Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-01-1988 City Council Staff Reports
NF 09 -01 -1988 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTS 26 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL h , EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. l� MEETING DATE: Sept. -7, 1988 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING AGENDA ITEM l J-- CITY MGR.. APPROVAL SUBJECT :' - CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR TRACT 7919, Kelly Gordon Development, Saratoga Ave.. AND RELEASE OF-CASH BOND Recommended Motion: "Grant Construction Acceptance & Release of Cash Bond" for Tract 7919, Lisa Marie Court @-Saratoga Avenue. Report Summary : The work has been satisfactorily completed. This Construction Acceptance will begin the one (1) Year Maintenance Period. Fiscal'Impacts: Unknown. Attachments: Memo describing bond. Mot i.oh and Vote: 09UT @:T - 0&M_&UQ)0,& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • ,SARATOGA; CALIFORNIA 95070 (408)867 -3438 . , MEJ ORANDUIlVI.I TO: City Manager DATE: August 24, 1,988 ' FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for TRACT 7919 Name & Location: Lisa Marie Court. @ Saratoga Avenue Kelly Gordon Development Public Improvements required for TRACT 7919, Lisa Marie Court have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement. contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is. included for your use: 1. Developers Brian J. Kelly Address: 12241 Saratoga -- Sunnyvale Rd. Saratoga., Ca. 95070 2. Improvement Security: Type': Security Bond & Assignment Certificate Amount.: $36,000:00 & $4,000.00 Issuing Company: Pacific Marine Insurance 'Co. Address Box C19134. Seattle, Wash,. 98.109' 3. e,x or, Certificate No.: 33532 Special Remarks:.' Please release $4.,000.00 Assignment Certificate. RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook R SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. S MEETING DATE: 9/7/88 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL c� SUBJECT: V -88 -010, 20881 Canyon View Dr. (Krueger) - Appeal of the Planning Commission decision approving a variance application to allow the construction of a home on a 31.2 % slope at building site in lieu of 30% maximum allowed. Recommended Motion: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning commission. Report Summary: On July 13, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a variance application to allow a home on a 31.2% slope at the building site where 30% is the maximum allowed, in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. The applicant's neighbor, Mr. Emil Kissel, has appealed the Planning Commission decision on the grounds that the subject lot is too small for a home and not buildable due to a history of landslides. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Motion and Vote: - ?/ - --1t t0/ q . Report from the Planning Department dated 9/7/88 Appeal application and letter City Geologist's report Planning Commission Minutes dated 7/13/88 Letter from the appellant to the City Attorney 8/14/88. Staff report to the Planning Commission, 7/13/88 dated 11 091TT o2 0&Mt&1XQX5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: 9/7/88 SUBJECT: V -88 -010, 20881 Canyon View Dr. (Krueger) - Appeal of Planning Commission decision approving a variance to allow the construction of a home on a 31.2% slope in lieu of 30% allowed. Background /Analysis On 7/13/88, the Planning Commission approved a variance application from Ordinance 15- 12.061 of the City Code, to allow the construction of a home on a 31.2% slope, where 30% is the maximum allowed, in the R -1 zone district. The Planning Commission considered the possible building sites on the lot, the limitation of the size of the lot and the existing utilities easement., and approved the variance application. Analysis of the Appeal Mr. Emil Kissel, the applicant's neighbor, appealed for the reasons stated in his letter dated 7/1/88 and appeal dated 7 /15/88. The reasons and staff analysis are as follows: 1. The lot is too steep and has a history of landslides. Construction on the lot will increase the chances of landslides. Other homes on the adjacent properties have similar landslide problems (reason #1 in appeal letter and #2 and 45 in letter to the Planning Commission). Response: ' The proposed plans for a home on the subject lot were reviewed by the City Geologist and the City Engineer. All the City Geologist's requirements for slope stability evaluations and soil investigation must be prepared and submitted to the City for review. All the requirements for the erosion control measures must be addressed prior to any building permit issuance. The lot is not exceptionally steep and variances were granted in the past to build on steeper lot's (12553 Parker Ranch Road - 45 %; 12468 Parker Ranch Ct. - 33.5 %; 12502 Parker Ranch Ct. - 35 %). 2. The lot is too small for a large house and will add to the other excessively large homes along Canyon View Drive ( #2 in appeal letter and #3 in letter to the Planning Commission). l Memorandum to City Council V -88 -010; 20881 Canyon View Drive Response: The Planning Commission denied the variance to exceed the allowable floor area requested by the applicant. The allowable floor area for the home is determined relative to the lot size, and is adjusted to the average slope on the lot. At this time, no home has been approved on the lot. 3. The subject lot is not an established building lot and is only a "left over" result after the location of Canyon View Drive ( #1 in letter to Planning Commission) . Response: The lot is a lot of record and is zoned residential, R -1- 40,000. There are no special restrictions on the lot. The same requirements and standards of the City Code for any other lot in the zone will apply to this lot. 4. The future home will impact the view of the neighbor ( #4 in letter to the Planning Commission) . Response: Due to the size of the home, the design review application for a new home was denied. View impacts of a future application will be reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission through the design review process. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. TA /lmc B:canyon Q _ JUL 151999 • CITY OF SARATO CIT!' MANA0FR'S' Ob i r Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: APPEAL APPLICATION Date Receive( Hearing Date Fee : CITY 'USI 11 Sit% 5 v L L W.14 •yob X67- 3,x7 Project Description: Decision Being Appealed:. ' a' -6 Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached) -7 elf Ate- G�Co f f CP �2 R, r, *Please do not City offices. appeal please Appellant's Signature sign this application until it is presented at the If you wish specific people to be notified of this list them on a separate sheet. 71f TSAPP!.TCATION }.r',«T Pr- S!LnNITTTrD !'TT.IIN FED, M: cUI- T1i'E D - ' SI0, TrN (10) CALENDAR DAYS 0 S4A C.M., y ej, cI .CC t Q .!n qJl crcv -L u.... (I r%r- Q �-1•tiP CCd�t ut�, ,. .t a 40 vim. vi Lo •t`� �u-� �a id�c.��C�tt' ca� Me r6/ .ta.z � -� a � / 3 / � � f 7 � y'S � l� � (� � Jam/ G •� l 7 • 'd r J C♦ ^,,/ �. T -�� ac,d Q cis ct �` � �� 1 ,n �'�7i t' its a 0. e,� .. � ��i.tn„ • �S '�r� ��� .. � - �Cm,,l�.o Gf .2� 9� 1 �L.G� 20 g 7 1 I 'lull �- cam,, -�C.� -fie CAAA LC AAA rvt""?-t t t L�G l •l �P /t • . JJ �t It r i �t G� �` a, tom' Q ��J L �L CSI / _ G' ei- l 40 1 Le-LG1 �lt� % �Li� `✓� Lam"( G4 &v Le .�4A k �e �!q �,� . L�,� Q .,�,,� -5 Ae � ( ! 4 �6, _ y File No. U ?r APN 9 E, cl,,� E � Y E D JUL 151988 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING I, t N4 / L L as appellant on the above file and property known as / �.:w u,J, hereby authorize Engineering Data Services to do the legal noticing on the above file.. Date:_ � / 5 / � � � Signature: �w William CiD,-,/,ton and Associates GEOTECHNICAL r SULTANTS 330 Village Lane- Los .Gatos, California 95030 (408) 354 -5542 June 13, 1988 S1138 TO: Tsvia Adar, Assistant Planner CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ' SUBJECT: Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Review RE: Lands of Krueger 20881 Canyon View Drive At your request, we have completed a preliminary geologic and geotechnical review of the proposed development using: Soil Investigation (report) prepared by Budinger and Associates, dated April 4,1986; and Site Plans (8 sheets; 10- scale) prepared by David Pruitt Designs, dated January 22,1988. Additionally, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files (i.e., Gutierrez, SDR- 1432). Our review of the referenced documents indicates that the applicant is proposing to construct a single- family residence and driveway. The proposed residence is located approximately 47 feet northwest of Canyon View Drive. The proposed driveway would provide access from Canyon View Drive to the residence. It is our. understanding that conventional sewer service will be utilized for the residence and that a septic leachfield system will not be constructed. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is characterized by steep (i.e., 20° to 23° inclination) east - facing hillside topography. Previous grading, associated with the construction of Canyon View Drive and a private driveway, has resulted in a very steep (30° inclination) cut slope along the eastern properly line. Drainage is characterized by uncontrolled sheet flow to the east. The site is underlain, at depth, by sedimentary bedrock materials of the Santa Clara Formation. These materials are overlain by unconsolidated and potentially expansive silty clays (i.e., active landslide debris and colluvium). During our recent field investigation sloughing soils were noted throughout the property. In addition ENCiNZc=& -'%G GEO CCY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING Tsvia Adar, Assistant"rianner June 13, 1988 Page 2 an active landslide is located in the eastern portion of the property. The property is located within a "Pdf' zone as shown on the City Ground Movement Potential Map. The; "Pdf' category is defined as: "steep to very steep terrain mantled with thick soil, colluvium, and landslide debris susceptible to debris flows." CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS The proposed construction is constrained by steep to very steep slopes, active landsliding, a recognized potential for debris flows, sloughing soils, and potentially. expansive earth materials. The stated purpose of the referenced report is for use in site planning, based on a limited geotechnical evaluation of site suitability for residential construction, and is not intended as a basis.for final design. The report states that actual design should be based on a more detailed study. The report appears adequate for its intended purpose. We recommend that the project geotechnical consultant conduct a detailed geotechnical investigation prior to approval of building permits. This investigation should include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: Landslide Characterization and Repair- The applicant's geotechnical consultant should thoroughly evaluate the configuration of the active landslice . This evaluation should include a map and cross sections) . of the active landslide extending from above the headscarp to below the toe. Strategically placed exploratory borings and /or test pits should be excavated into the active landslide to determine the subsurface properties and configuration of earth materials. Based upon the results of the subsurface. and surface-data, a landslide repair plan should be prepared. Earth Materials - The type ' and distribution of site earth materials (i.e., bedrock, landslide debris, and colluvium) should be clearly shown on. an original engineering geologic map. and cross section(s). Additionally, the footprint of the proposed residence and driveway should be shown. Slope Stability Evalu,tion The applicant's geotechnical consultant should evaluate the stability of the existing cut slope and natural slopes under both •seismic and aseismic conditions. The potential for adverse impacts to the proposed development from debris flows should be investigated. Appropriate measures should be recommended to ensure the long -term stability of the proposed development and site slopes. William Cotton and Associates Tsvia Adar, Assistan'l--?lanner June 13, 1988 Page 3 �r • Soils Investigation - A detailed soils investigation should be completed based on a site - specific subsurface investigation program. Appropriate testing should be completed to determine the expansion potential of site earth materials. This investigation should address, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and design parameters for retaining walls, pavement and patios. The results of the geotechnical investigation should be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Geologist and Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. WRC:GO:mjs Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. �i/ 2�jFrzn- William R. Cotton City Geologist CEG 882 William Cuttun and Associates PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 JULY 13, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 17. DR -88 -035 Krueger, 20881 Canyon View Dr., request for design review approval 'V -88 -010 for a new 3,857 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Variance approval is requested to.construct the home on a 31.2% slope at the building site, where 30% is the maximum allowed. A second variance, to allow 317 sq. ft. in excess of the 3,540 sq. ft. allowable floor area, is also requested, per Section 15 -14 of the City Code. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, July 13, 1988, and intro- duced letters from the following individuals objecting to the Variance: Ramon Abascal, 20900 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, dated July 10, 1988 - Marjorie Toote, 20910 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, dated July 12, 1988 - William R. Swain, 20915 Sullivan Way, Saratoga, dated July 9, 1988 - Lois Cockshaw, 20995 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, dated July 4, 1988 The Public Hearing was opened at 10:02 P.M. Mr. Donald Krueger, Applicant, presented a scale model of the house/lot, site photographs and a written statement addressing the efforts to conform the house to slope of the lot, dimensions of the structure, making of required Variance Findings and response to neighbors concerns. Mr. Dave Pruitt, Designer, commented as follows: Reviewed design changes in the roof line which reduced the perception of bulk - Stated that landscaping had been added to soften the appearance of the house Height of entry way, perception of excessive bulk: confirmed that the Applicants did not intend to enclose the area Mr. Emil Kissel, 21154 Sullivan Way, Saratoga, called attention to his letter of July 1, 1988. He added his concern regarding potential liability of the City for the mud slides in the area; such would be increased by further cuts into the hillside. Pictures were presented. Mr. W. R. Swain, 20915 Sullivan Way, Saratoga, called attention to his letter of July 9, 1988, and presented pictures showing erosion in the area. Mr. Gordon R. Norris, 20880 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, was concerned about slippage/ mud slides on the hill. Ms. Ann Worobey, 20895 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, called attention to her letter in which she contended that the property in question was too unstable and too steep to build on. Ms. Suzanne Armbruster, 21169 Canyon View Dr.,,Saratoga, commented as follows: Reviewed the zoning history of the Canyon View Drive area; residents of unzoned lots insisted on an R -1- 40,000 zoning designation to prevent further subdivision of the area - The proposed two-story structure would obstruct views of existing residences - Asked that restrictions on size and height be imposed on homes in the area Mr. Edwin Law, 20867 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, concurred that slippage/mud slides occurred in the area and presented pictures of resulting damage to property. Ms. Lois Cockshaw, 20995 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, questioned. City restrictions on slope development; the City Attorney provided information requested. Mr. Pruitt assured residents that the Applicant would take whatever steps recommended by engineers to insure the stability of this site. Mr. Krueger commented as follows: - The City Geologist stated that the site was satisfactory for building - Recommended construction techniques would be followed - Questioned how the proposed home would affect the quality of life of adjacent residents - Landscaping would substantially improve the area and stabilize the site - Concern about the contractor building this house had no bearing on the Application Mr. Swain noted that pictures showed that the above contractor destabilized the entire hillside. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 10:55 P.M Passed 6-0 r r PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 13, 1988 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger commented as follows: - When the City Geologist pointed out problems in the hillside, he also recommended mitigating measures to stabilize the site - Was not concerned about view impacts since adjacent homes were at a higher elevation Asked that the square footage of the home conform to Ordinance.requirements Commissioner Kolstad noted that the City Geologist was asking for a detailed study; he wished to see the home conform to Ordinance requirements and was not concerned about view impacts Commissioner Tappan concurred with Commissioners Burger and Kolstad; he noted that the Geologic Report indicated that the proposed structure may provide stability for the hillside. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF V -88 -010 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6 -0. HARRIS/ITUCKER MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE APPLICATION TO EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA. Passed 6-0. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR -88 -035. Passed 6 -0. 18. AZO- 88-002 City of Saratoga, an ordinance repealing and amending various sections of the subdivision and zoning ordinance concerning the authority to modify or grant exception from regulations and standards. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. 21154 Sullivan • ';lay Saratoga, Oa. 95070 867 -3927 August 14, 1988 Saratoga City Attorney D. Toppel. Reference: DR -88 -035 V- 88-010 Dear Sir: On September 7, 1988, I have ten minutes at the City Council meeting to appeal the approval of a variance of our 30% slope ordinance on 20881 Canyon View Drive. 1. If 30% maximum means maximum, it has been established that the actual slope is 31.2%, then the variance should•not have been granted. 2. Since the variance has been granted, this must mean that there are special circumstances where the 30% can be violated. If I am to make a logical appeal, I need td-know what they are and I ask for a meeting with you to clarify this for me. 3. City Geologist Cotton has officially described this property in his letter of 6 -10 -88 :1138 as: "An active landslide is located in the Eastern portion of this property. Pdf zone - landslide debris susceptible to debris flow. Geotech consultant should conduct a ' detailed geotech investigation. Apuropriate measures to ensure long term stability." -Apnarently the above phrases are not sufficient to deny the variance. 4. Is it possible that a geologists and engineers signatures are all that are required to build a potential home on this 31.25 slope? If this is so, then the 30% maximum has no meaning. 5. I have mapped all the slides on this property and intend to present this to the City Council. Please let me know if this is pertinent. 6. If it takes other expert opinions on the geology and engineering, I will have to make a decision on this. The facts are that every adjacent property has suffered damage from land movement despite obeying all ordinances. 7. I believe the persistent mudslides will aggravate my home's movement. I believe present and future owners of the potential home will look with disfavor on rainwater draining from my property. I believe the City of Saratoga will have legal liability from mudslides and damage to potential home. There will be liability from mudslides going onto the roadway and continuing costs in removing them. There is a history of this. 8. The solution is to deny the variance. Geologial studies using a backhoe resulted in mudslides the following winter, the last such was done 8 -9 -88 by the applicant. I will appreciate hearing Sincerely, cc City Council from you on this matter. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Tsvia Adar DATE: 7/13/88 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -88 -035, V -88 -010; 20881 Canyon View Driv APPLICANT /OWNER: Donald Krueger APN: 503 -28 -003 Q (0. 97 142 , 4 Z .3 So7.22/ �SSJ p 3.2 ( ;� 34 \ \h�'A0' 2086702) n 1¢Z¢o 3 1433 5°1-19 -Ay ti h So j-t1.3p7) / ,t; z� 35J / �yy� 1426 Z.9 /4ZS G+ 200 (A) 5o3 0 (bIJ Soj ZI (52) 3-15 -101 / 2 t a 95 (7 QB�h Q /q2 z� tg la 2 T 3� 3 -2B -04 ; �1' So 70 c 302 tZca, - l *291 ,4Zt3c) 2)) 5427j ;8 / lyO / 21go5L4) �0 701 z7. W oa.Z7. (63) 0y > (Sol 5 0 o� I -Zg-06 i 0`- er ,4 90 Iq� zo f4z -.14 ?,7 0 Sol v3 ' 503-2lrc(. t 03. 87 (49) o 7i /`iA o�7�Cg / 21,115 (5) 1.yo�' /¢ 27.05 003.44163 801 217/ (4 �/ /4Z 18.E 211 503 3$ oro S° 3/1 27 -. 6 ly =7.ar. rbf j 7 <� oD/ sOZ• �2zJ 10090 (Gq /Q 3.Z7 BG 503 rO C661 SO3 Z71 (qT C= s; Z 9 3 2O .� Sol-17 -07 S.o 343 14 -42 27_ 24 /4 3p 42 I I -Z7 -20 /Z/ Zlld 50318 --!>� So 341 X09 �Q1.p �j J I • 0¢61 0300 ef, :< So3- oCZIJ ° 20900 ! 3 -Z7 103) 503-z <4S 7�• ?/< 18'21 x �507-z7-6 1430 1p �► X1.2. bg) 7 -43 % Q X03. I Clo �j 43,c �2 /4315 i �� 2)130( V Zp9to (W . /q, 36/7 r 2) SOS. f- CMI So3.27.4 1 So�3=a r07.ZR. 1OJ z7 0l $01.17 ( 101) /4 3,0 ZI 1 ¢721 4 J /4 3 Z7. 1/ 14 12 S� 27.(70) Sol'17_ (4�J To 3o CZ cry) ill 2o(111 7 209 4 aM 1a Z-.327 8 7/ .1 r oo ) OI4I7 ?1 0 3Z.> . C441G ) S p I.L. 40 pz 5 3 2moL 5p d $ C42) 8 �7, Q 503�1o) 01.20 -IS 19.0 6 9 74341 14 3477.5 503. p SO 3 =C 7t) 143 3 '3S 1 Sr 7 O /t (9P) So3 Bo (73J 5o1.t) (4e) So) 360 -6j S610 -Z7 l7) 14 390 (�4) 14 3)" 14; 71 !7 Sort 011 20047(14) 20OZ7L13) / Zoa45 1 j ee 370 '44 3 -z7-, (. IV 5°3-18 -IS 503-28-14 sp.,- # - w 50377 -� 73J / 7 77.91. h y 20011 (-EZ r8• /9J p '9 1 4399! 5o ; -z8 -13 io i0 v .e o O So3.27. 9171 Y 6,1( ro o 0 ,Y O o p p a `o ff, T W , ti 'D v 4 v VoA,, 20 NO 1 J 20040( 200 30( 900990 6 (71),- N 0 O { ((ri h�1 oN o38`007`) .a ��ti a 501-10-70 503-28-7! 3.z ,C//) r So3_ 1(911 h N p O o � x io 0 y 8 rL + 01 h ry H s °�9i jr r� tip. ♦0� 3 (b 3)Z o ozo �, •�? 1oj 1 7� v 's sh N s03 6/ d ,o^10 0 h go3-Z8- 73. rioS449 /6 7 =�� j J ab fgtl 0�� ^ . 1►� � i `v )p File No. PLANNER'S WORKSHEET Trails and pathways map checked Vicinity /locator map included V 'Dimensions shown on plot plan ✓ Adjacent structures Directional arrow JTrees labelled J Plans reflect field conditions , ✓ Heights shown on cross sections Consistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans Natural and finished grade on cross sections _Height of underfloor & attic areas included in floor area calculations Roof pitch shown All sheets included in submittal with required reductions Colors submitted Staff Reports WLConditions from other agencies /department correct ✓ Consistent figures throughout report History files examined Correct address & application number on all pages of the report ✓ Description consistent with advertisement V Plans labelled J Order of attachment consistent with list All attachments included V Typographical errors corrected ✓/ Dates on the resolutions correct V Applicant notified of recommendation '^pl..icant notified that staff report available Fri. 3 -4:00 p.m. A :choc',list 6/88 C File No. DR -88 -035; V -88 -010; 20881 Canyon View Drive EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 4/4/88 Application complete: 5/23/88 Notice published: 6/29/88 Mailing completed: 6/30/88 Posting completed: 6/16/88 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests design review approval of a new 3,857 sq. ft. two story single family home. Design review is required pursuant to City Code Section 15- 45.060(a)(1) and (6). In addition the applicant requests the following variances: 1. Variance from ordinance 15- 13.040(c) to locate the home on 31% slope where 30% is the maximum allowed. 2. Variance from ordinance 15- 45.030(b) to allow a floor area of 3,857 sq. ft. where 3,540 is the maximum allowed. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The variance findings for the proposed floor area cannot be made. The lot is substandard in size 16,260 sq. ft. (net), has'very steep slope (31.2% average) and is exposed to view from lots at lower elevations. The excess in floor area will add to the mass of the home which conflict with the intent of current City Ordinance to reduce the bulk of the homes on steep lots. Staff is able to make the variance findings to allow the construcion of the home on 31% slope. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approval of the variance application to locate the home on 31% slope, by adopting Resolution V -88 -010. 2. Denial of the variance application to exceed the allowable floor area. 3. Denial of the design review application, DR -88 -035. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution V -88 -010 3. Applicant's variance findings 4. Applicant's letter to Planning Commission dated 6/22/88. 5. Plans, Exhibit A 6. Correspondence 1 DR -88 -0351 V -88 -010 ZONING: R -1- 40,000 STAFF ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD - Residential Very Low Density PARCEL SIZE: 17,420 sq. ft. (net site: 16,260 sq. ft.) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 31.2% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 395 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 8 Ft. Fill: 87 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 5 Ft. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior: Horizontal wood siding and stone; colors: Kelly- Moore, Cafe au lait #H36 -1, and Mesa Brown #183 for the trim and railing. Roof: Tile, slate grey. - T179nnnc• A T LOT COVERAGE: 24% (3,902 sq. ft..) HEIGHT• 26 ft. CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 35% (5,691 sq. ft.) 26 ft. SIZE OF Lower Floor: 593 sq. ft. STRUCTURE: Main Floor: 2,051 sq. ft. Upper Floor: 1,213 sq. ft. TOTAL: 3,857 sq. ft. 3,540 sq. ft. SETBACKS: Front: 33 ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 24 ft. Rear: 2.2-.6 ft. (substandard depth 113.97 ft.) Right Side: 55 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 21 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed home is located on a substandard lot with a steep (31.2% average) southeast facing slope. Most of the site is covered with native weeds and grasses. A number of trees exists on the lot. One -story single family homes exist on the adjacent lots. Other two -story homes exist along the street. Due to the difference in elevation (25 ft. and over ) the subject lot can be viewed from the lots at lower pad elevations, across Canyon View Drive, Elva, and Springer Avenues. 2 DR -88 -035, V -88 -010; 20881 Canyon View Drive Variance for Slope The steep lot, an average of 31.2 %, and the existing wide public utility easements, limit the location of the home on the site. No other practical location of the home on the lot can comply with the maximum 30% slope, allowed by the City Code, at the building location. All the required findings for the variance to slope can be made. Variance for Floor Area Staff is not able to make the required variance findings. A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance. The applicant can develop the lot and construct a home within the Code's floor area restriction. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances do not exist that are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone district. The lot is substandard in size (17,420 sq. ft.), the topography of the lot is very steep, and a large portion of the site area is encumbered with a public utility easement. However, these exceptional conditions have no effect on the size of the home and the code requirements can be met. The allowable floor area is reasonable for the substandard size and conditions of the lot. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation of the Zoning Ordinance would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. The Code restrictions on the size, still allow the applicant to construct a home of reasonable size (3,540 sq. ft.) compared to other homes in the district, and on the same street. Larger homes were built prior to the new zoning ordinance effective date (11/9/87). Granting the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district. All new homes submitted after 11/9/87 in the NHR zone are subject to the same zoning regulations and standards with regard to allowable floor area calculations. Granting the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that granting the requested variance defeats the purpose of the newly adopted design review ordinance. The intention of the ordinance is to reduce the bulk of the homes by reducing the size of the homes in proportion to the size of the lots and relative to the average slope. 3 DR -88 -035, V -88 -010; 20881 Canyon View Drive Design Review Since the variance findings for the size cannot be made, the request for design review for the home may not be considered. Interaction with Applicant On 4/4/88 the applicant submitted to the Planning Department four applications: Exemption from building site approval, design review for_ a new home, and two variance applications from floor area and slope at the building site (the last variance application was submitted on 5/23/88). The applicant frequently contacted the staff to check on the status of his applications and was notified at each stage of the review of the Planning and other department's requirements. The applicant met all,the requirements of the Fire District and the Engineering Department and the exemption from building site approval was issued. The height and floor area of the proposed home, exceeded the Code's restrictions. Since staff was not able to make the findings to support the variance to floor area, the applicant was notified of the possible options available. The applicant chose to revise the plan and reduce the floor area to meet the allowable floor area restriction. However, on the revised plans the applicant did not include enclosed and covered areas around the exterior stairway, in the floor area calculation. He also did not double count the entry level with a ceiling of over 15 ft. The applicant was advised, for the had'. The applicant considered his the variance application. Recommendations second time, of the options he options and decided to go on-with Staff recommends: (1.) Denial of the variance to floor area, and the design review applications. (2.) Approval of the variance to slope since all the variance findings can be made. 4 C File No . VARIANCE FINDINGS (Supplement to Variance Application) 1.' A"strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent wi.th the objectives of the Ordinance. Response: The objectives of *the Ordinance, as stated by Mayor Peterson, Ts to maintain consistency in the size, shape and bulk of residences within particular zoning districts and to ensure that new hillside-homes are not eyesores which unnecessarily stand out from the natural slope of the land. He further stated at the council meeting of November 4, 1987, that it was not his intent to severely reduce the size of new homes on hillside lots by the 35 %, which the new Ordinance would cause. To that end,.literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance could limit the size of a new home to one which -is inconsistent with the neighborhood and impractical for a family of five. Many of the lots in the area are smaller than mine and the floor area of the existing homes have an average of approximately 2900 square feet of area without including the garages. (See attached table for comparison of lot sizes and house areas). To limit the last two lots available on Canyon View Drive to 2200 square feet or less, without garage, would create a situation where these houses are substantially smaller than all of the other homes in the area, thereby creating a hardship on the owners of these lots, which have purchased them with the anticipation that they would be able to build consistent with the homes nearby. ,Note further, the new Ordiance was not in effect-at the time that I purchased my lot. 2. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning .district. (The exceptional circumstances are not a result from actions of the owner. Response:' The.property has a slope of 30% which under the new Ordinance carries an extraordinary physical floor area restriction which did not apply generally to the other properties in the same zoning district. 3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation of the-Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of ..privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. . Response: There is no doubt that strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the privileges already enjoyed by the owners of the other properties along Canyon View Drive. The attached table shows the size of lots and homes along Canyon View Drive in the immediate vacinity of my lot. As can be seen, my lot would have an equivalent coveraqe of only 17.7% compared with the others having an averanp coverac�e of 18.4' with some having as much as c c Variance Findings, Cont. Page Two 30 %. My request is that I be allowed to have an equivalent coverage of 17 %, which is consistent with those in the same zoning district. Strict and literal interpretation would allow a 2250 sq. ft. home, without garage, or 13% coverage, depriving me of privileges enjoyed by the owners of the other homes along Canyon View Drive and in the same zoning district. 4. Granting the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district. , Response: As explained in 3 above, granting of the - variance would not grant special privileges, but would simply allow the applicant to have privileges which approach those of the existing home owners in the area.. 5. Granting the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Res onse: Granting the variance would have no adverse effects upon public health, safety or welfare. Design of my home will go through the design review process and meet'all of the seismic, geological, grainage, structural and other requirements for a single family residence. Rather than creating any safety hazard, improvement of the lot will, in fact, lessen the possibil -ity of fire danger which is inherent with an undeveloped lot with brush and wild grasses growing thereon. Further, the retaining walls and foundations will have a positive impact on stabilization of the hillside. Additionally, the home proposed will be an improvement to the use of the lot and add to the overall character and visual picture of -the -area. The house is designed to conform to the contour of the hillside by utilizing a stepped design, front to back thereby minimizing perceived bulk and excavation -of the hillside. I hereby certify that all the information contained in the supplement is, to my knowledge and belief, true and correctly represented. Name Donald H. Krueger Signature Lot # Address Lot size Hse area Fraction Photo # of house to lot area 3 20881 CVD Proposed 17420 3082 0.176923 4 20895 CVD 25112 3280 0.130614 • 5 20905 Sul. Way 28620 2760 0.096436 6 20915 Sul. Way 28483 3090 0.108485 7 20925 CVD 24939 2390 0.095833 8 Vacant Lot 0 9 20961 CVD. 114.13 3010 0.263734 3 Story 1.& 2 10 20971 CVD 8320 2500 0.300480 3 Story 3 & 4 11 20981 CVD 8320 2109 0.253485 5 12 20995 CVD 9200 1959 0.212934 33 21121 CVD 15251 2500 0.163923 34 21131 CVD 11388 '2300 0.201966 64 21110 CVD 16200 2660 0.164197 69 21050 CVD .18000 2850 0.158333 6 70 21040 CVD 14732 2003 0.135962 71 21030 CVD 12000 2410 0.200833 20890 CVD 10974 2917 0.265810 2.753033 Average Fraction 0.183535 Parker Ranch 7 thru 10' , ` � \� RECEIVED , JUN z 4 1938 ` PLANNING DEPT. ' ' Saratoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA. 95070 Commissioner Susan Such, 1076 Royal Acres Ct San Jose CA, 95136 June 22, 1988 You have received, or will shortly be receiving, the Planning Staff recommendation by Tsvia Adar regarding the property of 20881, Canyon View Drive, DR-88-35 along with the request for a variance, for action at the July 13th planning commission meeting. I feel that I have been very responsive to each and every comment and recommendation made by Ms. Adar and have done my utmost to comply with±he ordinance and the design review requirements in the `_si q_ of the home which I wish to build on the property. `1he�'.`^ purpose of this letter is to appraise you of the ac` ons ' which have transpired up,to this point so that you,qqw fully informed of the extent to which I have gone to comply.'. Tt` ` is also to request your careful consideration in thzs'ma&er when it comes before you. Forgive the length of this information, but it is pertinent and there is limited time at the meeting to cover everything which is germane. Shortly before the current ordinance was established, I obtained copies of the Design Review Ordinance to be certain that I would be able to build the home that I wished upon ' the lot that I was purchasing. To that end, I built a scale model of the building envelope, of the lot with topography and the home and showed that to one of your planners. In a previous discussion, that planner, Mr Robert Calkins, had informed me that there was considerable subjectivity in assessing the "Perception of bulk" and "conformance to the ^. hilAsibeWphich were two keys to approval by the planning 'stalf � and� � ually the commission. ` _ . U model, an updated version of which I will ^� bri th, Mr Calkins commented that I had done a . � good"jobjUjinimizing bulk an d con f orm i ng to the hillside. e. He noted, hbwever, that a new ordinance was going to be in place by the time I applied and that he was uncertain of how much latitude he or other planners would have in recommending approval if any item required a variance. I felt that was a fair assessment and comment and closed on the property. When the new ordinance was published, before implementation, I reviewed a copy and attended the City Council Meeting of Nov 4, 1987, at which time the ordinance was being further considered and was finally adopted. / � � Mayor Peterson remarked, at that meeting, that it was not his intention to so severly penalize the owners of hillside lots by creating a 35% reduction in the size of the homes which could be built. I went ahead with my plans, 4sing Mr David Pruitt as the designer as he has had extensive experience in designing homes in Saratoga. On April 6, 1988, I submitted the plans. One month later, when I checked on the progress, as the information issued to me by the staff on the planning process, showed that I should have heard in about two weeks, Ms Tsvia Adar, the planner assigned, told me that she had only been assigned the previous day and had not yet reviewed the plans, On May 13th, she informed me that the floor area was 200 sq ft greater than allowed by the ordinace and advised me that she would be unable to recommend approval unless the area was reduced to below 3540 sq ft. To that end I had Mr remove about 250 sq ft by going to a two car rather7thit q ` three car garage. I submitted a new set of plans that. Subsequent to that, Tsvia told me that certain inf was needed on the plot plan, although the informatioh��u�- J supporting documents. I had this added and resubmiftedi+hit' plan. She then advised that the height was greater thah 26 ft, as she measured it, and that she could not calculate the floor area as there were insufficient measurements on the plan in spite of the data which was furnished in the calculation of the gross floor area which showed all of the pertinent dimensions. Mr Pruit informed me that he had provided the same as he always did. Note that on May 25th, his design of the Garza property, including a variance, the eighth home which he has designed in Saratoga, was approved by the commission, so he is well versed on the Saratoga planning requirements. None the less, he added the dimensions and although he felt that Ms Adar was in error in the height measurement, he changed the height and made the Mpasprement from a level of 6 inches below the slab rather ^ ntothOWbo tom of the slab which he insisted was the `^ ~ as informed by the planner that the house would ' . h two feet because of the height being 26 ft. , Mr`erurVtQpQhjed out that this did not apply to that portion of the house as it was only single story at that point. After checking with a supervisor, Ms Adar agreed that she had been in error, but she then said that it would have to be moved back for the same reason. When I pointed out that the house was single story in that area, she said that there was a continuous roof line which counted. I pointed out that such was not the case, but that the was an intermediate roof line and she agreed that the placement was acceptable. � � ^ \ ` She then informed me that the fire chief had comments, which I resolved by agreeing to install a fire suppression system in addition to the early warning detection system' Finally on Tuesday, June 14th, Tsiva called me to say that the plans were acceptable, that she could make a positive �Tcommendatign2 that uthe rv��ia���ow�= qoti�equi�edhfgrsPbe oor area was placing my application on the July 13th Commission Agenda, if I would come in and pay the fees for parks and rec and storm sewer, which I did the following day' I also informed Mr Pruitt that we were on the agenda for the 13th of July and-would be receiving a positive staff recommendation. On Thursday afternoon, June 16th, Ms Adar called me to say. that on further review, the area in the entry, which had not changed from the first issue of plans, appeared to be greater than 15 ft and if so, had to be counted d ub that would put me over the limit. She said that sA � not ascertain the height of the entry hall as the ' a specific cross section in that area. Actually t were very easy to read and the entry is greater thah I� I explained that to her when I came in that aftern that time she said that the outside stairs going f ck� ` garage also had to be counted and the gross floor areANag, therefore in excess of the allowable 3540. She also said that I would have to present a new set of plans by the following Monday if I decided to still further reduce the floor area, or she would not be able to put me on the July 13th agenda. ' I do not know what she thinks it takes to remove an area of 150 sq ft from a home which is completely designed. It certainly is not a trivial matter. On` consulting with Mr Pruitt, we determined that it was not feasible to remove this area and that it was impossible to reduce the.height of the entry hall and still have a viable design. He advised that we proceed to the Commission Meeting and seek approval at that Level,_for Ms Adar said that she did not have the the plans as modified for the fourth -t-i(K6;-'-andU00WIY knot make a positive recommendation when a ` ved. bmitted with the appropriate findings for � overage which Ms. Adar ultimately calculated after earlier stating that all was in order and acceptable. The findings provide all the necessary information for approval and I will not repeat that here. There is little question that I have been diligent and responsive in trying to comply with the City Ordinance and, indeed, felt that I had'done just that until the 11th hour, when Ms. Adar suddenly came up with new requirements after stating that all was in order and that she would be making a positive ' --- ^ \ / ' recommendation. At this juncture, I have no recourse but to avail myself of the Commission's authority to grant a variance and request your approval of the plans as submitted. Your thoughtful consideration of my application is requested. - Very truly yours, Donald H Kp LUueger ' �. � . 6A 0. -D i< — 35 RECEIVED JUL - ijdd PLANNING DEPT IL J6 17 /AL ell- flll(.lr 64-L rf"k, d4 -TfO-Lk a '71 • ���� . -LC• t ct. C 5� �. � � / ! � 1 a�.. _c� �/ c � � C� c� t_r;: t ; % JC i � -• � s J L t D4 ��-D 6 RECEIVED .JUL, i 0 1990, July 11, 10,88 PLANNING DEPT, To the Of`:'ice of S ;-ara.to a:,'o Pla.nnin;g- Commission ,ie Pze ras-Pond.i.'ng .tc the i'Totice of Hearin,- received. in the DR-88-0359 V-88 -0io KRUEG ER, 2-3895 Can;; or. Vie-,,"; Drive .-nd his desig -r. revi e,,.i apnroval for va.ri?Vnce approval to construct the home on a 31% slope at the bui.ldinT Bite, where 30 is the maximum allc�ed. Also, for e. second variance to r.11o;: 317 square feet in e_.cess o,_ the 3,540 square feet allovia.ble floor area. .le ch�.11el3f7e this am,1li cation for a va,ri.ar..ce and are very tro.ns"l iii o Qosltic i sa.yi:'lr, "'-'O va'ri.ance". Our - first contact ;:ith ::r Ir.rue Ter is when lie called. requesting to tally to us personally in. our horse. I.Tr Xrue�_rer came to our hone r,i.th hi.s blueprints ?nd asked that ,,:;e !=PT EJ him 25 .feet of our land which nar.ro;.!s dowrn (pie shapes) down to only 41 feet at the base of our property. This would leave us ivith only 16 feet. In fact this ,.-)ould result i.n he having more of our property at the base of this la-r d, than a ;e would have. It is our understan.di.n.� that thi.s particular lot I.ir Krueger chooses to build on has ?, history of la,ndsli.des, is very steeb and also has drainage problems. Therefore, cutting into the slope in excess can only result into more serious landslides, causing the land to go fori -yard and also rotate back,,va,rd.s, ;.,rhi.ch , i.th no doubt, definitely cause unstablity of our entire hillside and esnecially our'11.11 site. -.`lhy are �,e concerned:? Briefly let us sh:,.re with you e...fely of our existed or existinF_ problems : e have living, on this lovely hill site. The nroperty adjacent to our ro:g.d. lea.dinp-- to our drive - �a.Y rats suf f ere:;. landslides and z: ash d.o .;ns to the point 1,-7here oe are losing the actual road, ,,Ihich is devasting and frightening. :11so, about three years a7o, our next door neighbor's deck had moved so badl.y and the land. shi.fted to the point ;,there heavy equipment ;as brought up to her property to correct the problem. C � Page 2. Then several .years aro r-�e had a, contractor who cane to our door requesting permission to use heavy enui- merit across the base of OUT lot, in order to c impli fy the construct on of a, drive =, yr for the hor:le he v!as :ouildin,�7 ,ior s- culation. Vie dial. not grant hi.r? per.li.ssion., �-,1e said "NO ", not wanting to disturb or chanve the natural qrade of our hill. As God is my judge, this contractor violated and. trespassed on our -nri.vate nrooerty wd.th heavy eauin- rlent, cuttij7,- into our land and c.reati.n a road.. unfortunately by the time we were a,::zare and had called the sheriff, the damage rias already dome. Sad to say, this contractor suffered a heart atta.c! and died 1,ai.thi.n a couple days of th -is i.r..cident and our land to this day is not the carne and takes on the apneara.nce of a road going throuf-h our pronerty. Sad but true these things have han-jened. `,Ihy do tree r_ ention these otter parcels of land? Primarily because their do effect the front and back of our property and Id0; this pending, variance is for a lot adjacent to our nronerty. Ne are deeply concerned about all evi.atin,; further and future landslides not onl,•;r for ourselves but our neighbors as well and ofcourse, avoidi.n,_7 unnecessary and costly problems. Cur anneal to you fine peonle is to please, please help' to preserve the hill sites without further daMaFe and destruction. Please do NOT grant this variance. Thaani: you For Your time and sincere concern. God. Bless! Sincere M� vVcrobe ;Y Ann `.Kroh JAMES E. REYNOLDS HENRY W ROUX HARRY I. PRICE DANIEL L. CASAS HON. DANIEL R. COWANS (RET ) September 6, 1988 REYNOLDS, ROUX & PRICE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 450 FIRST STREET LOS ALTOS. CALIFORNIA 94022 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 HAND DELIVERED DtLi"I'U Vic, TELEPHONE 4157 941 0455 Re: V -88 -010, 20881 Canyon View Drive (Donald Krueger)- - Appeal of Planning Commission's decision approving variance Dear Council: I represent Mr. Donald Krueger, the owner of 20881 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga, California, which is the subject of an appeal from the Planning Commission's decision approving a variance so that Mr. Krueger may construct his home on a 31.2% grade. The Planning Commission approved the variance on July 13, 1988, and that decision has been appealed by a disgruntled neighbor, Mr. Emil Kissel. I set forth the bare facts as they exist. By memorandum dated September 7, 1988, the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that a variance be upheld at the appeal hearing scheduled for September 7, 1988. Said memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit A and includes responses to all of Mr. Kissel's concerns set forth in his letter dated July 1, 1988 and appeal dated July 15, 1988. Furthermore, an independent geologic review and soil feasibility study was performed by Applied Soil Mechanics of San Jose, California. The report, dated August 30, 1988 and attached hereto as Exhibit B, concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed single - family home. On page 13 of the report, Applied Soil Mechanics states the following: 1. Site Suitability: The existing soil and geologic conditions are generally the same as reported by Bay Soils, Inc. in 1979 and by Budinger & Associates in 1986. Based on the findings of the literature research and geologic field investigation, it is concluded that the site is physically suitable from a geotechnical Saratoga City Council September 6, 1988 Page 2 standpoint for the development of the proposed single - family home and driveway. (emphasis added). Although Mr. Kissel contends that his primary concern is the danger of further landslides on the property, he does, in fact, have an alterior motive in his attempt to restrain Mr. Krueger from building: Mr. Kissel's existing sewer line traverses 20881 Canyon View Drive without proper grant of easement, consequently, if Mr. Krueger is allowed to build his home on the property, Mr. Kissel will have to spend money to relocate his sewer line. As concerns landslides, Applied Soil Mechanics specifically stated at page 13 of their report the following: 2. Landslides: The proposed parcel does not show evidence of active or recently active landsliding and is located on a moderately steep angled slope. Shallow creep in the southeastern edge of the site should be corrected during grading of the building pad and driveway. The Saratoga City geologist has concurred in the findings of the Applied Soil Mechanics' report. Finally, I respond to Mr. Kissel's letter dated August 14, 1988 and directed to City Attorney, D. T'oppel. Although the maximum slope for any buildable lot is 30 %, variances have been granted for grades exceeding Mr. Krueger's property. (See page 1 of Exhibit A). All experts agree that 20881 Canyon View Drive is a suitable site for the proposed single- family home and a variance is appropriate. Mr. Kissel has not presented a single shred of evidence to support his complaints, which unfortunately have cost Mr. Krueger substantial time and money. On behalf of Mr. Krueger, I ask the Council to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission granting variance. Sincerely, REYNOLDS, ROUX AND PRICE ?_0_, .mil DANIEL L. CASAS DLC:cla Enclosures cc: Mr. Donald Krueger Ipplicd Soil Mcchamcs INICOPPORATEO SMIL'AN-0 FOUNJOATION ENGINEERS • GEOLOGIS7S GEOLOGIC REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY SOIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Proposed Krueger Residence 20881 Canyon View Drive Saratoga, California AUGUST 1988 Applied Sail Mechanics, Inc. SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS • GEOLOGISTS 835 Blossom Hill Road, Suite 215 • San Jose, California 95123 (408) 365 -8100 • FAX (408) 365 -8362 File No. A8- 1986 -J1 Donald Krueger 1076 Royal Acres Drive San Jose, CA 95136 Subject: Proposed Krueger Residence 20881 Canyon View Drive Saratoga, California GEOLOGIC REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY SOIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Dear Mr. Krueger: August 30, 1988 In accordance with your request, we have completed a geologic review and preliminary soil feasibility study of the subject site. We are in the process of performing a full scale Soil Investigation which will be completed early next month (September, 1988). We have been provided a preliminary site plan entitled "Site Plan, Grading & Drainage, Lands of Krueger" prepared by Mason - Sulic, dated 1/22/88, to assist us in locating physical features and to serve as a base map for our geologic investigation. In addition to the site plan we have reviewed two soil and geologic investigation reports conducted on the subject property. These investigations are Soil and Geological Investigation report by Bay Soils, Inc., dated September 24, 1979, and a Soil Investigation report prepared by Budinger & Associates, dated April 4, 1986. Purpose and Scope of Investigation The purpose of this investigation is to determine the local and regional geologic conditions on and around the subject property, and to determine whether the existing soil and geologic conditions are the same as reported by Bay Soils, Inc. in 1979 and by Budinger & Associates in 1986. i. File No. A8- 1986 -J1 August 30, 1988 Procedures used in this study include the following: 1. Research, review, and evaluation of data from relevant geotechnical reports and maps; 2. Examination and interpretation of stereo aerial photographs of the area; 3. Geologic reconnaissance of the site and vicinity; 4. Excavation of test trenches and pits; . 5. Consultation with Mr. Ted Sayer of William Cotton and Associates, City of Saratoga Geologists; 6. Preparation of this preliminary report. The geologic and preliminary soil evaluation and conclusions in this report are based on data acquired during this study. Planned Development Current building plans call for the construction of a custom built single- family residential home at the approximate location shown on Site Plan,. Figure 1. The building will be a split level, one- and two -story structure of wood - frame construction, with wood floors in the living areas and a concrete slab- on -grade floor in the garage. Several retaining walls supporting up to 8 feet of soil are planned as part of the construction project. Up to 9 feet of soil will be excavated in the building area. Some grading'is anticipated for the driveway area. Conventional sewer service will be utilized for the residence, Therefore, a septic leachfield system will not be constructed. 2 Applied. Still, Me�a�ics File No. A8- 1986 -J1 August 30, 1988 ,t' a• �s C e�ayeVA'C / (� e D Z O z 0 N G d :Gat age o < w4 — M Approximate C location of T -2 < proposed re- taining wall ; (typical) ? OS ::. T Pa° 51 . Cil T-3 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH(typical) e b � I Si SCALE IN FEET 0 25 50 75 LOCALITY MAP Figure 1 - Site Plan and Locality Map, 201;81 Canyon View Drive., Sarato a C 1' Irmo fillichanics 6 File No. A8- 1986 -J1 August 30, 1988 Location and Description of the Site The rectangular shaped site is located on the east foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountain Range in Saratoga, California. Access to the site is from the southeast off Canyon View Drive (refer to Site Plan, and Geologic Map, Figure 1). Topographically, the subject site is characterized by moderately steep (20 to 23 degree inclination) east - facing hillside topography. Previous grading associated with the construction of Canyon View Drive and a private' driveway, has resulted in a steep (28 degree inclination) cut slope along the eastern property line. Drainage is characterized by uncontrolled sheet flow to the southeast. The site currently supports grass, weeds and a few small trees. Geologic Setting The site is located on the east foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountain Range in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of central California. Today's mountain range topography is largely the result of increased tectonic activity during the Quaternary which culminated in the middle ( ?) Pleistocene Coast Range orogony (Page, 1966). Four major rock units in this area may be grouped together based on their age, lithologic characteristics and severity of structural disturbance. These units are: 1) the basement rocks of the Mesozoic "Franciscan Complex "; 2) early Tertiary marine sedimentary rocks; 3) late Tertiary marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks; and 4) Pleistocene and recent terrestrial sedimentary rocks and alluvium (Atchley and Dobbs, 1960). Our literature review of available maps indicates that the, subject site is underlain by Plio- Pleistocene, terrestrial sedimentary deposits of the Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) (Rogers and Williams, 1974; Sorg and McLaughlin, 1975). 4 Applied Sod NaNcs I'll III-- File No. A8- 1986 -J1 August 30, 1988 Sorg and McLaughlin have mapped the general attitude of the Santa Clara Formation here as striking 2 degrees west with a 65 degree dip to the east. Please refer to the Local and Regional Geologic Map, Figure 2. The San Andreas Fault, which has been mapped by several authors approximately 2.2 miles west of the site, is known to be historically active. Other histor- ically active faults in the San Francisco Bay Area are the Hayward and Cal.averas Faults located approximately 16.2 and 18.5 miles, respectively, northeast of the site. The Berrocal fault has been mapped approximately 0.9 i miles west of the site. The Berrocal Fault belongs to a belt of thrust ` faults, oblique slip faults, and high angle reverse faults collectively known as the Sargent - Berrocal Fault system. This fault system has exhibited very little current or historic earthquake activity. However, the recent geologic record strongly suggests that this system should be judged at least poten- tially active and capable of generating an earthquake of significant magnitude (William Cotton and Assoc., 1980). INo major landslides have been mapped on the property (Sorg and McLaughlin, 1975'). However, during their investigation of the site, Bay Soils, Inc. (1979) found evidence of "soil creep and very shallow slumps along the south- ' eastern boundary slope adjacent to Canyon View Drive ". Bay Soils character - ized the soil creep to seasonal "cyclic heave and shrink with a downhill component ". The shallow slumping (2 2.5 feet thick) was attributed to over - steepening of the slope during the construction of Canyon View Drive.. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (1966) has mapped the Azule soil series on the site. The Azule silty clay loam series (AvE2) is found on 15 to 30 percent slopes, has an SC engineering classification and is described as 5 Applied Soil MeChaRICS .3 L File No. A8- 1986 -J1 August 30, 1988 . having good natural drainage, slow permeability, medium runoff and moderate erosion potential. In summary, our review of available reports showed that the site is underlain by terrestrial sediments of the Santa Clara Formation. No active faults have been mapped on or in the near vicinity of the site and it is not located within an established Special Studies Zone as determined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (1974). There were also no reported evidence of major active landsliding on the site. However, shallow slumping was observed -by Bay Soils in the southeast edge of the site. Aerial Photograph Interpretation We studied aerial photographic pairs taken of the subject property in 1974 and 1982. The following aerial photographs of the site and vicinity were used in this investigation: Date Scale Type Source April 1974 1:12,000 conventional black Pacific Aerial Surveys and white April 1982 . 1 :12,000 conventional black Pacific Aerial Surveys and white These photographs were studied for the presence of geomorphic features charac- teristic of active and inactive landslide processes, fault zones, and evidence of other seismic and geologic features. A lineament is seen on a stereo aerial photo pair as a feature having tonal differences on either side. These differences may be due to changes in soil or rock type, vegetation, groundwater levels or sedimentary bedding characteris- tics. Lineaments are sometime associated with topographic: features character - 7 1011ad SO Mechants File No. A8- 1986 -J1 August 30, 1988 istic of fault zones, such as linear and shutter ridges, sag ponds, spring zones and offset drainages. No such features were observed on or in the near vicinity of the site. The aerial photographs were also examined for the presence of terrain features characteristic of ancient and active landslides. The features seen on the air photos that generally characterize landslides are semi - circular scarp areas, closed depressions, disrupted vegetation, hummocky terrain, spring zones, etc. None of the indicators listed above are evident on the subject site. Several uneven surface features were observed in the 1982 . photos. We attribute these features to the backfilling of exploratory pits associated with the previous ' soil and geologic investigations. An examination of the aerial photographs taken before and after the 1981 -82 rainfall season indicates that the surface rconditions at the subject site were relatively unaffected by the heavy precip- itation encountered during that year. M • Geologic Reconnaissance A reconnaissance of the site and vicinity were performed by the project geolo- gist on August 8, 1988. The site and surrounding areas were examined for evidence of active faulting, active and /or ancient landsliding and for outcrops of the various geologic units. There is a soil veneer of varying thickness overlying the materials of the Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) over most of the site. Outcrops of the Santa Clara Formation bedrock on the site are, therefore, seldom seen. The rock types underlying the site are partially consolidated conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and mudstone. Facies changes and relic channeling within the Santa 1 8 WIIP.(I Snit III pltlgics File No. A8- 1986 -J1 August 30, 1988 r Clara Formation typically make it difficult to trace a single lithologic unit for a significant lateral distance. SNo active landsliding was observed on the site. However, several uneven surface features were observed on portions of the site. We attribute these features to the backfilling of exploratory pits associated with previous soil `" and geologic investigations. J Subsurface Conditions On August 9, 1988, three (3) trenches were excavated to obtain subsurface profiles and soil data for the project. Based upon our examination of the ' material encountered in the exploratory trenches, the subsurface material on the site generally consists of deeply weathered, semi - consolidated and ' cemented beds of conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and claystone of the Santa Clara Formation. Bedding attitudes of the units encountered in the exploratory pits strike N15W to N30E with dips of 20 to 25 degrees to the east. No evidence of landsliding or groundwater were encountered in the exploratory pits. Several vertical cracks were observed in T -2 to a depth of approximately 2.0 feet below the existing surface. These cracks may be desic- cation cracks or tension cracks from shallow creep in the upper soil horizon. The approximate locations of exploratory pits are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. Detailed descriptions of the materials encountered in each of the exploratory pits are presented on the trench logs in Appendix A. The trench logs and related information depict the subsurface conditions only at the locations indicated and on the particular date designated on the logs. 9 Applied Soll McChaDICS R File No. A8- 1986 -J1 August 30, 1988 Assessment of Geologic Hazards The subject site is not situated across or closely adjacent to any known active or potentially active fault, nor is it located within any of the Special Studies Zones as determined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Reference: Special Studies Zones Maps, Cupertino Quadrangle, 1974). Three fault systems, which are either known to be active or which show charac- teristics suggestive of recent activity could affect the subject site: the San Andreas, Hayward and Calaveras fault systems (see Figure 3). Damaging earth- quake events have been associated with each of these faults. The distances from these major active faults to the site are: C'. I. San Andreas Hayward Calaveras Approx. Dist. & Direction from site to fault 2.2 miles, SW 16.2'miles, E 18.5 miles, E Each of these fault systems are, therefore, capable of generating an earth- quake that could cause damage in the vicinity of the subject site. A review of available literature and geologic maps (Rogers and Williams, 1974; Sorg and McLaughlin, 1975) and our geologic investigation indicate that the site is underlain by Santa Clara Formation sediments. Our engineering geologist visited the site on July 25 and August 8, 1988 to observe any geomorphic features that may indicate the presence of active or recently active landsliding. No geomorphic features indicating active lands- _liding were observed. 1 r) Applied Soil Mechanics • - � �-^ 5. ��--:= w=- �* evtivfaC�: ��= i�': �%];' �: �=' i�rr_:r- :..:q�a�cwK::.;,k�x.r -.... ...�.:, - �s;��c^, �- :.. .:i_.. ... ,.r File No. A8- 1986 -J1 SAN, �� 50LA N0 ANDREt AS FAULTS r PRESUMED cptcv LR Or- !� ARIL 16, 1906 CARTNQUAKE I\ ►RESUMED EPICENTER OF '• JUNE 10, 1636 EARTHQUAMO= MAG. 7.0+0. SAN FRANCISCQ MLIMED EPICENTER OF 0 - 'AIL 18, 1906 EARTHQUAKE .G. 8.3(Real, at al, 1978)Eb CO t � 1 0 - PRESUMED EPICENTER Or JUNE 1636 EARrMQUAKE O MG. 7.0•0.S _ ► PRESUMED EPICENTER Or OCS. 21, 1668 CARTMQUAKE • HAG. 7.0+0.5 ►RESUMEO EPICENTER Or OCr. 6, 1665 EARTHQUAKE MAG. 6.5+0.5 PRESUMED EPICENTER OF Augyst 30, 1988 P \ P 2 BRA COSTA I SAN J OAOUIN \ /' po HAYWARD FAULT f 210 0 0 A O\bi E D A • 0 I 0 /�� 5 T A N I S L A U S %%a 0 ♦ 0 ` 1 •ANT A C °ARA / SQHT (. ° CALAVERAS FAULT M E R C E D O 9C O SARGENT— FAULT -- -- JULY 1, 1911 EAMNQU&KE" * , OO' I� O �� • .1 ll •. Magnitudo 7.0 - 7.9 A Magnitude 8.0 (6.2) I O � O � / 0 Or PRESUMED cPICL►fTER 2 OCT. 22, 1926 EARTNQUAlE p O 0 0 o 0 O O O �_ ` ° 0 •' $� B E N I T O �, 2110 ° 0 / O N' —� o8 Q o o o • . ' 0 EXPLANATION C Magnitude 4.0 - 4.9 O Magnituda 5.0 - 5.9 • Magnitude 6.0 - 6.9 a Magnitudo 7.0 - 7.9 A Magnitude 8.0 (6.2) Magnitude of selected earthquakes riqurss beside the locations indicate the nunber of earthquakes at tho saar- place, all equal to or smaller than the one plotted. °• 0 0 0 \d ` •SAN A�O REAS FAULT "J ° M O N T E r3Y ° 'r p. `. J O 1l 0 `\ .O 0 9 16 SCALE IN MILES REGIONAL FAULT AND SELECTED EPICENTER LOCATIONS (C.D.M.G., 1972) O O e o1 °o Figure 3 .-Active and potentially active faults near the study area. Selected earthquakes, magnitude greater than 6.0, that occurred prior to 1934 have been included with notations, earthquakes less than magnitude 4.0 are omitted. Data slightly modified, mainly from California Division of Mines and Geology Seismic Safety Information (1972): Provisional fault map of California; and Preliminary earthquake epicenter map of California, 1934 -1971 (June 30). Innlipd Snil IUorhanire " File No. A8- 1986 -J1 August 30, 1988 A review of the Relative Seismic Stability Map, Santa Clara County, California (Rogers and Williams, 1974) designates the subject site as "DS ", which is defined as an area of "major geotechnical hazards" that has a "high potential for earthquake induced landslides" and the groundwater is 10 to 20 feet below the ground surface. From our subsurface investigation and a review of the available literature, we believe the site is located on relatively stable ground that consists of very stiff silty and sandy clays with very dense lenses of semi - consolidated conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and claystone. The shallow creep observed in our exploratory pit T -2 and by Bay Soils in their TP -5 will be stabilized during the construction of the retaining wall for the driveway. No ground- water was encountered in our exploratory pits. 12 Innlind OnD llnnbenien File No. A8- 1986 -J1 CONCLUSIONS August 30, 1988 The following conclusions are drawn from the data acquired and evaluated during the investigation for the proposed residential structure and related facilities. 1. Site Suitability: The existing soil and geologic conditions are gener- ally the same as reported by Bay Soils, Inc. in 1979 and by Budinger & Associ- ates in 1986. Based on the findings of the literature research and geologic field investigation, it is concluded that the site is physically suitable from a geotechnical standpoint for the development of the proposed single - family home and driveway. 2. Landslides: The proposed parcel does not show evidence of active or recently active landsliding and is located on a moderately steep angled slope. Shallow creep in the southeastern edge of the site should be corrected during grading of the building pad and driveway. 3. Faulting: During our investigation we did not find evidence to support the placement of any active or potentially active fault on the site. Since ground rupture due to faulting tends to occur along areas of previous faulting, the potential hazard from fault rupture is considered low for this site. 4. Ground Shaki Francisco Bay Area during the life of area and therefore firm nature of the ground failures by ig: The site is located within the seismically active San and moderate to severe ground shaking can be expected the project. Bedrock is shallow at the proposed building the site should have a low characteristic site period. The bedrock indicates that the hazards from seismically- induced liquefaction, lurch cracking, lateral spreading, and local 13 WON SOH, *S ■ 1 s File No. A8- 1986 -J1 August 30, 1988 subsidence should be considered low at the site. The potential for seismi- cally induced landsliding is also considered to be low to moderate. 5. Erosion: Moderate to severe erosion features have developed in areas where the removal of vegetation and soil has exposed the Santa Clara Formation materials on relatively steep slopes. Surface drainage and slope protection should be incorporated into the design of the project to reduce or eliminate the potential for erosion. 6. Final Soil Investigation (In Progress): We will issue a complete soil investigation report on the subject site within the next few weeks. In that report we will provide design criteria and recommendations for site grading, foundations and retaining walls. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, or require any further information, please contact our office. Sincerely, APPLIED SOIL MECHANICS, INC. Written by: Reviewed /by: �_ —.'L� *its. -C ��/�ull � C✓� G— r— �.l.xl Thomas A. Sparrowe Ben A. Patterson Project Geologist Engineering Geologist #594 Copies: 4 to addressee Flied Soil Mechanics _ - ri�..`? h' SSd; �; a: �fi= ?I:s1- V'�'.`�,::�3�� >7e ;''.c: �'� "�.. _n.- �_`'ci.:: ?-- .. {:,�.•..:.., y.�_r :r,.Y,; ,y'.i M& V File No. A8- 1986 -J1 nrrrnrurrr August 30, 1988 Atchley, F. W., Dobbs, R. 0., 1960, Geological Investigation of the Stanford Two -mile Linear Accelerator Site: U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, M. L. Report No. 682, p. 2 -5. Bay Soils, Inc., 1979, Soil & Geologic Investigation on Proposed Residence, Saratoga, California, for Leroy Gutierrez: unpublished report. Budinger & Associates, 1986, Residential Lot, Canyon View Drive, Saratoga, California: unpublished report. Cotton, William and Associates, 1980, Geologic Hazards Analysis of the Calabazas Creek Watershed, Saratoga, California: City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County California. Page, B. M., 1966, Geology of the Coast Ranges of California; in Geology of Northern California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bull. 190, pp.255 -276. Rogers, T. H., and Williams, J. W., 1974, Potential Seismic Hazards in Santa Clara County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 107, 1:62,500 feet scale. Sorg, Dennis H., and Robert J. McLaughlin, 1975, Geologic Map of the Sargent - Berrocal Fault Zone Belt Between Los Gatos and Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, California: U. S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF -643, 1:24,000 scale. State of California Special Studies Zone Map,1974, Cupertino Quadrangle 7 -1/2 minute Quadrangle: California Division of Mines and Geology, 1:24,000 scale. Innhod Qnil U&hgnire File No. A8- 1986 -J1 August 30, 1988 STEREO AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY Pacific Aerial Survey, 1974, black and white photos, AV1138- 05 -21, 23 and 23, April 28, 1971 approximate scale 1:12,000. Pacific Aerial Survey, 1982, black and white photos, AV2135- 05 -21, 23 and 23, April 28, 1982, approximate scale 1:12,000. a r of 16 Aohed Soil 1MOOMS File No. A8- 1986 -J1 -August 30, 1988 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate substantially from those disclosed in the borings. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that planned at the present time, Applied Soil Mechanics, Inc. should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibil- ity of the owner or of his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations presented herein are called to the attention of the architect and engineers for the project and incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out-such recommendations in the field. 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. Changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, however; whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man, on this or adja- cent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of three (3) years without being reviewed by a soil engineer. 4. This report was prepared upon your request for our. services, and in accordance with currently accepted standards of professional soil engineering practice. No warranty as to the contents of this report is intended, and none shall be inferred from the statements or opinions expressed. APPENDIX A Logs of Trenches. Ie....r...a n..0 ee....�,.,..�... File No. A8- 1986 -J1 TRENCHING PROGRAM August 30, 1988 The approximate locations of the test pits and trenches are illustrated in Figure 1, Site Plan. The trenching was accomplished on August 2 and 3, 1988, under the supervision of the Project Geologist, Mr. Tom Sparrowe. A total of three (3) test pits were excavated within the subject site. The excavation of the test pits and trenches ranged from 15 to 20 feet in length and depths ranged from 6.5 to 9.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The test pits were_ excavated with a track mounted backhoe and utilized a thirty -inch wide bucket. As the excavations were advanced the walls were cleaned with a hand trowel to expose the undisturbed soil and bedrock mass. The walls of the pits were examined for soil and bedrock profiles and charac- teristics, bedding attitudes and to characterize selected landslide features throughout the site. The Logs of the Test Pits, showing the vertical distribution of the soil and bedrock units are presented in Figures Al and A2. �PY''' vx.: Z."y. ._�."YR�°.'ii��::'!;7°�...`�:rt 'S Sts.or, t r.Y �GY� +•�L" -y-rN �_ -+s'= .sC�.,, m.:.�:, -.,a - � - �. i}.Y. 'd'1. S. '_ .. w� . c''.� -3L�= - �°i•..a�: .�.4 .. - t�+.:`la :.ta+�.iti ' �^:- M'.' y- y:. wo...... a'�.'°.��tiJ ?e��i�.iCur�.,`�":: File Flo. A8- 1986 -J1 August 30, 1988 M 0 10 - T -1 N47W (east wall) 1 2 3, Q o 5.- . ' N15W /25E 4 sandier 15- 20 15 10 5 oxidized zone (Fe02 /Mn02) I Gradational contact (approximately 411) Gradational contact (approximately 2 ") 1 - Sharp contact SOIL: 1 - Brown sandy SILTY CLAY (CL) subrounded peds, stiff, dry at surface very slightly moist at 1' depth. 2 - Reddish brown SILTY CLAY (CL /CH) with fine sand and trace gravel, prismatic peds to 111, very stiff, very slightly moist. 3 - Yellowish brown CLAYEY SAND (SC) with gravel, dense, slightly moist, lowest 2" of unit reddish brown, oxidized, weathered sandstone. SANTA CLARA FM: 4 - Pale Olive CLAYSTONE poorly consolidated, moderately fractured, plastic, very stiff, blocky. texture, with occasional gravels. 5 - Olive- grey CONGLOMERATE, semi - consolidated, poorly sorted, dense, slightly moist, sandier near base. Fi File No. t18- 1986 -J1 M M N30E /25SE 10 - T -2 — N 50W (east wall) dessication /tension rrnrrrc sand lenses within conglomerate 10 5 0 August 30, 1988 SU1L: - Brown sandy SILTY CLAY (CL) subruunded peas, stiff, dry. SANTA CLARA FM: 2 - Pale olive LLAYSTUNE, poorly consolidated, moderately fractured, plastic. S - olive grey to yellowish brown CUNGLL -ME RATE, poorly consolidted, poorly sorted, with uccasional sand lens, very dense, slightly moist. 4 - Pale ulive CLAYSTUNE, poorly consclidated, plastic, very stiff, very slightly moist. T -3 N 38W (east wall) LC' N30E /20 0 5 10 M -5 -icgure A2 - Loy of Exploratory Pits T -2 and T -3 ,4 Applied Soil Mechanics SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. � -� � � AGENDA ITEM U , I MEETING DATE: 9/7/88 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: V -88 -005, 12502 Parker Ranch Ct., Appeal to the Planning Commission decision denying a variance application to exceed the allowable floor area. (5,225 sq. ft. in lieu of 4,440 sq. ft. maximum allowed). Recommended Motion: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. Report Summary: On July 27, 1988 the Planning Commission denied a variance application from Ordinance 15- 45.030, to allow a 5,225 sq. ft. home where 4,440 sq. ft. is the maximum floor area allowed on the lot. The lot is located in the NHR zoning district. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission decision. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Memo from the Planning Department 9/7/88 2. Appeal letter dated 8/8/88 3. Planning Commission minutes, 6/8/88 and 7/27/88 4. Report to the Planning Commission, 7/27/88 5. Plans Motion and Vote: -7/1 : &,� 6W2�� @C1 O&MZ190)(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Planning Dept. DATE: 8/7/88 SUBJECT: V -88 -005, 12502 Parker Ranch Court, Appeal of the Planning Commission - decision denying a variance application to exceed the allowable floor area for the lot. Background On 6/8/88 and 7/27/88, the Planning Commission considered design review (DR -88 -012) and two variances applications (V -88 -005) from slope and floor area in the NHR zoning district. The Planning .Commission approved the variance to construct a home on a 35% slope at the building site where 30% is the maximum allowed, but denied the design review and variance application to allow a 5,225 sq. ft. home where 4,440 sq. ft. is the maximum floor area allowed. The Planning Commission felt that the size and bulk of the home were incompatible with the environment and the visible location of the home. Upon the applicant's request, the project was continued to the 7/27/88 Planning Commission meeting, to allow the applicant the time to revise the plans. The height and the setback of the home were modified to comply with the code requirements; however, the revised home still exceeded the allowable floor area for the lot. The Planning Commission could not make the variance findings, and concurred with the staff recommendation to deny the application. Analysis of the Appeal The applicants' ground for appeal, as stated in their letter, is the unusual site conditions of the large open space adjacent to their property. The subject lot is not exceptional with regard to its physical conditions and situation. Other homes along Star Ridge Court, which abut the Saratoga Country Club site, were recently approved with floor areas that complied with the allowable floor area for each of the lots (12637 and 126.9.3 Star Ridge Court). No exceptional conditions exist on the lot and the 4,440 sq. ft. is a reasonable size for a home in the NHR zoning district. Granting a variance from floor area will constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on all the new homes submitted after 11/9/87 which are subject to the same floor area standards. Memorandem to City Council V -88 -005, 12502 Parker Ranch Ct. Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision fo the Planning Commission. b:pkrrnch PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8. 1988 Page 7 17. DR -88 -012 Sun, 12502 Parker Ranch Ct., request for design review and variance V -88 -0051 approval to allow the construction of a new 5.521 sq. ft. two -story single family home. 29.5 ft. in height with 20 ft. west side setback, where only 4,440 sq. ft. floor area and 26 ft. height are allowed and 26 ft. side setback is required. A Variance is also requested to allow the, construction of the home on 35% slope at the building site in lieu of 30% allowed by the City Code. The home is located in the NHR zoning district. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, June 8. 1988._ Mr. Kurt Anderson. Representing the Applicant, commented as follows: Noted the unusual shape•of the lot and steepness of the slope Site abutted open space; questioned whether such allowed some consideration Cited the two lots in the subdivision which abutted the open space area Reviewed dimensions and constraints of the lot Asked that further consideration be given to this Application in a Study Session Planner Caldwell noted that if the project could be revised in accordance with applicable Ordinances, plans could be resubmitted and a public hearing scheduled; a Study Session to accommodate Code requirements was unnecessary. Staff had already advised the Applicant and Representative of this recommendation. Mr. Anderson reiterated his request for a Study Session. Commissioner Siegfried •advised that it would be highly unusual for him to approve a Variance for this lot and the size of house requested; Commissioner Harris concurred. Commissioner Kolstad commented as follows: • Concern about bulk and vertical lines which appeared to be a three story structure • Asked that the house be set down, citing the visibility of this house Requested additional information on the 20 ft. setback Com, missioner Burger was concerned about square footage and visibility of the rear elevation. Commissioner Tucker concurred and, added concern about the west elevation and the bulk. Chairwoman Guch cited the visibility of the site and the lightness of the cream color requested. The'Public Hearing retrained open. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR- 88.012, V- 88.005 TO JULY 13, 1988. Passed 6 -0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 27, 1988 Page 6 15. DR -88 -012 Sun, 12502 Parker Ranch Ct., request for design review and variance V -88 -005 approval to allow the construction of a new 5,225 sq. ft. two-story single family home, where only 4,440 sq. ft. floor area is allowed. A variance is also requested to allow the construction of the home on 35% slope at the building site in lieu of 30% allowed by the City Code. The home is located in the NHR zoning district. Continued from July 13, 1988. -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- mm ------ Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, July 27, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:05 P.M. Mr. Kurt Anderson, Architect, presented pictures of the site and adjacent area and commented: - Noted the difficulty of the site due to triangular shape and topography of the lot, the open space easement and the agricultural area - Reviewed modifications made to the proposal - Premise that the siting of the house and the original layout of the Parker Ranch project conformed with the intent of the new Design Review Ordinance although the lot lines would not be drawn as they were originally drawn - If lot lines were redrawn, the same area would be available even though the lot configur- ation would be somewhat different and the Applicant could build the size of house requested Mr. Sun, Applicant, asked that this Application be approved BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 10 :19 P.M. Passed 6 -0. KOLSTAD/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE V -88 -005 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6 -0. KOLSTAD /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO DENY DR -88 -012. Passed 6-0. I Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: i APPEAL APPLICATION Date Rec ' di "fie d Hearing Date: Fee CITY 'USE 13 7 3z 7 7uA,(A GT, S,HTo�� 77 6 iasoa �.KF.Q ?-A Ai c u c-T a C' 77 6.1 0 Decis ion Being Appealed: peKI j 0",./ r Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): tv� Af/ -C -57er J* ,� erXT otAC ° F °? z-7✓ s'� c -C— . *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If You-wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. TILTS APP!,TCATTON MUST BTi SUBmI r-D 1VTTI-ITN 1'I�E 0,1'fl: pf. III 1L pL� SIn;;. TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS Or REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Tsvia Adar DATE: 7/27/88 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -88 -012, V -88 -005, 12502 Parker Ranch Ct. APPLICANT /OWNER: Kai and Linda Sun APN: 366 -49 -11 Q N File No. Dy"g$ crtZ; � PLANNER'S WORKSHEET r' V Trails and pathways map checked Vicinity /locator map included Dimensions shown on plot plan Adjacent structures Directional arrow ✓ Trees labelled ✓ Plans reflect field conditions , ✓ Heights shown on cross sections Consistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans ✓ Natural and finished grade on cross sections _Height of underfloor & attic areas included in floor area calculations ✓ Roof pitch shown All sheets included in submittal with required reductions ✓ Colors submitted Staff Reports ✓ Conditions from other agencies /department correct ✓ Consistent figures throughout report History files examined Correct-address & application number on all pages of the report ✓ Description consistent with advertisement Plans labelled Order of attachment consistent with list ✓ All attachments included ✓ Typographical errors corrected ✓ Dates on the resolutions correct Applicant notified of recommendation �' =.czr.�. r.- tlfied that staff report available Fri. 3 -4:00 p.m. r' File No. DR -88 -012, V -88 -005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 2/16/88 Application complete: 4/27/88 Notice published: 5/25/88 Mailing completed: 5/26/88 Posting completed: 5/19/88 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests approval of the following: 1. Design review of a new two story single family dwelling. 2. Variance from ordinance 15- 45.030 to allow 5,225 sq. ft. home where only 4,440 sq. ft. is allowed on the lot. 3. Variance from ordinance 15- 14.050(e)(1) to allow construction of the home on a 35% slope under the building site, where 30% is the maximum allowed. The application was continued from the 6/8/88 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant the time to address the Planning Commission concerns with regard to the height, size and setbacks. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The project does not comply with the City Code requirement. Although the applicant revised the plan to meet the height and setback restrictions, the floor area still exceeds the 4,440 sq. ft. allowable floor area on the lot. Staff is unable to make the required findings to approve the variance for floor area and cannot consider the design review application. However, the topography of the lot, with a very steep slope (40% average) and the existing wide scenic easement, will Beverly restrict the development on the lot. Staff is able to make the variance findings to allow the construction of the home on a 35% slope. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Deny the variance application for floor area. 2. Denial of the Design Review application without prejudice. 3. Approval of the variance application to allow the construction of the home on 35% slope by adopting V -88 -005. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution V -88 -005 3. Planning Commission 4. Plans, Exhibit A minutes dated 6/8/88. 1 DR -88 -012, V -88 -005; 12502 Parker Ranch Ct. STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: NHR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC - Residential Hillside Conservation AVERAGE SLOPE: 40% (Building Site 35 %,) PARCEL SIZE: 1.108 acre (48,264 sq. ft.) GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 1,200 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 9 Ft. Fill: -0- Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: -0- Ft. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior: stucco, "Velvet Beige" #1 -17 -1. Trim: teal, "Bright Wing" #S -10.3 Roof: "Red Rover" #C -53 -5. PROPOSAL LOT COVERAGE: 16.8% (8,108 sq.. ft.) HEIGHT• 26 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Under Floor Areas: 226 sq. ft. Upper Floor: 2,096 sq. ft. Main Floor: 2,903 sq. ft. TOTAL: 5,225 sq. ft. CODE REQMT /ALLOWANCE 25% (12,066 sq. ft.) 26 ft. 4,440 sq. ft. SETBACKS: Front: 30 ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 400 ft. Rear: -60 ft. Right Side: 27 ft. Right Side: 24 ft. Left Side: 28 ft. Left Side: 22 ft. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The home is located at the intersection of Parker Ranch Ct. and Continental Circle on a very steep, 40% average, east facing slope. The lot has a triangle -like shape, and about two thirds of its area is within a recorded scenic easement. Dense trees exist in the scenic easement area, while the rest of the lot is covered mainly by grasses and low shrubs. The lots to the front and right sides are vacant. A one story SFD exists to the the left. To the rear, the lot abuts an agriculture area, about 30 acres in size. 2 V -88 -005, DR -88 -012, 12502 Parker Ranch Court The application was continued from the 6/8/88 Planning Commission meeting. The plans were revised to meet the height and setback restrictions; however the proposed floor area, of 5,225 sq. ft. still exceeds the 4,440 sq. ft. allowable floor area on the lot by 785 sq. feet. The wide open areas at the rear of the site, including the open space easement and the agriculture area, in addition to the steep slope, will expose the home to view from the lower areas of the City. At such a location the integration of the home with the natural environment is-critical, and an oversized home will have a significant visual impact on the surrounding area. The proposed home is elevated above the natural grade and creates livable underfloor areas of 226 sq. ft. Reduction in the height of these areas will reduce the size and the bulk of the home. Variance from Floor area Granting the requested variance to floor area defeats the purpose of the newly adopted design review ordinance. The ordinance intention is to reduce the bulk of the homes by adjusting the size of the structure to the size and slope of the lot's. Staff is unable to make the following variance findings: A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance. The applicant can develop the lot and construct a home within the Code's floor area restriction of 4,440 sq. ft. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances do not exists that are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone district. The topography of the lot is very steep and about two thirds of the site area is within an open space easement; however these exceptional conditions have no effect on the size of the home. The code requirements can be met. The allowable floor area is reasonable for the lot conditions and for the zoning district. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation of the Zoning Ordinance would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. The code restriction on the size still allows the applicant to construct a home of reasonable size (4,440 sq. ft.). Granting the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district. All new homes submitted after 11/9/87 in the NHR zone are subject to the same zoning regulations and standards. 3 V -88 -005, DR -88 -012, 12502 Parker Ranch Court Design Review Staff is concerned with the size and bulk of the home which does not integrate well with the natural surrounding and appears massive on a prominent location. Since the variance findings for the floor area cannot be made, the request for design review approval may not be considered. Variance for Slope The steep lot, with an average of 40% slope and 35% at the building site, and the wide scenic easement which encompasses about two thirds of the lot area, limit the location of the home. No other practical location of the home on the lot can comply with the Code's requirement of 30% maximum slope, under the building site. All the required findings for the variance to slope can be made. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Staff recommends denial the of variance application from floor area since the required findings cannot be made; and 2. denial of design review application since the home does not meet the code requirements; and 3. approval of a variance to allow the construction of the home on 35% slope since all the findings can be made. 0 t Variance File No. V -88 -OC RESOLUTION NO. V-88 -005 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CONa1ISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance Approval to allow the construction of a home on building site with a slope of 35%. where 30% is the maximum allowed at 12502 Parker WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support his said application, and the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would practical literal difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship result in jectives of the Ordinance i inconsistent with the obandhdenial of slopes (40% average) the lot is characterized by steep variance would not allow the development of the applicant's lot. Exceptional or extraordinary involved circumstances applicable to the property generally to other properties in the property which do not apply g y y steep, same zoning district. The subject lot is characterized by very wide topography, the location of the structure i limited by s (about 315 ft.) open space easement and no other practical, building site exists on the lot with an average slope of 30% or less. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the .specified f regulation o construct of Zoning a ordinance theusubjectllot. app privilege t Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant ro especialin privilege inconsistent with the limitivennsthe other ste's topographic the same zoning district in that g� constraints, any building site will exceed the maximum d b esloplanning by City ordinance. Variances were granted on other_a is in12468 subdivision n with imilar conditions (12553 Parker Ranch R Granting the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions relating to construction will be followed tol min iize potential risks of landslides and earthquakes, health., or will not pose an unnecessary threat to public safety, welfare. V -88 -005; 12502 Parker Ranch Ct. N NOW, THEREFORE,• the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoc does hereby resolve as follows: tan, Section 1. After plansulandns ther exhibits tle submitted in architectural drawings, P connection with this matter, the application of Sun for variance ;approval be and the same is hereby granted subject the following condition: roval by the Planning Commission, of the 1, Design review aPP structure on the site. structure is required for any Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement on tsaid conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution shall be void. All a livable requirements of the State, County, Section 3. PP City and other. Governmental entities must be met. of this Section 4. The applicant shall affix a copy resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted r applying for a building permit. to the. Building Division when app Y 4 Baled pursuant to the requirements of Section 5. Unless app this resolution shall Article 15 -90 of the Sargfromtthe date of adoption. become effective ten (10) ays PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, 27th day of Jam, 1988, by the State of California, this following vote: AYES: Guch, Harris, Siegfried, Tucker, Kolstad, Burger NOES: None ABSENT: Tappan d,✓ Chairman, Planning mmission AT ST: J P�z Greta , Planning Commission I SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL p, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. %� / AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: 9_7_88 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: APPROVE FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR SD 86 -010, Sobey Road, Marko Trapani (2 lots) Recommended Motion: Approve Resolution SD 86- 010 -02 attached. Approving.Final Parcel Map. Report Su►nmary : 1. SD 86 -010 is ready.for Final Parcel Map Approval. 2. All requirements for City and other departments have been completed. 3. All fees have been paid. P0isCal 1111pacts: Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 86- -010 -02. 2. Resolution Approving Tentative Map. .3. Locat'ion Map. Motion and, Vote: r� RESOLUTION NO. SD 86- 010 -02 ' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Marko Trapani The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 1.56 Acres and 1.14 Acres Parcels shown as Parcel A and B on the Final Parcel Map prepared by Nowack and Associates, Inc. and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as two (2) individual building sites. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: I day of CITY CLERK , 19 by the following MAYOR SO -86 -010 15230 Sobey Rd. EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of AAbroval I•. The applicant shall sign the agreement to those conditions within '30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. II. Specific Conditions- Engineering Division , I. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval, 2. Submit Parcel Map to City for checking and recordation and pay required fees. 3. Submit . "Irrevocable Offer,of Dedication" to provide easements as required. 4. Construct Storm Drainage System as directed by the City Engineer as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse,,including the following: a. Storm drain inleA.s, outlets; channels, etc. b.• Clear brush and debris from drainage Swale along the easterly boundary and provide erosion protection and energy dissipation as approved by the City Engineer. 5. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft, shoulders using double seal coal oil and screening or better on 6 in. aggregate base from Sobey Rd. to within 100 ft. of proposed' dwelling, • Slope of access road shall not exceed 12 1/2% without adhering to the following: a.. Access roads having slopes between 12 112% and 1.5% shall be surfaced using 2 1/2" asphalt concrete on 6" aggregate base. b. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 17% shall- be surfaced using 4. of P.C. concrete rough surfaced using 4" aggregate base. Slopes in excess of 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. C. Access roads having slope in excess of 1.7 112% are not permitted. 6. The minimum inside curve radius of the access road shall be 42 ft.. 7. The minimum vertical clearance above access road surface shall be 15 ft. 8. Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. 9. Construct turnaround having 32-ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screening or 'better on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of the proposed dwelling. 10. Construct Valley Gutter across driveway or pipe colvert under driveway as approved by the City Engineer.. 11. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 12. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 13. Engineered Improvement Plans required for access road construction. 14. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from Improvement' Plans. 15. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. 16. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. III. Specific Conditions - Sanitation District No.4 1. A sanitary sewer connection is required. 2. Any existing septic tanks) shall -be pumped and backfilled in accordance with environmental healt -h standards. 3. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Co. IV. Specific Conditions - Contral Fire District 1. The - applicant shall provide one new fire hydrant within 00 t of the actual building side on Parcel B. The required fire \ hydrant installation shall be tested and accepted by the Central Fire District rp for to the issuance of any building permit. 2. Submit hydrant spotting fee'for one fire hydrant to the Central Fire District. 3. Access road with all- weather surfac'e.shall be installed prior to the issuance of'a building permit. 1 ,j V. Specific Conditions - Santa Clara Valley Water District 1. Frsor to Final Map Approval the applicant shall suomit plans showing the location-and intended use of any eKisting wells. to .ne SCU «D for review and certification. VII. Specific Conditions - Planning DepartMent 1. *.o tree removal is permitted unless in accordance With the City Ccde5. Z. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall apply for and rece:ve a second- unit use permit or reconvert the eAisting accessory structure into a guest house. �. ;ne re5:7ence on Parcel c shall oe one-story only. I, Marko Trapani agree to the Cond.itiorLs of Approval, Resolution No. SD-86 -010 Fes = ?• $7 Date ij RESOLUTION NO.SO -86 -010 i• RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF MRRKO TRAP NI APN# 397 -7 -90 ECEIV.ED FEB 1.3198, ,RUTH :GOING WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State.of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of.2 lots; all as more particularly set forth in File No. SO -86 -010 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for: its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible- - with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated February 11. 1987 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the (Categorical Exemption) prepared for' this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA', and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the here' inafter described subdivision,, which map is dated the 15t day of Deceber, 19B7 and is marked Exhibit B in the hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit a, and incorporated herein by reference. The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the it day of February, 1987, at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: Callans, Guch, Harris, Pines, - .Siegfried:, Tucker, Burger- NOES: None ADVISORY AGENCY ABSENT: None BY: . f - Chairman, Planning Commis n ATTEST Se r tary, Planning Commission SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TRACT NO Storm Drain Fees Park & Recreation Fees Plan Check & Inspection Fees $2,200.00 $2,600.00 $2,159.80 Final Map Check Fees $ 300.00 SD NO 86 -010 REPRODUGED FROM SANTA CL ARA COUNTY, ASSESORS MAP . 1;j �: •, 4/ � ° ..yam � 'wy;, -� = 1 ,� I IM tnN 1cl .1{ fi Hill •+.. _ . ,a� ley�• .} ��� � ��! tO s.�C� '7 •i•.1 O�{'1 � yr "'lot • r � Mn {. Naas TM 1n 1,61 i0 ' 71 % ♦ r • 1 $��„ sO, � ' . �;17 S � � `� „• � Ij •vim: a, t . • . ^/ e lej r ..�.,.. �Y.a4 aa•a e u P �v iTD VICINITY MAP �`��� ,w SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �r� -I AGENDA ITEM J_ MEETING DATE: Sept. 1, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL V4f474F:"'7 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for Tract 8100 and Release of Bonds Recommended Motion: Grant Final Acceptance and Release of Bonds (Monument 'Bond $1,000.00; Labor and Material Bond $149,000.00; Cash Security Bond $15,000.00) for Tract 8100, 14770 Three Oaks Way. Report Summary: The work has been satisfactorily completed per approved improvement plans and all improvements are private. Fiscal Impacts• Unknown. Attachments: Memo describing bond. Motion and Vote: r� la•d;a % ` b 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -34:38 ��� :MC•�r�ANn� iMi TO: City Manager DATE: 8 -15-88 FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Tract 8100 )ERXR (Final Acceptance) Location: Oaks Way All improvements required of Tract 8100 and agreed to in the Deferred Imnrovement Agreement dated March 2'S, 1988 have been satisfactorily completed. Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Woolworth Construction Company Address: .167 S. San Antonio, Suite 14 Los Altos., CA. 94022 2.' Improvement Security: Monument Bond (cash) Labor. & Material Bond Type: Security Bond (cash) Amount: $1,000; $15,000; $149,000 Issuing Co.: A & t Land Development, Inc. Address: 167 S.� San Antonio, Suite 14 Receipt,_'Bona 'orros, 'Ca. 9'4022 Certificate No.: 5945; .5748-2 955308S 3.' Special Remarks.: Rober S. Shook RSS /dsm M. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE.SUMMARY N0. / AGENDA ITEM! MEETING DATE: __September 7. 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGTNF.ERING SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENT AT SARATOGA HILLS ROAD & REID' LANE Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution No. MV establishing a stop sign on Saratoga Hills Road at its intersection with Reid Lane and authorize the placement of double yellow centerlines on all approaches. Report Summary: SEE ATTACHED MEMO TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FROM City Engineer.. Fiscal Impacts The cost to install the stop sign, place all markings and legends and to paint the double yellow centerlines along with installying Type D reflectorized pavement markers would be approximately $`250.00 and would come from the Traffic Safety budget (3033 - 3010). Attachments: 1. Resolution No. MV 2. Location Map. 3. Report to Public Safety Commission.' 4. Report from Public Safety Commission.. Motion and Vote: RESOLUTION NO. MV- RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTION OF SARATOGA HILLS ROAD AND REID LANE AS A STOP INTERSECTION The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION I. The following intersection in the City of Saratoga is hereby designated as stop intersection. NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION Saratoga Hills Road All vehicles traveling on Saratoga Hills Rd. southerly bound shall stop before entering Reid Lane. This section shall become effective at such time as the proper .signs and /or markings are installed. The above and foregoing was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga.at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of September, 1988, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR AVIEW LN _ SCALE: [OIATION csnRLE! L / ,--� I 1 d 1�ti II —WIMA E D - �f �.c i r 'x u t -� a r � D z 3 y,� Z l ,r Z AV E. f i >,K r' C T. f �1 e = 0 ° < Q � < r A ■ �xx <<7 < �Y 7 (■1 /).� z Y Z� .i c I IDi[a�AwF CERALO Z /.PPQLL•! F a Y f Cl. CT. l,. J O <L 'r. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Public Safety Commission DATE: July 12, 1988 FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: Traffic Safety Improvement at the Corner of Reid Lane and Saratoga Hills Road Mr. Ronald J. Landrum of 14036 Saratoga Hills Road has requested that we look into the traffic safety at the above subject inter- section with the possible placement of a stop sign along with pave- ment markings and delineation. Althqugh there is no significant accident history at this inter- section, (see attached collision diagram), it does appear that the clear assignment of right -of -way may be lacking. Reid Lane appears to be the higher volume roadway providing through movement to and from the signalized intersection at Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road (State Route 85). Saratoga Hills Road intersects Reid Lane from the north, with the majority of motorists either stopping or slowing as they approach Reid Lane. In order to more clearly assign right -of -way at this intersection we are recommending that the vehicles travelling south -bound on Saratoga Hills Road stop before entering Reid Lane. Along with the recommenda- tion to install a stop sign on Saratoga Hills Road at Reid Lane, the placement of double yellow centerline delineation is recommended at all three approaches (see attached sketch showing the proposed recom- mendations) . PtS. Shook City Engineer RSS /df Attachments N 04 APR 1 .. O April 13, 1988 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438' Mr. Ronald-J. Landrum 14036 Saratoga Hills Road Saratoga, CA 95,070 Dear Mr. Landrum: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson This is in response to your letter dated April 6, 1988, to the Saratoga Public Safety Commission. Your letter was acknowledged by the Commission at their April 11, 1988, meeting. Consistent with standard procedures, the request was referred to staff for a recommendation. Once the staff in the engineering department of the City has made'a recommendation in this matter, it will be forwarded to the Public Safety Commission for their review. The recommendations of the staff and the Public Safety Commission are then forwarded to the City.Council for final action. I will be notifying you-when this matter which you brought to our attention has been agendized for Public Safety Commission review. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact Erman Dorsey who will be responsible for developing the staff recommendations. Very truly yours, Tod ` W. I w Community Services jm cc: Public Safety City Engineer ,_Erman... Dorsey. Director Commission 1 .. rGLh)VF_U APR 15 1988 og�TW r 1 :1777 FRUITVAI.3 AVENUE • SARATOGA. ('A,I.I.FOItNIA 05070 (1001307-3,138 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson April 13 , 1988 -Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles To: Erman Dorsey Donald Peterson From: Community Services Director Subject: Traffic Safety Improvement at the Corner of Reid Lane and Saratoga Hills Road Attached is a letter dated 4/6/88 from Ronald J. Landrum to the Public Safety Commission requesting traffic safety improvements at the corner of Reid Lane and Saratoga Hills Road The Commission considered Mt. Landrum's request at their 4/11 meeting, and referred the matter to staff for a recommendation. Let me know if you have any questions. ••• M. ! • jm cc: Bob Shook PSC April 6,1988 Public Safety Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga,Ca.`95070 TO WHOM-IT MAY CONCERN: 'Pave recently .spoken with the senior engineer, Erman Dorsey, regarding traffic safety at the corner of Reid Lane and Saratoga Hills Road. He advised me to put in writing to the commission my request for proper safety control at this busy and dangerous intersection. The peak hours are morning and evening commute hours and recently there was an early A.M. crash in to a neighbor's stone wall.*. Mr. Dorsey stated that a stop sign and appropriate street marking might be possible. I would appreciate your expedition. of this matter and. will.anx•iously await-'--.... your reply. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Yours truly, I K ,) I(uiluld J. Lundru111 14036 Sara Lug.1 Ili 11 v Saratoba,Ca. 95070 867 -6327 ?-i CITY OF SARATOGA COLLISION DIAGRAM INTERSECTION: RE /.D LANE AND 5.4,QQ7 -0 .,q 111,4ZS ROAD PERIOD: 4 Year_z- 4 Monh�_f FROM: Joaaar�y 1-1294 TO:__ �reser�f PREPARED B,Y: DATE: 7 /2 8c1 ICI RA 1111 � \II _ SCA L E: .0/ .ate NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS I SYMBOLS ITYPES OF COLLISIONS SHOW FOR' EACH ACCIDENT f. TIME Of DAY, DAY& DATE t W[ATH[R AND ROAD 1UR/AC -IF UNU {UAL CONDITION [XIST[D II NITK- If IlI[TWEEN OUIX AND DAWN -� MOVINQ VENICE_ E / PROPERTY DAMA9i< ONLY ' OACKIHO VEHICLE 'b" P►OH- IHVOLVtO 'VEHICLE "A^4-0- AEA* [HO �,+y,�- HEAD ON -gb- -- - PUD[STOIAN .�%�C• t10tOWIPt INJURY 4*- -ilk � 2 TOTAL AO.CIO[HTa © PARptO VCHICL[ 13 f1YIQ0 0 ®J [OT � FATAL ACCIDENT INJURY ACCIDENT OUT Of CONTROL LEFT TURN l� '4'� RIGHT ANAL[ SHOW FOR' EACH ACCIDENT f. TIME Of DAY, DAY& DATE t W[ATH[R AND ROAD 1UR/AC -IF UNU {UAL CONDITION [XIST[D II NITK- If IlI[TWEEN OUIX AND DAWN SA. �-A oGA 111 N� yes Ra• ire 111 111 • 111 . 111 I it • ,�•\\. ^ n � .:+:: ___tea � � /: /\\ 14a, / rz e SC•4 L_ E.• u // • M rJ AU 9. 9=4��� 1:37 � 7 P1 1_'1 "h \',�L[ , \ \'(:Nl.`l , \Il: \'I'OC;, \.,C, \LI9 FA! ) lFinCE August 23, 1988 408) 8G7-34:38 To: City Engineer COUNCIL MEMBERS: From: Community Services Director Subject: Traffic Safety Improvement at the Corner of Reid Lane and Saratoga Hills Road Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman This is in response to your memorandum of July 12, 1988, concerning your recommendations to the Public Safety Commission for the installation of traffic improvements at the intersection of Reid Lane and Saratoga Hills Road. At the Commission's regular meeting of August 8, 1988, the Commission unanimously decided to recommend to the City Council that a stop sign be installed on Saratoga Hills Road at its intersection with Reid Lane. The Commission also recommended the placement of double yellow centerline delineation at all three approaches to this intersection, which was also recommended in your staff report. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Todd W. Ar jm cc: PSC 'Erman Dorsey *.