HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-19-1995 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z S q0
MEETING DATE: JULY 19, 1995
ORIGINATING DEPT: RECREATION
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Adoption of Part -time Temporary Salary Schedule to Add
the Position of Facility.Coordinator.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution No. for Part -time Temporary Salary Schedule.
Report Summary:
Attached, is the Part -time Temporary Employee Hourly Rate schedule.
The only change to the rate schedule from the previous three years,
is the inclusion of the position of Facility Coordinator.
As part of the 1995 -1997 budget process, the City Council approved
several changes in the Recreation Department. Expenses were
reduced, and one full -time Program Coordinator was laid off. As
part of the department reorganization, some job tasks were shifted
to the remaining permanent staff members, and other job functions
will be performed by hiring one or two new part -time temporary
employees.
The Facility Coordinator will work approximately 18 hours per week,
and handle all city -owned facility and park rentals; supervise,
hire, and schedule facility attendants. The job will involve
marketing the availability of city facilities and increasing rental
revenue.
Fiscal Impacts
Included in the approved 1995 -1997 budget is approximately $12,500
for the Facility Coordinator.
Follow -up Action:
Hire a Facility Coordinator as soon as possible.
Attachments:
Revised Part -time Temporary Salary Schedule
Facility Coordinator Job Description
Motion and Vote
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ?, � ,yq AGENDA ITE
MEETING DATE: JULY 19, 1995 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD
SUBJECT: Final acceptance of subdivision public improvements within
Old Oak Way (upper) portion of Tract 7770 (Chadwick Place)
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Move to grant final acceptance of the subdivision public
improvements within the Old Oak Way portion of Tract 7770.
2. Move to adopt the Resolution rescinding the previously rejected
Offers of Dedication and accepting the extension of Old Oak Way
into the City's publicly maintained street system.
Report Summary: The subdivision public improvements within the Old
Oak Way (upper) portion of Tract 7770 (Chadwick Place) have been
completed and satisfactorily maintained by the subdivider for the
required one year maintenance /warranty period. Consequently, I am
recommending that the City Council grant final acceptance of these
improvements and assume the maintenance responsibility for them as
contemplated by the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.. This can be
accomplished by adopting the attached Resolution which rescinds the
previously rejected Offers of Dedication made on the Final Map.
The above recommendation does not apply to the improvements within
the Chiquita Way (lower) portion of the subdivision. Because of
concerns which exist about the adequacy of the drainage system
within that portion of the development, I do not believe the City
should assume maintenance responsibility for those subdivision
public improvements at this time, and neither does the City
Attorney (see attached memo). Staff continues to work with the
developer responsible for the lower portion of the development to
address the outstanding concerns.
The City Council could refuse to accept any of the improvements
within the subdivision until all outstanding concerns are
addressed. However, staff believes that the developer responsible
for the Chiquita Way portion of Tract 7770 will be "motivated" to
resolve the outstanding issues when it is realized that the
improvements within the Old Oak Way portion of the subdivision have
been accepted separately from the Chiquita Way improvements.
Fiscal Impacts: There will be an incremental increase in the City's
street and storm drain maintenance expenses over time as a result
of adding to the inventory of City maintained streets and storm
drains. Roughly 1,300 feet of street will be added to the City's
street system.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The
subdivision public improvements would continue to remain as private
improvements for which the developers and the individual lot owners
within the subdivision would collectively have maintenance
responsibility. However, remember that when the Hillside Street
Repair Fund was established, it was done so under the assumption
that the streets within Tract 7770 would become public streets.
Follow Up Actions: The Resolution will be recorded and staff will
continue to work with the developer responsible for the lower
portion of the subdivision to resolve the outstanding drainage
issues.
Attachments: 1. Resolution Accepting Dedication of Streets.
2. Memo from City Attorney dated December 6, 1994.
Michael R Nave
Steven R Meyers
Elizabeth H. Silver
Michael S. Aback
Kenneth A. Wilson
Clifford F. 6mtbe11
Michael F. Rodriquez
Kathleen Faubion
Wendy A. Roberta
David W. Skinner
Steven T. Mattes
Rick W. Ja"
Veronica A. Nebb
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
A Professional Low Corporation
Gateway Plato
7n Davis Street, Suite 300
San l.."WW, CA %M
TElephone: (510) 3514300
Buzimile: (510) 3514481
Santa Rosa Office
555 Fifth Street, Suite 240
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 545-MM
(747) 5454A17 (Paz)
Reply to:
San I eaadm
Of counsel:
CONFIDENTIAL -- PRIVILEGED
Andrea I Saltzman
MEMORANDUM
TO: Larry Perlin DATE: December 6, 1994
Public Works Director
FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
RE: Saratoga's Liability Upon Accepting storm water Drainage
System Dedication - Tract 7770
BACAGROUND
A subdivider has developed a hillside area (Tract 7770)
where the watershed traditionally drained through a swale point
to the creek. The subdivider has constructed a storm water
drainage system whereby the run -off water is piped to the Swale
point, where it falls from an open pipe. The system was approved
at the time the subdivision was approved.
Adjacent landowners are now arguing that the concentration
of water from the open pipe is causing erosion to their property.
This erosion is allegedly threatening their trees and real
property. On the other hand, the subdivider claims there is no
injury and that less water is now being directed to the Swale
because the watershed has been partially diverted.
ISSUES
1. Can the adjacent landowners hold the City liable for
damages because the City approved the subdivider's storm water
drainage system?
TO: Larry Perlin, Public Works Director
FROM: Michael S. Riback, city Attorney
RE: Saratoga's Liability Upon Accepting storm water Drainage
System Dedication
DATE: December 6, 1994
PAGE'.: 2
2. If the City accepts the subdivision, including storm
pipes, will the City be liable for future damage?
BRIEF ANSWER
1. Probably not, the Government Code provides immunity from
inspection of designs. However, the developer could be held
liable if the system was found to be negligently designed.
2. Probably yes. If the City formally accepts the storm
drain, or if the City enciages in maintenance and control, it
incurs liability for injuries.
n=sevs9TON
1. City Liability Because of Approval
Public entities are immune from injuries caused by
inadequacy, negligence, or failure to make an inspection of
property for the purpose of determining if the property complies
with codes, or if it constitutes a hazard.' This section has
been interpreted to include immunity from the negligence of city
employees in inspecting or failing to inspect buildings and
designs which were constructed with defects_
This provision appears to shield the City from liability for
approving the allegedly poorly designed storm drain system.
A developer who dedicates property to the city may retain
liability for injury to people and property as a.result of
defective conditions on the dedicated land. If a developer's
motivation for the dedication is not altogether charitable, and
he is negligent in the design and construction of the dedicated
improvements, he retains liability for his pre - dedication
1 Government Code § 818.6.
Z Clayton v. Rossman (1976) 133 Ca1.Rptr. 306.
3 We understand that aside from the neighbor's
allegations, there is no evidence that the storm drain system was
poorly designed.
TO: Larry Perlin, Public Works Director
FROM: Michael s. Riback, city Attorney
RE: Saratoga's Liability Upon Accepting Storm Water Drainage
System Dedication
DATE: December 6, 1994
PAGE: 3
negligence.4
2. City Liability Upon Acceptina Dedication
AS dedication of a public improvement is carried out by
formal or informal acceptance by the City. If the City accepts
the improvements, liability probably will follow. In a case
involving damage cause by a storm drain system,7 a court defined
public improvement to include:
construction, the plans and specifications for which
are approved in advance by a public agency, which are
then constructed by private persons, and are dedicated
to and accepted by the public agency. (Id. at 897.)
If Saratoga approved the plans and specifications for this
open pipe storm drainage system, and then accepted the
improvement, it would be deemed a public improvement. The
consequence is that the City would be liable for any actual
physical injury to real property, a proximate cause of which is a
public improvement deliberately designed and constructed. (Id.)
Thus, even though the improvement was built by the subdivider,
the City would become liable upon acceptance of the improvement,
if the City had previously approved the plans and specifications.
Another court found liability for inverse condemnation in a
storm drain situation where the city approved or accepted the
4 Fisher y_ Morrison Homes, Tne (1980) 167 Cal.Rptr. 133.
Liability is cut off after the statutory period for patent and
latent defects. (Code of Ci.v. Proc. SS 337.1 and 337.15.)
5 For example, the City Council adopts a resolution or
ordinance specifically accepting the offered improvement.
6 Informal acceptance may be shown through public use,
official dominion or control-, public improvements, public
maintenance, use of public money on the improvement, regular
Public inspection, or sometimes even the adoption of a map
showing the dedication.
7 Barnhouse v. City of Pinole (1992) 183 Cal.Rptr. 881_
TO: Larry Perlin, Public Works Director
FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
RE: Saratoga's Liability Upon Accepting Storm Water Drainage
System Dedication
DATE: December 6, 1994
PAGE: 4
project.$ This expansive liability ruling stated:
[w]here a public improvement has been constructed and
private property is proximately damaged . . . the fact
that the work of construction was performed by a
private property owner does not necessarily exonerate
the public agency from liability. It is enough that
the work is somehow approved or accepted by the public
agency. [citations omitted] (Id. at 752.)
Acceptance can be informal, by official acts of dominion and
control, or the use of the land for a public purpose over a
reasonable period of time. (Id. at 752 -753.) These actions are
enough for the City to incur liability. It should be noted that
this case and other storm drain inverse condemnation cases were
quite fact sensitive, despite the broad liability language.
If there has not been formal acceptance, the City is not
responsible for the maintenance of the dedication, and the City
is not liable to third parties who are injured by a dangerous
condition on the property. However, if the City has exercised
dominion and control over the improvement, such as performing
maintenance and reuairs, the City will probably incur liability.
CONCLUSION
While the City is probably not liable simply because it
approved the storm drainage configuration, it can expect to
become liable for damages once the dedication is accepted or
maintained. For at least a few years, the affected property
owners may be able to bring an action against the developer for
negligent design. However, the property owners could still bring
an action against the City once the dedication is accepted.
In order to avoid future liability, the City should avoid
(l) accepting the dedication of the system and (2) performing any
maintenance or repair of the system. This may not be politically
or practically feasible. It may make more sense from an
engineering (and political) perspective to participate with the
neighbors and developer in a redesign and reconstruction of the
system so the storm water flows elsewhere. If this approach is
s Marin v. City of San Rafael (1980) 168 Cal. Rptr. 750.
TO; Larry Perlin, Public Works Director
FROM: Michael S. Riback, city Attorney
RE: Saratoga's Liability Upon Accepting Storm Water Drainage
System Dedication
DATE: December 6, 1994
PAGE: 5
considered, the City should not contribute any funds or expertise
to this effort unless it is,part of a complete resolution of the
problem which concludes with a system which the City feels
comfortable accepting as a public improvement.
Please let me know if you have further questions with regard
to this matter.
Michael S. Riback
City Attorney
MSR:dsp
cc: City Manager
273 \memo \dec94 \st.orm.ded
e
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-5-9 ? AGENDA ITEM: lQ
MEETING DATE: July 19, 1995 C11TY' MGR:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development Vv
SUBJECT:
Appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a Design Review
application request (DR -95 -015); 14755 Aloha Avenue (Abdullah)
Recommended Motion(s
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission
decision and deny the Design Review request.
Report Summary:
On May 24, 1995, an application was presented to the Planning Commission
requesting Design Review approval to construct an 874 square feet second
story addition and a 1, 187 square feet addition to the first floor to an
existing 1,259 square foot one -story residence. The parcel is
approximately 13,650 square feet and is located within an R- 1- 15,000
zoning district. The Commission agreed that there was a sufficient mix
of two -story homes within the vicinity and that a second -story addition
would be compatible with other existing homes. However, members of the
Commission did not feel that the structure's design was compatible in
terms of bulk, mass and height with surrounding homes. Therefore, the
proposal was continued to allow the applicant to present revised plans
providing a more compatible design with the older homes in the
neighborhood.
Revised plans were presented to the Planning Commission on June 28,
1995. The new plans emphasized massing changes to the elevations
improving the addition's compatibility with surrounding homes. Further,
the floor area of the second story was reduced from the previously
presented 874 square feet to 796 square feet. Although staff was able
to recommend approval of both the original and revised proposals, the
majority of the Commission felt that the Design Review findings could
not be made needed to approve the request due to unresolved
incompatibility concerns. Therefore, the Planning Commission denied the
application by a 4 -3 vote.
Within the attached letter dated July 6, 1995, the applicant states that
the project should have been approved based on the following reasons:
City Council, July 19, 1995
Abdullah Appeal (DR -95 -015)
Page 2
* The Planning Commission originally informed the applicant that a
two -story design would be compatible with the neighborhood.
* The maximum height was reduced from 23 feet to 22.5 feet.
* The structure's elevations had been sufficiently redesigned to
improve the addition's compatibility with the existing residence
and surrounding homes.
The majority of the Planning Commission felt that although changes were
made to the original proposal which improved the structure's design, the
project could not be supported due to the perceived mass of the home (on
a relatively small parcel) in comparison with the immediate neighborhood
which is developed with much lower one -story homes. Therefore, the
proposal remained incompatible with the neighborhood.
Fiscal Impacts:
None
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Notices were mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of
the subject property. Notices were also posted at City Hall and
advertised in the newspaper.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The project would be approved and a two -story residence would be
constructed on the subject property.
Follow Up Actions:
None
Attachments:
1.
Appeal letter /form
2.
Planning Commission
3.
Planning Commission
4.
Planning Commission
5.
Planning Commission
6.
Correspondence
7.
Plans, Exhibit "A"
dated 7/07/95
Resolution DR -95 -015
Minutes dated 6/28/95 & 5/24/95
Memorandum dated 7/28/95
Staff Report dated 5/24/95
Date Received: �
Hearing Dater
Fee:
F Q�
Receipt No.: 3-1,5-01
Name of Appellant:
APPEAL APPLICATION
Asim Abdullah
Address: 20292 Pinntage Parkway, Cupertino, CA 95014
Telephone: 408 -7771: -5101 (work)
Name of Applicant (if..
different from Appellant:
Project File Number and Address: 14755 Aloha Avenue
JUL UNWED
7 1995
CITY Ue SARATOGA
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Decision Being Appealed: Denial of two -story addition to existing
residence with a 4 -3 vote of the Planning Qbmnission on a notion to approve
DR -95 -015
Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached):
Please see attached docunent
*PlezVse -do not sign until application is presented at 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 TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE
AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS
OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
Reason for Appeal to City Council
For Decision of the Planning Commission - City of Saratoga
Meeting of June 28, 1995
Application No. DR -95 -015 - Mr. and Mrs. Asim Abdullah
Addition and Alterations to Residence, 14755 Aloha Avenue
The Planning Commission heard this application on May 24, 1995 and
on June 28, 1995. The first hearing ended with a 3 -3 vote with the
request of the owner and architect to provide changes in the
exterior elevations. From the minutes of that meeting, the
Planning Commission accepted the request for a portion of the
addition to be two -story because of the small site, the sloped lot
with the existing home centered on the setback lines, and the
preservation of the existing trees and landscaping. The Staff
Report stated that all of the finding for Design Review had been
met with the design. The neighbors were concerned with a two -story
home as it would set a precedence. The neighborhood was defined by
the architect as part of the older area (1929 subdivision) as the
true neighborhood for this existing home as the neighborhood to the
southeast of Aloha, which the neighbors considered the
neighborhood, was subdivided in the mid- 19601s. There are 29 two -
story homes or one -story homes over 18 feet in height in the old
neighborhood from and including Aloha Avenue to Oak Street.
With the understanding the owner and architect reviewed the
exterior design and made changes to have a home more compatible
with the neighborhood as requested by the Planning Commission at
the May 24th meeting. The presentation by the architect was based
on this request as it was his opinion that the issue of a two -story
home was resolved, however the neighbors again discussed a two -
story home in their neighborhood. Several commissioner responded
to the neighborhood and changed their vote as they heard to
concerns of the neighborhood. The project was turned down with a
vote of 4 to 3 against the motion to approve the project.
This appeal is based on the Staff Report that the finding were met
and that the two -story addition was not the issue. The two -story
is only 22' -611, or 4' -6" higher than the accepted 18' -011. Without
the neighborhood concern of setting a precedence, this project
should have been approved because, as one neighbor stated as noted
in the draft of the minutes, "the neighbors felt that the house was
a beautifully designed home and that it would enhance the value of
the neighborhood. However, the neighbors felt that the height of
the home was inconsistent with the homes in the immediate area, all
of which are at a single story level ".
RESOLUTION NO. DR -95 -015
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Abdullah; 14755 Aloha Avenue
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Design Review approval to construct an 874
square foot second story addition and 1,197 square feet of first
level floor area to an existing 1,259 square foot one -story
residence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof
required to support said application, and the following findings
have been determined:
• The proposed second story addition in relation to structures
on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will not
minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will not
integrate into the natural environment. The proposed two -
story home would be out of character with the existing homes
in this particular neighborhood, where the majority of homes
are much lower single story designs. The majority of the
Planning Commission agreed that two -story and /or taller homes
existed relatively nearby, but they did not feel that these
structures were part of this original neighborhood; they felt
these taller homes were examples of later additions which did
not necessarily fit the neighborhood.
• The proposed second story addition will not be compatible in
terms of bulk and height with .(i) existing residential
structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate
neighborhood and within the same zoning district, in that the
22.5 ft. tall structure would be taller than the majority of
existing single story homes along Aloha Ave. The two -story
configuration would be incompatible with the lower single
story homes and would set a precedent for additional two -story
additions in the future.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of Abdullah for Design
Review approval be and the same is hereby denied.
Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this. Resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
File No. DR -95 -015; 14755 Aloha Avenue
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, this 28th day of June, 1995 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Abshire, Caldwell, Murakami, and Patrick
NOES: Commissioners Asfour, Kaplan and Siegfried
ABSENT: 0
evw u�a �
Chairman, anning Commis i
ATTEST:
4. 1 f, I /�,V ,
Secretary, Planni g C mission
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 28, 1995
PAGE - 2 -
2. AZO -95 -004 - CITY OF SARATOGA Consideration of a draft Ordinance amending
Chapter 15 -30 of the City Zoning Ordinance relating to the prohibition of certain signs
within the Public Right -of -Way (cont. to the 7/12/95 public hearing meeting at the
recommendation of staff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 AND 2. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. DR -95 -015 - ABDULLAH; 14755 ALOHA AVE. Request for Design Review approval
to construct an 874 sq. ft. second story addition and 1,197 sq. ft. of first level floor area
to an existing 1,259 sq. ft. one -story residence. The parcel is approximately 13,650 sq.
ft. (net) and is located within an R- 1- 15,000 zoning district (cont. from 5/24/95 at the
direction of the Planning Commission; application expires 11/4/95).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that
additional correspondence was received from the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Abdullah, summarizing
their revision process and from Mr. Roy Crawford, 14711 Aloha Avenue addressing concern with
a two story home in this particular neighborhood.
Commissioner Caldwell indicated that she received a letter from a neighbor and that she would
read the letter into the record prior to the close of the public hearing as the neighbor could not
be present this evening.
Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:37 p.m.
Mr. Abdullah, applicant, informed the Commission that his architect was running late and
requested that the Commission delay this item until after the fourth item on the agenda to allow
his architect time to arrive.
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE
COMPLETION OF AGENDA ITEM 4. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0).
4. DR -95 -014 - SUCIU; 20420 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR. Request for Design
Review approval to construct a 5,716 sq. ft. two -story residence on a currently vacant
39,988 sq. ft. parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located
within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district (cont. from 5/24/95 at the request of the applicants;
application expires 10/18/95).
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item.
Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Paul Suciu, applicant, thanked staff for its guidance and the neighbors for their input and
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 28, 1995
PAGE - 4 -
3. DR -95 -015 - ABDULLAH; 14755 ALOHA AVE. Request for Design Review approval
to construct an 874 sq. ft. second story addition and 1,197 sq. ft. of first level floor area
to an existing 1,259 sq. ft. one -story residence. The parcel is approximately 13,650 sq.
ft. (net) and is located within an R -1- 15,000 zoning district (cont. from 5/24/95 at the
direction of the Planning Commission; application expires 11/4/95).
Chairman Murakami reopened this item to public hearing.
Warren Heid, project architect, addressed the changes made to the front elevations. He stated that
the front elevations of the single story portion were widened, giving it more balance. The second
floor master bedroom was centered on the ridge so that the stairwell was setback, giving the
feeling of the ridge being centered. He felt that the change in the windows and the continuation
of the bedroom element, softening the elevations with the shudders and small pane, brought the
style of the home in character that would be acceptable to the neighborhood.
Brian Bachman, 14735 Aloha Avenue, indicated that he resides across the street from the subject
property and that he was speaking for 10 neighbors in the immediate vicinity who have signed
a petition. He stated that the neighbors reviewed the design review findings and felt that the
proposal met three of the six findings. He informed the Commission that the issues of concern
were the views and compatibility with bulk and height with surrounding structures. He provided
the Commission with a display of pictures which depict the view impacts of the roof of the home
to the neighbors. He stated that the neighbors felt that the house was a beautifully designed home
and that it would enhance the value of the neighborhood. However, the neighbors felt that the
height of the home was inconsistent with the homes in the immediate area, all of which are at
a single story level.
Commissioner Siegfried noted that approximately 20% of the roof line would be at 22 feet and
that the remainder of the height would be at approximately 18 feet.
Kathi Hammill, 14704 Aloha Avenue, provided the Commission with a plot map which depicts
the two story homes in the immediate neighborhood. She informed the Commission that only
16 homes out of 110 homes were two story homes. She noted that there were no two story
homes around the proposed two story home and felt that the one -third acre lot could
accommodate a one story home.
Commissioner Siegfried asked staff if a single story home could be built at 22 feet in height.
Planner Walgren responded that the home could be at a height of 22 feet but that it would need
to go through a public hearing process. He indicated that the house could be at 18 feet without
requiring a public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was struggling with the fact
that the home could be approved at 18 feet without going through a public hearing process and
that only the 20% second story element requires a public hearing.
Ms. Hammill felt that the roof line would rise above those in the neighborhood.
Mr. Dougherty informed the Commission that he has resided at 14732 Aloha Avenue for 28 years
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 28, 1995
PAGE - 5 -
and that there has been a long history of the neighbors objecting to two story homes. He felt that
the existing ten, two story homes were exceptions. He stated that he has looked over the property
and that it appears that there is 24 feet from the Abdullah's house to the Grimm's home located
next door and that no trees would need to be removed. He noted that there appears to be only
a three to four foot rise from the back of the present structure to the back of the property. He
expressed concern with the destruction of the existing landscaping. He felt that a portion of the
second story structure would be exposed to several of the neighbors. He requested that the
Commission continue to maintain the character of the neighborhood by denying the request for
a second story addition in this neighborhood.
Commissioner Asfour asked if Mr. Dougherty was objecting to the design just because it was a
two story addition rather than the elevations. Mr. Dougherty responded that he opposed the two
story addition because the height and bulk would detract from the neighborhood.
Commissioner Caldwell read a letter that she received from Audrey Chapman as she could not
be present this evening. The letter indicates that Ms. Chapman was in opposition to the two story
construction because it would block views and impact privacy and that she expressed concern
with the proposed landscape architecture surrounding the area. She felt that lot sizes were small,
being less than an acre. Ms. Chapman felt that if individuals want to construct a large residence,
that Saratoga Hills might be a more appropriate location due to the acreage and land space
surrounding these homes.
Mike Grimm, 20540 Komina Avenue, informed the Commission that he resides next door to the
proposal. He requested that the Commission review the guidelines in the design review findings.
He did not believe that the finding as it relates to privacy could be met because he believed that
the home could be expanded on the existing property without the need for a second story
addition. He did not believe that the proposed addition would be compatible in bulk and height
to the surrounding properties.
John Dana, 14725 Aloha Avenue, indicated that he was a neighbor of the Bachmans. He stated
that he was pleased to have the Abdullahs move into the neighborhood because they would be
upgrading their home. He stated that he moved to this neighborhood because it was a one story
neighborhood and that the homes in the neighborhood were approximately half acre lots which
would allow homeowners to build reasonably sized, single story homes. He felt that it would be
possible to build a 3,600 square foot home on this site. Allowing the construction of two story
homes in the neighborhood would further press requests for two story homes.
Mr. Abdullah stated that he reviewed the site with Mr. Bachman and requested that Mr. Bachman
inform him as to where his views would be impacted. He stated that he would treat the roofline
to mitigate Mr. Bachman's concerns. Mr. Abdullah did not believe that there were impacts to
any views, line of sight or privacy and that if there were, he would modify the plans to mitigate
the concerns. He understood the concern of the neighbors saying that a precedence would be
set if this two story addition was approved. He felt that the Commission would make the
appropriate decision on every single home that comes before it. He requested that he not be
penalized for something that someone else may do in the future.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 28, 1995
PAGE - 6 -
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
8:30 P.M.
Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he understood the neighborhood's concern about two story
homes and that it would be a continued concern in this community. He noted that only 30% of
the home would be at 22 feet at the peak of the roof. He felt that the home was well within what
would be considered a single story home with the exception of the peak. He felt that it was a
very attractively done second story design and that the design would fit the lot. He indicated that
he would support the proposal.
Commissioner Asfour concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Siegfried.
Commissioner Caldwell noted that at the last meeting, it was indicated that the Commission
would consider a second story addition for the lot. She indicated that she went back to visit this
lot and looked at the neighborhood in -great detail. In looking at the new design that is proposed
by the applicant, she felt that the applicant has proposed a design that would include a second
story addition and an architectural style that is very much in keeping with the lower half of Aloha
Avenue but that it was different from the character of the upper half of Aloha. She indicated that
for that reason, she would not support the proposal.
Commissioner Abshire reiterated that he hates seeing a situation like this developing in Saratoga
where you have a homeowner in an opposite position to that of the neighborhood. He felt that
the neighbors presented a much stronger case this evening than was presented a month ago. He
did not feel that the neighborhood was concerned with this individual home because it was a low
profile home but that the neighbors were concerned that approval of this design would open up
the neighborhood for more two story homes. He felt that the lot was large enough to
accommodate a single story home. Therefore, he would be inclined to vote no on this proposal
where he was voting the opposite direction a month ago.
Commissioner Patrick stated that she was hoping that the redesign of the home would make a
difference. However, the redesign of the plans did not change her perception of the home being
too big for the neighborhood. She did not believe that the drawings make the home appear low
and compact enough for the area and indicated that she could not support the proposal.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was not crazy about the house style and that she did not
believe the style was too massive for the area. She noted that only a small portion of the house
would be a two story addition. She indicated that she could make the design review findings
and would vote in support of the proposal.
Commissioner Asfour stated that the main issue was not the view perception but the concern of
establishing a two story precedent. He stated that he could not penalize the applicant because the
proposal is not really a two story design even though it has a two story element.
Chairman Murakami stated that in listening to the neighbors, he understood that their input was
important. It was pointed out that most of the homes located on the lower half of the street were
all one story. He indicated that he was not enthusiastic about the redesign and that logic tells him
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 28, 1995
PAGE - 7 -
that the owner has a right to build this house. But in this particular case, he would support denial
of the proposal.
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-
95 -015 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION FAILED 3 -4 AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE, CALDWELL, MURAKAMI,
PATRICK; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: NONE.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ABSHIRE MOVED TO DENY APPLICATION DR -95 -015.
THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, CALDWELL,
MURAKAMI, PATRICK; NOES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, SIEGFRIED; ABSTAIN: NONE;
ABSENT: NONE.
5. DR -94 -022 & LL -94 -005 - CHANG; 21423 SARATOGA HILLS RD. Request for
Design Review approval to construct a new 4,821 sq. ft. two -story residence per Chapter
15 of the City Code. The request also involves Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate
a property line per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The parcels involved are approximately
53,306 and 21,965 sq. ft. in size, and are located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that
correspondence has been received from Jeffrey C. Benzing, Michaels Drive, citing concerns with
previous landslide movements in the vicinity and on this proposal and cites a specific event that
occurred in 1983 as a result of heavy rains and a broken water main, and that the home affects
view sheds. Also, a letter was received from Mary and Robert Chin, the immediate down slope
neighbors on the other side of ridge line, expressing concerns with seven specific items primarily
dealing with design review concerns (i.e., the house leaning over their house, obstruction of views
and invasion of privacy). He also noted that Mr. Chin also raised technical questions and that
he ( Walgren) had an opportunity to discuss these technical questions with Mr. Chin and that staff
felt that the allowable square footage listed in the report were accurate.
Commissioner Patrick noted that the staff report indicates that the home would be 4,821 square
feet and that the code allows for 4,742 with a height reduction. She asked if the proposed square
footage exceeds the maximum allowed by code. Planner Walgren responded that if you have a
home in a residential area that is primarily single story, then you would need to apply an area
reduction. This is an incentive to encourage individuals to keep lower, single story homes in
neighborhoods where the homes are primarily single story homes. He stated that staff felt that
the exception can be made that the reduction does not need to be applied.
Commissioner Kaplan asked if staff has discussed with the applicant a better step down affect for
this house because she did not believe that the home met the design review criteria of stepping
into the hillside. Planner Walgren responded that staff raised this point with the applicant early
on in the process but that the applicants felt that they needed to pursue this design for both design
consideration and landslide constraints affecting the single story design. He further informed the
Commission that staff received a preliminary landscape plan and that staff requested a more
comprehensive landscape plan as a condition of approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 12 -
controlling material would be used for the driveway (i.e, pervious coverage). Planner Walgren
recommended that the tree be plotted prior to issuance of permits and have the City arborist
review the plotted map for his recommendations and that if pervious pavers are helpful, they
would be incorporated.
Chairman Murakami opened this item to pubic hearing at 9:11 p.m.
Louis Dorcich, project architect, stated that he concurred with the condition to protect the tree
and that he would agree to take the steps necessary to protect the tree and maintain its health.
Chairman Murakami complimented Mr. Dorsage on the architectural drawings.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AT 9:12 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NOS.
UP -95 -001 AND DR.95 -028 WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE TREE PROTECTION
CONDITION AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0
(COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT).
8. DR -95 -015 - Abdullah; 14755 Aloha Ave., request for Design Review approval to
construct an 874 sq. ft. second story addition and 1,187 sq. ft. of first
level floor area to an existing 1,259 sq. ft. one -story residence. The
parcel is approximately 13,650 sq. ft. (net) and is located within an R -1-
15,000 zoning district.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He summarized letters received which
addressed similar concerns (i.e., pursue single story homes in this neighborhood, opposition to
second story additions occurring). The letters received were from the following individuals:
Dr. and Mrs. Nose, 14718 Aloha Avenue; Brian and Ann Bachman, 14735 Aloha Avenue; and
Jerry and Karen Kleinberg. Also received was a packet of correspondence from the applicant's
architect, Warren Heid, responding to the concerns of the neighbors, outlining the design process
and how the project meets the City's design review findings and a locational map showing the
location of other two story homes and or single story homes with higher roof lines similar to this
23 foot proposal.
Chairman Murakami opened this item to pubic hearing at 9:16 p.m.
Warren Heid, project architect, stated his concurrence with the conditions as listed in the staff
report. He indicated that a feasibility study was prepared to make sure that the design of the
home would meet the City's design guidelines. He noted that the area bound by Aloha Avenue,
Oak Street, Komina Avenue and Lomita Avenue were developed in 1929. He informed the
Commission that the applicant has a need to maintain the existing residence and to add a new
kitchen, family room and garage with the master bedroom and the nursery being located on top
of the garage, keeping in mind the needs of the immediate neighbors so that their privacy was
maintained and that the bulk would lessen any impact. He addressed the design of the second
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 13 -
story addition and noted that the addition would be screened by the existing landscaping and
trees and that the landscaping and trees would be maintained in that manner. He noted that there
would be no cutting into the hillside nor destruction of natural landscape. As far as some of the
changes were concerned, he was aware that a two story home was one that was hard to
understand. He felt that Aloha Avenue divides two ares of the town, the older area from the
newer area. He felt that the design was compatible with the site and with that of the older
neighborhood. He tried to be sensitive to the neighborhood, keeping the existing house tucked
into the trees, maintaining what the neighbors were used to seeing. He has reviewed the letters
submitted by the neighbors and expressed that he was sorry that the neighbors do not feel that
this was a compatible home for their neighborhood. He felt that the house located at the corner
Lomita and Aloha has a higher roof line than this particular building would have. The letters
state a concern with the setting of a precedent. He felt that each site should be reviewed
individually and that there were comments regarding implicit and explicit restrictions limiting
heights.
Commissioner Patrick asked if any consideration was given to locate the second story portion
somewhere other than proposed. Mr. Heid responded that the addition could not be relocated
because the structural engineering report indicates that doing so would create tremendous damage
to the existing structure.
Linda Dana, 14725 Aloha, informed the Commission that when she first purchased her home
she had given consideration to adding a second story addition so that she would not have to take
away from her yard but elected not to do so because of her concerns for the neighbors. She
stated that she does not want her neighbors to build two story homes and invade her privacy.
Ann Bachman, 14735 Aloha, read a letter that she and her husband submitted to the Commission
indicating that they have requested that Mr. Abdullah consider the construction of a single story
addition rather than a two story structure. A one story structure would have a less visible mass
and be consistent with other remodels that have occurred in the neighborhood. The letter further
requested that the Commission request that Mr. Abdullah reconsider this plans for a two story
structure.
Mike Grimm, 20540 Kowina Avenue, informed the Commission that the home immediately to
the south of Mr. Abdullah was recently remodeled as a single story addition. That home was
almost identical and at the same grade as that of Mr. Abdullah. He noted that all the homes in
the immediate neighborhood were one story homes. He indicated that he has plans and permits
for a two story addition but that after living in this neighborhood for a year and a half, he would
not proceed with those plans. He felt that if the Commission approved the plans as submitted
that it would change the character of the. neighborhood.
Karen Nose, 14718 Aloha Avenue, stated that the single story predominance of the neighborhood
still exists. She indicated that she moved to this neighborhood because of the charm of the
single story homes. She felt that the lot size should be sufficient to accommodate a single story
home.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 14 -
Sally Ann Dougherty, 14732 Aloha Avenue, indicated that her roof line was approximately 13
to 14 feet and noted that most of the homes in .the area slope down. She felt that the proposed
second story addition was too massive for that sized lot.
Gay J. Crawford, 14711 Aloha, informed the Commission that she has resided at this address
for over 27 years. She informed the Commission that. in 1983, when the Westbrook home was
being built, the Commission denied and the City Council upheld the denial for a two story
addition. She requested that the City continue to support the single family predominance of the
neighborhood and requested that Mr. Abdullah redesign his home to that of a single story
addition. She expressed concern that a precedent would be set if a second story addition is
approved.
Mr. Heid state his appreciation to the comments expressed by the neighbors. He stated that he
tried to design something that was compatible to that of the neighborhood. He noted that there
is not enough space on site to accommodate the addition. He stated that one of the things that
has to be considered is whether the site is to be butchered up or the landscaping changed. He
noted that the neighbors were interested in a compatible neighborhood and indicated that so was
he.
Mr. Abdullah, applicant, thanked the adjacent neighbors for their views on this issue. He stated
that he has made an earnest attempt to ensure that the right design was being proposed. He
stated that before he purchased the home, he consulted the City to make sure that the type of
design that he was proposing was appropriate. He was careful not to impact anyone's view or
privacy. He stated that he would be agreeable to amend the design if there were design concerns
but that all he has heard was the concern that a precedent would be set if a two story addition
was approved. He indicated that he would agree to consider any specific issues even though he
was within his right to build what is being proposed.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
9:41 P.M.
Commissioner Kaplan commented that the Commission toured the neighborhood and noticed that
there were sufficiently tall buildings in the neighborhood. She indicated that she did not have
a problem with a small portion of the home being a second story. She stated that she now
understands the structural requirement to not build over the older part of the house and the cost
involved with the reinforcement of the existing foundation. She felt that there could be a design
change to make the addition compatible with the older section of the house.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he understood the desire to maintain a one story
neighborhood to the extent that is possible. He felt that the home was well designed but that
cosmetic changes may help. Given the existing ordinances and given the efforts that has been
made to keep the roof line as low as a one story house might be, he indicated that he would
support the proposal.
Commissioner Patrick stated that the issue was not that of the second story addition because she
felt that this area was sufficiently mixed. The issue of design compatibility and height were of
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 15 -
concern to her. Therefore, she would not be able to support the request.
Commissioner Abshire expressed sympathy with the comments as expressed by the neighbors
in maintaining the neighborhood as single story homes. He does not like to see this type of
conflict developing in a neighborhood and in Saratoga. However, he felt that the home as
designed was attractive. Even though it was a two story design, he felt that it was a low profile
type home well hidden by the existing foliage. He also noted that there was considerable space
on the side so that there would be at least 40 feet between this house and the adjacent home.
He indicated that he was torn with this request but that he believed that the property owner
should enjoy his property as much as possible. In this particular instance, he would side with
the property owner.
Commissioner Caldwell concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Patrick.
She was having a problem with the design and finding it compatible with that of the existing
neighborhood and therefore would not vote in support of the request.
Chairman Murakami concurred with Commissioners Caldwell's and Patrick's comments. He
stated that although he was not crazy about the design, he was sympathetic with the applicant,
knowing that he meets all regulatory codes. He noted that the neighbors did not speak to the
design.of the structure. He indicated that he would go along with Commissioners Caldwell and
Patrick and not support the proposal.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she too was torn with this application and that she would have
preferred to see a house that blends better with the neighborhood. Considering the constraints
of the older building, she did not believe that it would be fair to require the applicant to move
the second story element into the building without a considerable amount of retrofitting. She
stated that she did not like the look of the garage and wanted to know if the applicant would
agree to redesign the proposal.
Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the public hearing be reopened to
ask the applicant if he would be willing to reconsider the design and that the Commission
provide some direction to the applicant (i.e., redesign and the appropriateness of a two story
design) .
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO REOPEN PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:50
p.m.
Mr. Heid stated that this was the style of home that was more in line with the applicant's
background. However, he would agree to reconsider the use of material and the look of the
exterior design.
Mr. Abdullah indicated that he would be willing to return with a design that more closely
matched some of the constructive feedback he heard this evening.
Commissioner Caldwell recommended that Mr. Heid review the recently approved design
located at the end of Lomita Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 16 -
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING FOR DR -95 -015 TO ITS JUNE 28 MEETING WITH PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED
TO STAFF BY FRIDAY, JUNE 16, 1995.
Commissioner Caldwell stepped down from discussion of agenda item 9 due to a conflict of
interest.
9. UP -574.3 - The Brookside Club of Saratoga, 19127 Cox Ave.; request to amend
existing Use Permit conditions to allow for the use of an amplified sound
system to announce and start the previously approved summer swim meets
and time trials and to modify the swim season hours of operation to allow
two swim instructors to arrive at 8:00 a.m. for swim practices, where
9:00 a.m. is the current Use Permit limitation. The subject property is
approximately 3 acres in size and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zoning
district.
Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item. He clarified
that staff has prepared a new use permit resolution to make the application current, incorporating
all previous conditions of approvals and would supersede all other resolutions.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that he received a call from Mrs. Askew. He addressed
page 000086, item 6, which states that "The Club membership shall be limited to 250 families.
Private tennis and swim lessons are allowed." He noticed that a package given to the
Commission includes advertisement(s) regarding a tennis camp, swim lessons, and what appears
to be group activities. He requested staff clarification regarding restrictive gatherings.
Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that staff has been notified
that there have been advertisements for swim /tennis lessons, and summer camps or day care.
He indicated that it was not clear to staff whether the advertisement was for club members. It
was his reading of the previously approved use permit that this was a private club. Therefore,
any activities would be acceptable as long as the club members found the activities acceptable.
Regarding the interpretation issue of private swim lessons, -he felt that this issue would be one
of a land use interpretation and that the Commission would need to determine what was the
intent of the original approval.
Commissioner Patrick asked if the amplified sound system was to be used for swim meets and
not to be used for the 8 or 9 a.m. Monday thru Friday swim practices. Community
Development Director Curtis responded that the amplified sound system was to be used only for
the swim meets that have been approved and time trials and that the sound system cannot exceed
six above ambiance noise level.
In response to Commissioner Kaplan's question, Community Development Director Curtis
informed the Commission that the Brookside Club would not be able use the electronic beeper.
Commissioner Siegfried requested that the applicant explain in detail how and in what way the
amplification system would be used.
A
SAIR9
lO
G�
9 ITY � = � � T•GA
7!5;0
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ann Marie Burger
Paul E Jacobs
Gillian Moran
Karen 7ucker
M E M O R A N D U M Donald L. Wolle
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: James Walgr Associate Planner
DATE: June 28, 1995
SUBJECT: Design Review #95 -015
ABDULLAH; 14755 ALOHA AVE
Description:
Request for Design Review approval to construct an 874 sq. ft.
second story addition and 1,197 sq. ft. of first .level floor area
to an existing 1,259 sq. ft. one -story residence. The first floor
level has increased a net 10.5 sq. ft. from the original submittal.
The property is 13,650 sq. ft.. in size and is located within an R-
1- 15,000 zoning district.
Discussion:
This application was first heard by the Planning Commission at the
May 24th public hearing meeting. Several letters were submitted at
that meeting requesting that the Planning Commission deny the
proposal and require the applicant to maintain a single story home.
Staff felt that this relatively low two -story home could be
supported and recommended approval of the application. The
Commission concurred that there was a sufficient mix of two -story
homes within the vicinity to ensure that this proposal would not be
out of character with, the existing homes. The Commission did
request, however, that the plans be .revised to provide a more
compatible design with the older homes in the neighborhood.
The applicant and his .architects have since met with staff to
discuss plan revisions. The applicant has chosen not to pursue the
Craftsman Bungalow style of home encouraged by some of the Planning
Commissioners. However, revised plans have been submitted which
reflect massing changes to the structure to reduce the "abrupt"
appearance of the original left building elevation. The building
design has also been modified to reduce the Mediterranean influence
and to emphasis more of a French Farmhouse design.
Printed on recycled paper.
ABDULLAH; 14755 ALOHA AVE
Page Two
A letter from the applicant's architects is attached which
summarizes the specific plan modifications. Minutes from the May
24th meeting area also attached for reference.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approving the Design Review request by adopting
Resolution DR -95 -015.
Attachments:
1. Letter from Warren B. Heid AIA
2. Resolution DR -95 -015
3. Planning Commission minutes dated 5/24/95
4. Staff report dated 5/24/95
5. Revised Plans, Exhibit "B"
6. Original Plans, Exhibit "A"
WARREN B. HEID AIA 8c ASSOCIATES
A R C H I T E C T S • P L A N N E R S
14630 BIG BASIN WAY • SARATOGA • CALIFORNIA • 95070 • 406 667 9365
WAKEN B. HEID AIA • STEVEN M. BENZING AIA • FAX 406 667 3780
June 15, 1995
Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Addition and Alterations to Residence
14755 Aloha Avenue, Saratoga, CA
DR -95 -015
Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission:
This letter is in response to the Planning Commission's request to
reconsider the exterior appearance of the subject application to be
more compatible with the existing neighborhood. This firm went
through the neighborhood for another review and again found a
variety of styles of architecture. The review found the homes to
have a variety of exterior materials including stucco, board and
batten, horizontal wood siding, shingle, and masonry, and with
styles to include 1930's stucco bungalows, French Farmhouse,
California Ranch, Colonial, Oriental, and Mediterranean.
Following the request of the commission, and a meeting with the
Planning Department staff, we resubmit the application drawings
with the following changes:
1.. Extended a portion of the residence to the west, adjacent
to the garage, to give more balance to the front elevation.
2. Revised the 2nd floor hip roof to follow the outline of
the 2nd floor, therefore reducing the height to 22' -6" from the
natural grade.
3. Recessed the 2nd floor stair wall to center the Master
Bedroom, allowing the 1st floor roof to continue through and give
background to the Entry roof.
4. Changed all windows to double hung sash with grids to
provide the divided lite style.
5. Added grids to the French doors to provide the divided
lite style.
6. Added shutters to the windows and French doors.
Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Saratoga - Application No. DR -95 -015 - Abdullah
June 15, 1995 - Page 2.
7. Added quoins at the applicable corners of the residence to
provide a country European style.
8. Removed the Mediterranean style balusters at the Master
Bedroom balcony and front porch at the Living Room. The front
porch has no balusters and the balcony railing is solid for a more
balanced appearance.
9. Moved the chimney /fireplace to the west side of the,Living
Room and closer to the 2nd floor, therefore reducing the high
chimney impact at the east side of the Living Room roof.
10.' Changed the exterior colors to a darker and warm gray for
walls; warm white at gutters, trim, doors and windows; and black
for the shutters.
We feel that the style and exterior materials are appropriate, best
suit this residence, and meet with the requirements of the owner.
Thank you for your assistance with this Design Review application.
Very truly yours,
.
n B. Heid AIA
WBH:hw
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Asim Abdullah
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: DR -95 -015;
Applicant /Owner: Abdullah
Staff Planner: Paul Kermoyan
Date: May 24, 1995
APN: 517 -08 -034
14755 Aloha Avenue
Director Approval:
File No. DR -95 -015; 14755 Aloha Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUWARY
CASE HISTORY•
Application filed:
3/29/95
Application complete:
5/04/95
Notice published:
5/10/95
Mailing completed:
5/11/95
Posting completed:
5/04/95
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Design Review approval to construct an 874 square foot
second story addition and 1,187 square feet of first level floor
area to an existing 1,259 square foot one -story residence. The
parcel is approximately 13,650 square feet (net) and is located
within an R -1- 15,000 zoning district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the request, with conditions, by adopting the attached
Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution DR -95 -015
3. Correspondence
4. Plans, Exhibit "A"
File No. DR -95 -015; 14755 Aloha Avenue
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R -1- 15,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (M -15)
PARCEL SIZE: 13,650 s.f. (net)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 616
GRADING REQUIRED: None
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Gray colored stucco finish, white
colored trimming, and gray roofing per the submitted material
board.
PROPOSAL
LOT COVERAGE: 280 (3,807 s.f.)
HEIGHT• 23 ft.
STRUCTURE: Garage:
440
s.f.
1st Floor:
2,006
s.f.
2nd Floor:
874
s.f.
TOTAL:
3,320
s.f.
CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
500
26 ft.
3,880 s.f. (3,589
s.f. with height
reduction)
SETBACKS: Front:
25
ft.
Front:
25
ft.
Rear:
12
ft.
Rear:
12
ft.
Exterior Side:
40
ft.
Exterior Side:
25
ft.
Interior Side:
51
ft.
Interior Side:
12
ft.
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Site Characteristics:
The subject property is a corner parcel located at the intersection
of Aloha and Komina Avenues. Presently existing on site is a 1,259
square foot one -story residence and a 210 square foot cottage. The
cottage is proposed for demolition, the house in not. The parcel
is relatively level and has an abundance of perimeter landscaping
consisting of ornamental shrubs and trees.
File No. DR -95 -015; 14755 Aloha Avenue
Surrounding properties are developed with one and two -story
residences where one -story homes have been determined to be
predominant.
DESIGN REVIEW•
The applicant is proposing to construct an 874 square foot second
story addition and 1,187 square feet of floor area to the existing
residence. These improvements will occur within the middle of the
parcel, immediately to the left of the existing house. The second
story will be located above the proposed garage and kitchen, and
will obtain the majority of its views to the larger interior side
yard area.
In order to achieve compatibility with the second story, the roof
height of the existing residence will increase from 14 feet to 18
feet. Staff's review of the proposed attic area reveals that it
would not contribute to the structure's total floor area.
Trees:
Because the proposed site improvements are not close to significant
trees, staff did not require the City Arborist to visit the site.
Rather, staff faxed the proposed site plan to the Arborist in order
to obtain recommendations based on observations made at staff's
site inspection. The Arborist did not have concern with the
improvement's proximity to the three walnut trees. However, the
Arborist has recommended that the redwood tree be protected with
fencing and that the proposed driveway be constructed out of
pervious materials. A condition reflecting this recommendation has
been incorporated within the attached Resolution.
The applicant has informed staff that the existing house will not
be demolished or re -built to accommodate construction. Staff
originally had concerns regarding the demolition of the residence
and its potential impacts to existing ordinance - protected trees.
Due to the proximity of trees located to the north and east sides
of the existing residence, staff has placed a condition within the
attached Resolution which will require the applicant to retain the
services from the City Arborist if the applicant /owner later
decides to remove or re -build the house.
Correspondence:
Staff has received correspondence from a neighboring family located
on Aloha Avenue expressing objection to the proposal.. Although
they do not specifically raise view, privacy, or bulk concerns,
they do have concerns with the structure's perceived
incompatibility with surrounding single -story residences. This
letter is attached for review.
File No. DR -95 -015; 14755 Aloha Avenue
Conclusion:
The proposed residence has been designed to conform with each of
the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook
and to satisfy all of the findings required per Section 15- 45.080
of the City Code. The project further satisfies all other zoning
requirements in terms of allowable floor area, minimum setbacks,
maximum height and impervious coverage. Staff, therefore, is able
to recommend all of the required Design Review findings to support
the request as presented.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application, with conditions, by
adopting the attached Resolution.
Asim Abdullah
Manager, ISV Partnerships Group
Taligent, Inc.
10201 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 95014 -2233
Dear Asim,
RECEIVED
JUN 161995
PLANNING DEPT.
14732 Aloha Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
June 15, 1995
As a future neighbor, I want to express my thoughts about the remodeling work you are planning
for your new home.
The major concerns to the neighbors are
(1) Will I like my residential area less after the changes?
(2) Will my property value be negatively affected?
These are important concerns to us, especially to the people like you who moved into the area
recently and have made a major investment to live here.
The decoration on the house exterior is not the primary issue. I believe your new home should
remain a one -story structure. Being a corner lot, the home will be exposed to five surrounding
homes, rather than the usual three or four. In particular, the second story bedroom has a window
and balcony planned that will look down across Aloha Avenue at three homes.
The biggest offenders now to our one -story rural atmosphere are the two homes built by Pinn
Construction. These are tall one -story homes four and six houses away from yours. The neighbors
objected to their height and were prepared to address the Saratoga Planning Commission.
Unfortunately, the Commission changed the time to consider the plans and the neighbors were
deprived of a chance to express their views.
It appears that the Grimm's house next door is about 24 feet closer to Komina than yours and
there are no significant trees keeping you from expanding toward Komina. It also appears that
there is only a 3 to 4 foot rise from the rear side of the house to the rear of your property, requiring
only minor grading to expand in that direction.
I understand that one -story construction probably would be more expensive than two -story,
but other neighbors have considered two -story and have all chosen to keep their homes one -story
to maintain compatibility with the neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Q9�L.G� G�ti °Ltr
Gene and Sally Antonides
cc:
Saratoga Planning Commission
WARREN B. HEID AIA & ASSOCIATES
A R C H I T E C T S • P L A N N E R S
14630 BIG BASIN WAY • SARATOGA • CALIFORNIA • 95070 • 408 867 9365
WARREN B. HEID AIA • STEVEN M. BENZING AIA • FAX 408 867 3750
May 22, 1995
MAY 2 4 1995
Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission f A[vIVING DEP
13777 Fruitvale Avenue 7'
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Addition and Alterations to Residence
14755 Aloha Avenue, Saratoga, CA
DR -95 -015
Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission:
This letter is in response to the letter from a resident in the
general area of the subject application. Said letter was attached
to the Staff Report for application to be heard at the Planning
Commission meeting meeting of May 24, 1995.
I am including the Feasibility Study produced by this office as
part of our early review of the use of the land as a two -story
residence. Our review of the City Ordinance found that this
residence qualified to be a two -story residence with all of the
required findings for Design Review process.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Warren B. Heid AIA
WBH:hw
Encl:
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Asim Abdullah
r�
REVIEW OF DESIGN n IEW FINDINGS FOR
FEASIBILITY STUDY tie THE PROPOSED TWO -STORY Abo TION AND
ALTERATIONS OF THE RESIDENCE OF MR AND MRS ASIM ABDULLAH
14755 ALOHA AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070
199,5
The following information is, in the judgment of this firm, the
�FjOT
reasons why your proposed two -story home will meet the requirements
of Section 15- 45.080 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Saratoga.
(a) Avoid Unreasonable Interference with Views and Privacy:
The addition is located at the uphill side of the property and away
from the corner to minimize the impact at the front corner. The
height of the ridge at the two -story addition is 2211-011 high above
Aloha Avenue at the driveway. The roof structure for this area
will be developed as a four -sided hip, whose ridge is only 11' -0"
long. The views are not disturbed as the addition is 85' -011 from
the edge of pavement of Komina Avenue and because of the existing
trees. The ridge of the addition will be about the same as the
ridge of the house on Lomita uphill and to the rear. The second
floor gutter line will be 16' -6" above natural grade and the ridge
34' -0" from the adjacent neighbor to the north. There is only one
(1) small window the the north side at the second, floor.
(b) Preserve Natural Landscape: Every attempt will be made
to preserve the natural landscaping as only two (2) walnut trees
will be removed, plus some shrubs around the existing building.
The natural contours will be preserved with this 'design as the
layout only covers 17.6% of the site. A one -story residence would
cover more of the site, therefore more of the natural landscaping
would be removed. The existing landscaping at the frontage on
Aloha Avenue, west of the new driveway, will generally remain.
(c) Minimize Perception of Excessive Bulk: The design of
this residence.is less bulky than some existing residences in the
area. If the owner requested a traditional two - story colonial or
New England style residence, these styles are, by the nature of
their style, are boxey or bulky. This residence will be remodeled
to meet the flavor the the area and the adjacent homes with the
second floor only 874 sq.ft. of the total of 3,320 sq.ft of
residence and garage.
The residence will have changes in the exterior elevation surfaces
with bay windows and balconies with all architectural elements
meeting the requested style. These elements, along with the roof
lines, will provide harmonious elevations with the neighborhood.
(d) Compatible Bulk and Height: This project will be
designed to be compatible with the adjacent property and the
neighborhood. This property is in an area of Saratoga which was
created by subdivision in 1929. The area developed was basically
from Oak Street to Aloha Avenue, and from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road
to Madronia Cemetery. Lomita Avenue extended to the south past
Aloha Avenue, and Oak Street School owned a large portion from Oak
Review of Design E.. "ew Findings Page 2.
For Feasibility Sturm, of Addition and Alterati,.,s
To Residence for Mr. and Mrs. Asim Abdullah
14755 Aloha Avenue, Saratoga, CA
Street to Aloha Avenue. The property south of Aloha Avenue,
including Vickery Lane, was a prune orchard until George Day, a
general contractor, purchased the property in the mid- 1960's. He
developed the homes basically in a style he selected, that of a
country ranch type.
The subject residence was constructed about 1939 in this old
section of the area. The attached map made from the accessor's
parcel maps of the area locates the existing two -story houses and
those single story houses over 18' -0" in height. The height of
this residence will be compatible in height as it is only 23' -0"
above the natural grade of the property at the house. There are
nine (9) houses along Aloha Avenue from Lomita to Los Gatos -
Saratoga Road that are over 18' -0" with, including three (3) on the
old school property. There are a total 20 houses in the
neighborhood of Oak, Lomita, Aloha, and Komina.
The bulk and height does not unreasonably impair the light and air
of the adjacent properties nor unreasonably impair them of the
ability to utilize solar energy.
(e) Current Grading and Erosion Control Methods: The major
excavation and grading will be for only the addition with the
existing foundation to remain. This present foundations are in
existing grade and the new addition will not impact the natural
grade, or cause erosion control, as the addition will be at an
existing and level grade to the west.
(f) Design Policies and Techniques: The proposed remodeling of
the existing residence will conform to the applicable design
policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design
Handbook and Section 15- 45.005
Existing Building and Accessory Building: To identify the existing
building square footage and new area of residence, the following
information is presented:
1. Existing Residence - 1,259 sq.ft.
2. Screened Porch - to be demolished 320 sq.ft.
3. Rear Cottage - to be demolished 210 sq.ft.
Total Existing Structures 1,789 sq.ft.
Total Existing Euilding to remain 1,259 sq.ft.
Addition of Residence - two floors 1,621 - sq.ft.
Garage at 1st floor 440 sq.ft.
Total.new residence and Garage 3,320 sq.ft.
IA
rc itect
cl W 5503
S" CQ! QQM IEL Q
s 7 *
k2 12
ST ST
—OAK —' —ST PEET
10�1_ k _J! i!til Al
Z
r
0 U)
............
M,
C
A.
17 y
C)
r
'�••it
C
3u
.Z,
V )z
— ALOHA —.._,—
VICK
ER),
Z
C
0
4z
9
I.. I .......... . "I OY4 AC.
24
Q7• AC_
C3,
23 074 AC
4
----------- ----
0
i
71
f.,
14
AVE.
'o
7
<
_rA
1;
0
17
F
21
11
.—
22
L— =r` - --
_17
23 f
081 AC.
5,1
Vic ER
EC
A 'ORD of SURVEY it,
VICK
ER),
Z
C
0
4z
9
I.. I .......... . "I OY4 AC.
24
Q7• AC_
C3,
23 074 AC
May 18, 1995
RECEIVED
City of Saratoga Planning Commission MAY 2 3 1995
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
PLANNING DEPT.
Re: Public Hearing
DR -95 -015 (APN 517 -08 -034)
Abdullah; 14755 Aloha Ave.
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
This letter is to request that the Planning Commission deny the application to build a two
story addition at 14755 Aloha Avenue.
As recent newcomers to the neighborhood, we were well aware of the explicit, as well as
implicit, restrictions limiting new construction and renovations to a single story design.
We felt this design consideration added to the appeal of the area, complementing the beauty
of the surrounding foothills.
The Abdullahs were well aware of the neighborhood sentiment toward two story houses
before they proceeded with their architectural design of a two story home. We feel that the
acceptance of this proposal for a two story home would set a precedent for home buyers
who wish to build two story homes in the neighborhood. Such a trend would negatively
impact the aesthetics of the area and change the nature of this community.
We welcome the Abdullahs to the neighborhood and wish them well. However, they
should adhere to the same architectural and design standards that we have accepted for
ourselves.
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
Dr. Peter Nose
Mrs. Karen Nose
14718 Aloha Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
RECEIVED
Brian R Bachman MAY 9 1995
14735 Aloha Avenue PLAMING DEPT.
Saratoga, CA 95070
May 18, 1995
Saratoga Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: A.P.N. 517 -10 -022
Mr. Asim Abdullah, the owner of 14755 Aloha Avenue, met with my wife Ann and I this
week to review his building plans with us and to seek our opinions and concerns so that he
could make appropriate amendments prior to the Planning Commission meeting. After
careful consideration, we have requested Mr. Abdullah to consider implementing his plans
in a one floor residence, rather than a two floor as currently drawn.
Ann and I were drawn to this particular area because of proximity to the village, pride of
ownership evident in the neighborhood, and the spacious feeling created by the absence of
two story structures. Although I am not certain what the policy or building restrictions of
the city are, it is evident that practice and philosophy have resulted in a very attractive area
without intrusion of homes inconsistent with the scale of the neighborhood.
Mr. Abdullah's floor plan can be readily executed on one floor, the resulting structure
would have much less visible mass, and it would be consistent with other significant
remodelings that have occurred in the neighborhood. I have personally discussed our
conclusion with Mr. Abdullah.
We therefore request that the Planning Commission move to maintain the feel of the
community and request Mr. Abdullah to reconsider his plans for a two story structure.
Although I will not be able to attend your meeting due to other pressing and prior
commitments, my wife Ann will be present to answer any questions that you may have in
this matter.
Brian R. and Ann Bachman
gca.-t-j
May 12, 1995
MEDIA CONSULTANT RECEIVED
Members, Saratoga Planning Commission
City of Saratoga MAY 171995
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070 r r,; , iv i N G DEPT.
RE: A.P. N. 517 -10-022
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
On behalf of owners and residents within the immediate neighborhood of the proposed
two story structure at 14755 Aloha Ave., we respectively ask that the Planning Commission deny
the request for the proposed two story home.
Aloha Avenue has had a long history of denying two story requests and encouraging
single story design. Like many in our neighborhood, when we moved into our home (1968) our
first remodel designs were for a second story. After realizing this would cause major problems
among our neighbors and new friends, we scrapped the design. Over the years we have
remodeled our home successfully, without adding a second story. This is true of a number of
neighbors who have not gone two - stories, out of respect for the neighborhood. In February 1983
the Westbrook family had to redesign their two story plan because of the strong feelings of the
neighborhood and denial by the planning commission, upheld by the City Council (March 1983).
We understand that the planning commission has encouraged single story structures for
this neighborhood for years, and that the Land Development Committee for the school property
which was developed, stated that single story structures were desired. Approval of this two
story would be inconsistent with long standing standards and wishes of the community.
While we are sympathetic and understand the. Abdullah's have a lovely design, we believe the
policy should be consistent, and we oppose any proposed two-story structure for the following
reasons:
1) The neighborhood is overwhelmingly comprised of single story residences;
2) According to the survey in 1983, the average roof height in the neighborhood is 151/2
feet. Theirs is proposed at 23 feet on a corner site which could be obtrusive.
3) The design almost triples the size of the current home which could be overwhelming
for that property.
4) The few other two story houses on Aloha are sited very unobtrusively toward the
bottom of the street, with more set back. The precedent this home would set on the upper part
of Aloha could create a continuing problem that is a major concern for us.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ga and Ro Crawford
M7
14711 Aloha Avenue ■ Saratoga, CA 95070 ■ 408/741 -5766
i ~
w ynF
1 i r t Iry t -
fi N 42 r ,
`�s�. L
L f
x �✓
"'t 1t f- { L
R Fj,r^�r.. 4 A f i- - Z i r i- F
y*L,.l.i YG y; Y rM9 i7 .�•� _. .. #\St ;:' 7 YS `-
d t
z .
,If t _
.,-- s ;
-7 X -
1
4�t, Jy `'t't t , f F \ J Y \ I ? ♦ 4' ♦ e i vti A ��r
v�r� !� tt dt r
Tr R4r S ,., r. M r •f t .. a5.a.
��! 4 N V ri, z ! rr L r 3 r4". ^:: ss .rsL`.. • '"%.. ya\.+ t ,7_ {� f.., {.
pl%!,.;.j.-� ,,i�'L�, -,:' -��, :: 7 ..- .. -t.q "'....: i A.,� -
��� a k ;
-, fry'' " p� t1� R> w .g• t W Y'� Z y °A +4 s t �fi +
. r: '1., w ti tq ,. i� r I {.'�v�lts,�N % 'bF $�' �,h " -, � n ,y�•i^') y„° q q•n 7 "'r t t Ij -
w ti _ . -tr cr Y #� - ` t - ii � ---- E -,_ tf+ f' fN '� ty t9? ;, - x{'ti F /
�, g�
Z t ,� i c� �.V�- Y� \; g•�„'„'t�?'? •.r�`k`r, �•'`r'sx'ri 1!evy y,,. .3'r«�,t.�,
yx 5 , ei a''. G, of a 9 r i'i t•"Ct` q yI v 1 ,
\Y 1 ;'•�, "`^ '4F�. S"'�i} {.' * i�'$%"` y�q �•4i'r" i�d��j'si `7�, 3 * 5`Ft•MJ
41- \` - 11,L 1. ,^� Mfr , t"�•µ ., _i -:cA" a �,"-.,t4 I I M �ti" "�"�'f• p 'H' .� °r£'' 'wr`k .. lll� 11 * �, i. v y-/.. 'G f �. I `r�F d ny'' 3v. 7 b y \ } •},f +,.• 1 t r `tt ' e• ,rs¢Y. { 0.1. .� -
1 h , „i4 y Mt #./'y' 1 i.:�` C..RW, w-Q` Y N_.. } i7 ✓'
� \., rat Hr r c c 3 v „y s ,'bj �. �t vti�
R 't is w ,t,,g k s. ti: } c ,, ,�e�t�� •rs+Y S v.� r j Js i t ' w _
•� �%"r r+ ail t - . .& . r d $"T _` r} "`K” ',.�Yu. a� \ , 1• �i-
f y,',:•i 1 - na { ' '.:.: 1 O i'%•- •�• 4„ ••y�i -�iy' } i"•" z s't'i �, : ryr; "' "a .
\ , P r r i, 47 , :c - fi�,y,.ra h ■/a��>E. ' l �[7y f •�^,R �, r�Y .r'- �"''�ct v. c}i crx u-+.� , . 11
i w� S" \ /,- ,1�,�.j.� t :}+ .1 "!;1.+W_Cjid- c.L, . lv Fr�
n'� }�N ;'` fu F - T t z^ ``7r �s. K ,�'t�r,yt 4 "t?a`` �C G it ' '�� , t y,4.. +, - 1 F -
t f j �, a . > T > iT `C'; .YJ y : , lt, F f �- s i w. F+:�,. 11 _'F., _ C _ ' "' r +"C , ' ry *� ��� ''i .d 0" . h f' • F 2'-+. , � ' �' "Pm f 3? �` aa�•L*'�`. '�, t2 t� ,I
' f- j yR t x kIR wi t ■y`' t F.--i i! n F"; 4 .
3I T 6 L �r r'tczc1R ro `ll{ r` f F a7 �> Y. �7 r 4 '., f. tact e� 7 _ �, ,... � t l 4 Y NK +Y 2: dyr x ` ,�L �•l :- { h. �.
) 'Jy,� s
r A 1 f ..� y r�Y^'yr^Y 4'b Syy W'�F+h ,'.5 I Fk� Y�Sl }..�,�] 4 r
a
�.
;� y ,.'ri' `, 4 J •4r' j3.+'' r Z ,� 4�' -R ft� , si`' F l,.
�trr%;'i. �' rf Yti b,i j 2.. -^', I,t` r - .
-�iJ '?*may? .5�+ _'Ir a , '>, 1... �`' �" 4Y �¢1y H. a / .
.+ .. j s , v A , :n Yw' °'{t ✓1•�+.' kT s y t� }j.'�,\ `f` rr' "�- ,rsy -: s:" .
i T f d. f- .Y ¢, ti "�j\ aw�t"Y4'''Vypr'M f'S`+' � r-x fa, 'A" , Z'"i�:�'•M� ��' .r.r }1 y�`4t c R :�
:,? Y J js, -,;, I1' c . Ve r , P• i.'i4* -k 1 t .1 ^ f ax
J: etc. f.' r� _ �, � ' f . ��y+ „F4 � �d . ?� i F ;F rl f {' Si�''�:. f ,y .
j I.P. .. .,., G x ss`.r°tsr,`r`-; 7a+���y�r•��.,yyg3,',�"},.1 ,�• -
+, t , + i�'l�, s ar_ ��. Ya i�±'y„'..,1 ".} + S :Ke ������r r J: cL i� �'r': !ttr t ~
/7 7 . -.,� ` 1 ...�, r dwr�"t „i�f rt.',� ��. 4'i`�...4r 3`�� c iK iK t 3:.' r - ,
✓ T...: , `-w. !:r .. >. t i,i'� Y. .c yxrna- t a t6 nN P i'_' - _s i •.r iy ➢ -3 /v'a 3 i !'i? A `Yik
;..� X. 4�r4v" fpp�y..- ,y7�t,P' -�,' ^r.. r'^^i Y`!:. r p
W. r r ... `x, a. ` ?- ji,�K' ,tc ?Ja� j i:•r+ r }- t�i'�e ,r `��f ?,sr�r, .d� �k . �P , r T'+,�J i. _ 11
F }r, . L?K0. ,� 11
} 1 4.. .. r {. �± �'nk jj9�9Y .� rte.. t h. - � aCa'ta f,` �V .' .�
]tr;
\ J-
,."l-.'l�-....---. ; .;*-.`��'.`.�.--. "".: �,�, -� �': I .! ;.,..... il ,.�, '�L'�-��;, % 1:" O'. W I'. 1 I ��,; �:.*, ,Ok',6�x ., , e� - - - — , - — '. _., i ... � : , , '.� �_ i '�.7'.-.. "..", '. ..... .F. -
1 '.! d-': u� ri' K�3.Fa'�` �:'7 '�'� `�+2iG' i 1. .rFw� 'a J :ti q�5 Y "rtt4'.a +f. I d r
.� .•'- / r
,� y w Z.
�r I
i f'�� a � a 11
K t r..}- rh`' r r?tv \ :'r. �4 "Y y :� •y K- Y= �^._7as -rwt s.
t+i , . 2 . Y� k -` v:.' 76� ,.t'*t; x:,, i 9 y.'1: .�,r}�°.r^ Y'. + {" 1. 1 r y :. .T :4 "l 4 'i �Yry
til ,,, r. Y ,c A d. f5l�.a.• .r, ,
E +, ��J� 7 t 'fadt� f 1 1'k� ". <� .� t _
e 1rP�
`� a
' ivr ' .4, f{r; tat r`�� 1:. fr ' �� }�. - „di,.t�t a.fi �—, «�+{` *f..''' x� .: 'G'a'1'Ci p�,�; N` f” '� x . r ,t r
s
} / w R�
%n
+ s •, yw e• i ` •� ! /'r�r+ .�N�L' _�Srs 4•... i!G 4q r ;d; f ���;'S -11 ' .a4 � y 'ti•- t"!'S:r. '� �i.1M� -. . '_r,, Y Y (o�.�'�,"' +..,,, r ,. , ii '01
. r ��. rS r.:; ,. '; -! .�,,[ , 1 ��. 3rS +big 'i',`. r.
5. tijai. nn _ :5`+J�- �'I- f `4 r ..r tea ¢Y
1. ,
C
~ �S. L a
�. is 1 •• ,i. . - x 3 ..ASS xFt \ a c, s`. ^s y,y :.i J YfijS to "+.:u r c .t;
< �` } r t ,_
.r.•.. .�•a f 5.t ti. __
r. Y - f� a ` . _ \ - ., ; - � \ ,. _ ,.._
P -d- i,.y' < '� 7 �',� ''F• -.. s :., jar. �— �'s i�+., `_\; r � a t^'rr c' K* , -
,t ,.tf1 e lnt Xi,� �`y' aru Az_ r , ,,,,ratty • ,'� ,y..
",.i rx '�`}" ".M�ra a't'"o -.7'� 5Si'i -_ c� §? �, ,
f � 'fat °Gi "'e2 , y.Jaa' 1 � , 1 a\ •; i. i'sY �J } s ue. F ; � � ., .- -i` `h3.�`'' �k'" ,f , �h �'^ `
' :yv7•, .5'�„J �av .- if:+kts'v- •1...' <,,�.'R`;'�4 i'".` `",'! =''� ej�', ',- -. ?•k 5 c:,r �{' -`!' .. _ -�' ;"'�i� .;11 ,:'N i'7?7. '' K ,''�'�.... �'."�'!",r '
w. r_ _:.'
Audrey J. Chapman
Saratoga, Aloha Ave.
Saratoga, California 95070
J� Lou_ 19 95
�l Fo
n
vv
C k6( oa c 7 6-A- Q�
L li
, t
4140db) o
UQ o
Sze �a��f s cu.
d
A
01 � O
���
Asim Abdullah
20292 Pinntage Pkwy
Cupertino, CA 95014
Home (408) 253 7088
Work (408) 777 5101
June 19, 1995
Dear Neighbors,
We are writing to update you on the progress of remodeling our property on
14755 Aloha Avenue. As you may know, in our meeting with the Saratoga
planning commission on 5/24/95, we agreed to re -visit the exterior design of
the house to give it a more traditional appearance. i am pleased to state that
after a diligent review and additional input from the planning department, we
have completed the re- design work. We accordingly plan to meet with the
planning commission again on 6/28/95 to complete the process.
This latest revision :
a) strictly meets all stated city and zoning regulations regarding height, lot
coverage, size and setbacks etc.
b) does not affect our immediate neighbors' right of privacy or line of sight.
c) carefully protects almost all the existing landscaping including the natural
gradation, the trees and the hedges, in and around the property.
As many of you, we too have been attracted to this neighborhood by it's natural
beauty and openness. Maintaining this feel and character is extremely
important to us and our architects Warren Heid & Assoc. have done an
outstanding job of achieving this.
Still, we recognize the concern raised by some of our neighbors about setting a
precedence and we understand how this may be used as justification for
improper future actions. However, having experienced the Saratoga planning
process, we are re- assured by the extremely thorough and rigorous scrutiny that
every single design request is put through and we strongly believe that this
same process will continue to protect the individual /neighbors rights of this
community.
We are confident that you will find our remodel, a proud and valuable addition
to the neighborhood and we look forward to being contributing members of this
cc: Saratoga Planning Commission
Members, Saratoga Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
0-11-1,
June 23, 1995
RE: Review of Design for two -story family dwelling on Aloha Avenue
(A.P. N. 517 -10 -022)
Dear Mr. Murakami and Members of the Planning Commission:
The neighbors on the upper part of Aloha have reviewed the
design and would like to state that it:
1) Creates an unreasonable interference with views for
neighbors;
2) Is incompatible in bulk and height with the surrounding
homes; and
3) does not minimize the perception of excessive bulk.
.The residents of Aloha Avenue listed below respectively
request that. the Planning Commisssion deny approval of the two
story structure
'Qplanned .for 14755 Aloha Avenue.
c
The AFitonjides
a Daanas
1
14725 Aloha A e.
f+ - �4
The Bachmans
The Hammills
14704 Aloha �
14735 Al ha Ave.
\p.
The Crawford
he lein ergs
147 Aloh Ave
14746 Aloha Ave.
Th Grimm
The Nosds
20 40 Kom n A e.
14718 Aloha Ave.
j c dl�'
Sherry Parkinson
The Whalens
14774 Aloha Ave.
14771 Aloha Ave.
JUN 2 8 1995 ROY P. CRAWFORD
14711 ALOE A AVENUE
P LH I V l v l l y L3 iD L PT., SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
June 26, 1995
Members, Saratoga Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: 6/28 Hearing on Abdullah home (DR - 95 - 015)
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
It is astounding to us that Mr. Abdullah, Mr. Heid and the Planning Commission did not
respond to the protest (by letters and public hearing) to eight immediate neighbors re. the two
story design planned for 14755 Aloha Avenue. A number of neighbors attended the May 24
hearing and were discouraged that the issue of the two -story design was not addressed.
. We feel the two -story design is incompatible with the upper part of Aloha. It would set
an unfortunate precedent for this part of the neighborhood.
It is important perhaps for the Planning Commission to understand what we on Aloha
consider "the neighborhood." Mr. Heid shows pictures on poster board and discusses home
heights in the "neighborhood." The examples he cited at the May 24 hearing were quite
upsetting to the neighbors, as they represent homes on the bottom part of Aloha near Highway
9, on Oak or Komina overlooking the school, or near the cemetary. Mr. Heid also shows the
three one -story homes built on school district property, which are still an issue for this
neighborhood because of their excessive size and roof height.
The entire east side of the street (George Day homes) is all one story, and all homes on
the upper part of Aloha are one -story. The west side of Aloha Avenue has had a long history
of denying two story requests and encouraging single story design.
The planning commission has encouraged single story structures for this neighborhood
for years; the Land Development Committee for the school property which was developed, stated
that single story structures were desired.
Approval of this two story would be inconsistent with long standing standards and wishes
of the community, and we believe would be a problem on the corner of Aloha and Komina.
Please consider the following when you make your decision:
1) The neighborhood is overwhelmingly comprised of single story residences;
2) According to the Pozos survey in 1983, the average roof height in the neighborhood
is 151h feet. Theirs is proposed at 23 feet on a comer site which would be
obtrusive.
3) The few other two story houses on Aloha are sited very unobtrusively toward the
bottom of the street, with more set back. The precedent this home would set on
the upper part of Aloha could create a continuing problem that is a major concern
for us.
Thank you for your consideration.
S' erely �
"1 \
Gay and -�Oy Crawford
Roy P. CRAWFORD
14711 ALOHA AVENUE
SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
408/741 -5766
Mayor Ann Marie Burger
Members, Saratoga City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070'
RE: DR -95 -015 N;
July 11, 1995
Dear Ann ae,
and Members of the City Council
(7),
DJUL 1.2 1995
CITi ur' SARATOGA
CITY MAINAGER ;y pFFICE
On behalf of owners and residents within the immediate neighborhood of the proposed
two story structure at 14755 Aloha Ave., we hope that the City Council will support the
Planning Commission's denial of the request for the proposed two story home. Neighbors have
attended two hearings, discussed our desires with both Mr. Heid and Mr. Abdullah, written
numerous letters, submitted a petition, and in spite of that, Mr. Abdullah has not heard the
Planning Commission decision or respected the neighbors' earnest requests and petition to change
to a one -story design.
Aloha Avenue has had a long history of denying two story requests and encouraging
single story design. Like many in our neighborhood, when we moved into our home (1968) our
first remodel designs were for a second story. After realizing this would cause major problems
among our neighbors and new friends, we scrapped the design. Over the years we have
remodeled our home successfully, without adding a second story. This is true of a number of
neighbors who have not gone two- stories, out of respect for the neighborhood. In February 1983
the Westbrook family had to redesign their two story plan because of the strong feelings of the
neighborhood and denial by the planning commission, upheld by the City Council (March 1983).
The Planning Commission has encouraged single story structures for this neighborhood
for years, and the Land Development Committee for the school property which was developed,
stated that single story structures were desired. Approval of this two story would be
inconsistent with long standing standards and wishes of the community. W h i l e w e are
sympathetic to the Abdullah's needs, we do not believe they should be allowed a two -story
design when countless others have stayed within the one -story tradition.
t�
We therefore oppose the two -story structure for the following reasons:
1) The neighborhood is overwhelmingly comprised of single story residences;
and would be incompatible with homes on Aloha;
2) According to the survey in 1983, the average roof height in the neighborhood is 151/2
feet. Theirs is proposed at over 22 feet on a corner site, blocking one neighbor's view
to the mountains.
3) The only other two -story houses on Aloha are sited very unobtrusively toward the
bottom of the street, with more set back.
The precedent this home would set on the upper part of Aloha could create a continuing
problem that is a major concern for us.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sm4cerely
Gay and Roy Crawford
14703 Aloha Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
July 12, 1995
Mayor Ann Burger and City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor Burger and Councilmembers:
Jul
P .4 819g$
NO DEpr
Mr. Abdullah very kindly invited my wife and I to review his
plans for the_home that he proposes to build.
We appreciate Mr. Abdullah's concern that his home be
compatible in height, bulk and style with the character of our
neighborhood. We are satisfied that his proposal succeeds in
attaining compatibility in each respect, while at the same time
permitting the Abdullah's a reasonable and appropriate use of
their land.
Second story proposals are oftentimes controversial, and
this is a matter over which reasonable people can differ. It
would be our view that second stories are not uncommon in our
neighborhood, and that Mr. Abdullah's proposed use is entirely
compatible with uses already made by others.
We urge the City Council to grant Mr. Abdullah's appeal.
Thank you for your consideration.
V ry t y y urs IL
David P. Movl
DPM /vm
14732 Aloha Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
July 12, 1995
Saratoga City Council JUL 131995
City of Saratoga p
13777 Fruitvale Avenue �Nivuv�; DEp
Saratoga, CA 95070 T•
Re: DR -95 -015 = Abdullah; 14755 Aloha Avenue
Dear Council Members,
As nearby neighbors of the referenced residence for almost 28 years, we want to express our
feelings about the remodeling work Mr. Abdullah has planned for that location.
We believe the home should remain a one -story structure. Being a corner lot, the home will be
exposed to five surrounding homes, rather than the usual three or four. In particular, the second
story bedroom has a window and balcony planned that will look down across Aloha Avenue at
three homes.
Presently, there are no two -story homes in the immediate area. The problems if two -story houses
are allowed now are (1) the apparent bulk and imcompatible character of a two -story structure in
this neighborhood and (2) the erosion of the privacy and views one now has with one -story
homes.
We know of three instances where a two -story plan was presented and turned down by either the
Planning Commission or City Council in response to objections from neighbors. One reason this
neighborhood is so nice today is that two -story homes have not been allowed.
The house next door to Abdullah's on Komina is about 24 feet closer to Komina and there are no
significant trees keeping him from expanding toward Komina. It also appears that there is only a 3
to 4 foot rise from the rear side of the house to the rear of the property, requiring only minor
grading to expand in that direction. Clearly, a one -story expansion is feasible on this half -acre lot.
We understand that one -story construction probably would be more expensive than two -story, but
many other neighbors have considered two -story and all have chosen to keep their homes one -
story to maintain compatibility with the one -story, private character of the neighborhood.
We urge the Council to continue its support for the present character of this neighborhood and
deny this request to construct a two -story home.
Respectfully,
Gene and Sally Antonides
WARREN
B.
HEID
AIA & ASSOCIATES
A R C H I T
E C
T S
• P L A N N E R S
14630 BIG BASIN WAY •
SARATOGA
• CALIFORNIA • 95070 • 408 867 9365
WARREN B. HEID
AIA
. STEVEN M. BENZING AIA • FAX 408 867 3750
July 14, 1995
Mayor Ann Marie Burger
Members, Saratoga City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
Mr. and Mrs. Abdullah, 14755 Aloha Avenue
Dear Mayor Burger and Members of the City Council:
The Abdullahs' appeal seeks this City Council's Design Review
approval to add 1,197 square feet of first level floor area and an
847 square foot second story addition to an existing 1,259 square
foot residence. This de novo appeal has been timely brought and
duly noticed pursuant to Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code.
The proposed project is well within the required setbacks and
complies fully with each of the objective zoning requirements. As
is set forth more fully below, the design has been discussed
extensively with the neighbors, the planning staff, and the
Planning Commission, and specific design elements have been
accordingly incorporated into the project to lessen any perceived
impact that was raised during this consultation process.
The findings required to approve this project are set forth
at Section 15- 45.080. There are six:
(a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy.
The height, elevations and placement on the site of the
proposed structure have been designed to avoid any interference
with community viewsheds and to assure the privacy of adjacent
residences and within the neighborhood. As the photographic record
demonstrates, the project creates no view obstruction. Even
acknowledging the second -story element, the proposed height of the
structure is below the maximum height established pursuant to
Section 15- 06.340. Specific design features made at the suggestion
of the Planning Commission, staff or neighbors include:
• a second -story element that covers only 23% of the total
structural footprint and which is designed with a hip
roof that follows the outline of the second floor to
reduce the height of the structure to 221-611 from natural
grade;
• a maximum ridge which is only 11' long and which is
located at the center of the property, 72' and sloping
away from the center of Aloha Avenue, and 110' from the
center of Komina;
a maximum ridge which is lower than the ridge of either
of the two adjacent properties which look into the
subject property, one of which is a two -story structure;
a front facade to the second -story element which is only
16' -6" tall facing towards Aloha Avenue and is set back
55' from the center of the street;
maintenance of the existing landscape screening,
including an 8' tall hedge surrounding the entire
property and numerous mature trees including a 30"
redwood tree, a 12" walnut tree, a 6" cedar tree and an
18" oak tree along the perimeter between the second -
story element and Aloha Avenue, and an 18" oak tree, two
12" oak trees, and a 12" walnut tree along the perimeter
between the structure and Komina; and
an extension of the existing fence at the property line
to the North West and the installation of only a single
window which is restricted to half height, each at the
neighbor's request, to ensure that there is no undue
impact on the neighbor's privacy.
(b) Preserve natural landscape.
. The second -story element prevents a sprawling footprint. that
=would require Excessive grading activities and the removal of the
natural landscape. An exclusively single -story design would
require a four to six foot high retaining wall. Under the proposed
project, the second -story element eliminates the need for this tall
retaining wall and the natural vegetative landscape will be
preserved with the exception of only one walnut tree. Moreover,
only minimal changes to the natural contours of the property are
required by the design in keeping with the general appearance of
the neighborhood.
(c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk.
In addition to those earlier specified design features which
have been added to avoid viewshed interference and any invasion of
privacy (See supra, Section A), the residence has been designed in
relation to adjacent structures and the surrounding region to
minimize the perception of bulk. The element facing towards the
back of the lot and the element facing the neighboring property
across Komina are specifically designed as single -story elements
which minimize the perception of bulk and prevent any view
obstruction. The house is principally designed with single -story
elements. However, the design of a suitable structure restricted
toa single -story on this site would require the removal of the
landscaping, additional grading, longer walls with greater grading,
and nearly the same ridge height as is now proposed. The result
would be a greater perception of bulk than is proposed. The second
story element only encompasses 23% of the structural footprint, and
is designed to be only minimally perceptible.
Moreover, specifically to accommodate requests made by the
Planning Commission and the staff, the following features were
added late in the design phase:
• The residence was extended adjacent to the garage to
balance the front elevation.
• The second -story hip roof was revised to reduce to height
to only 22' 6" from natural grade.
• The second -story stairwell was recessed so that the
master bedroom could be centered, thus allowing the
single -story roof to be continuous and provide background
to the entry roof.
• All windows were changed to double hung sashes with grids
and grids were added to the French doors to provide a
more desired divided lite style.
• The Mediterranean style balusters preferred by the
applicant were removed at both the Master bedroom balcony
and at the front porch. The front porch has no balusters,.
and the balcony railing was made solid for a more
balanced appearance.
• The chimney/ fireplace was moved closer to the second
story element, reducing the impact of the chimney at the
east side.
. I The exterior colors were modified and warmed.
Moreover, preservation of the natural contour and the existing
vegetation, which includes an 8' hedge surrounding the property and
numerous mature trees, facilitates the structure's integration into
the natural environment.
(d) Compatible height and bulk.
The proposed structure is designed to be compatible in terms
of bulk and height with the many diverse architectural styles of
the existing residential structures on adjacent lots and within the
immediate neighborhood and within the same R -1 15,000 zoning
district. As the Planning Commission properly found in Resolution
No. DR -95 -015, two -story and /or taller homes exist near the project
site and throughout the neighborhood. Nine houses over 18' in
height exist along Aloha Avenue from Lomita to Los Gatos Saratoga
Road, six of which are over 23'. See the attached map of the
neighborhood which depicts those structures over 181. Properly,
these homes are "existing" pursuant to the terms of Zoning
Ordinance Section 15-45. 080 (d) (i) . Contrary to the assertion that
Aloha Avenue has a long history of denying two -story requests, the
Planning Commission found in Resolution No. DR -95 -015 that recent
additions have caused the appearance of taller homes in the neigh-
borhood. A two -story home exists uphill and adjacent to the
subject property.
The designed bulk and height also does not unreasonably impair
the light and air of any adjacent properties nor unreasonably
impair them of the ability to utilize solar energy. The maximum
ridge is below that of the ridge of either of the two immediately
adjacent properties which look into the subject property, one of
which is itself a two -story structure.
(e) Current grading and erosion control methods.
The present foundations are and will remain in existing grade
and the new addition will not impact the natural grade, or cause
erosion, as the addition will also be at an existing and level
grade. The site development and grading plan has been designed to
incorporate current grading and erosion control standards used by
the City.
(f) Design policies and techniques.
The proposed project will conform to the policies and
techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and Section
15- 45.005.
The project which is the subject of this appeal complies fully
with the City Code and has undergone nearly 3 1/2 months of
intensive review by the neighbors, the planning staff and the
Planning Commission. Substantial design features have been added
to accommodate each and every perceived impact that is properly
attributable to this project. The two -story element, while
representing only 23% of the structure, is not only warranted under
the City Code but is also the most responsible design alternative.
Any single story design would compel the removal of the existing
vegetative screen and would require additional grading which would
create erosion complications and would result in a greater
perception of bulk.
Despite the two -story element, the maximum ridge is only 21'
from street elevation on Aloha, and is below the ridge elevation
of two adjacent structures, one of which is also two - stories. This
maximum elevation is fully consistent with approximately half of
the structures identified to be in the neighborhood, disregarding
whether that elevation is a single or two -story structure.
In light of all of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted
that the City Council can and should make the findings required by
the City Code and confer de novo design approval to the aforemen-
tioned project, subject to any reasonable conditions supported by
the planning staff.
Sknrerely',
B. HEID, AIA
Attachment
iii:' ■;���'► ����!►
' o e�► ��:
10 ►/,�
at
a■■■►
Bit dolor
■/ ■ / ■■
vk'r'v
■
.■n
■�
pi ■..1'�,
Lt.■■
•■iii■ ,�•�, CI1���
�s
Z00'd -1di01
L4
1995
H RMONiE
LL:ROPF.AN llAY SPA
A ; I`Q .Igor and Saratoga City Council,
I have had the pleasure of knowing Isha and Asim Abdullah as a patron of
Harmonie European Day Spa of Saratoga and as a responsible and contributing
coworker of my husband, respectively. My husband and I are familiar with their
residential proposal that will be submitted for approval by the City Council on Judy,
19th and of their previous proposals submitted to other city commissions for
approval.
As a business owner and a volunteer for the Saratoga Business Development
Committee, I would like to offer a recommendation that would improve the
perception of Saratoga as the thriving community to which the business owners,
city government, and residents aspire.
I applaud the city government for establishing a rich set of laws and codes designed
to protect the rights of the members of the community. Within the guidelines of
these protective laws and codes, however, Saratoga should continue to streamline
its approval processes as they pertain to both business and residential development.
Attention to appropriate approval cycles ensures that the cost of business and
residents proposals is rational thereby enhancing the perception of Saratoga as
encouraging responsible contributors to establish themselves here.
As a case in point, I encourage the city council to approve Mr. and Mrs. Abdullah's
residential proposal that, to my knowledge, respects the codes of the city. Let us
welcome the Abdullahs' contribution to our community and continued support of
our local businesses.
Respectfully,
,
Patricia Bottero
Owner
Harmonie European Day Spa
11501 Bid; N".in Way
Sarati�};a, C::� i ifn;•nia')5L�?�%
r , 'w
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2.5 AGENDA ITEM YS (_q}
MEETING DATE: July 19, 1994 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office
Paula Reeve,, Public Services Assistant
SUBJECT: Renewal of the Household Hazardous Waste Collection
Agreement with Santa Clara County for Fiscal Year 1995-
96.
Recommended Motion: Authorize the City Manager to execute the
annual renewal of the Agency Agreement for the Countywide Household
Hazardous Waste Collection Program on behalf of the City. Approve
the Agreement in an amount not to exceed $60,000 to provide service
to approximately 550 Saratoga residents.
Report Summary:
The City of Saratoga currently participates in the Household
Hazardous Waste Collection Program which provides hazardous waste
collection and disposal services and program publicity to residents
of Santa Clara County.
The Mobile Program operates weekend drop -off collection events on
a monthly basis, providing year -round access to residents of cities
and the unincorporated County. In addition, two permanent sites
are scheduled to begin operation in early 1996 to accommodate
recyclable household hazardous waste. The se wastes include latex
paint, batteries, motor oil, oil filters, and antifreeze. The
estimated costs are $125 per car for the Mobile Program, and $45
per car for the permanent locations..
Nine mobile events are scheduled for 1995 -96, two of which are
planned to be held at West Valley College (schedule attached). A
total of 521 Saratoga households took -part in the program in fiscal
1994 -95 at a cost of $62,520. A participation level of 550 is
planned for 95 -96 because the West Valley events tend to draw a
higher response from Saratoga residents. A survey conducted by the
County staff who schedule the event appointments indicates that
approximately 20% of the 550 participants can be diverted to the
permanent recycling locations. Therefore, a participation level of
440 appointments.has been assigned to the mobile events at a cost
of $55,000, and the remaining 20 %, or 110 appointments, has been
allocated to the permanent collection centers at a cost of $4,950.
Fiscal Impacts:
The expenses for this mandated program are recovered through the
rubbish bill surcharge for integrated solid waste management and
offset by funds allocated to each jurisdiction from the California
Used Oil Recycling Block Grants. Based on the average cost of $125
per user for the mobile event, and 110 for the fixed sites, the
contract limit is set at $60,000.
Attachments: Proposed Agreement
1995 -96 Event Schedule
Motion and Vote:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2--5�?(4 AGENDA
MEETING DATE: July 11, 1995 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager
SUBJECT:
Request from Community Access Television boara ro Place
the Community Access Coordinator on Payroll Status for
Purposes of Stipend Payment
Recommended Motion(s):Approve the request.
Report Summary: In June the Board voted a $2,000 stipend for the
Coordinator which would be beyond her current salary range as an
employee of the College. To implement this change in pay it will
be necessary to add her to the payroll system as is currently done
with the temporary workers who broadcast Council meetings and
perform other work for the Community Access Network. In addition
it will be necessary to adjust the budget for CATV expenses and to
account for the added revenue which will come back to the City's
General Fund in the form of a reimbursement for expenses.
The total cost for salaries and benefits for fiscal 1995 -96 has
been adopted at $18,803 for the Community Access Television
Activity. This includes full time staffing to administer the Cable
Franchise and for the staff role on the CATV Board as well as
$9,515 for temporary workers as noted above. This change would
require a budget amendment to $20,564 for 1995 -96, an increase of
$1,761. The remaining amount of the $2,000 is to cover the City's
cost of adding the,person to the payroll and the ongoing general
government costs of same. On the revenue side of the budget, no
direct funding for CATV was shown for fiscal 1995 -96 or 1996 -97 in
the refunds and reimbursement accounts in the General Fund.
Payment for compensation, less the cost of live broadcast which is
covered by a fee paid to the City by South Bay CableVision, needs
to be shown. The revenue for 1995 -96 would be $14,855 for fiscal
1995 -96 and $10,193 for fiscal 1996 -97. All calculations are shown
on the attached spread sheet including correcting amounts for
proper posting of the temporary benefits.
Fiscal Impacts:Would mean an addition reimbursement over cost for
general government support of $239 a year.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:None
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:The stipend
could not be awarded since the college can not change its salary
structure to account for the increase in pay.
Follow Up Actions:Prepare the necessary budget adjustment
resolution for adoption at the meeting of July 19, 1995.
Attachments:Letter from CATV Board President Tom Moran
Spreadsheet which calculates change in the budget
Dear City Council,
June 23, 1995
D F,P Er, � U'
D
,lull 3 0 1995
Ci'i -y Cii SAAATOGA
CITY !dj �1AGER'S OT, F'_CE
The Saratoga Community Access Television Foundation (KSAR) would like to request a
minor change in the city's budget. This change would not add to the city's net expenditures.
We have voted to add a stipend from KSAR to the West Valley College salary paid to Tessa
McGoldrick, our Community Access Coordinator. The city currently has a mechanism to pay
part time KSAR employees, and to be reimbursed for their pay (plus benefits and city
administrative costs) by KSAR. We would like to include Tessa's stipend in that mechanism.
This would add $2,000 a year to the city's budgeted income and slightly less than that (for
administrative overhead) to the city's budgeted outgo.
We have discussed this matter with the City Manager. Please contact me or Harry if you
have any questions. Thank you.
T� T
Thomas Welling Moran
Chair, KSAR Board of Directors
SARATOGA COMMUNITY A«ESS TELEVISION
West Valley College 14000 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408/741 -2108 FAX 408/867 -9207
EXPENDITURE
3010 Wages, full time
3020 Wages, temporary
3030 Benefits
Total
Benefits Factor, temporary
Total Stipend
Less Admin.
Total Budget Adj.
Net Pay
Added Benefits
TV Broadcast cost
REVENUE
Refunds /Reimbursements
Franchisee Payment
Total Revenue
Adopted Proposed Corrected Corrected Amended Amended Difference Difference
95 -96
96 -97
95 -96
96 -97
95 -96
96 -97
95 -96
96 -97
6,856
7,099
6,856
7,099
6,856
7,099
0
0
9,915
10,212
8,832
9,097
10,400
10,665
1,568
1,568
0
0
2,032
2,106
3,115
3,221
3,307
3,414
192
192
0
0
18,803
19,417
18,803
19,417
20,564
21,178
1,761
1,761
1.1226
2,000
0.1360
1,761
1,568
192
3,000
0 0 7,855
8,193
9,855
10,193
2,000
2,000
0 0 5,000
0
5,000
0
0
0
0 0 12,855
8,193
14,855
10,193
2,000
2,000
f 1
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2S96 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: JULY 19, 1995 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEF T. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Cox Avenue Landscaping Improvements, Capital Project
No. 9401 - Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion
Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the project as complete and
authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the
construction contract.
Report Summary: All work on the Cox Avenue Landscaping Improvements
(Capital Project No. 9401) has been completed by the City's
contractor, B &B Landscape Contractors, Inc., and inspected by
Public Works staff. The final construction cost for the project
was $49,778.25, which is 12.0% above the awarded contract amount of
$44,427. The increased costs were due to additional removal and
disposal of asphalt rubble left over from the realignment of Cox
Ave. over Route 85, and additional planting authorized to extend
the landscaping along the north side of the street towards Seagull
Way and the Greenbriar Landscaping District.
In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one
year maintenance /warranty period, it is recommended that the
Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended
that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of
Completion for the construction contract so that the requisite 30
day Stop Notice period for the filing of claims by subcontractors
or material providers may commence.
Fiscal Impacts: The ten percent retention withheld from previous
payments to the contractor will be released 30 days after
recordation of the Notice of Completion assuming no Stop Notices
are filed with the City. The FY 94 -95 budget contains sufficient
funds in Capital Project No. 9401, Account 4510 to cover the entire
cost of the construction contract. Also, recall that the Traffic
Authority advanced the City $64,000 for this work.
Follow Up Actions: Staff will record the Notice of Completion for
the construction contract and release the contract sureties and
retention thirty days thereafter.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The project
would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the
contractor of any additional work required by the City Council
before the project would be accepted as complete.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Attachments: 1. Contract Summary.
2. Notice of Completion.
CONTRACT SUMMARY
PROJECT: Cox Avenue Landscape Improvements, C.I.P. 9401
CONTRACTOR: B & B Landscape Contractors, Inc.
CONTRACT DATE: 12/07/94
CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 07/07/95
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $44,427.00
CHANGE ORDER AUTHORITY: $6,000
CHANGE ORDER INCREASE: $5,351.25
FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $49,778.25
PERCENT +/- FROM ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: +12.0%