and
revocation of business licenses was redrafted by the City Attorney's office some time
ago in connection with the general code revision process, it is a simple matter for us
to present the new section on revocation of business licenses to the Council for
adoption within the framework of the existing code. As a result of the specific
incident involving a licensee coupled with the general goal of strengthening the tools
available to the City for code enforcement, staff decided that your consideration of
this amendment should not be delayed until the balance of the code is completed.
Section 4 -115 now provides for revocation of a business license where the
operation of the business is contrary to the "public health, safety, peace, welfare or
morals," or in the case of a licensee who enters any guilty plea to "any public offense
involving moral turpitude," or any licensee who misrepresents "the quality or nature of
the goods or services sold or offered for sale." The basic intent of these provisions is
reflected (in a somewhat narrower fashion) in paragraph (a)(4) of the proposed
ordinance which authorizes revocation if the business is conducted in an illegal,
improper or disorderly manner, or in a manner which endangers the public health,
safety or welfare.
Paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of the proposed ordinance are both new.
Paragraph (a)(2) provides for revocation if the licensee violates any ordinance of the
City, as discussed above. Paragraph (a)(3) corresponds with the general prohibition
against issuance of a business license where the activity would be in violation of the
zoning regulations applicable to the premises where the business is conducted (except
where such regulations have been changed, resulting in the business constituting a
lawfully established nonconforming use).
Section 4 -115 of the existing code seems to permit revocation proceedings
to be initiated upon the verified complaint of any person, thereby placing the entire
Memorandum to Saratoga City Council
January 21, 1985
Page Two
matter beyond staff control. This language has now been eliminated. It is my feeling
that any such complaint should first be submitted to the City Manager for
investigation. If the City Manager determines that the complaint does not merit the
initiation of revocation proceedings and the complainant disagrees with such
conclusion, the complainant still has the right to bring the matter to the attention of
the City Council through a written communication or an oral communication at the
beginning of any Council meeting.
The existing ordinance provides for a noticed hearing on revocation except
in the case of a peddler's or solicitor's license which may be summarily revoked by the
City Clerk. I have serious concerns as to whether the distinction between peddlers and
solicitors and all other licensees can be justified on constitutional grounds. Due
process rights are not dependent upon whether the licensee conducts his business door
to door or from a fixed location. The proposed ordinance therefore establishes a single
noticed public hearing procedure for revocation of any business license.
Section 4 -116 of the City Code has been consolidated with Section 4 -115
and now appears as paragraph (d) of the latter section.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
SECTION 4 -115 AND REPEALING SECTION! 4 -116 OF
CHAPTER 4 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE PERTAINING
TO THE REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSES
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 4 -115 of Chapter 4 of the City Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Sec. 4 -115 Revocation of licenses; hearing; new license after revocation
(a) Grounds for revocation. Any license issued pursuant. to this Article is
subject to revocation for cause on any one of the following grounds:
(1) A false or fraudulent statement or misrepresentation of any material
fact in the application for the license.
(2) Violation by the licensee of any provision of this Code or any other
ordinance or regulation of the city.
(3) The existence of any ground for which an initial application for a
license would be denied, except for a change in zoning regulations
subsequent to the issuance of the license which results in the business
constituting a lawfully established nonconforming use, in which case,
the use shall be subject to all of the regulations contained in the
city's zoning ordinance pertaining to nonconforming uses.
(4) Conducting the business in an illegal, improper or disorderly manner,,
or in a manner which endangers the public health, safety or welfare.
(b) Notice of revocation. The City Clerk shall give notice to the licensee of
the city's intention to revoke the business license and the grounds for such revocation.
The notice shall also set forth the time and place when the matter will be heard by the
City Council. The notice shall be sent to the licensee, at the address of the principal
place of the business shown on the application for the license, at least ten days prior
to the date of the hearing.
(c) Hearing and determination by City Council. At the time and place
indicated in the notice of revocation, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing
to determine whether the business license in question should be revoked. The Council
shall render its decision within ten days after the conclusion of the public hearing.
Until such decision is rendered, the licensee may continue to operate his business. The
Council may revoke the business license, based upon a finding that one or more
grounds for revocation exist, or the Council may permit the licensee to continue the
operation of his business pursuant to the terms of the original license or subject to
compliance with such additional conditions as the Council may impose in lieu of
revocation. The decision of the City Council shall be final. Any revocation of a
business license shall automatically revoke all identification cards issued in
1/15/85 -1-
conjunction therewith.
(d) New license after revocation. Whenever a license has been revoked
pursuant to this Section or for any other reason, no new license shall be issued to the
same applicant or for the same business unless satisfactory proof is first made to the
City Manager that the violation or other matter causing the previous revocation has
been corrected and that there is no likelihood of any repetition of the same. The
burden of proof shall be on the applicant, and he may appeal any adverse decision of
the City Manager to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in
Section 2 -3.2 of this Code."
SECTION 2: Section 4 -116 of Chapter 4 of the City Code is hereby repealed.
SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saatoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular ►neeting
of the City Council held on the day of , 1985,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
1/15/85
-2-
MAYOR
Sec. 4 -115. Revocation of licenses.
Any license issued by the city clerk contrary to any of the terms or provisions
of this article is void. Any license issued under the terms and provisions of this
article is subject to revocation for cause on any one of the following grounds:
(a) When the continuance of the operation of the licensee under the license shall
be contrary to the public health, safety, peace, welfare or morals, or
(b) The violation of any of the penal provisions of this article by the licensee, or
70.5
Sapp. 8 -72
§ 4 -116 Saratoga City Code 4 -11G
(c) The misrepresentation of any material fact by any applicant in obtaining any
license hereunder, or
(d) Any plea, verdict or judgment of guilty of any public offense involving moral
turpitude charged against the licensee, or
(e) Any misrepresentation as to the quality or nature of the goods or services
sold or offered for sale made by .the licensee or his agent, servant or employees to
any prospective or actual purchaser, customer or consumer.
Before any. Iicense other than a peddler's or solicitor's license may be revoked
for cause, a written statement of one or more of the above set forth grounds shall. be
filed with the city council, which complaint shall be verified unless made by an officer
or: employee of the city in his official capacity. The city council shall provide a pub -
lic hearing on such complaint, and written notice of the time and place of the same
shall be sent by registered mail to the complaining party, and to the licensee at his
address as shown on the license records of the city, at least five days prior to the
date of hearing. After such hearing the council shall have power to revoke such li-
cense for any one or more of the above set forth grounds, and the decision of the
council shall be final and conclusive.
The city clerk shall have power to revoke a peddler's or solicitor's license upon
his finding that any one or more of the above set forth grounds exist therefor, which
revocation may be appealed by the licensee to the city council at any time within ten r
.days after the revocation thereof, by written notice of appeal filed with the city clerK, ;4
I pon receipt of which the clerk shall set the same for hearing before the council at
Its next regular meeting that falls not less than five days after the date of filing of the
notice of appeal. The city council shall have power, upon such hearing, to affirm the
action of the city clerk; or to reverse and reinstate the license; or to reverse and rein-
state the license only upon the compliance by the licensee with certain conditions as
may be imposed by the council on such reversal. The decision,of the city council shall
be final and conclusive. The revocation by the city clerk shall be effective immediately,
and all peddling or soliciting shall be automatically prohibited and the licensee shall
be and remain as an unlicensed person unless, and until, he has appealed the decision
and the council has reversed the decision of the city clerk and reinstated the license.
The term "license" as used in this section shall also Include any and all identi-
fication cards issued in conjunction therewith, and the revocation of a license shall
automatically revoke all identification cards issued in conjunction therewith. (Ord.
No. 38.8, § 1; Ord. No. 38.33, §.2; Ord. No. 38.41, § 6.)
Sec. 4 -116. New license after revocation.
Whenever a license has been revoked pursuant to either section 4 -114 or section
4 -115 or for any other reason, no new license shall be issued to the same applicant
or for the same business unless satisfactory proof is first made to the city clerk that
the violation or other matter causing the previous revocation has been corrected and
that there is no likelihood of any repetition of the same. The burden of proof shall be
on the applicant, and he may appeal any adverse decision of the city clerk to the city
council in the same manner, and the city council shall have the same powers on
appeal, as is set forth in section 4 -123 for appeals on claims of exemption or ex-
clusion. (Ord. No. 38.33, § 3.)
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. �� /
Dept. Hd.
DATE: February 6, 1985 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Services C. Mgr.
SUBJECT. Proposed 3 -Year Community Development Plan for expenditure of
HCDA funds (FY 1985- 86--through FY 1987 -88)
Issue Suniury
As required by federal regulation, the City must conduct Public Hearings
and consider public comment relative to the allocation of HCDA funds.
Presented for public comment and City Council consideration is a three -
year Community Development Plan (FY 1985 -86 through FY 1987 -88).
Recommendation
1. Presentation of proposed 3 -year CD plan.
2. Conduct Public Hearing to receive public comments.
3. Adopt CD Plan as proposed or amended by City Council and close
Public Hearing; or
4. Continue Public Hearing for final adoption of CD Plan at the
February 20, 1985, City Council meeting.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits/Attachments .
1. 5wmury from Community Services Director
2. Detailed analysis of CDBG program recommendations - Report from HCD Coordinator
3. Outline of proposed 3 -year CD Plan
Council Action
2/6: Co¢itinued`hearing to 2/20.
i
ME
ot
SA • �
O
CITY of = ' ATOGA
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 2/6/85
COUNCIL MEETING: 2/6/85
SUBJECT: CDBG 3 -Year Expenditure Plan
PURPOSE
This is the second and final public hearing to consider the
expenditure of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding
from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) pursuant to the Housing and Community Development Act
(HCDA) of 1974. A total of $192,640 is anticipated for
expenditure during the next fiscal year. At the close of the
public hearing, staff will be seeking direction from Council
concerning how the funds should be spent.
ANALYSIS
Saratoga has been receiving
county" since the program
Saratoga is a small- cities
CDBG application to HUD. T
$150,000 for projects
administration, for a total
program year.
CDBG funds as a member of the "urban
was established. This means that
component to the Santa Clara County
his coming year we expect to receive
and $42,640 for CDBG program
of $192,640 during the eleventh CDBG
In addition to the recommendations for funding projects with
eleyenth -year revenue, staff has also developed a three -year CDBG
expenditure plan. The plan makes recommendations for funding
activities an additional two years assuming the CDBG program is
continued at its existing level by Congress. The purpose of the
plan is to make Saratoga's CDBG program more far - sighted and
meaningful. However, only the expenditures outlined for the
first year of the three -year plan would be final, with
expenditures for the remaining two years being only tentative.
Report to Mayor and City Council Page 2
Subject: CDBG 3 -Year Expenditure Plan
Conclusion
Staff is recommending that Council approve a specific allocation
of CDBG funds for the next fiscal year (year eleven), and comment
on the proposed expenditure of funds tentatively identified for
the subsequent years thereafter. Following Council action, staff
will submit the outline of the expenditures for the next program
year to the County for forwarding to the Federal Government. The
City's three -year plan, however, will remain an internal docu-
ment. If HUD approves the City's allocation of funds for the
eleventh year, the funding could be available for expenditures in
early July of this year.
PREPARED BY:
Todd W. Argow
Ccnmunity Services Director
twa3
-�? "� CITY � = � - � •
...� of SARATO GA
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 2/6/85
COUNCIL MEETING: 2/6/85
SUBJECT: CDBG "3 -Year Expenditure Plan
SUBJECT
Presentation
for
City Council consideration and
adoption or
modification
of a
3 -year Community Development
Plan for the
allocation of
funding
anticipated to be received
by the City
under the Housing
and Community Development Act
(HCDA) Block
Grant Program,
for
FY 1985 -86 through FY 87 -88.
BACKGROUND
The City first received HCDA funds during FY 75 -76. At the end
of the current fiscal year, the City will have received
$2,560,000 exclusive of program income (i.e:, interest generated
from SHARP funds on deposit and loan repayments). Over the
course of the past decade, federal requirements relative to
eligible uses of HCDA funds have become increasingly narrow, as
may be observed by a review of the attached HCDA
Funding /Activities Summary.
Although the three broad national objectives of the Act remain
intact, i.e.,
1. benefits to low and moderate income individuals or
families;
2. activities that aid in the prevention or elimination of
slums or blight; and
3. activities designed to meet other needs having a particular
urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and
immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community
and other financial resources are not available;
changes in the implementation regulations of the HCDA have made
it increasingly more difficult for Saratoga, as well as other
Urban County cities, to develop and implement eligible
activities. Consequently, we see activities such as housing
rehabilitation, handicapped accessibility and senior citizen
programs /centers dominating the current CD plans of many local
jurisdictions. These activities are, however, of significant
value to'our community and would, in all probability, not be able
to continue without HCDA funding.
Relative to senior programs /centers, in the the past, activities
for the elderly have been assumed to be of primary benefit to
low -to- moderate income persons in that generally seniors fall
into this income category. Current regulations require the
collection of income data by service recipients. To this end,
the SASCC has been working to collect data from senior center
users. Should the data reveal a 51% or greater incidence of low -
to- moderate income senior use, the City could continue to fund
senior program /center type activities.
The Village area of the City has been suggested as a focus for
HCDA projects. At present, under current regulations, the only
two apparent approaches available to the City are: 1.
accessibility improvements, some of -which have taken place in
prior years, i.e., curb ramping; and 2. economic development
activities. The later would have to be tied to low -to- moderate
income benefit. For example, were the City to initiate a
Commercial Rehabilitation Program, i.e., front and rear (parking
district) facing facade improvements, the beneficiaries of the
program would have to be of low -to- moderate income or, for
instance, provide jobs for low to moderate income persons.
The 3 -year plan presented for City Council consideration is
reflective of the above legislative constraints, and was
developed in order to provide an element of continuity in the
receipt and allocation of Block Grant funds through FY 87 -88.
Allocations made for the 11th HCDA year (Fy 85 -86) should be
viewed by the City Council as commitments. Allocations for
subsequent years should be viewed as conceptual only and subject
to modification in light of: a)changes in federal regulations; b)
identified City needs which may be met with HCDA funds, c)
citizen participation; and d) City Council priorities.
A brief discussion of the project proposals follows:
1. Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) - $23,000.
This activity continues programs and services provided by the
SASCC at the Senior Center.
2. SASCC - Remodel of the current Fireside /Lounge area of the
Community Center - $10,000. This activity would include removal
of the deficient fireplace and conversion of the available area
into two rooms for meetings and office space with a connection to
the Senior Center.
0►:
3. Los Gatos - Saratoga Joint Union High School District -
$14,460. This activity would continue accessibility improvements
at Saratoga High School. (The Council allocated $10,000 for FY
84 -85.) At the request of the City Councill, the District has
attempted to focus HCDA funds on those access improvements which
would be of greatest benefit to the general community using high
school facilities. Saratoga High School is the locally- designated
facility for handicapped accessibility. The District is also
sharing in the cost of these access improvements.
City Projects:
1. Village Library Handicapped Access Improvements - $6,780.
This activity will provide for the removal of access barriers to
the Village Library and the interior, including complete
rehabilitation of the currently inadequate restroom facility.
2. Rental Unit Inspection Program _ $3,000. This activity will
fund City Building Inspector time (maximum 150 hours) to respond
to building code violations of rental properties and eliminate
any identified code violations. This activity will tie into the
City's Housing Rehabilitation Program (SHARP).
3. Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program _
$32,7607 This activity continues the City's successful housing
rehabilitation program. The requested lower level of funding
reflects accumulated carryover, interest earned on funds on
deposit, and loan repayments.
4. Construction of Accessible Restroom Facilities at various
City Parks $60,000. This activity will provide for the
construction of accessible restrooms at prioritized City parks
currently lacking such facilities. It is anticipated that such
construction will significantly enhance citizen use and enjoyment
of City parks.
5. Street Tree Removal Replacement Program. This activity,
although not a component of the 11th year HCDA budget, would
iniate a one year -pilot program to trim, remove and replace
street trees, and correct broken curbs and gutters within the
Quito area of the City. The City must reprogram Fy 1984 -85 HCDA
Jobs Bill funds which are currently alloated to the
reconstruction of Elva Avenue ($72,000). These funds combined
with Fy 84 -85 funds ($25,000) for Quito Area Curb and Gutter
Repair, could be combined into one overall program with the
potential, upon successful operation, to be implemented citywide.
The proposed lst year pilot program would provide two full -time
staff and the acquisition of capital equipment .(chipper, stump
grinder, chain saws, etc.).
3
City Council action on this proposed program and the
reprogr� ing of funds will take place at a subsequent Council
meeting i order to conduct a separate Public Hearing.
PREP
1 CarAekie
Housing and Community
Development Coordinator
Attachments
4
f"1 HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPME4T ACT
!
FUNDING /ACTIVITIES SUMMARY
HCD ACTIVITY:
(1)
12,000
(2)
12,000
(3)
4,550
12,000
(4)
41,575
(5)
31,000
(6)
34,183
(7)
28,390
(8)
23,775
(9)
21,580
(10)
21,926
(11)
ADbiiNIST'ATION
HOUSING REHAB. (SHARP)
21,000
14,700
21,000
30,550
20,000
21,000
249,800
50,000
20,000
100,850
80,000
50,000
50,150
-
EL QUITO PARK DEVELOPMENT
35,700
19,300
12,475
CLEARANCE and DE210LITION
3,000
2,000
VILLAGE BEAUTIFICATIO14
5,000
15,000
SENIOR CITIZEN NEEDS ASSESSMENT
1,300
SENIOR CITIZE>I HOUSING
LATI)BAN1U NG
86,700
20,000
201,000
50,250
90,000
152,750
REMO',,rAL OF ARCHITECTURAL
BARRIERS
16,750
17,360
PLA',AIING and !.WlAGEMENT
DEVELOP = IT - HOUSING FT 1ENT
6,700
CONTIL`mICY
2,735
32,040
SENIOR CENTER
116,550
127,820
PAUL AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION
94,300
SHARP ADML�IISTRATION
23,775
21,580
21,926
FOURTH STREET RECONSTRUCTION
70,000
SARATOGA AREA SENIOR COUNCIL
20,000
20,000
20,000
QUITO AREA STORM DRAIN
84,325
30,000
ELVA PVE. INPUTS (JOBS BILL)
77,500
QUITO AREA CURB /GUTTER REPLACE
25,000
SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL ACCESS
--
-
- --
-- - --
-
--
10,000
SARATOGA COURT ACQUISTION
50,000
COVEIRN,x= BUT-DINGS ACCESS
5,000
ANNUAL TOTAL
$78,000
$201,250
$291,025
$367,810
$336,950
$334,753
223,540
$231,875
$290,660 $204,002
;
GRAND TOTAL $2,554,865.00
PROPOSED THREE -YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SUMMARY OF HCDA PROJECT PROPOSALS
FY 85 -86 FY 86 -88
Organization Proposed Activity Year 11 Year 12
Saratoga Area Senior
Coordi t >Provision of services $ 23,000 $ 27,000
' Co
na rng uncil
(ACC)
and programs for the
elderly
Saratoga Area Senior
>Remodel Comm. Center
10,000
Coordinating Council
fireside /lounge rm. to
(HOC)
office meeting space.
Option a) provides a
a) 6,500
less desirable and less
costly alternative,
it is not recommended
by staff.
Los Gatos- Saratoga
>Handicapped access
14,460
Joint Union High
improvements at
School District
Saratoga High School.
Improvements appli-
cable to the general
canTunity and student
use of the facility.
City of Saratoga
>Village Library handi-
6,780
capped access improve-
ments and restroom
modifications. (1)
> Saratoga Housing
32,760
Assistance & Rehabili-
tation Program (SHARP).
> Rental unit inspection.
3,000
(2)
>Construction of access-
60,000
ible restroom facilities
at El Quito Park and
Congress Springs Park.
(3)
>Street tree removal
Jobs Bill
replacement (inc. curb
and
and gutter) program.
Quito Curb
& Gutter,
fund transfer
FY 84 -85
Q1E
FY 87 -88
Year 13
$30,000
-0-
12,120 -0-
-0- -0-
-0- 12,260
-0- -0-
60,000 30,000
67,000 77,740
( +15%)
Subtotal: 150,000 166,720 150,000
> Program 42,640 46,904 51,594
Administration
TOTAL $192,640 S_21L_,624_ U01t59g
3 -YEAR TOTAL: _1560_7__$_5_$
(1) Estimate prepared by B. Rathbun, $6,780 including profit and overhead, concrete
ramp with metal railing, complete restroom modification for accessibility, smoke detectors
and treatment to front door.
(2) Rental Rehabilitation /Inspection Program. $3,000 : $20/hour = 150 hours or 3.75
weeks staff time.
(3) Suggest Year 11 = E1 Quito Park and Congress Springs Park
Year 12 = Gardiner Park and Kevin Moran Park
Year 13 = Access improvements to Wildwood Park
3. stan2