HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-1999 Parks & recreation Agenda packetSaratoga Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
City Hall Administrative Offices
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga
Monday, February 22, 1999
7:30pm
AGENDA
I. Organization
A) Roll Call: Alberts, Clabeaux, Friedrich, Ioannou, Olsen, Swan, Whitney
B) Report on Posting of the Agenda:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2 the agenda was properly posted on
February 1 S, 1999
C) Approval of January 4, 1999 & February 1, 1999 Minutes
II. Administration
A) Saratoga News Article - Trails
B) Montalvo Associates Project
C) Creek Connections Action Group Correspondence
D) Conflict of Interest Laws
E) Brown Act Guide
III. Oral & Written Communication
This section is for the public to speak on any item not on the agenda
IV. Old Business
A) Wildwood Park Restrooms
B) Play Equipment- Gardiner & Kevin Moran Park
C) Playfield Project Meetings - Logistics
V. New Business
A) CPRS Conference - Comments & Ideas
B) Joint Meeting with Council (March 9th) - Agenda Items
VI. Commissioner & Staff Reports
A) Commissioner Reports
B) City Hall Update - Irene Jacobs
C) Recreation Department Status Report - Joan Pisani
VII. Adjournment
Phil McCarthy
18566 Martha Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
January 25, 1999
Mayor & City Council Members
Park: DovkTask Foy Mernbera
Saratoga Parks & Recreation Commission
13777 Fruftvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Honorable Mayor and Committee Members:
: -
-'A
.mlr ±Tee
I grew up in Saratoga attending Sacred Heart School for eight years. My parents still
live in the family home on Merrick Drive and I now live with my family on Martha Avenue.
My wife Paula and I have 2 children (Claire a grade, Andrew 2"d grade) attending
Marshall Lane Elementary. {
Among the many experiences I had that make Saratoga a special place to me, my most
vivid memories are those of playing ball in the local Little League. The memories of the
adult volunteer Coaches, Mr. Savage, Mr. Graziani Mr. Burney and others, who took
their time to help me grow up are very special.. - l now know that it took much more
behind the scenes work to organize the teams and make the fields available.
The fields 1 played on when I was Claire and Andrew's ages are now covered by the
Saratoga Post Office. Our Youth Center has now been replaced by the Senior Center
and Council Chambers where you may be reading this letter. The Quito Little League
fields are gone, a victim of today's financial climate in the post Prop 13 environment.
My understanding is that in today's tight funding climate money has become available to
improve the field at Marshall Lane, enabling the children in the area to have a good
place to play schoolyard as well as organized ball. Quito Little League and AYSO will
commit to maintaining the fields for the right to have our children play. If we can manage
a cooperative effort by all parties, the project can have side benefits for the immediate
neighborhood by being a conduit to raise awareness and complete improvements in the
traffic pattern and parking at the school.
Turning down such an offer would be a detriment to my children's education and
childhood experience. I ask you, please, do whatever is in your power to upgrade the
fields at Marshall Lane so my children can have the same feeling that I remember of
Saratoga as a special place to grow up.
Sincerely,
T5)V
Phil McCarthy
Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Administrative Offices, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga
January 4, 1999
7:30 p.m.
Action Minutes
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Alberts, Clabeaux, Ioannou, Olsen,
Swan, Whitney
Commissioners Absent: Friedrich
Others Present: Please see attached list: Joan Pisani, Irene Jacobs
III. Report on Posting of the Minutes: Pursuant to Government Code
54954.2 the
agenda was properly posted on December 27, 1998.
IV. Approval of Minutes of November 1998 Meeting: Staff member
Jacobs reported to the Commission that she was unable to provide
minutes for the last meeting since her workload has increased
significantly since the Playfield project has developed. She would
provide the Commission with a copy as soon as possible.
Administration:
• Staff passed out the most recent financial reports that had been
compiled by the city's finance department that reflected the
activity and balance of the Park Development Fund.
• Other general Administrative matters were attended to.
Oral & Written Communication: There were numerous members
of the public present at the meeting to discuss the Playfield Project
and more specifically the recommendation that would be proposed
by the Playfield Task Force. The recommendation from the Task
Force will not come before the Commission until their January
meeting but, the four sites that are currently being proposed by
the Task Force for possible development or improvements are:
Congress Springs Park, Blue Hills /Azule site, Marshall Lane
School site and the Foothill School site.
The residents who were present were largely from the Marshall
Lane School neighborhood who expressed strong opposition to the
project site. The main concerns shared related to traffic and safety
issues and how these concerns would affect their quality of life.
Residents shared that they experience large amounts of traffic
during the week and fear that this will happen again on the
weekend if these playfields are developed.
The Commission heard from the residents, thanked them for
having shared their concerns and told them that the Commission
would take their concerns into consideration when the issue comes
before them in January.
Oral Communications were closed at 8:55 p.m.
VI. Old Business:
A)Restrooms at Wildwood Park: The Commission decided that they
would like to accept staffs recommendation as far as the selection
of a vendor who would replace the restrooms at Wildwood Park.
The Commission had asked staff to research turn-key operations
who would be able to replace the restrooms at the park for a lower
price than the traditional method that included hiring an architect
and then going out to bid on the work. Shiela Ioannou volunteered
to assist staff in following through with the vendor to receive
samples or perhaps a video that would show the actual product
before any contract was signed or commitment made.
B) Kevin Moran & Gardiner Park /vendor selection:
Commissioner Ioannou and Commission Clabeaux volunteered to
assist staff in moving forward with the selection of a vendor. Staff
provided the Commission with materials from two different vendors
that responded to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for play equipment
providers. Commissioners Ioannou and Clabeaux will more
thoroughly review the submitted proposals and provide feedback to
the Commission at their next meeting.
C) Trail Sub - Committee Update: Commissioners Swan updated the
Commission as to the work where the sub - committee has been
focusing its efforts. Currently, the Commissioners are working
with the Payne property owners and the Cornell Property owners to
assist them in the trail improvements required of them as outlined
by the Parks and Trials Master Plan as is impacted by their new
developments.
D) Trail Grant Request- Conunissioner Swan made a motion to
approve the grant proposal submitted by Terri Baron requesting
$822.00 to improve the Mt. Eden Estates trail, Lot 1 segment with
the contingency that the acting Public Works Director, John
Cherbone, review the grant request and explore the possibilities of
purchasing the necessary materials at a lower rate. Commissioner
Whitney seconded the motion and the motion passed. (5/0)
VII. New Business: None
VIII. Reports:
Commissioner Reports: There were general updates and comments
made by all Commissioners on an array of various issues related to
Parks and Recreation.
Commissioner Whitney recommended that the Commission look
into getting some publicity on the positive projects that are moving
forward with the Park Development Fund since many people may
not realize what progress is being made. Commissioner Alberts, a
budding photographer, volunteered some time to take photographs
of these events as they develop.
It was recommended that Commissioner Friedrich serve as the
Commission's new representative to the Bicycle Advisory
Committee (BAC).
City Hall Update: none
Recreation Department Status Report: none
IX. Adjournment
Commissioner Whitney made a motion to adjourn the meeting and
Commissioner Ioannou seconded the motion. The motion carried
and the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. (5/0)
Prepared By:
ne M. Jacobs
ity Staff Repres tative
Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Administrative Offices, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga
January 4, 1999
7:30 p.m.
Attendance
1.
Geraldine Barrett
14050 Marilyn Lane
378 -3899
2.
Darwin Barrett
14050 Marilyn Lane
378 -3899
3.
John Bellicitti
18500 Marshall Lane
374 -1742
4.
Lisa Kurasch
18655 Ravenwood Drive
374 -9472
5.
Stephen Kurasch
18655 Ravenwood Drive
374 -9472
6.
Alice Ferguson
18495 Ravenwood Drive
379 -4015
7.
Les Ferguson
18495 Ravenwood Drive
379 -4015
8.
Betsy Masello
19271 San Marcos
741 -5624
9.
Joanna Sloan
14041 Marilyn Lane
378 -4069
10.
Pia Long
18657 Ravenwood Drive
866 -1171
11.
Ken Strasser
18501 Marshall Lane
-
12.
Blair Conrad
18570 Ravenwood Drive
374 -2553
13.
Jim Detrick
18558 Ravenwood Drive
378 -4253
14.
Joan Havard
18531 Ravenwood Drive
374 -4028
15.
Lynn Dickerson
155 Old Adobe Rd. L.G.
370 -3006
16.
Tom Davies
18613 McFarland
374 -2402
17.
Patricia Steinfurth
18606 Ravenwood
364 -1250
February 4, 1999
Saratoga City Council Members
Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commissioners
19655 Allendale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Council Members and Commissioners,
PD it
I'd like to express strong support for the application of Park Development funds toward the following four
projects:
• Congress Springs soccer field improvement — improved grading for proper drainage and appropriate grass
for year -round soccer play
• Foothill School Girl's Softball field improvement — improved field condition and safety
• Azule Park additional soccer fields & improvement of existing field — four fields can and should be created
at this site with proper drainage and appropriate grass for year -round soccer play
• Marshall Lane baseball and soccer field improvement — improved field condition and safety; improved
grading for proper drainage and appropriate grass for year -round soccer play
As you must be aware, the demographics of Saratoga are changing. We continue to be a prosperous bedroom
community. Our business community is thriving and growing with an increasingly dynamic downtown
"Village" shopping area and improvements underway at the Safeway/Longs shopping center. Much of this
growth is fueled by the change in demographics. More families with pre - school and school -age children are
moving into our community. School populations are increasing, necessitating the passage of such bond issues as
Measure G, which I firmly supported. However, these children have needs beyond academics. They need
facilities to participate in organized sporting activities. Such activities develop interpersonal skills, physical
fitness, agility, and an appreciation for the value of teamwork. Our parks and school fields are here for the
children and residents of Saratoga.
Currently there are over 300 Saratoga resident children playing on Saratoga CYSA soccer teams. Yet these
children do not have access to a suitable soccer field in Saratoga. They must play in Cupertino or Los Gatos for
"home" games. This is wrong. Saratoga AYSO is an incredibly strong soccer program. It is my understanding
that the program cannot admit the number of children that want to participate due to a lack of fields. This is
wrong. Soccer is a very healthy sport for young minds and bodies. I urge each of you to strongly support the
improvements listed above for the good of our youth. Our children are our future and we the people of Saratoga
owe them appropriate facilities.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that those who oppose improvement of the above mentioned park and school facilities
do so from a self-interested and logically incorrect position. Parks and school fields are paid for and supported
by the tax dollars of all Saratoga residents. Organized team sports are a usual and customary use of parks and
school fields. How many of us played little league or pee -wee football as children? We benefited, and yet a few
who live nearby these facilities would deny our children this same opportunity. They like living near a park for
their own use, but would deny others an appropriate use of the land. I do not find this position logical or
supportable.
Thank you for your support of our children.
Sincerely,
Reggie R. of
15575 On Orbit Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 867 -0794
02/12/99 FRI 14:42 FAX 916 446 5369 STATE NET 1004
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:08:34 -0800
From: Marcia Fariss <Marcia @Gizmology.com>
To: City Council Members <saratoga @statenet.com>
Subject: playing fields
Mayor Shaw, City Council Members,
Your careful and thorough research regarding the upgrading of soccer
playing fields is to be commended. There are definitely points to be made
on both sides of the expansion/upgrading issue; however, 1 am confident
that your continued cautious consideration of all aspects of the issue will
result in equitable decisions.
Keep up the good work
Marcia Fariss
February 9, 1999
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Blue Hi1Ls/Azule Park Development Project
Dear City Council Members,
I have been a resident on Goleta Avenue, adjacent to the proposed Blue Hills/Azule Park
Development Project, since 1971. I am opposed to the construction of soccer fields in this
area for three reasons:
1. Increased traffic will change the quiet nature of our neighborhood. Currently,
we have very little traffic. Soccer fields will increase traffic dramatically. That
kind of high-use public space is more appropriate in a busy neighborhood, with
wide streets and traffic lights.
2. Soccer fields offer recreation to only one segment of the community. My
husband. and I, for example, take walks every day. We greatly enjoy the
changing landscape of fruit trees, grass, birds, wildflowers and squirrels in this
area. A park, with trees and shrubs, would enhance our enjoyment. But barren
soccer fields would effectively eliminate our recreation.
3. As a grandmother, I know that children need natural spaces to explore, trees to
climb, flowers to sniff, squirrels to chase. Some children enjoy highly
organized sports, but all children need places for unstructured play. Please
don't take that kind of place away from the children in our neighborhood.
I urge you to consider, first and foremost, the needs of the immediate neighborhood as
you plan this park project. Your decision will impact our entire quality of life.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laura Brozicevic
12229 Goleta Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
.A
8 February, 1999
12340 Goleta Ave.
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Kate Alexander
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Saratoga City Council:
I am forwarding the enclosed three letters from my neighbors regarding the Azule Park
Development. On the evening of February 7, 1999, Council members Baker and Streit attended a
meeting with the Azule Park Neighbors Association at the Kastelman's home on Goleta Ave. The
meeting was very informative for us all. We sincerely appreciated the council members investing
time to discuss the issues. These letters were briefly mentioned but neither read nor discussed. I
would like to submit them to council on behalf of my neighbors. I would also ask that they be
copied to the Park & Recreation Commission.
Sincerely,
A
Kate Alexander
i
January 28, 1998
Dear Jim and Dorene,
We are tremendously concerned about the development of Azule Park into a
Soccer Field.
Most Saratogans want peace, privacy, tranquility, and a neighbor friendly
community. These are major factors in the decision process to expend a great amount
of money to live in Saratoga.
We are original owners at 12313 De Sanka Ave. We are located directly across
the street from Blue Hills School flag pole. It was so beautiful, quiet, etc. when we
purchased our home in 1971. Over the years some of the serenity has disappeared.
Many people voted for hiway # 85 a few years ago. What a terrible impact it has been
for us and many other dwellers in the area.
We knew that by buying here that we would have some traffic, but then bussing
was stopped by the Cupertino Union School District. All of a sudden we were
inundated with automobile traffic, car parkers, turn around drivers in our driveway, fruit
and pine cone pickers enjoyed our yard without permission, etc. Almost all peace and
quiet is now gone on our street and property. We put up with the school traffic 5 days
and a few nights, and now by adding soccer fields at Azule Park which will require us
to have traffic 7 -days a week plus many days during summer.
The crowning blow would be the Azule Park and Soccer Field development
concept. We cannot stand the impact of more traffic. Our street, De Sanka Ave has but
four houses and is the major artery to the school from the surrounding area. How can
we possibly manage a new deluge of cars driving by and parking near our home?
Please speak for us at the Saratoga Planning Commission meeting because
we cannot speak for ourselves. Travel plans take us out of the country until Feb. 15,
1999. We are completly against the development of the Azule Park as a Soccer Field
Development Project. We were told 28 years ago that the Azule Park was going to be
a PARK A COMMUNITY PARK. Convice the City that we need the one
quiet place left in the neighborhood. We want to remain in Saratoga -
with the last possible quiet place to walk and enjoy an undeveopped
natural setting or as promised 27 years ago. a COMMUNITY PARK.
Sincerely,
;�t�
Carl an Mary Sessler
12313 De Sanka Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
r
February 6, 1999
Azule Park Neighborhood Association Formed
Azule Park was donated by the developer of Greenbrier to the City of Saratoga in
the early 1970's to be developed as a park for its residents.
There has been a continual increase in traffic and congestion in this
neighborhood, due to decisions of the Cupertino School District to no longer transport
students to the Blue Hills School, the installation of portable classrooms, the instaliation
of a day care center, and the addition of soccer practice at this school.
We invite anyone to visit this school on DeSanka Avenue, any weekday during
school hours, to experience the traffic congestion. Adding organized soccer fields at
Azule Park, will create traffic congestion 7 -days a week. Can't we have some peace and
tranquility even during weekends?
This substantially increased traffic congestion, posing serious safety and security
hazards, is the major concern of the homeowners surrounding the Azule site. We believe
that there is no solution to the current traffic congestion, which will only worsen once an
organized sports field complex is built.
The intrusion of traffic noise from the adjacent freeway 85 also has reduced the
quality of life in this neighborhood. Adding the proposed sports complex at the Azule
site is the proverbial "last straw "!
We, the people of the Azule Park Neighborhood Association do not want
anything that will add to the difficulties and hazards already endured. We strongly feel
that this site must provide a sense of community and serenity to the neighborhood.
Therefore, we adamantly oppose any plan to develop this site further, in
conjunction with the Blue Hills School property, as organized sports practice or playing
fields.
<--� 614-V
Don Johns
19997 Sea 11 Way
Saratoga, CA 95070 -3941
408 - 257 -6475
e
February 6, 1999
Blue Hills Schools / Azule Soccer Complex Proposal
Over two years ago, a survey was made of over 200 homeowners, primarily in the
Greenbrier area, to determine what should be done with the undeveloped Azule Park,
off Goleta Avenue. Over 90% of the homeowners surveyed preferred that a
neighborhood park be build, and they opposed any organized sports fields for this site.
This survey was presented to the City of Saratoga.
Currently, a proposal is before the Parks & Recreation Committee as
presented in the meeting on February 1. This proposal calls for a three soccer field
complex on the Azule site and the adjoining Blue Hills site. The proposal includes a 60+
parking lot just off Goleta, plus a concession stand and bathrooms.
Over the recent Superbowl weekend, a group of concerned homeowners
banded together as the Azule Park Neighborhood Association and they conducted a brief
petition drive against this proposal for use of the Azule site for organized sports fields.
Over 90 homeowners signed the petition over this weekend, and these results, plus a copy
of the prior survey, are being presented to both the Parks & Recreation Commission and
the Saratoga City Commission.
In the meeting on February 1, a homeowner pointed out with several references to
the City Charter, that placing organized sports complexes in the midst of quiet
neighborhoods would be in violation of both the spirit and letter of the City Charter,
which promotes neighborhoods with peace and tranquility.
The homeowners in the newly formed Azule Neighborhood Association strongly
oppose the proposed soccer complex because of the significant traffic congestion which
will follow, creating unneeded safety hazards and further diminishing the quality of life
here.
Bill and Carmen Estes
12301 DeSanka Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070 -3150
408 -446 -1965
February 4, 1999
Saratoga City Council Members
Saratoga Parks and Recreation Comm ussioners
19655 Allendale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Council Members and Commissioners,
I'd like to express strong support for the application of Park Development funds toward the following four
projects:
• Congress Springs soccer field improvement — improved grading for proper drainage and appropriate grass
for year -round soccer play
• Foothill School Girl's Softball field improvement — improved field condition and safety
• Azule Park additional soccer fields & improvement of existing field — four fields can and should be created
at this site with proper drainage and appropriate grass for year -round soccer play
• Marshall Lane baseball and soccer field improvement — improved field condition and safety; improved
grading for proper drainage and appropriate grass for year -round soccer play
As you must be aware, the demographics of Saratoga are changing. We continue to be a prosperous bedroom
community. Our business community is thriving and growing with an increasingly dynamic downtown
"Village" shopping area and improvements underway at the Safeway/Longs shopping center. Much of this
growth is fueled by the change in demographics. More fainilies with pre - school and school -age children are
moving into our community. School populations are increasing, necessitating the passage of such bond issues as
Measure G, which I firmly supported. However, these children have needs beyond academics. They need
facilities to participate in organized sporting activities. Stich activities develop interpersonal skills, physical
fitness, agility, and an appreciation for the value of teamwork. Our parks and school fields are here for fine
children and residents of Saratoga.
Currently there are over 300 Saratoga resident children playing on Saratoga CYSA soccer teams. Yet these
children do not have access to a suitable soccer field in Saratoga. They must play in Cupertino or Los Gatos for
"home" games. This is wrong. Saratoga AYSO is an incredibly strong soccer program. It is my understanding
that the program cannot admit the number of children that want to participate due to a lack of fields. This is
wrong. Soccer is a very healthy sport for young minds and bodies. I urge each of you to strongly support the
improvements listed above for the good of our youth. Our children are our firture and we the people of Saratoga
owe them appropriate facilities.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that those who oppose improvement of the above mentioned park and school facilities
do so from a self-interested and logically incorrect position. Parks and school fields are paid for and supported
by the tax dollars of all Saratoga residents. Organized team sports are a usual and customary use of parks and
school fields. How many of us played little league or pee -wee football as children? We benefited, and yet a few
who live nearby these facilities would deny our children this same opportunity. They like living near a park for
their own use, but would deny others an appropriate use of the land. I do not find this position logical or
supportable.
Thank you for your support of our children.
Sincerely,
David R. Holt
15575 On Orbit Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 867 -0794
February 6, 1999
Saratoga City Council Members
Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commissioners
19655 Allendale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Council Members and Commissioners:
C4 GAP
4AI-11� IE
t,7f J J
.�u FE8 0 9 1999
I'd like to express strong support for the application of Park Development funds toward the
following four projects:
• Congress Springs soccer field improvement — improved grading for proper drainage and
appropriate grass for year -round soccer play
• Foothill School Girl's Softball field improvement — improved field condition and safety
• Azule Park additional soccer fields & improvement of existing field — four fields can and
should be created at this site with proper drainage and appropriate grass for year -round soccer
play
• Marshall Lane baseball and soccer field improvement — improved field condition and safety;
improved grading for proper drainage and appropriate grass for year -round soccer play
As you are aware, a significant number of Saratoga children participate in organized sports
including CYSA soccer teams and AYSO. At the same time, the population of children in
Saratoga is increasing. Parks are important for both the good of our youth and for the community
as a whole.
We must look to the good of the entire community, and not to the interests of a few in the
minority. Please support our parks by committing funds to the four projects mentioned above.
Again, thank you for your support of our children.
Sincerely,
Alison Humphries
19969 Garnett Ct.
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 867 -9415
Mark P. Guidotti
20713 Trinity Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 -5337 (408) 867 -6275 Fax (408) 867 -9140 guidotti @netco
February 8, 1999
The City of Saratoga
Parks and Recreation Commission
1377 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
C.
Re: Playfield Development & Renovation Project, Foothill School
Dear Commissioners:
Please accept these comments regarding the Playfield Development & Renovation Project Plan
discussed at the February 1, 1999 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Because of a
schedule conflict, I could not attend that meeting. Accordingly, this letter serves to convey my
input regarding the project. I reviewed the notice of the meeting and the diagram prepared by
Beals Landscape Architecture that was attached to the notice. An annotated copy of the Beals
diagram is attached to this letter showing, not to scale, our yard in relation to the field.
Our yard abuts the southern property line, adjacent to Item 3B and generally across from the
southern lines of Items 2A and 2B. In the current unimproved configuration, field users
frequently occupy areas near the property line. As a result, we have scant privacy when the field
is in use. On many occasions, trash (e.g., sandwich wrappers, empty snack bags, soft drink cans)
and balls from the field have entered the back yard. It is also quite noisy. If the objectives of the
project are realized, the field will attract more users, thereby increasing these undesirable
byproducts. The Monterey Pine trees now occupying Item 3B on the Beals diagram provide an
effective aural and visual barrier between the field and our yard. Changes to this area should
therefore ultimately fortify the existing barrier rather than reduce it.
The note corresponding to Item 3B states, "Remove & replace trees and install netting at southern
property line." This description begs for clarification. If the Monterey Pines are removed, the
character of our yard will change immediately and dramatically, for the worse. The yard will be
fully visible from the field, and any noise abatement provided by the trees will be lost. To
minimize these harmful effects and to ensure the speedy and ultimate fortification of this natural
barrier, I recommend the following:
1. Replant Item 3B immediately upon removing the existing trees
2. The space between the new trees should be no greater than the space between
existing trees
3. The replacement species should be fast growing, large enough when mature to
abate noise, shield views, and be hardy and pest- tolerant (e.g. Coast Redwood)
4. Plant the most mature items possible (as opposed to seedlings)
I would like further clarification regarding the netting proposed in Item 3B, specifically how tall
would it be, what would it look like, how close to the fence, etc. Naturally, I would like to
understand all of the details of Item 3B and would appreciate your advice as to the best way to
learn these details in time to make further comments. Therefore, a timely reply is appreciated.
Please feel free to call, write or e-mail. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
I�I1Wr5 nUCa �.x-;- � -;: A111tJ Cc.�MMI� S!cl�.l� c (Ps��t'r,
Sk*i!H of (;w-wv,(Aix;) ( oT -�1 ScAtr,)
I'A6,t L_
','.'rrY OF SARATOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT
OO TH1LL ELEMENTARY TARY SCHOOL
't' RATO", CAUFORNI A
gig
fl frAira mr rev
ttwAmime mmv
3T0PW69
1�- pRM1�UNbr RC76WAINS
1 pI�OL�T".y
(C�'TTpV�r/6°rTGF11Nfs
ce AIRES vo EMT**
jor.osTmwAmmanes
�A;�C -Cili INR�EIJD�i 4
RINt5
ATe TWF AWA6.
II:lt16AWIN
51&N mtr k
eAVKSTOP
e nvLwz
ANA !! STALL m..T'If'INO
AT SoUn4otM pMXw QIY, LJ4
ft.w ont- masT
a .40 FWT NOOK
im
L. r
0 J"W
mNrU
lo,
, s!w"mw
w,
I
CC; (�
IiYEaP�
Wed Feb 17 10:56:48 1999
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:45:52 -0800
From: Tricia Sweeney <BigSis28 @hotmail.com>
To: Saratoga @statenet.com
Subject: Proposed siting of soccer fields at Blue Hills School.
[The following text is in the "iso- 8859 -1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US- ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
Dear members of the City Council, I wish to let you know how
strongly I oppose this proposal to site three soccer fields right
behind my house on Knollwood Dr.
I live at #20018 and this plan is going to severely affect my peace
and quiet at the weekends.
When I came to live in this beautiful city five years ago, I
chose to live on Knollwood Dr. instead of the area around Congress
Springs park primarily because the noise of the soccer game being
played the day we visited a listing there was horrendous. That
particular house was separated from the park by railway
tracks ..... I do not have even that distance.
My family pay taxes and put up with the inevitable school
noises even though our children attend private school, but we had
considered that before purchasing the house. We battle the illegal
parking (on Fri.12th Feb. a car straddled across both children's
crossings on De Sanka and Knollwood. e.g.) and the congestion on
a daily basis. We put up with the noise of the freeway, again we
knew about it before purchasing the house. However, the idea that
my precious family weekends will be disrupted by noise pollution
from games played right behind my home with all the attendant
shouting and swearing (yes, I hear shouting at practice but the
coaches are very good as far as their language usage ... can you
vouch for the parents ?)
We all like to believe that our home is a place where we can
kick back and relax, I'm sure you do. I don't want to be in a
situation where I have to seek out a soccer schedule in order to
plan when I can and cannot us my own back yard, it's bad enough
that I have to go inside when the grass is being cut with that huge
machine ( Ibelieve it to be that, though it may be something else)
for fear that my ears will be damaged ..... I invite you along next
time that occurs. If the fields are being used more often for
soccer, will this maintenence also escalate?
I will not benefit in any way by this plan, my children do not
attend the school, nor do they play soccer, but they do
occasionally play on the fields during the summer. It seems that
the neighborhood is being asked to give up a lot and receive
nothing in return.
I thank you for your time and understand that you have a hard
decision to make, but as my representatives I am telling you that
my desire is to leave Blue Hills School just as it is.
Thank you, Patricia Sweeney.
[Part 2, Text /HTML (charset: ISO- 8859 -1 "Latin 111) 80 lines]
[Unable to print this part]
19
Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Administrative Offices, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga
February 1, 1999
7:30 p.m.
Action Minutes
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Alberts, Clabeaux, Friedrich, Ioannou, Olsen, Swan,
Whitney
Commissioners Absent: None
Others Present: Joan Pisani, Irene Jacobs ( various members of the community -
seventy -one chairs were set out for the public; all were filled and there were
individuals standing) .
III. Report on Posting of the Minutes: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2 the
agenda was properly posted on January 27, 1999.
IV. Approval of Minutes of November 2, 1998 and ,Lanuary 4, 1999 Meetings.
Commissioner Whitney made a motion that the approval of both sets of minutes
be tabled until the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Alberts seconded
the motion and the motion carried. (6/0)
Administration:
• Staff reminded the Commission that the CPRS Conference would be taking
place February 18 -21 at the Santa Clara Convention Center. If any of the
Commissioners had any questions, they should contact staff for clarification.
Oral & Written Communication: Commissioner Friedrich recommended to the
chair that since there were so many members of the public who wanted to speak
under oral communications, they should limit the amount of speaking time to a
three minute maximum per speaker and a total limit to ninety minutes for the
oral Communications section of the meeting. It was agreed upon and the oral
communications portion of the meeting was opened.
Forty members of the public addressed the Parks and Recreation Commission on
the Playfield Project and more specifically the recommendation that had been
proposed by the Playfield Task Force. Some adamantly supported the project
while the majority present adamantly opposed the project. The majority of the
concerns voiced by the public revolved around traffic, safety and quality of life
issues that they felt would be greatly affected should these playfields be
developed or improved. The Commission thanked the public for their ideas,
concerns and shared opinions and the oral communications portion of the
meeting was closed at 9 p.m..
VI. Old Business: None
k
VII. New Business:
A. Recommendation from the Playfield Task Force: Jaye Beals of the Beals Group,
whose services were retained by the City to serve as the project manager,
presented the Task Force's recommendation to the Parks and Recreation
Commission. The Task Force had identified ten possible sites within the city
limits for playfield development and recommended to the Parks and Recreation
Commission that four of those ten sites be developed. Those proposed sites are:
Congress Springs Park, Blue Hills /Azule site, Marshall Lane School site and the
Foothill School site.
After the consultant finished his presentation, the chair opened discussion
among the Commission regarding the issue before them; the recommendation
from the Task Force.
City staff reminded the Commission that last year, the City Council had directed
the Commission to resolve the maintenance issue regarding the playfield project
first before the Council would give any further consideration to building more
playfields. Thus, the Task Force was established. Its ultimate goal trying to
resolve the maintenance issue, for without this, the playfield project would not
proceed.
The Task Force had met for nine months and after a lot of work and
compromise, they were able to come to an agreement where the school districts
where committing their land, the city was committing development funds and
the user groups were committing maintenance funding. They were now
presenting a proposal to the Commission for initial consideration.
The role of the Commission that night was to consider the proposal and
determine whether it sufficiently addressed the goals outlined in the list that had
been prioritized by the public for the use of the Park Development Fund at the
public meeting in 1996. Staff also reminded the Commission that it was their
job to attempt to address the many issues shared by the public that evening
before this project could come before the Council for consideration.
There was general discussion among the Commissioners about the issue.
Commissioner Friedrich made a motion to proceed immediately with a
recommendation to Council to make improvements to Congress Springs Park
and to Foothill School and then to explore the possibilities of expanding the
other sites at a later date. Commissioner Iaonou seconded the motion. There
was discussion among Commissioners and this motion was withdrawn.
Commission Whitney expressed that she was committed to the process that had
been started in 1996 at that Community Meeting where the residents who had
participated at that meeting had established priorities for the use of the Park
Development Fund.
She said that the Commission needed to continue with the process to create
more playfields; the specifics of where and how had not yet been determined
but, she felt that the Commission should move forward with this process. She
made a motion that the Commission host four meetings, one per proposed site
consisting of a representatives from the Commission (2), the appropriate user
groups, representatives from the surrounding neighborhoods, the appropriate
school district and staff with the group not to exceed twelve members. After the
meetings were held and a resolution or some recommendation had come from
the various meetings, then the Commission would regroup and the reconsider
the proposal. Commissioner Clabeaux seconded the motion and the motion
carried. (5 / 1)
The Commission assigned themselves to the various community meetings and
those assignments are as follows:
Blue Hills School /Azule: Elaine Clabeaux
Marianne Swan
Marshall Lane School: Frank Friedrich
Sheila Ioannou
Foothill School Site: Judy Alberts
Barbara Olsen
Congress Springs: Kay Whitney
These meetings would be scheduled as soon as was possible and the logistics of
the meetings would be discussed at the next scheduled meeting on February 22,
1999 in the administrative offices at City Hall. This meeting was scheduled in
order to discuss all those other projects that the Commission is working on
besides the Playfield project.
VIII. Reports:
Commissioner Reports: none
City Hall Update: none
Recreation Department Status Report: none
IX. Adjournment
Commissioner Whitney made a motion to adjourn the meeting and
Commissioner Alberts seconded the motion. The motion carried and the
meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. (6/0)
Prepared By:
qq6a�'X Ldt?�
Vene M.Jacobs
City Staff Repre ntative
TO:
TRANSMITTAL - CITY OF SARATOGA
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CITY GEOLOGIST
CITY ARBORIST
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT
SARATOGA FIRE DIST.
S.C. CO. CENTRAL FIRE
SAN JOSE WATER CO.
OTHER tV � Qa en.Lo 4i e^-'
G7MAVVI' 1� i 6"0-'
FROM: Heather Bradley, Associate Planner
DATE: February 8, 1999
APPLICATION 4 AND LOCATION: Villa Montalvo, 15400 Montalvo Road
OWNER'S NAME: Montalvo Associates
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Use Permit and Design Review application to construct 10 new
"Artist in Residency" cottages and a common building on the hill above the parking lot at Villa
Montalvo. The proposal includes 2400 cubic yards of combined cut and fill. Proposed square
footages are as follows:
Common Building (A): 2,478
Residence (B 1):
930
Residence (132):
930
Residence (C 1):
896
Residence (C2):
889
Residence (D1):
750
Residence (D2):
618
Residence (E 1):
705
Residence (E2):
492
Residence (F 1):
957
Residence (172):
957
TOTAL:
10,602
Your agency has been requested/invited to review and comment on this proposal. Please submit
your comments by March 12, 1998 to Heather Bradley in the Community Development
Department. This will ensure that we can incorporate your concerns into the review process.
Thank You. Residence (C 1):
VILLA M.ONTAI,VO
An Orchard of Artists'
Villa Montalvo is creating a community for artists — a
neighborhood of cottages in the orchard — a place of personal
inspiration and exploration.
Imagine cottages set in an orchard, each providing functional
temporary living facilities. Each cottage is planned for the
execution of a form of art — a place to write, to paint, to sculpt, to
play, to dance. Each cottage is a piece of environmental art,
designed by a leading architect and artist of our time. The
complex is an example of environmentally responsible
development and construction and each cottage speaks to the
human spirit: "Come stay here, explore and widen your search,
be inspired, be happy."
Pathways join the cottages and lead people to the center of the
community, the Commons. A place to meet, to share, to challenge
other artists. A place for collaborators to present works, to confer,
to critique. The living room of the community. A gateway into
the compound and a gateway back to the outside world —
respectful of the architectural tradition of Villa Montalvo, but of
this time.
The Teams
Master plan and landscape Concept:
Marta Fry Landscape Architects
The Commons
StastnyBrun Architects, Inc. / Tad Savinar
The Cottages
Solomon, Inc. / Patrick Gleeson, Nellie Solomon
Hodgetts & Fung Design Associates / Lee Breuer
Jim Jennings Architecture / Richard Serra, Czeslaw Milosz
AdOe Naudd Santos & Associates / Doug Hollis
Mack Architect(s) / David Ireland
Artist Residency Cottages & Commons Building
Artist Residency program
In 1912, Villa Montalvo was built by United States Senator James
D. Phelan, a progressive Californian and a former Mayor of San
Francisco. From 1912 to 1930, Villa Montalvo served as a center
of artistic, political and social life in Northern California.
Phelan's practice was to invite leading writers and artists to
Montalvo where they could work on individual projects. Jack
London, Ethel Barrymore, Douglas Fairbanks and Edwin
Markham were once Phelan's guests. In 1930, in emulation of
the academies he had visited in Rome, Phelan left Villa Montalvo
as a legacy for the support and encouragement of music, art,
literature and architecture. Guided by Phelan's wishes, and acting
on the recommendation of the Camegie Corporation, Montalvo
created the West Coast's first Artist Residency Program,
providing a retreat for its first artist in 1942. Over the past fifty
years, more than 500 artists have come to Montalvo from all
parts of the United States and abroad.
Each year, Montalvo awards the gift of time to more than thirty
writers, visual artists, composers and musicians to create new
works during one to three month residencies. Montalvo provides
artists from a wide range of backgrounds the benefits of a
beautiful and inspiring environment, far from the daily pressures
of work and family life, where they are free to devote their time
solely to creation.
Regular readings and Open Studios give the BayArea community
opportunities to meet artists and observe their work in progress.
Through collaborations with national and international arts
organizations, Montalvo's Artist Residency Program presents a
wide array of public programming, including international group
residencies, playwright festivals and other creative programming.
In this decade, applications for the Artist Residency Program
have increased to more than 300 each year, from artists all over
the world. Montalvo can only accept less than 10%, or 25 -30
artists a year, due to the limited capacity of five residents at a
time. The completion of this project will more than double the
number of artists Montalvo can accept.
A larger number of residents will also benefit those artists who
seek the synergism and companionship of others, allowing for
cross pollination and inspiration of new ideas. The Commons
will provide a private space where the artists can meet with each
32her informally, invite guest artist for discussion groups, and
build a sense of community.
Currently, two of the five residents live in apartments in the Villa.
During the spring and summer months, the noise level of the
concerts and facility rentals is very disruptive and make creative
work an impossibility. With the new cottages, all artist residents
will have the quiet and solitude necessary for concentrated focus.
In addition, the new cottages will provide improved studio
facilities for the musical and visual artists, including
soundproofing and overhead natural light.
While creating new facilities that will improve the vitality of the
Artist Residency Program, Villa Montalvo is equally committed
to preserving the vitality of the environment in which those
facilities will be built. Recognizing that modern construction
(along with the buildings themselves) often consumes vast
amounts of natural resources and threatens existing habitats, Villa
Montalvo is dedicated to creating an "environmentally friendly"
complex that embodies the principles of sustainable design. The
cottages have been designed to be built using construction
methods that have a minimal impact on the existing site,
landscaping suitable to the local conditions, recycled, non -toxic
and durable materials, passive heating and cooling systems, and
energy efficient appliances.
`An Orchard of Artists 17
illa Montalvo is a Mediterranean-style Villa situated in the
foothills of California's Santa Cruz Mountains above
Silicon Valley. The Villa is surrounded by several acres of formal
gardens, with paths leading to quiet courtyards and redwood
groves. The estate's 175 -acres serves as an Arboretum and
Audubon Society bird sanctuary. Several miles of nature trails
trace small creeks and hillsides forested with great oaks,
redwoods, firs and eucalyptus, offering sweeping views of the
Santa Clara Valley. The Villa is listed in the National Register
of Historic Places. The Montalvo Arboretum is open year -round
as a public park, and attracts thousands of visitors annually. In
addition to its Artist Residency Program, Villa Montalvo is an
active arts center encompassing two theatres and a gallery of
rotating exhibitions.
MASTER PLAN & LANDSCAPE CONCEPT
3t
¢ 3
imev
The Villa's Artist -in- Residence designated development site,
a sloped orchard site with vestiges of a prune orchard,
presented the design team with exciting opportunities and
challenges. The concept of developing the artist cottages in a
more isolated atmosphere, distanced from the daily and "public"
activities of the Villa, would facilitate a "colony" atmosphere,
perhaps more conducive to the needs and requirements of the
artists -in- residence. The siting of the cottages and the Commons
at the orchard site reinforces the importance of the Artist -in-
Residence program, its success and longevity at Villa Montalvo,
as it presents itself prominently at the gateway to the Villa
complex.
The steeply sloped site presented us with the challenge of siting
the individual cottages on slopes of twenty-five to thirty percent
gradients. The absence of any existing infrastructure; roads,
water, electrical or gas, also presented the team with additional
challenges, yet the beauty and isolation of the site also sprung
from these same constraints. The orchard site provided views
across the hills and into the valleys and also offered different
siting aspects and exposures for the specific cottage types.
Northern light became the preferred choice for the visual artist's
cottages, while writer's cottages perched on the slopes along the
riparian corridor and the composer's cottages became part of
the hillside landscape, sculpted into the slope, utilizing specific
construction techniques to modulate and control sound levels.
The master plan design development that we undertook in
collaboration with StatsnyBrun was to site the Commons and
develop its relationship to the artist's cottages as the "core" or
"nucleus" of the development. It became both the symbolic and
physical manifestation of the "meeting- place" the center for
cross - fertilization. The cottages were sited up -slope from the
Commons and paired; two cottages in direct relationship to each
other, developed by each Architect/Artist team. The relationship
1
' �Ie
t
and siting of each cottage evolved both from their intended use
by a specific "type" of Artist, and from the appropriate sites for
the cottage architectural type, although crossover and more
generic cottage usage was not precluded.
The "journey" or path to the cottages was developed in response
to many factors. The pure aesthetic of movement through space,
the journey, in conjunction with the practical aspect of getting
supplies and materials to the cottages, in addition to housekeeping
and handicap accessibility were all design parameters.
Circulation through the site and to the individual cottages were
to meet all or most of these objectives. Additional requirements
of fire and safety had to be meet by the City and County standards
and the development of an emergency and fire road was woven
through the site in its most minimal form and expression in order
to minimize the visual impact on this steep site. The pedestrian
circulation developed in the form of an axial stairs /ramp system
as one proceeds vertically up or down the slope, with the
Commons at the terminus of this axial expression. Paths to the
individual cottages take advantage of the contours and run parallel
to the slope, maintaining relatively level grades with site specific
stairs to some of the cottages as required by the cottage
architecture and orientation to the slope.
The landscape concept then became a response and reinforcement
of the groundplane circulation. The existing landscape consists
of scrub oaks, live oaks, poison oak, dry chaparral, "orchard
remains" in severe decline, and many introduced species of
eucalyptus and non - native grasses. The central area of the site
is predominately open grassland with groupings of scrub and
live oaks. The creek or riparian edge of the site is thickly wooded
and creates a strong southern edge to the site, whereas the
northern edge is less defined with scrub chaparral and introduced
species. Our goal would be to further define and strengthen the
Marta Fry Landscape Architects
"edges" with an emphasis on retaining and maintaining a strong
and appropriate native riparian edge and strengthen the northern
edge with appropriate plantings, reinforcing the oaks and native
plantings. The landscape gesture that is expressed in a linear
manner parallel to the slope is the introduction of a planting of
columnar trees or "markers" at each path to the cottages. These
columnar hedgerows delineate the cottage sites with vertical
markers. The fastigate form and selection of an agricultural
planting pattern or hedgerow along the contours is also
reminiscent of the agricultural past of this specific site. Foliage
coloration and seasonality are also important characteristics of
the landscape development. The evergreen oak groupings in
contrast to the deciduous columnar trees and meadow grasses
present the artists and community-at -large with a variable and
seasonal landscape expression.
Casual resting or meeting areas have been developed along the
paths as a respite to the steep climb. An informal gathering area
has also been sited at the top of the slope in close proximity to a
proposed cistern which functions as water retention for fire safety
and presents itself as a backdrop to the gathering area. Further
agricultural expression has been suggested by a water spillway
from the upper level of the cistern into an ornamental pool at its
base. Stepped, informal seating surrounds the cistern site.
The overall expression and intent in the development of the
master plan has been, appropriate cottage siting that maximizes
privacy, views, light and solar orientation and the pairing of the
specific cottage types as a response to the Architect/Artist design
team's intentions. The site development became a conscious
response to maintaining both a sense of individuality yet at the
same time, develop a circulation and landscape expression that
begins to weave these different elements into a cohesive fabric,
an environment conducive -to creativity and collaboration.
NX
and siting of each cottage evolved both from their intended use
by a specific "type" of Artist, and from the appropriate sites for
the cottage architectural type, although crossover and more
generic cottage usage was not precluded.
The "journey" or path to the cottages was developed in response
to many factors. The pure aesthetic of movement through space,
the journey, in conjunction with the practical aspect of getting
supplies and materials to the cottages, in addition to housekeeping
and handicap accessibility were all design parameters.
Circulation through the site and to the individual cottages were
to meet all or most of these objectives. Additional requirements
of fire and safety had to be meet by the City and County standards
and the development of an emergency and fire road was woven
through the site in its most minimal form and expression in order
to minimize the visual impact on this steep site. The pedestrian
circulation developed in the form of an axial stairs /ramp system
as one proceeds vertically up or down the slope, with the
Commons at the terminus of this axial expression. Paths to the
individual cottages take advantage of the contours and run parallel
to the slope, maintaining relatively level grades with site specific
stairs to some of the cottages as required by the cottage
architecture and orientation to the slope.
The landscape concept then became a response and reinforcement
of the groundplane circulation. The existing landscape consists
of scrub oaks, live oaks, poison oak, dry chaparral, "orchard
remains" in severe decline, and many introduced species of
eucalyptus and non - native grasses. The central area of the site
is predominately open grassland with groupings of scrub and
live oaks. The creek or riparian edge of the site is thickly wooded
and creates a strong southern edge to the site, whereas the
northern edge is less defined with scrub chaparral and introduced
species. Our goal would be to further define and strengthen the
Marta Fry Landscape Architects
"edges" with an emphasis on retaining and maintaining a strong
and appropriate native riparian edge and strengthen the northern
edge with appropriate plantings, reinforcing the oaks and native
plantings. The landscape gesture that is expressed in a linear
manner parallel to the slope is the introduction of a planting of
columnar trees or "markers" at each path to the cottages. These
columnar hedgerows delineate the cottage sites with vertical
markers. The fastigate form and selection of an agricultural
planting pattern or hedgerow along the contours is also
reminiscent of the agricultural past of this specific site. Foliage
coloration and seasonality are also important characteristics of
the landscape development. The evergreen oak groupings in
contrast to the deciduous columnar trees and meadow grasses
present the artists and community-at -large with a variable and
seasonal landscape expression.
Casual resting or meeting areas have been developed along the
paths as a respite to the steep climb. An informal gathering area
has also been sited at the top of the slope in close proximity to a
proposed cistern which functions as water retention for fire safety
and presents itself as a backdrop to the gathering area. Further
agricultural expression has been suggested by a water spillway
from the upper level of the cistern into an ornamental pool at its
base. Stepped, informal seating surrounds the cistern site.
The overall expression and intent in the development of the
master plan has been, appropriate cottage siting that maximizes
privacy, views, light and solar orientation and the pairing of the
specific cottage types as a response to the Architect/Artist design
team's intentions. The site development became a conscious
response to maintaining both a sense of individuality yet at the
same time, develop a circulation and landscape expression that
begins to weave these different elements into a cohesive fabric,
an environment conducive -to creativity and collaboration.
THF, COMMONS
he Commons is an introduction and a transition. It is a
blend of old and new. It relays a message of historic
continuity and contemporary community.
Adjacent to the lower parking lot of Villa Montalvo, the building
is the first thing the visitor sees upon entering the grounds. The
facade is reminiscent of the traditional architecture of the Villa,
with stucco walls, wood trellises supported by white columns,
and planting that is a combination of columnar trees and
flowering vines. In time, it will have the same patina that
enhances the old Villa.
Upon entry to the community (up a grand staircase or on the
promenade pathway), one experiences the opposite side of the
building. It is restless and dynamic, not a single building, but a
village of forms. The three structures encompass the focus of
the community — the central courtyard. For the Artists in
Residence, this is the central meeting place — a place to gather
(singularly or communally), a place to have discussion, or a place
to bask in the sun. The building forms pick up the colors of the
historic inner courtyard of the Villa — a grey green, a terra cotta
and the cream stucco.
StastnyBrun Architects, Inc. / Tad Savinar
The trellis on the front of the building covers a connecting
walkway with a private stair from the parking lot, providing an
easy access for residents to move groceries from their cars to the
kitchen. The stair would be behind a gate, keyed into the master
locking system so it could be used by residents and not general
' visitors. Under the walkways, and available from the parking
lot, is a potentially large storage space.
The roofs of the forms are envisioned as copper or another
weathering material that will age and make the building an
extension of the land and the place. Windows and doors are
designed and located to bathe the interior of the building in light
as well as provide natural ventilation potential.
There is no front door, but a series of doors off the courtyard.
This design intentionally provides greater flexibility of use of
the internal spaces. Groups or individuals can use different rooms
or services within the Commons without disturbing others. Most
doors open to a large gallery that can be used for display of artists'
work. The living space is for gathering, but is also equipped for
audio /visual presentation. The kitchen is large and roomy,
providing opportunity for individuals or groups to prepare food.
Service from the kitchen to the dining area is convenient and the
dining room can be set up with smaller tables an/or a large
banquet venue. A balcony looks out into the trees. At the opposite
end of the gallery is the library/office. This room is for the use
of the Artist Residency Program — both staff and artist. It is seen
as fully equipped with computer, communication and
reproduction technology — as well as having the ambiance of a
library. The laundry is located so it (and the library/office) is
available from inside or outside the building. There is a trellis -
covered terrace where activities of the office can spread to the
outside, or one can read or contemplate while waiting for the
wash to dry.
Above the library/office is a skylight, providing a shaft of natural
light into the circular room. Above the dining room, and
accessible from the courtyard, is a manager's unit, designed to
the same standards as the artist cottages.
The Commons is a landmark — welcoming the visitor while
providing insulation for the Artists in Residence. It provides a
beacon of warmth from the cottage above and is accessible to
all. And it is a place of art and craft — demonstrating the
incorporation of art into the building systems, the craft of
construction through lasting material and the play of light
externally and internally. It is a focus of the inspirational
architecture of "an orchard of artists ".
i
l
:,A ;{
Solomon, Inc.
grt;
I
r
Introduction
The two composer /musician cottage are self - contained units isolating sound from the environment;
they are also integral components of a community. Our design therefore addresses somewhat
contradictory requirements: a composer's need to work in privacy in a comfortable and flexible
environment (a hermetic retreat), yet without feeling isolated from a pleasant rural environment
and surrounding artist neighbors (the need for community). It also addresses the composer's
need to control the acoustic environment of each residence and the neighbors' need for quiet.
Since some composers will want a workroom separate from the rest of the interior while others
will not, we have created a space which can be quickly rearranged to satisfy either need. For
reasons of cost, aesthetics, and ecology, we have relied heavily on natural building materials
available on -site.
Sound Considerations
Noise, it has been said, is the music on your neighbor's stereo. The two composer residences are
sited among the other artist residences on the same hillside and could easily subject others to
such noise, particularly because the rural Montalvo site is more than ordinarily quiet. This
means that the acoustic noise masking which would ordinarily occur in an urban environment
will be slight. Further, each residence will have a grand piano, not a quiet instrument. A good
hard forte in octaves will hit and perhaps exceed the 100dB mark on a sound -level meter — about
10dB less than the sound level of a jet -plane at take -off. The piano also has an extended low
range. Low- frequency sound waves contain the most energy and are most difficult to control.
While this might seem at first to be an over - reaction to the noise problem, we note that neighboring
residences border the chosen hillside without intervening natural noise barriers. These pose
potential community - relations and even legal problems if a solution is not achieved.
Noise Control Solutions
What stops sound energy? Two things basically. First mass stops sound. A three -inch thick lead
wall will stop sound more effectively than a3-inch thick wood wall. Secondly, isolation controls
sound. Pound for pound, multiple walls with intervening dead -air spaces control sound more
effectively than a single wall.
It must be noted that neither mass nor isolation comes cheap. The Foundation budget does not
allow for costly solutions. Therefore, we decided to keep as much of the building as possible
below grade, thus using the existing hillside soil and rock to keep some of the sound from going
anywhere at all. Secondly, we have made extensive use of comparative massive but inexpensive
elements: the bearing walls are two -foot thick concrete block cavity walls made from a sustainable
product utilizing a combination of high content fly ash and recycled wood chips. The roof
system is comprised of 3 x 12 wood beams with a rigid insulation and plywood diaphragm,
waterproofing membrane and 6 -8 inches of sod. The composite system (including beams) will
be 20 -24 inches thick.
Necessary elements for light to enter are potential sound - control weak spots. Therefore we've
limited these to two: a single overhead skylight and a full -width glass wall at the front of the
residence. The front of the residence consists of two separate glass walls. The inner wall, of
stacked sliding glass doors employing laminated glass, opens onto an approximately 6 -foot
porch. The outer wall, a similar glass wall using French doors, encloses the porch. The porch
Patrick Gleeson / Nellie Solomon
becomes a significant dead -air element between the two walls when sound isolation is needed; at other times it provides a flexibility open
transition to the exterior.
The skylight is also a double system. The skylight's outer layer is a conventional proprietary skylight assembly. Approximately 18
inches below this (and thus providing another dead -air space) is the skylight's inner -layer of approximately 2 -1/2 inch thick glass brick..
Its weight and thickness, and the intervening dead -air spaces, will provide the greater part of the total noise reduction achieved. The two
full -width glass walls and the large overhead skylight will provide ample light and openness to the exterior. Ultra -quiet exhaust fans in
noise ducts at the skylight will pull fresh air in form the porch. Not other windows or opening will be needed.
The present design uses natural materials, relatively inexpensive building materials and a design incorporating significant dead -air space
between interior and exterior elements to adequately control noise without raising construction costs beyond available limits. Will this
design solve all possible noise problems? It will not. Given a sufficiently headstrong composer who likes to work out double -bass parts
on the lowest octave of a grand piano at three in the morning (with the lid up, to make matters worse) there will be dissatisfaction. The
proposed design, however, ensures that under normal circumstances the composer can work in a comfortable environment without
sonically intruding on her neighbors. Equally, when community rather than isolation is desired, both glass walls at the front of the
residence can be opened. Similarly, two large pivot doors can be opened or closed between the composing and sleeping areas; since one
side of each door is sound - reflective while the other is sound - absorptive, the doors can also be used to make adjustments in the reverberation
of the composing room.
Aesthetic Considerations
Building below grade proved to be a superior noise - control solution. We decided that this also suggested an appropriate aesthetic. We
imagine a system of roman stairs planted with native grasses and radiating outward as the staircase flows downhill. At a specific
elevation two segments begin to diverge from the system: the two sod roofs. Planted with grasses available at the site they begin at grade
at the upper end of each building and project outward as if cut out and pried upward from the hill itself. Similarly and beginning at the
same elevation, four spokes of the stair- system begin to rise out of the land: the four earth bearing walls. These rise from grade -level at
the highest elevation, where each building begins, to a height of 14 feet at their furthest point, as if each wall had been pulled upward out
of the hill in the same motion that created the two sod roofs.
Nellie King Solomon has designed finishes for the surfaces of the four walls, which emphasize their earth origin and status as natural
artifact.
Mach Architect(s)
Inspiration
In 1954 when Peter
Blake designed his
pinwheel house in Water
Mill, Long Island, it was thought to be a collaboration between
the architect and the painter, Jackson Pollock. The house consists
of four walls which slide on rails into the landscape. These eight -
by- eighteen -foot panels were thought of as suspended canvases.
The walls regulate the conditions of the house — from "wide -
open", allowing breezes and sunshine to come in — to "completely
closed" for adverse weather conditions and when unoccupied.
Even though Jackson Pollock did not paint on the giant wall
canvases, the house was nevertheless built and still exists as a
single family home.
Concept
For the Artist Cottages at Montalvo the pinwheel house idea
was transformed into an environmentally responsive and
comfortable work shed in the pastoral landscape of Saratoga.
Open to the breezes and to the views, the cottages reconfirm the
Californian Condition of living in the open air — light and easy
construction looking over the sloping landscape. The large one-
room studios, which can be divided and expanded, are connected
with the landscape through a series of transformations; the large
sliding walls and louvered sun controls manipulate the immediate
landscape surrounding the cottages.
Sited to form a small court on the end of the tree -lined promenade,
the cottages have two different approaches to the site; one hovers
over the site exposing the ravine and lifts the inhabitant over the
site. This unit is also handicap accessible and it allows a
somewhat soaring quality, especially for those who cannot soar
very easily. The other uses the slope of the hill to create a split
level arrangement and allows for separation and mobility between
studio and living area. Furthermore, it allows for the physically
r
µ
—I-. _1�
t
Cottage I - Entrance
inclined a constant opportunity of stair climbing and staying in
shape.
The orientation of the cottages is basically north /south, with the
high part of the shed to the north to let in even light. The exterior
form is simple and follows the basic construction parameters of
the panel system used. Cladding of galvanized corrugated metal
and colored mineral fiberboard create a fireproofed and
environmentally sound enclosure for the artist.
Construction and Green Points
A new panel system, R- Control panels, are used to build both
roof and wall construction. A sandwich board and two OSB
panels surround expanded Polystyrene cone, and create a
stronger, more efficient, more durable, lighter and (foremost) a
more regulated building system, which takes about half the time
of conventional framing to erect. It is roughly half the price of
stud frame construction and makes for a tighter construction
schedule. The environmentally friendly material, OSB, uses farm
trees and recycled wood materials and can be used with other
engineered wood products to create truly modern yet comfortable
environments.
The foundation system and retaining walls is conventional
concrete and CMU with permeable pavers in the areas
surrounding the cottages. The colored concrete floor is both
surface and heating element. A conventional or on -demand water
heater can function both as a heater and hot water supplier.
The skin on the exterior and the interior consists of recycled
Cottage 1- Studio material, corrugated metal, colored mineral boards, and exposed
OSB boards. Hardback boards are used to create a vaned and
tactile material palette.
A basin cistern above for the collection and storage of rain water
is connected to the gravity driven irrigation system surrounding
the cottage. Future amendments to the cottages: solar collectors
on the north - oriented roofs and /or solar voltaic panels would
compliment the already efficient design.
CoUa oration Between Artist and Architect
Artist and architect established the sizing of the building as a
collaborative process and articulated the material finishes in order
to create a comfortable environment for the visiting artists. The
cottages have an almost stripped down character to expose the
underlying quality of the simple construction. The materials
used are also susceptible to stain and coloring suggesting the
hands -on materials quality is part of the interior and exterior.
David Ireland
7T I Pln it
r-
Cottage 2- Northwest view
�Y
Cottage 2 - Entrance
Cottage 1 - hiving Space Cottage 2 - Studio
Hodgetts & Fung Design dissociates
:l
sister suzie
here are those who write standing up in the kitchen,
those who cannot find the works without a laptop, and those
who write only longhand — with a pencil. There are as many
habits and postures and chemical brews design to release the
creative spark as there are writers.
Lee Breuer's "Death in Venice" and "Sister Suzy Cinema"
provided a rough framework for this pair of cottages. Like two
characters from two plays from the same hand, these cottages
are sympathetic yet contrary, disciplined yet laid back, orthodox
yet radical. They are design to provide resident writers a palette
of experiences to compliment their need for the "right" place to
work.
Both cottages hare a slope by a glade, and a simple roster of
materials chosen for sustainability as well as tactile appeal. In
each there are places of refuge, but Sister Suzie is more
conspicuously upbeat, even jaunty, offering framed views and
an airy penthouse; while DIV is jagged, even melancholic, with
a casual, intimate geometry suggesting a Jungian retreat.
Both are informed by the murmur of the nearby stream, shadowed
by stands of eucalyptus, and surrounded by tall grasses.
We hope the writers who work there will find what they are
looking for.
Lee Breuer
v
Sister Suzie
This cottage is approached by a bridge which joins the adjacent
slope to the rooftop, where a small pavillion provides minimal
shelter for a workplace. From there, access to the living quarters
is provided by an exterior stair within the cottage. A raised area
is located adjacent to a large bay which affords views up and
down the glade, as well as below to the surrounding landscape.
Construction of walls and floors is expected to employ
prefabricated stress skin panels with color stained plywood faces.
Foundation and retaining walls are of integrally colored concrete
block.
Death in Venice
The living space in this cottage is carved from the hillside itself,
and partially covered by an extension of the landscape. An
irregular arrangement of retaining walls offers opportunities for
a variety of room arrangements. A small patio depressed below
grade provides a protected outdoor workspace, sheltered by one
of four fan -like roof which enclose the room. Clerestories
between the leaves of the roof will provide glimpses of the sky.
Construction of the walls and floors is of concrete and integrally
colored concrete block. Engineered wood beams and
prefabricated stress skin panels for the roof structure.
Jim .Jennings Architecture
0 ne cottage is composed of solid block walls housing
a writer. It was inspired by the writing of Nobel Prize
winning poet Czeslaw Milosz.
Area breakdowns are as follows:
Enclosed Area: 408 sf
Exterior Covered Area: 216 sf
Open Patio Area: 438 sf
The writer's cottage places the living area above and open floor
plate underneath. This space below opens to an outdoor courtyard
on one end and a double height dining area on the other. Entrance
to the cottage is gained through a large opening in the east
elevation which ushers the visitor into the central open area of
the cottage. Open to the sky and providing varied views into
and out of the space this area leads up to the living space via a
staircase attached to the west wall. The whole was composed
with attention to an idea of beauty defined throughout Milosz's
poetry. According to the poet this beauty and clarity is found
through careful attention to the articulation of clearly defined
volumes and spatial experience. The entire structure is cut into
the side of the slope berming earth to one side and allowing it to
slope away on the other. Stone and concrete composite pavers
will be used as flooring throughout the space, ,
J�.
' T
R
To find my home in one sentence, concise, as if
hammered in metal, not to enchant anybody, not to
earn a lasting name in posterity. An unnamed need
for order, for rhythm, for form, which three words are
opposed to chaos and nothingness.
First plain speech in the mother tongue... One clear
stanza can take more weight than a whole wagon of
elaborate prose.
Czeslaw Milosz
r
r
`
i A \
a
7,
J�.
' T
R
To find my home in one sentence, concise, as if
hammered in metal, not to enchant anybody, not to
earn a lasting name in posterity. An unnamed need
for order, for rhythm, for form, which three words are
opposed to chaos and nothingness.
First plain speech in the mother tongue... One clear
stanza can take more weight than a whole wagon of
elaborate prose.
Czeslaw Milosz
r
r
`
i A \
T�
r «
ry
i
The other cottage is made up of block walls and polygal
translucent sheathing. It was inspired by sculpture artist
Richard Serra.
Area breakdowns are as follows:
Enclosed Area: 598 sf
Exterior Covered Area: 0 sf
Open Patio Area: 204 sf
The block and translucent polygal cottage was conceived as a
composition of four cubes. A solid living cube, an open courtyard
cube and two translucent cubes providing a studio space for the
artist. The solid cube and the base of the translucent cubes will
be made up of the same material as the solid block cottage. These
four spaces differentiate function and material while holding
together as a unified whole. Pulling ideas of lightness and
heaviness from the work of Serra, the structure balances these
two positions through material and composition. Allowing light
into the studio during the day, the translucent polygal sheets
function in reverse at night allowing light to emanate from all
sides in the darkness. A large solid door provides an area to
move large pieces into the studio and, when opened fully, works
to change pedestrian flow through the building. Instead of
entering through the courtyard space the door blocks the walking
path to bring the visitor directly into the studio. Stone and
concrete composite pavers will be used as flooring throughout
the spaces.
Richard Serra / Czeslaw Milosz
Materials and Technology
The block in both structures will be made up of a composite
concrete. This construction brings recycled and cementious
materials together into a more environmentally sensitive building
material. Both structures will utilize the simple construction of
concrete block systems.
I'X
I think that any person coming upon one of my structures, not knowing anything about art can find pleasure and engagement in the logic of their construction. I actually think
that people who don't know my work and don't know anything about sculpture, wont approach it as sculpture. They will know it as a structure. A kind of obscure, peculiar
structure, and they will have a relationship to it quite different from those people who know about art.
Richard Serra
r
- 4 tv a,4
Adele 1 v auJee Santos & Associates
The two cottages are oriented north -south with one cottage
slightly canted 20 degrees west of south. The site location
allows for the back side of the cottages to be pushed up against
the brush line. The location also allows the live space to take
advantage of southern light while the studio receives northern
light.
We decided that it was important that the live space and work
space be completely separate form each other to prevent
unnecessary fumes from entering the live space. The cottages
were broken apart to separate the live space from the studio space.
This allowed for courtyards on either side of each structure. By
doing so, the building opens up to the surrounding exterior spaces
and feels bigger than it is. The two spaces have different
characters. The work space is more introverted, with the roof
curving down. The form of the studio maximizes wall space.
The live space is more extroverted and view- oriented, with the
curve of the roof opening to the sky. Although the volumes are
separated, the roofs form a continuous curve.
The live space, which is 433 sf is located on the up slope. The
front entrance is on the south side and the entry door ties into a
folding door system which allows for the lower part of the front
facade of the building to open up onto the front courtyard and
the rest of the landscape. A staircase runs across the live space
separating the kitchen and sitting area from the sleeping area
and the bathroom. As the landscape steps up so does that of the
live space and the sleeping area is located four feet up. It is the
first landing as you ascend the stairs. The bathroom, located on
the north, has a shower that opens to the outside and allows for a
person to shower among the trees. The kitchen for the unit is
located below the stairs. At the top of the stairs, is a door leading
to a terrace on the outside. This terrace allows for elevated views
into the courtyards and views of the landscape beyond. Extending
off of the terrace is an overhang to provide shade for the kitchen
and sitting area below. The terrace also acts as a connection
between the live space and the work space.
Down slope from the live space is the 447 so studio space. The
studio faces north to take advantage of the north light. The north
facade of the studio is also comprised of the glass folding doors.
The glass doors of the live space are lined up with the glass
doors of the studio. We call this the "zipper ". When all of the
doors are folded open the two buildings again become one and
the cottage feels twice its size. With a glass door continuing
around the comer of each facade, a diagonal view is created
from inside one cottage to the other. The two parts again feel
visually connected.
Solar collectors will be used to collect solar radiation for both
domestic hot water and space heating. This system would be
more efficient and less expensive to operate than other heating
systems. The location of the solar collectors in the buildings
create special windows and allow additional light into each space.
In the live space, the solar collectors become shades over a
skylight above the bathroom and staircase landing. The hot water
tanks are located on the outside of the building and act as a shield
for the outdoor shower area. In the studio, the solar collectors
sit above a niche that juts out from the building in which the hot
water tanks and the utility sink are located. Both structures allow
for passive ventilation. Cool air is brought in from below and
the hot air escapes through operable windows above.
The building shell will be made of In- Steel, a 3 -D panel system.
The 3 -1) system is a core of modified polystyrene, flanked by
wire mesh, connected with galvanized truss wires, and finally
field coated with shotcrete. The interior finish in the studio will
be simply the shoterete finish. In the live space, some of the
interior walls will be made of Ecocolors wheat panels. The roof
will be a metal roof made of Galvalume. The terrace will be a
metal grating. The glass door system, described earlier, is a wood
framed folding french door system.
The square footage of the terrace is 72 sf. The total square footage
of the entire cottage including the terrace is 952 sf.
' mss' .. - - - . "{ ` is , - •,1
j
i 4:
�!✓ ` .. {-
OU
r+
fe x�e
Doug Hollis
North Elc,,ation
South Elevation
ICI
i7'
r
g
The two cottages are oriented north -south with one cottage
slightly canted 20 degrees west of south. The site location
allows for the back side of the cottages to be pushed up against
the brush line. The location also allows the live space to take
advantage of southern light while the studio receives northern
light.
We decided that it was important that the live space and work
space be completely separate form each other to prevent
unnecessary fumes from entering the live space. The cottages
were broken apart to separate the live space from the studio space.
This allowed for courtyards on either side of each structure. By
doing so, the building opens up to the surrounding exterior spaces
and feels bigger than it is. The two spaces have different
characters. The work space is more introverted, with the roof
curving down. The form of the studio maximizes wall space.
The live space is more extroverted and view- oriented, with the
curve of the roof opening to the sky. Although the volumes are
separated, the roofs form a continuous curve.
The live space, which is 433 sf is located on the up slope. The
front entrance is on the south side and the entry door ties into a
folding door system which allows for the lower part of the front
facade of the building to open up onto the front courtyard and
the rest of the landscape. A staircase runs across the live space
separating the kitchen and sitting area from the sleeping area
and the bathroom. As the landscape steps up so does that of the
live space and the sleeping area is located four feet up. It is the
first landing as you ascend the stairs. The bathroom, located on
the north, has a shower that opens to the outside and allows for a
person to shower among the trees. The kitchen for the unit is
located below the stairs. At the top of the stairs, is a door leading
to a terrace on the outside. This terrace allows for elevated views
into the courtyards and views of the landscape beyond. Extending
off of the terrace is an overhang to provide shade for the kitchen
and sitting area below. The terrace also acts as a connection
between the live space and the work space.
Down slope from the live space is the 447 so studio space. The
studio faces north to take advantage of the north light. The north
facade of the studio is also comprised of the glass folding doors.
The glass doors of the live space are lined up with the glass
doors of the studio. We call this the "zipper ". When all of the
doors are folded open the two buildings again become one and
the cottage feels twice its size. With a glass door continuing
around the comer of each facade, a diagonal view is created
from inside one cottage to the other. The two parts again feel
visually connected.
Solar collectors will be used to collect solar radiation for both
domestic hot water and space heating. This system would be
more efficient and less expensive to operate than other heating
systems. The location of the solar collectors in the buildings
create special windows and allow additional light into each space.
In the live space, the solar collectors become shades over a
skylight above the bathroom and staircase landing. The hot water
tanks are located on the outside of the building and act as a shield
for the outdoor shower area. In the studio, the solar collectors
sit above a niche that juts out from the building in which the hot
water tanks and the utility sink are located. Both structures allow
for passive ventilation. Cool air is brought in from below and
the hot air escapes through operable windows above.
The building shell will be made of In- Steel, a 3 -D panel system.
The 3 -1) system is a core of modified polystyrene, flanked by
wire mesh, connected with galvanized truss wires, and finally
field coated with shotcrete. The interior finish in the studio will
be simply the shoterete finish. In the live space, some of the
interior walls will be made of Ecocolors wheat panels. The roof
will be a metal roof made of Galvalume. The terrace will be a
metal grating. The glass door system, described earlier, is a wood
framed folding french door system.
The square footage of the terrace is 72 sf. The total square footage
of the entire cottage including the terrace is 952 sf.
' mss' .. - - - . "{ ` is , - •,1
j
i 4:
�!✓ ` .. {-
OU
r+
fe x�e
Doug Hollis
North Elc,,ation
South Elevation
Longitudinal Section
Cross Section — Working
Cross Section — Living
ICI
g
Longitudinal Section
Cross Section — Working
Cross Section — Living
s
SHEET INDEX
PROJECT DIRECTORY
A0.0
COVER SHEET
C1.0
CIVIL
C1.1
CIVIL
S.aw.0 A.xn
C1.2
Ai.!3
CIVIL
SITE P644
Sep.
Al A
AA-2.2
arE R611PI
ROOF PLAN -BLDG. A
AA-1 7
NQU
AA -4.1
INTERIOR ELEVATIONS/ SECTIONS - BLDG. A
AB -2.1
FLOOR PLANS / ROOF PLAN - COTTAGE B1 &2
m+V..d.. Wn
AB -2.2
ISOMETRIC - COTTAGE B1 & 2
AB -3.1
SECTION / ELEVATIONS - COTTAGE B1 &2
AC -2.1
FLOOR PLAN -COTTAGE Cl
AC -2.2
FLOOR PLAN - COTTAGE C2
ROTECHMCAL ENVNEER
AC -2.3
ROOF PLANS - COTTAGE Cl & 2
Sw.rB.. AR6rtn.1.
AC -3.1
ELEVATIONS - COTTAGE Cl
AI�e.CA.ma
AC -3.2
ELEVATIONS - COTTAGE C2
AC -4.1
INTERIOR ELEVATIONS/ SECTIONS - COTTAGE Cl &2
D.. S..-...
AD -2.1
FLOOR PLANS - COTTAGE D1 & 2
dwr.r • x.... r6......,
AD -2.2
ROOF PLANS - COTTAGE D2 & 2
A496-4.2
AE -2.1
EI:EYA;FIE)P4S+SFEi+IeN-
FLOOR PLANS- COTTAGE El & 2
CR•C ENJINUR
AE -2.2
ROOF PLANS - COTTAGE E1 & 2
AE -3.1
ELEVATIONS COTTAGE E1
AE -3.2
ELEVATIONS COTTAGE E2
JAN 1 2 1999
AE -4.1
INTERIOR ELEVATIONS / SECTIONS COTTAGE E1 &2
C6...R..L.m
AF -2.1
FLOOR PLANS COTTAGE F1 &2
PLANNING DEPAR_ATMENT
r_- __
AF -2.2
ROOF PLANS COTTAGE F1 & 2
AF -3.1
ELEVATIONS COTTAGE F1 &2
AF -4.1
INTERIOR ELEVATIONS/ SECTIONS COTTAGE F1 &2
PROJECT DIRECTORY
MONTALvo AS 'KvmN
LAND_cAm ARCKTECT
S. _CA-
OR: PO B.. iv
S..E.-CA..n
S.aw.0 A.xn
.OF.aa.a,
.4 xsFtl. (u
KI-Fn
M -T.-L.
Ek" CL.B....
E,.,..... D-_
GEOTECHMCAL ENO WUlt
.d.l6e a..IL...aJ.....
m+V..d.. Wn
S... J...• CA ma
B..J A-
ROTECHMCAL ENVNEER
A n[Hr.Ec7
HT H...n! A...
Sw.rB.. AR6rtn.1.
.aEL6nA Se
- SWAIL.•S....�
AI�e.CA.ma
xi.eo L.
en.son L.
D.. S..-...
D.. S. , P... 1
dwr.r • x.... r6......,
C"AL- P-w lvi_,
CR•C ENJINUR
RECEIVED -..:
w N.Fw S_
5�.J -CA..
JAN 1 2 1999
C6...R..L.m
..
K.Ap. """
PLANNING DEPAR_ATMENT
r_- __
•
132 M 42 .�. _
. -. .. -_ 128 M 19 \ \1 \.,..
I \
\
GRADING
AREA
CUT -Y)
FILL SCY�
BLDG A
250
160
BLDG B
200
3C
BLDG C
160
1C
BLDG D
50
30
BLDG E
10
30
BLDG P
130
90
ROAD
400
850
;CTRL
_
1200
1200
MAX 12 FT 8.5 FT
J ❑ _
rr 22 22 22
ra
vILLT pp�
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
SITE INFORMATION
A.P.N. 517 -15 -013
PROJECT 115400 MON TAI VO ROAD
AOORESS SARATOGA. CA
OWNER MONTALVO ASSOCIATES
'AR, -i IST RESIDENCY
LCT SIZE 9.09 AC
LfASE: !Nt
r NSTAE_L 67,
.CONNEC`i 1
I
COUNTY PARKS
SF\fdITARY 'SE,,`,/ER
,i — ISTING 6" SANITARY SEWER
+NSTA`LI. WATER (DOMESTIC, FIFE, IRRIGATION)
COf�dP�E.0 i;.? E,"IS1 -ING WATER
'RSACT`NO. 5289
48 M m
TRACT NO. 4646
�2nA M 28
AGGREGATE BASE
PERMEABLE PAVEMENT MAY BE ALLOWED ON GRADES LESS THAN
15% AND DNLY WHERE ALLOWED BY THE SDILS ENGINEER
TYPICAL DRIVEWAY SECTION
NO SCALE
GRAPHIC SCALE
N IN F®T'
)
I eT - 200 it.
iE
u ^O°
OHM
IN)'"
fl[
z
a
5
a
O
�O
BENCHMARK
iSE BENCHMARK FOR THIS PRCJECT �.(
IS SE 1 NAIL IN PARKING LOT 1.
EL= 672.74 rc
i
BLDG Cl \
FF 726.0 -
PAD 724.0 I \
Zop
P
4 7360� 1��i111111'I {1 5.a —�
FLU= 0 \
i BCD C2� 'j rR i{'ARiJ /
FF
- \ FF 7,3 0 7 2.5 / ..,. 38
AD 35 PAD : %i w 9
731.5 P 7zai 539 p W
HIGH PT
r r
-n
P
/TW69�
733.9 { /!' /,t v - aroma `(L l !
••_° - I- /� i _ rl BLDG A
✓ -"e :l ii n r I l FF:687.0
.� 'BLDG B1 PAD 6860
17F '708 o
N
< .51'74 ' /HIGH P7 A�� O .) �; iTWb95.0
Y <' FI'724
w
\ FF 708:0
A,( _ ^P• 74'7§ PAD 7050
Q /'-
TW7510 LK - •� X57 �;�, t+
Bw75o o BLDG D} ` 7<S7 5 � �' ' r 7esa
f. FF 71W 0
'PAD 733'0
.BENCHMa
�a
�.. I ' $! >4QO c ...7729 5: $ _ `I . • J. - d /
N. 77
k
�
I
i
BLDG Cl \
FF 726.0 -
PAD 724.0 I \
Zop
P
4 7360� 1��i111111'I {1 5.a —�
FLU= 0 \
i BCD C2� 'j rR i{'ARiJ /
FF
- \ FF 7,3 0 7 2.5 / ..,. 38
AD 35 PAD : %i w 9
731.5 P 7zai 539 p W
HIGH PT
r r
-n
P
/TW69�
733.9 { /!' /,t v - aroma `(L l !
••_° - I- /� i _ rl BLDG A
✓ -"e :l ii n r I l FF:687.0
.� 'BLDG B1 PAD 6860
17F '708 o
N
< .51'74 ' /HIGH P7 A�� O .) �; iTWb95.0
Y <' FI'724
w
\ FF 708:0
A,( _ ^P• 74'7§ PAD 7050
Q /'-
TW7510 LK - •� X57 �;�, t+
Bw75o o BLDG D} ` 7<S7 5 � �' ' r 7esa
f. FF 71W 0
'PAD 733'0
.BENCHMa
�a
�.. I ' $! >4QO c ...7729 5: $ _ `I . • J. - d /
N. 77
sm
no
'PIFR MINIMUM L NGiTUDINAL SLOPE
OF WALE HALL E I%
2i: 'r❑ 4% EFERRED GRADE
A CURB TYPE REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX FOR USE IN LIGHT DRAINAGE
INSTALLATIONS. APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS SHOWN,
SWALE DETAIL GNRISTY APPREI X.
COMPUTER CODE IT. LBS.
NO SCALE V2415OX #V64 DRAIN BOX. IB'NIBI/l SQUARE 137
V24 -71C 71038 GRATE CAST IRON . 59
V24X12 1245 EXTENSION 12' REINFORCED CONCRETE IS -E As 137
TO FIND CENTIMETERS MULTIPLY INCHES BY 2,5
TO FIND KILOGRAMS MULTIPLY POUNDS BY 45
V24 DRAIN BOX 18° X 19 1/2 •
HO SCALE ..
I
OF BERM
BERM
(
P VEMENT
ASE
A.C. BERM DETAIL....'
NU SCALE
ENERGY DISSIPATOR DETAIL
NO SCALE
MU ➢SILL -
- _
_
i
10' F
FLOOR JII TS
3' MIN I
It le,
'�1�_•
6' IN _
10' PAD
_i 1
NUT
I
OF BERM
BERM
(
P VEMENT
ASE
A.C. BERM DETAIL....'
NU SCALE
ENERGY DISSIPATOR DETAIL
NO SCALE
v
fit
RIPAWAN
V -GLTA '16N
I T
z,
Existing Tree to Remain
anopy Tres
Columnar Tree
Riparian MitigationVegelation
Meadow Planting
Aftem VINSIAOrNifto
15400 mcown ftw
SWOOP. CA 95070
OWWK. MWA" Association
ZINW. R-1-40,000
sin Of Lot 11" S"
StOl Of INFU01— A : I- Fl...��
.: ONW. 11i $301K. C34 8110d, CS NW.
Dt Wast. 104: INK El: 1450. E2:41ftd4
Fl: 9574 F2:951$1
9nPKAOUSa*,W0FO.4W.
Woo AISNA&VSts: Vadwompho
Averap Ob Slope: 20.01
I
GRAPHIC SCALE
IN rjzr
I inch = 20 it
VICINITY MAP
9820.01
MANTA FRY
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
165 TENTH STRE:T
8. ,
FR ANCIS 00. CA , 03
TEL:M,552.421f
FAX:415.$52.6210
6p e�i
O
Z
<
J
CL
LLJ
A-1.3
4
ji j
BENCHMAR
I
GRAPHIC SCALE
IN rjzr
I inch = 20 it
VICINITY MAP
9820.01
MANTA FRY
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
165 TENTH STRE:T
8. ,
FR ANCIS 00. CA , 03
TEL:M,552.421f
FAX:415.$52.6210
6p e�i
O
Z
<
J
CL
LLJ
A-1.3
ExisUna
Tree Leaend
N_ 60
Cons NWW
ato
c4rwmm
at"
1
ak O
aT
Ink- goad
mrWn
2
Oak
2-tr
IW- goad
mron
S
Oak
74s
kk- goad
mnm
4
Oak
1r
hk- good
ra ok
6
Oak
2-r
I*- good
mneM
6
Oak
tr
fak- good
FWAM
7
Tres
5a-
hk- good
famM
a
Troy
24•
fak- goad
MWAM
9
Tray
5r
fair - goad
vi ob
10
Tro
1.
lair- good
tenon
11
Trn
5r
Ilk- good
M do
12
Tr"
r
for- good
." Nkr
15
14
Two
1—
5r
tr
fak- good
fair- good
rMron
mn.M
16
TM
2T
fak- good
mnon
to
Toe
1T
fair- goad
remdrr
17
Tr"
1P
fak- good
r0 wh
16
Tmo
IT
fak- goad
- orlon
19
Tr"
tr
tat - good
roman
20
Oak
2 -10•
fair- good
moon
21
Oak
1r
far- good
mnovs
22
Oak
1r
lair- good
wm m
25
Oak
a'
fair- good
small
24
Oak
6'
lat- goal
mrara
26
Oak
2-17
1*- good
remain
2a
Oak
r
W. good
mmdn
27
Too
17
fair- good
romdn
26
Tree
r
fak- good
ranratr
29
Toe
IT
tW- good
MMM
30
Oak
6r
fak- goad
romw
61
Oak
1P
fair- good
mmom
32
Oak
r
fat- good
ranlere
77
Oak
IT
fat- good
mndn
74
Oak
61
fair- goad
mrldn
35
Oak
tr
fair- good
mnaM
05
Oak
r
fat- good
mrdn
37
Oak
1r
rat- good
tenon
76
oak
1r
fak- good
mldn
39
Oak
IT
W- good
mlroln
40
Oak
a-
fW- goad
rerrme
41
Oak
2-40-
fair - good
mmdo
12
Oak
25•
fair- good
rsmaM
N
Oak
17
fW- good
mnWn
44
Oak
Sd
fak - good
ream
4$
Oak
IT
fW - good
mndn
45
Oak
tr
fak- good
mndn
47
oak
20-
1W - good
remakr
4e
Oak
IT
fW- goad
mum
40
Oak
24r
fat*- good
rafnakr
so
Oat
1r
W. good
rsmdn
51
Oak
2.17
fW- goad
ramdn
WWa
w
u2u
r I F
wepof* Paoal Nafma: 1.5174"ll, ...._
44drna; Vlh mod" -
16100 klodalro Itea0 ..
Sa lop, CA 05070
Onmr. VGntW O AsMakdar
Zoos: fi�tt--1810,000 '
Bkea dtaL NA K'flll - )t'fir
Stn of Sbwd A: I'FkW -.�," %. god FMer-'.':,�,
BI: 9". e2: Md. Qt ow, G: 596d,
DL' 61681, DI: "W. H: 7064, ES 46011,
F1: 95781. Ft 95781
b pwvkxw 6grrs FaolaW: 25.112 d
6Mpe Al BWNng SM Vada, ne plan
Avaraga Sb SMM: 20.6%
P-14 W-14 FOR
1.891 SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR
347 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR
4.238 80. FT. TOTAL
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLAN
ROOF PLAN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLAN
+691' Nal
+691' Fin
WEST/ REAR ELEVATION
+689' Nei Gid
+687' Fin Grd
Fin Grd
•874' Nal Grd
_______...____.___..-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -676' Nat
Grd SOUTH / LEFT ELEVATION
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLANn..a ��.
\ '
----------'----------'-
NORTH / RIGHT ELEVATION
+886' Nat Grd \
_____________ \_
. +888' Nat Grd
SECTION LOOKING WEST
SECTION LOOKING EAST
+848' Not Grd
+88T Fin Grd
+S$r Fin Grd
+888' Nat Grd
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
'T x
KEY PLAN
ROOF PLAN
A82.1 %or/P 044 Cea 81&2
14tlq, Joury 11. IM 10:25 VY
Cotlage
iJir1j\
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLAN
ISOMETRIC
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLAN
wr.�ww.rtuvc�rnomw TM
MINERALIZED WOOD FIBER
."_..--' -- °•" DOORS DOORS
LNENNDRK SPACE
EAST WEST SECTION
INNER TERRACE I OUTER TERRACE
EAST / FRONT ELEVATION
Fin Ord
ra71W Nil Ord
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
�- r:: .
KEY PLAN
. . . .. . v..t_ . . `. .. _
&iwln 118.00 sq R
LIVING ROOM 328.00 sq It
SLEEPING NOOK 58.25 sq 8
AM 53.75 sq It
Sae sq ft
SLIDING
WALL FINISH
GYPBOARD PAINT
'• SLIDING MTL L
SLIDING MTL
WC /PORCHERVF
WALL FINISH _
SHOWER COAT
& HARDIBOARD
COLLAPSABLE SE/
SINK / PORCHER SAPF
TRACK
RAINWATER
m
97-(r
a
l
12.00 a
LIVING ROOM
328.00 sq R
COLORED CONCRFLOOR
RADIANT HEAT
�111� =farmi
............
f........ ..........:....................
fiTu=
118.00
COLORED sq8
CONCR.FLOOR
RADIANT HEAT
.. ..•
W1 .CORRUGATED MTL
R- CONTROL PANEL r R 30
W2 .COLORED ETERNIT PANEL
R- CONTROL PANEL r R 30
W3 .R- CONTROL PANEL S'
SLIDING DOORS
WALL FINISH
GYPBOARD PAINT
CEIL. EXPOS. RCONTROL PANEL
WALL EXPOS. RCONTROLPANEL
EI�Y
TRACK SLIDING MTL LOUVER
T.
WALK
e
EXT. WALL
ROOF OVERHANG
CONCRETE PAVERS
ro COTTAGE 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
Jy`..4, .:;r• a ,*.
�6
KEY PLAN
b
A
-----7WALL FINISH
:GYPBOARD
PAINT
IDING DO
D STEPS
jSLIDING MTL LOUVER
.................
L.UDING MTL LOUVER
........................................................................
LOFT PLAN
fMH 90.00 sq It
STAIRS1 HAI 1 78.00 sq a
STUDIO 448.00 aq It
UVINGROOM 168.00 sqft
FIRST FLOOR TOTAL MOO sq IN
TOTAL COTTAGE j!LOFT 889.00 SOFT
A A
Wl CORRUGATED MTL
4'4r t It 414r t r-1, t T_9' t R-CONTROL PANEL Ir R 30
tW2 -COLORED ETERNIT PANEL
- R-CONTROL PANEL r R 30
0,11 t It 1d -10" 11d -10" i t W3 ...R -CONTROL PANEL 6"
SLIDING MTL LOU tEJ'TRACK -CONCRETE PAVERS ONCRETE STEPS
.............. ii glu in EaL
..... ............
UL -ISINK PORCHER SAPHO i
/ PORCHER VENETO
N&E FL OW" VIM i
RADIANT H
I
SEAT T SLIDING MTL LOUVER
ELLVVEE ............... .......................... A
—�VMOD STEPS
t% HEATER/
.177. TO E w
.............
TRACK
WALL FIN MPr--
GYPBOARD PAINT 4 78.00 sq fl
T
..................................... ....... ONCRETE STEPS
CEIL. EXPOS. R-CONTROL PANEL STUIDIO T-0" KITCHENUNIT
448.00 sq R
NALL EXPOS. R-CONTROL PANEL COLORED CONCRYLOOR SLIDING MTL LOUVER
RADIANT HEAT
SUDING DOORT'
70 ............................. . . . ................... ..................
0--
LIVINGjjOOM WALL FINISH
160
SLIDING EXT. VWRr— AV GYPBOARD PAINT
COLORED
RADIANT HEAT
TRACK
-4�
...............
RETAINING VMLt-el*bl-- -
................
...............
................... .....................
RAINWATER Clffl ...... ...... .......
1421 p ft
L—SLIDING DOORS LIONCRETE PAVERS SLIDING MTL LOUVER
JAV1"
2W-0"
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
Map 0
................
I I
-----7WALL FINISH
:GYPBOARD
PAINT
IDING DO
D STEPS
jSLIDING MTL LOUVER
.................
L.UDING MTL LOUVER
........................................................................
LOFT PLAN
fMH 90.00 sq It
STAIRS1 HAI 1 78.00 sq a
STUDIO 448.00 aq It
UVINGROOM 168.00 sqft
FIRST FLOOR TOTAL MOO sq IN
TOTAL COTTAGE j!LOFT 889.00 SOFT
A A
Wl CORRUGATED MTL
4'4r t It 414r t r-1, t T_9' t R-CONTROL PANEL Ir R 30
tW2 -COLORED ETERNIT PANEL
- R-CONTROL PANEL r R 30
0,11 t It 1d -10" 11d -10" i t W3 ...R -CONTROL PANEL 6"
SLIDING MTL LOU tEJ'TRACK -CONCRETE PAVERS ONCRETE STEPS
.............. ii glu in EaL
..... ............
UL -ISINK PORCHER SAPHO i
/ PORCHER VENETO
N&E FL OW" VIM i
RADIANT H
I
SEAT T SLIDING MTL LOUVER
ELLVVEE ............... .......................... A
—�VMOD STEPS
t% HEATER/
.177. TO E w
.............
TRACK
WALL FIN MPr--
GYPBOARD PAINT 4 78.00 sq fl
T
..................................... ....... ONCRETE STEPS
CEIL. EXPOS. R-CONTROL PANEL STUIDIO T-0" KITCHENUNIT
448.00 sq R
NALL EXPOS. R-CONTROL PANEL COLORED CONCRYLOOR SLIDING MTL LOUVER
RADIANT HEAT
SUDING DOORT'
70 ............................. . . . ................... ..................
0--
LIVINGjjOOM WALL FINISH
160
SLIDING EXT. VWRr— AV GYPBOARD PAINT
COLORED
RADIANT HEAT
TRACK
-4�
...............
RETAINING VMLt-el*bl-- -
................
...............
................... .....................
RAINWATER Clffl ...... ...... .......
1421 p ft
L—SLIDING DOORS LIONCRETE PAVERS SLIDING MTL LOUVER
JAV1"
2W-0"
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
lil
mwme_!,
KEY PLAN
H
o
-----7WALL FINISH
:GYPBOARD
PAINT
IDING DO
D STEPS
jSLIDING MTL LOUVER
.................
L.UDING MTL LOUVER
........................................................................
LOFT PLAN
fMH 90.00 sq It
STAIRS1 HAI 1 78.00 sq a
STUDIO 448.00 aq It
UVINGROOM 168.00 sqft
FIRST FLOOR TOTAL MOO sq IN
TOTAL COTTAGE j!LOFT 889.00 SOFT
A A
Wl CORRUGATED MTL
4'4r t It 414r t r-1, t T_9' t R-CONTROL PANEL Ir R 30
tW2 -COLORED ETERNIT PANEL
- R-CONTROL PANEL r R 30
0,11 t It 1d -10" 11d -10" i t W3 ...R -CONTROL PANEL 6"
SLIDING MTL LOU tEJ'TRACK -CONCRETE PAVERS ONCRETE STEPS
.............. ii glu in EaL
..... ............
UL -ISINK PORCHER SAPHO i
/ PORCHER VENETO
N&E FL OW" VIM i
RADIANT H
I
SEAT T SLIDING MTL LOUVER
ELLVVEE ............... .......................... A
—�VMOD STEPS
t% HEATER/
.177. TO E w
.............
TRACK
WALL FIN MPr--
GYPBOARD PAINT 4 78.00 sq fl
T
..................................... ....... ONCRETE STEPS
CEIL. EXPOS. R-CONTROL PANEL STUIDIO T-0" KITCHENUNIT
448.00 sq R
NALL EXPOS. R-CONTROL PANEL COLORED CONCRYLOOR SLIDING MTL LOUVER
RADIANT HEAT
SUDING DOORT'
70 ............................. . . . ................... ..................
0--
LIVINGjjOOM WALL FINISH
160
SLIDING EXT. VWRr— AV GYPBOARD PAINT
COLORED
RADIANT HEAT
TRACK
-4�
...............
RETAINING VMLt-el*bl-- -
................
...............
................... .....................
RAINWATER Clffl ...... ...... .......
1421 p ft
L—SLIDING DOORS LIONCRETE PAVERS SLIDING MTL LOUVER
JAV1"
2W-0"
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLAN
RAINWATER CISTERN
COTTAGE 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
?Pv�
KEY PLAN
E
RED
.A' -2•
MTL HOPPER
+4'.0•
SLIDING MTL LO
-0•
NORTH / REAR ELEVATION
SOUTH / FRONT ELEVATION
. MTL WALL
.IDING WINDOW
DECK
.3'-p
MTLROOF
t
IG MTL LOUVER
MTL WALL so-0•
NAT GRD -7
tjr-r
MTL HOPPE
MTL SLIDI
EAST / RIGHT ELEVATION
+1&-2"
II -0•
CORR. MTL SIDING
ju -0.
jj -0.
- GRD +727'
WEST / LEFT ELEVATION
RR. MTL PARAPET
CORR. MTL ROOF
1.s : 12
I ETERNIT PANELS
LING MTL LOUVER
SLIDING WINDOW
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
CI
SLI
C
CORR. L
SLIDING E
EAST /LEFT ELEVATION
WEST / RIGHT ELEVATION
+,gd
a
•,r-g•
a
IEL
IV
s'd
a
-16`1
NATL
+Irkd STOREFRONTWII
NAT OR
RAINWATER
NORTH / FRONT ELEVATION
SOUTH / REAR ELEVATION
A. MTL ROOF
,2
ETERNIT PANEL
NO MTL LOUVER
NATURAL GRADE
+1 0•a
30•-0•
a
a
•5' -0'
a
+18'd
a
MTL LOUVER
RR. MTL SIDING
�d
734'
a
WALK
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
rig
KEY PLAN
SLIDING
NATURAL GRADE
FOUNDATION PE
NAT
CORRUGATED MTL
1.5:12
SECTION COTTAGE C2
SECTION COTTAGE Cl
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLAN
3B':
Floor Plan Cottage D1
Coehy. D1 750 SOFT
r COLORED CMU
BLOCK WALL
CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE
SLIDING DOORS
OCK WALL
R TO
E
*ANEL
(WOOD
)R
MOOD
3ANEL
FLOOR
Floor Plan Cottage D2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
✓ -T �I1 ��ti i' C `
KEY PLAN
A
♦
AN AN \ ♦ \ \ \
\ \
\ , AN AN
AN BRm(fAOCESS \
, \ TO SISTER SLOE ♦ ♦ AN
\ \ COTTAGE \
At ♦ \ ♦ ♦\
1 \ \ ♦ ♦ AN AN
\ \ \
\ \ ♦ ♦ \ { 11 A
\ \ ♦ ` 1
% \ \ \ 1 L-i
♦ \ 1
\ \ ♦ { 1
1
iTaSealE \♦ ♦ O O ❑ 1:1 El El ❑ ❑ \I \\ 1,11 1
1 1 1
1
11 ❑11110 ❑0 ❑❑
1 1
.. \ ❑11 0 11 11 1 \` 1 ♦` , 11
1
\ 1 11 1
1 1 1
\ \ 1 11 1
♦ { 1 1
1 1 t 1
1 ,
1 1
' OOF3i164TED \ \
. hM ROOF 1 1 1 1 1
\ \ 1 1
\ \ 1 1 1
\ {
\ \
1 {
1
,
A A
`
1 1 1 I
{ \ 1 1 1 1
111♦ { ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ♦11 1 1 I I
1 1 I
1 1 1 1
,1
\ \ 1 \ 1, 1 1 1 1
, 1 1 1 I
1 1 1 \ { 1 1 1 1
1 1 { \ 1 1 I I 1
�1
1
1
1
1
1
it
it
i
1
1
i
i
i
I
i
1
1
I
1
i
i
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
I
i
1
i
i
I
I
i
i
i
1
i
i
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
\
1 1
1 .............._1,
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
I1
i
I 1
i
1
1
i
1 1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
i
i
I
i
I
/
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
Y 0
(i l
3 ,
KEY PLAN
{
{
{
{
1
1
DECOMPOSED
1
GRANITE
1
1
� 1
1
1
1
DECOMPOSED
1
1
1
1
1
Y 1
GRANITE
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�•
1
i
1
1
1 :
1
RAISED WOOD
DECK
1:
1:
1
I
1'
1
1:
1
1:
1
1'
1:
1
1:
1
1
1
,
1
1
1
{
{
1
1
I
1
,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
ACCESSTO
1
1
1 1
COTTAGE DI
1
1 1
1
1
{
1 1
1
I
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
•�
1
1
1
,
1
1
1
,
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
,
1
1
1
,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
Y 0
(i l
3 ,
KEY PLAN
CORRUGATED MTL.
GREEN CMU BLOCK WA
WOOD FRAME SLIDING DC
SISTER SUZIE ELEVATION
ROOF
R
SISTER SUZIE SECTION /DEATH IN VENICE ELEVATION
ANELS
LAME SLIDING DOOR
HOOD DECK
PLYWOOD
:H PANEL
STEEL STRUT
CK WALL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
03
KEY PLAN / APPROPRUTE BUILDING HIGHUG T H
CORRUGATED MTL. ROOF
Fin G
GREEN CMU SLOCF
ORRUGATED MTL ROOF
deaM In venke socUon/sblersumee elevaflon
SISTER SUZIE SECTION /DEATH IN VENICE ELEVATION
J.D. PAINTED
EELCOLUMNS
TAINED PLYWOOD
ANDWICH PANEL
GLASS PANELS
BLOCK WALL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLAN�4
t
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
COTTAGE 2
T
N
I
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
COTTAGE 2
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
COTTAGE 1
-■ 111111 I I I I I I I I �:' • `�XmN �.
COTTAGE 2: 218 SF
FIRST FLOOR 218 SF
SECOND FLOOR 192 SF
TOTAL:
COTTAGE 1:
TOTAL: 705 SF
1
KEY PLAN
ROOF PLAN
COTTAGE 2
ROOF PLAN
COTTAGE 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
ti oi
KEY PLAN
-F.-MMN
-
787.75'
NAT. ORD.
FLAT, BUILT -UP
SOUTH COURT ELEVATION
15'-4"
14
30'-0
POLYGJu
JUMBO GRAY
emu
KEY PLAN
............................
---------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
-----------
FIN. FLR.
EAST / FRONT ELEVATION
emu
NORTH COURT ELEVATION
EXT. METAL CLAD, WOOD, DUAL GLAZED,
SINGLE LITE, FRENCH DOORS
............... )111 ---- I ---- I ---- I ---- NAT. ORD.
----------- ------ ----------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIN. ORD. : -:::: --------- --------- -------------------------- ---------- ---------------------
-____-- °______________
: ------------- - --------- ......... - - -------------------------- .......... . . . .............................. FIN. ORD.
---------------- ......
.............
---------------- ---- --------------- -- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
767 S'
FIN. FLR.
WEST I BACK ELEVATION
NORTH / RIGHT ELEVATION
130 GRAY
emu
------------ "--i;� 6 �7
----------- ------------- NAT.
ORD.
` °__ °----- -- ----------------------
..............................................
FIN. ORD.
SOUTH / LEFT ELEVATION cc)NnITIONIAl I IcF PERMIT UT
KEY PLAN
FLAT, BUILT-UP
EAST / FRONT ELEVATION
DEM
-791'Fin Ord -------------- :
------------------- — ----------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 --------------------------- I'll— ----------------------------------- : ------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I --------------------- "I'll, ------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+791. Nal Ord --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-788 Fin Fir 7
WEST / BACK ELEVATION
EXT. METAL CLAD, WOOD, DUA
SINGLE LITE, FIXED WINDOW
.....................
.6 Fin Ord----------- -
-------- --- ---------
-791' Fin Ord
+788' Fin Ord
----------
. +791'Nad Ord
-------------------------
------------------------
+788' Not Ord
NORTH RIGHT ELEVATION
NNI Ord
Fin Ord
SOUTH / LEFT ELEVATION
ffl.YAADma.a
(D
To aOPlll
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLAN
FIN. FLR.
BUILDING SECTION
COTTAGE 1
769.5'
/.NAT. GIRD.
BUILDING SECTION
COTTAGE 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLAN �:..�_:�- '� - -�M`/
Ii
FIN. FLR.
BUILDING SECTION
COTTAGE 1
769.5'
/.NAT. GIRD.
BUILDING SECTION
COTTAGE 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLAN �:..�_:�- '� - -�M`/
s
Typical Plan Cottage Fi & F2
1/4 " -1'-0"
Cottage F1 & F2 Sim. -
957 Total SQFT Each
WORKSPACE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
�s
KEY PLANn�v�a �TM
r
4
f
ROOF PLAN / COTTAGES F1 & F2 SIMILAR
\ 1,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLAN o�a
th
1
•
In -Steel 3D panel syster
coated with shotcrete
(Cream colored stucco niu
Nat / Fin Grd -8W
In-Steel
coated 1
(cream
South / Front Elevation
GahWume metal roof _
/ Fin Grd -790'
North / Rear Elevation
o.e'
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLAN nw�rv�auawhwr�mu �m
wiltJOLU 11101 .wa,uvn %..Uuayc 1 a c aun.
...........m.. ......•
_ ow
gab
r ` Cross Section- Working space Cottage 1 & 2 Sim.
a►a'
Cross Section- Living Space Cottage 1 & 2 Sim.
1!!"
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLAN
Building C1
Residence
23, A-U, . .... .
Average SIoRa:22.9%
al
I EDGE OF
-�! �FARIAN
E STATION
/`
U R Unnin
on
P'Sl 20
j
j
41'
ff.
24.,
Y y
T
at 23
3
MAO
W 7
Cr
c
V
777 -
nullo!ng tsz
29, Aveage at"
3T xW
23,A 25'
015 .
20
7
W 030 c
IAN WiDIA
G TATION. TV.
ETOON. T),T.
EDGE
—&ARfAW
YVEGET, T 0
Plant Legend
Existing Tree to Remain - ------
GRAPHIC SCALE
artopy Tree
IN FEET
i-h = 20 &
Columnar Tree
Riparian Mitigation Vegetation
Meadow Planting
AssesWs Parcel Number 1. 517-15413
Address: vote mordel"
16400 MontaN*RO$d
Saratoga, CA:95070
0ANIer. Mordatvo Assodallon
Zone: R-11-40,000
Sim of Lot, NA
Size of Structures: A: 11" Floor 2, 0705f. 20d Floor - 403.
Bt: 9305f, B2:9305(. CZ: 8526f. QP898sf.
Dz 818d, 01: 7509f. El: 705sf. Ek 422sf.
Ft: 957sf;F2:957.1
Impervious Square Footage: 25,112 at
Slope At Building Slur Vades, w plan
Average site Slope: 20.8%
VICINITY MAP
RECEIVED
JAN 15 1999
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
9820.01
YI
8r.
MARTA FRY
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
1 65 TENTH STREET
SAM F ANCISC 0,CA N103
TEL;4 15.552.4214
FAX:415.552.8219
q4� X83
0
Z
< <
i
CL
z
C)
A -1.3
0
Existing Tree
Legend
£
..
Number
Common Name
Siza
Condition
Status
1
Oak
3r
fair- god
remain
2
Oak
2 -16'
fair - god
remain
3
Oak
7.15'
fair - god
remove
4
Oak
tai'
fair - god
remain
5
Oak
24r
fak- god
remain
a
Oak
10'
fair - good
remain
7
Tree
36'
fair - goad
remain
a
Tree
24'
fair- god
remawl
9
Tree
3a'
fak- goad
roruln
10
Tree
24'
fair- good
remain
11
Tree
30'
fair. goad
remain
12
Tree
5'
faw- good
remain
13
Tree
30'
fair - god
remain
14
Tree
15'
fair- god
remain
15
Tree
27'
fair- good
remain
16
Tree
IT
fair- goad
remain
17
Tree
14'
fair. god
remain
to
Tree
12'
fair - god
amain
19
Tree
fa'
fair. good
remain
20
Oak
2.10'
fair - good
remain
21
Oak
10'
Lair - goad
remove
22
Oak
15'
'fair- god
remaln
23
Oak
a'
fair- gad
remain
24
011
6'
far- good
mnove
25
Oak
2 -1r
fair- good
remain
25
Oak
a'
fair- goad
remain
27
Tree
12'
fair - god
remain
20
Tree
5'
fair. gad
rerrratn
29
Tree
12-
fair- good
roman
30
Oak
30'
fak- good
remain
31
Oak
10'
few- gad
remove
32
Oak
6'
fair - god
remove
33
Oak
12,
fair - god
remain
34
Oak
6'
fair - god
remain
35
Oak
10'
fair - good
remain
35
Oak
a'
fair - good
remain
37
Oak
10'
fair- god
renwin
38
Oak
10'
fair - god
roman
39
Oak
12*
fair - good
remain
40
Oak
9'
fair- good
remove
41
Oak
240'
fair- good
roman
42
Oak
26'
fair- god
vernaln
43
Oak
tr
fair - god
remain
M
Oak
5.6'
fair. god
remaYe
45
Oak
tr
fair- god
remain
45
Oak
Iir
fair - god
reran
47
Oak
20'
fair- goad
remain
4a
Oak
1r
fair- - go
reman
49
Oak
2 -10'
fak- god
remain
50
Oak
fa'
fak- goad
remain
51
Oak
2.12-
fair - good
remain
49�
S_ 40
�s
i •
'01
AS
45
•4a.
1RPrL
t.seaeola Parcel Number. 1. 517 - 16-013;
Vdfess: VIII. M-t&W
£
..
15100 Morllalvo Rood
Saratoga, CA 95070
_
Owner. Moreallo Association .-
Zone: R- 140,000
z
i
She of Lot . NA
She of shwures: A: 1a Fluor -2, 0705f, 20d Floor -405,
r
Bt: 930sf, 62: 930af, CIE: 689d. C7: 59851.
,u
DY 61531, D.P. 7509!, E1: 7050. E2: 4WAf,
K
F1: 95791, F2: 95751
kyi
anpeMOUS Square Footage: 25.112 sl
Slope At 9ulkling Sae: Vedas, see pan
9820.01
Average Site Slope: 20.515
:I
ulldW F2
�s9WSna -✓
average Slope: a
37 •. i
VEAPTA710I&TTF.
a;.
EDGE OF '
x RIPARIAN
VEGETATION
r
W
2
S
Q�
7
2.070 SO. FT. FIRST FLOOR
408 SO. FT. SECOND FLOOR
2478 SO. FT. TOTAL
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
+691' Nat
+691' Fin
WEST/ REAR ELEVATION
+676' Nat Grd
EAST / FRONT ELEVATION
+688' Nat Grd
+687' Fin Grd
9n Grd
+671' Nat Grd
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLAN
- - -• •-----------•------ - - - - --
NORTH / RIGHT ELEVATION
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
ql-
KEY PLAN
SISTER SUZIE ELEVATION
OOF
t
GLASS PANELS
SISTER SUZIE SECTION /DEATH IN VENICE ELEVATION
)OR
1/4'
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLANw, APPROPRIATE BUILDING HIGHLIGHTEK -
CORRUGATED MTL. ROOF
Fn G
GREEN CMU BLOCI
ORRUGATED MTL ROOF
SISTER SUZIE SECTION /DEATH IN VENICE ELEVATION
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET
KEY PLAN.n�.a�.�.�n�
A
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868 -1200
Incorporated October 22, 1956
February 3, 1999
Terri Baron
19830 Via Escuela Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Ms. Baron:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Evan Baker
Stan Bogosian
John Mehaffey
Jim Shaw
Nick Streit
On behalf of the Parks and Recreation Commission I would like to congratulate you on the
approval of your Trail Grant request for the Mount Eden Estates Trail, Lot 1 segment
improvement. At their January meeting, the Commission reviewed your proposal and decided
to recommend that your proposal be funded for the entire $822.00. The Commission also
requested that you work with City Staff to explore the possibility of purchasing the materials
through the City hopefully resulting in a lower cost.
Per our previous conversation, you mentioned that you had spoken with the Acting Public
Works Director, John Cherbone, who verified that the City would not be able to obtain the
materials at a lower cost. The City will therefore reimburse you for the costs of the materials
outlined in the attached proposal once they are purchased. Please submit those receipts to me
along with some descriptions of what was purchased.
In addition, you will need to work with Lori Burns, our Administrative Analyst /Volunteer
Coordinator, who will need to register the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts as official City Volunteers
for liability purposes. In light of these liability issues, you will also need to coordinate your
efforts with the Public Works Department so that they can verify that your group of volunteers
are aware of how to properly perform the work and are trained to handle any tools that may
be necessary to complete this project.
I am looking forward to working with you and invite you to call me should you have any
questions regarding the necessary preparations. Thank you for your interest in improving the
condition of the trails and working with the City and the residents to improve our community.
Sincerely,
Irene M. Jacobs
Staff Liaison to the Parks & Recreation Commission
cc: John Cherbone, Acting Public Works Director
David Mooney, Parks Maintenance Leadworker
Lori Burns, Administrative Analyst /Volunteer Coordinator
Marianne Swan, Trail Sub - Committee Member
Sheila Ioannou, Trail Sub - Committee Member
Parks & Recreation Commission Members
Larry Perlin, City Manager
James Walgren, Community Development Director
Printed on recycled paper.
TERI LYNN BARON
19830 Via Escuela Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
408 741 -0954
Fax 408 867 -6100
e-mailtlbaron@aol.com
12 -3 -98
Parks and Recreation Commission
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attn: Marianne Swan, Trails Sub - committee
RE: Grant Request for trail improvements, Mt. Eden Estates trail, Lot 1 segment
This is a request for funds under your new Trails Grant Program recently developed. I am asking for these funds on
behalf of the The Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts. I have put together a group of volunteers that use the trails in Saratoga and
are willing to maintain them for the benefit of all Saratogans. This group is known as the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts. I
believe that all members of the committee know me personally and know that I will account properly for all funds used.
Improvements are desperately needed to a trail segment located in the Mt. Eden Estates Subdivision, Lot # 1, see maps
attached. This segment is listed as "Segment #9" in the Parks and Trails Master Plan. When the house was built on Lot 1,
the trail was simply graded flat. No erosion control, headers boards or footing was installed. Per the Parks and Trail
Master Plan of 1991, these items should have been done. I am now asking for funds for the following items to be
purchased and used to improve this trail segment as it suffers from extreme footing problems during any wet weather. In
addition, I have talked to John Cherbone and he will be providing asphaltic chips to fill in between the headers boards to
provide the proper footing. This segment is mostly used by residents on Via Regina as well as some on Pierce Rd., Pike
Rd. and riders from Garrods.
MATERIALS NEEDED:
Units Description
Cost
46 4 "x4 "x8' pressure treated posts for header boards $400.00
25 Rebar, to set header boards 50.00
Auger drill bit, to drill holes in header boards 15.00*
Roll of soil control fabric (Any leftover will be inventoried to 300.00*
be used in the future on other trail segments)
Spade shovels 40.00*
Flagging material 17.00*
TOTAL $822.00
*These items will be inventoried for future trail maintenance by the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts.
All labor is to be provided by the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts under the guidance of the Saratoga Volunteer Coordinator.
Work will be commenced as soon as materials can be purchased and weather allows. Depending on how many workers
will be there, it is a two to four day project. The homeowner of lot 1 will be notified when we will be working on the
trail. I have done work on this trail over the last 6 years, so the owner knows who I am.
Respectfully submitted,
Teri Lynn Baron
- J
t2
m -4M
+1-
5
P. k 641 -M -29 TRACT NO. 7761
AMENDED
MOUNT EDEN ESTATES
u
1 9 �
i
sip �•
PTN. PCB. 4
iD.47 Ac.
PCL 4 = $
28.5 AG L 14 AC it
1�dlr ` 79 2.4mc. \ 22 _1 -�, aFa SPACE Isvr. uI +`
PIN PCL 1 23.E 1.4o A1. i, 21 ` ' .•
LaIAC. .,i r PM. LOT 18 4
1-1 WMAC. 34
\♦ ti� 1 =) �� 19 / • �r p 1n 18
A (15.43 AG 701AL�
PT"
PC L. 2 OEEfl
4.41 1 Ae. �� MLY
C
`"�`„ i►:cLi r' ° 12 12 rte_ 1.uAC• iq - 33 C =
• 30 AC. .1 ` 1
act. 1 h =' •��• -I gtr'15 L,98c. s 3 16 �t '
NOp V• n eeewt 9 1.2tAC. 1 W s / Y 1.Ot AC_ �e* 0 A
fs fA i
tea/ I Vi
LA
lD d rat• I 9 �~ >>� ♦ , 0�''
9 "+ -
f .40 •R/+,. 2.54 AC. I Lee ) � :3 1.JVaC. I L59AC. � �
/ 1.4DAC_ ( 1 1 LDlAC� LOZAC,
T. 1 \ ` J.
75. R_�w f 9 8 T 1 6 S 4 \ 34A t.00AC.
3 2 1 �. vs
3S U"O. I / 1
1 off
�� � 3 uo 1 1741 � _. � �� ... e&a.� \�4e 1 ... ..• 1 �
at, t.e S.- x 13 69
cd.+m ; a�ee.v .+. a 4 ..
R 1 1 n+ h mm�
win
cr1.c11.. fw 10! 11~ 1997 -91
ITT � 4 t� �s°r #* Tc LA/lpILI 1= _ .1
rel I
st r1
_ _ •y�p`' �? l
a s69•S'4f. "2.3 �y
_ 5 L = /22.07 • ��Q
�» \ �3 ?. �. E sci/ ssv t�
SO'i'44 '22 `E 92 . 64 '
s .?7'o��'2s'iY W. 27 ' i
X4s'"2/ a27 "E' /Ole. .38 , I
OF
'.N LANDS OF
SCHOEN
i
e ,
A A L� P TrU I t.
6&&L-65 A41- TG 6E
,VS-7 -A,-
'0000"
lyo.•tti s
63.00 '
_ X rO'AV
,
Of SCEN /G
E�lsE�`fEN r
LANDS OF-
K0HLEFR
N73 4s w
140. 040,
tT
(A
Z
LOT 2
I5'TRAIL I
&,*Mr. r
ro
A ,742 Ac.
LOT 1
A 999 ,4
_
kr
N'¢ •E � 79. ov
25.00'
��
N
2(0(0. Gv ' Q _
N 590419#
/Y,S ;� , •: \
OF
'.N LANDS OF
SCHOEN
i
e ,
A A L� P TrU I t.
6&&L-65 A41- TG 6E
,VS-7 -A,-
'0000"
lyo.•tti s
63.00 '
_ X rO'AV
,
Of SCEN /G
E�lsE�`fEN r
LANDS OF-
K0HLEFR
History and Purpose
The Saratoga Parks & Recreation Commission,
appointed by the Saratoga City Council, has
worked diligently toward the implementation of
a Parks & Trails Master Plan which will serve
the park and recreational needs of our
community. Our goal is to acquire, develop,
and maintain a system of parks, trails, bicycle
lanes, recreational facilities, and park - related
community service facilities which meet the
needs of Saratoga's residents.
In 1990, the City of Saratoga commissioned a
study for the preparation of a Parks & Trails
Master Plan. This plan was completed by
Wallace, Roberts & Todd in November 1991,
and was subsequently approved by the City
Council. This plan provides a framework for
the City's actions in implementing a recreation
system which will serve all ages and sections of
the Saratoga's population. The very lengthy
Master plan is available for all Saratogans to
view at City Hall.
The Parks & Trails Master plan is a
comprehensive document which includes
recommendations for active parks and play
fields, passive parks, as well as pedestrian,
multi- use trails, and bicycle trails and
pathways.
In June of 1996, the Commission held a very
well attended community workshop to
determine an updated priority list for the
expenditure of the Park Development Fund.
Trail improvements were one of the items that
was on the priority list and that the Commission
is dedicated to improving.
[OW4 tarak�r
The Trails Grant Program was established to
address the need for trails improvements at a
time when there are insufficient funds available
to maintain existing trails and to create new
ones. The grant program is designed to provide
groups with an opportunity to volunteer their
time and talent to improve portions of trails that
they most use. The main purpose of the
grant program is to supply grant recipients
with the necessary materials and supplies to
make the requested improvements to the
designated trails.
The grant proposal submitted to the Parks &
Recreation Commission should address the
following items:
• Description of the agency or group
(background)
• Highlight or describe the area or trails
that you would like to improve
• Your experience in_ improving or
creating trails
• What can your agency offer that is
unique to this job?
• Number of (trail) users that would
benefit from the proposed
improvement
• Itemized budget of project
• Has this need been addressed by the
City's Parks & Trails Master plan?
• Timeline for the proposed project
• What area of Saratoga is it serving.
In evaluating the grant proposal, the Parks
& Recreation Commission will take into
consideration the following criteria:
• Alignments & linkages of and to existing
trails to Saratoga, Mid-
• Peninsula open space & Santa Clara
County Trails.
• Will it encourage additional bodies off
busy city streets?
• Does it improve the safety of the
existing trail or of trail area?
• Does it keep multi -use trails open?
• Does it provide additional signs identifying
the trail?
• What percentage of the Community is
benefiting from this project?
The Parks and Recreation Commission meets
the first Monday of the month at 7:30 am at the
City Hall Administrative Offices. All grant
proposals submitted to the Commission will be
agendized and discussed at a regular
commission meeting.
In order to have your grant proposal included
in a commission packet, you must submit nine
copies of your proposal to City Hall no later
than 5:00 p.m. on the third Monday of the
month.
Since the Commission may have follow -up
questions to the submitted proposal, we do ask
that a member of your organization be present
at the commission meeting when your proposal
is discussed.
Please allow two to three weeks time in order to
receive a response to your proposal.
Meeting dates are subject to change so please
contact Irene Jacobs Staff Liaison to the Parks &
Recreation Commission if you would like to
have your item agendized.
City of Saratoga
Trail Grant
Program
14 1 1111 p
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 10, 1999
To: Mike Riback, City Attorney
From: Irene Jacobs, Staff Liaison to the Parks & Recreation Commission
RE: Playfield Development Project
This memo is in response to your question about the status of the Playfield Development
Project.
In 1996, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) sponsored a Community Meeting
to receive input from the Community regarding how the Parks Development Fund
should be spent. Some 70 members of the Community showed up, and a priority list
was established with one of the top priorities being the development and improvement
of playfields.
To this day, the PRC has held faithful to this priority list and to the response from the
Community regarding this issue. The PRC has shared this priority list with the City
Council and received support from the Council in the past; this is not a new issue.
In March of 1998, the Commission requested and received approval from the Council
to hire Jaye Beals, of Beals Landscape Architecture, ( who have since changed its name
to the Beals Group), as the Project Manager. Although the Commission had been
trying for years to move forward on this project, the shortage and turnover in City staff
made this difficult and therefore, the PRC proposed hiring an outside manager.
One month later, in an attempt to recover costs after the loss of the UUT, staff proposed
that the city enact a $12 per participant user fee in place of the current flat rate of
$1,500 per season for the use of Congress Springs Park by organized sports leagues.
Residents were upset and packed the Council Chambers. As a result, the City Council
did not accept the Commission's recommendation and did not enact the per participant
fee but, the Council did request that the Project Manger's scope of services be expanded
to include the establishments of joint -use agreements between the City, user groups and
school districts for existing sites in addition to the proposed sites that had not yet been
identified.
The City Council made it clear to the user groups and members of the public present at
that meeting, that the City would not invest in playfield development projects if there
was no commitment from the part of the user groups to help in the maintenance of
these fields. The City was and is unable to provide additional maintenance above the
level that it is currently providing for existing sites let alone additional playfield sites. If
this group could not first prove that the maintenance issue could be resolved, the City
Council would not consider building additional playfields. Thus was born the Playfield
Taskforce.
The Task Force was formed, with the assistance of the City Council, and included
representatives from the various user groups that use playfields in Saratoga ( AYSO,
CYSA, Saratoga Little League, Cupertino Little League, Saratoga /Los Gatos Girls Softball
League, Pony League and Quito Little League) the Saratoga Union School District, the
Campbell Union School District, the Cupertino Union School District, the PRC, City
Staff, a City Council representative and the Project Manager. This group met for nine
months and after all this time, the group was able to sketch out a proposal that had the
schools committing their land, the City committing development dollars and the user
groups committing to pay for maintenance costs. Believe me, getting thirty people with
different agendas, lots of ego and a high mistrust of each other to come to an agreement
like this was miraculous.
I do want to point out two issues that did occur during this nine month process. First,
half way through our scheduled meetings with the Task Force, the Project Manager
approached the City and explained that he was unable to provide this group with the
specific dollar amounts for the various proposed developments without schematic
plans. The Task Force did not feel comfortable committing to paying a ballpark amount
of money for maintenance for a development that had not yet even been sketched out.
The PRC went to the City Council requesting to expand the project manager's scope of
services to include these schematic plans and it was approved. The sole reason for
moving forward with schematic plans at this point was in order to nail down specific
maintenance costs
I should also point out that the specific sites were not proposed by the Task Force until
we were already 3/4 of the way through the process. Once the schematic plans were
completed, we scheduled public input meetings in order to unveil this to the public.
A major complaint that we heard from the public was that we excluded them from the
process and did not have a representative from their neighborhood as part of the Task
Force. We have tried to explain many times that we did not identify any specific
locations until far into the process and that is why as soon as sites were identified, we
scheduled public input meetings. Also, please remember that the Council wanted to see
proof that this Task Force could address these maintenance issues before this entire
project would be considered further.
My second point was that we did start informing the public once we had something to
share and after the site had been identified. Three different meetings were held, one
per site. The public input meetings were held to hear the initial concerns from
residents regarding the developments proposed by the Task Force and in turn see if
there was any way to alter the drawings to address some of the concerns up front.
Again, the purpose was to see how this would ultimately affect maintenance costs.
After changes to the schematic drawings were made, the Task Force made a
commitment as a group and forwarded this to PRC for consideration.
The PRC met at the beginning of this month and decided that the next step was to
schedule individual site meetings that would include neighborhood representatives
surrounding the proposed site, Commission members, city staff, user group
representatives and school district representatives. I have not yet scheduled these
meetings but our goal is that they will take place within the next two month period of
time.
After the PRC hold these meetings, the Commission will forward a decision to the
Council. They will request that the Council approve the project in concept and give
approval to conduct traffic, noise or any other required study that would be required
for this project. The PRC hopes to bring this recommendation to the City Council some
time in April. After that point, we would use the information to see if these were still
viable sites and proceed from there. We have a long way yet to go in this process and
the community has had and will continue to have many opportunities to voice their
opinions and concerns.
I hope that this helps to clarify things somewhat. Please let me know if I can answer
any further questions.