Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-17-1984 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTS
a CITY OF SARATOGA -711 AGENDA BILL NO. Initial: Dept Hd. DATE :10 /8/84 (10/17/84) C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Vacation of Pedestrian Equestrian Easement - Parker Ranch ` Issue Summary On some of the Parker Ranch lots Pedestrian Equestrian easements were shown both on their frontage and across the rear of their lots. The intent was that they only be located on the frontage. Approval of the attached resolution will vacate the redundant easements. Recom=dation Adopt Resolution No. , a Resolution vacating a dedicated Pedes- trian'.and Equestrian Easement. Fiscal Impacts NONE Exhibits /AttacYmnts Resolution Council Action 10 %17: Approved Resolution.2188 as long as easement contiguous to roadway is'maintained,:.5 -0. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA VACATING A DEDICATED PEDESTRIAN AND EQUESTRIAN EASEMENT WHEREAS, VALLEY TITLE CO., a California Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "VALLEY TITLE "), executed an owner's certificate dedicating to public use a pedestrian and equestrian easement, on certain parcels of real property as identified and delineated on that Parcel Map recorded and filed in Book 499 of Maps at Pages 35 to 41, in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on May 3, 1982 (hereinafter .referred to as the "Book 499 Map "); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga rejected said pedestrian and equestrian easement by Resolution No. 1339 -2 dated April 21, 1982; and WHEREAS, on September 1, 1982, VALLEY TITLE recorded and filed a Parcel Map in Book 504 of Maps at Page 7 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California (hereinafter referred to as the "Book 504 Map ") reverting to acreage certain of those Parcels of real property identified and delineated in the Book 499 Map; and WHEREAS, the Book 504 Map identifies and delineates the same pedestrian and equestrian easement as was identified and delineated on the Book 499 Map; and WHEREAS, California Government Code, Section 66477.2(a) provides that if, at the time a final map is approved, a dedicated street, path, alley, public utility easement, or similar item which directly benefits the residents of a subdivision is rejected, the offer of dedication shall remain open, and the City may at a later date rescind the rejection and accept the street, path, alley, public utility easement or similar item; and WHEREAS, California Government Code, Section 66477.2(c) states that offers of dedication which are covered in Government Code, Section 66477.2(a) may be terminated and abandoned in the same manner as described for the summary vacation of streets by Part 3 (commencing with Section 8300) of Division 9 of the Streets and Highways Code; and WHEREAS, the Book 504 Map also .identifies and delineates a ten foot pedestrian and equestrian easement running along the eastern boundary of the lands within the distinctive border lines of that Map; and WHEREAS, it was not the intent of the City of Saratoga to require the dedication of two separate pedestrian and equestrian easements on the Book 504 Map; and Se WHEREAS, VALLEY TITLE has requested that the City vacate the rejected pedestrian and equestrian easement described in the attached Exhibit A, inasmuch as the pedestrian and equestrian easement described in the attached Exhibit A (1) is an additional pedestrian and equestrian easement not required by the City of Saratoga for these particular parcels of real property, and (2) has not been continuously used as a pedestrian and equestrian easement since September 1, 1982. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga resolves that: (1) The pedestrian and equestrian easement dedicated to public use on that Parcel Map recorded and filed in Book 504 of Maps at Page 7 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on September 1, 1982, and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby vacated pursuant to the authority of Chapter 4 (commencing at Section 8330) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Streets and Highways Code, and that from and after the date that this Resolution is recorded, said pedestrian and equestrian easement shall no longer constitute a pedestrian and equestrian easement. (2) All other easements for sanitary sewers and water pipe lines which are located within the area described in the attached and incorporated Exhibit A are not vacated by the City at this time. (3) The Saratoga City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this Resolution, attested by the Clerk under seal, to be recorded without acknowledgment, certificate of acknowledgment, or further proof in the office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County, California. The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK -2- MAYOR, CITY OF SARATOGA DESCRIPTION A 20 FOOT WIDE PEDESTRIAN AND EQUESTRIAN EASEMENT (P.E.E.), SITUATE IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA, COUNTY.OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP, RECORDED IN BOOK 504 OF MAPS, PAGE 7, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, WHICH TRAVERSES PARCELS A, B, C AND D AND IDENTIFIED THEREON AS THE "CENTERLINE 20' WIDE EASEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWERS, WATER PIPE LINE AND P.E.E., PER 5209 Q.R. 73, 5132 O.R. 324 AND 5037 O.R. 284 '; THE CENTERLINE OF SAID 20 FOOT WIDE PEDESTRIAN AND EQUESTRIAN EASEMENT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF SAID 20 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF PARKER RANCH ROAD AT THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL D, AS SHOWN.ON SAID ABOVE REFERENCED PARCEL MAP, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING HAS A RADIAL BEARING OF N 75° 03' 20" W; THENCE TRAVERSING THROUGH SAID PARCELS D, C, .B AND A THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES; S 50° 24' 40" W 171.88 FEET, S 140 42' 40" W 180.94 FEET, S 39" O1' 40" W 151.47 FEET, S 30 35' 50'.' E 97.91 FEET, S 34^ 55' 10" W 315.74 FEET AND S 40 23' 40" W 288.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL A, ALSO BEING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARKER RANCH ROAD AND THE TERMINUS THEREOF, EXHIBIT "A" I AGENDA BILL NO: 70q DATE: October 8, 1984 DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Initial: Dept. Head: City Atty: City Mgr: r SUBJECT: Acceptance and Acknowledgement to Optimist Club Issue Summary The Saratoga Optimist Club, in cooperation with Roy Swanson of Saratoga's Parks and Building Maintenance Department, contributed their time to plant over 100 trees and shrubs for the City of Saratoga. The Optimists contributed approximately $600 worth of labor in this project along with a tractor donated, for the day, by member Fran Chechi to assist the men with the landscaping. The recently landscaped area, which is at the entrance to the Senior Center will enhance the parking area, and provide a lovely shaded area to be enjoyed by all. The Saratoga Optimists have completed several community projects and John Krzich, Chairman of Club Projects, has expressed an interest in beginning yet another undertaking for the community. Recommendation Accept and acknowledge this contribution by of a letter from the Mayor. Fiscal Impact None. Exhibits /Attachments None. Council Action 10/17: Approved 4 -0. 1 AGENDA BILL NO: -710 DATE: October 8, 1984 DEPARTMENT: Parks & Recreation Initial: Dept. Head: City Atty: _ City Mgr: SUBJECT: Congress Springs Park - Master Plan Revision and Grant Application Issue Summary The California Parks and Recreation Facilities Act of 1984, which was approved in the June election, provides $78,500,000 in Grants to be distributed throughout the state during the next three (3) years. The City's Park and Recreation Commission unanimously agreed to seek a Grant to fund the completion of the facilities at Congress Springs Park. While the Grants are competitive, the Commission feels that, because of the great use that this park gets, we should have a very good chance of obtaining a Grant. Because Congress Springs Parks current Master Plan utilizes the State Transportation Corridor for future development and because a portion of the existing improvements were constructed utilizing some of the corridor, a revised Master Plan must be adopted prior to submittal of the Grant Application. The Commission has, with the assistance of a landscape architect, made the necessary revision to the plan. To finalize the City's application, which must be submitted to the State by November 5, 1984 to be eligible for the first years funds, City Council must approve the Revised Master Plan for Congress Springs Park, approve the "Negative Declaration ", adopt the resolution approving the Application for Grant Funds. Recommendation 1. Approved "Revised Master Plan for Congress Springs Park" 2. Approve the Environmental Assessment which has determined that this project qualifies as a "Negative Declaration" 3. Adopt Resolution approving the application for Grant Fund under the Regional Competitive program of the California Parks and Recreation Facilities Act of 1984 for Congress Springs Park. Fiscal Impact The Grant we are requesting is for approximately $350,000. The above actions do not, of themselves, have a Fiscal Impact. Future action may involve the Park Improvement and Acquisition Fund. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution 2. Revised Master Plan for Congress Springs Park 3. Negative Declaration 4. Parks and Recreation Memo re: Grant Application Council Action 10/17: Approved Resolution 2187 5 -0; negative declaration 5 -0. 2 EIA -4 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No: The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolu- tion 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Adoption of the Congress which calls for 50 paved parking spaces (with sq. ft. of recreation court area, a 1,250 sq. restrooms, storage) and new landscaping to be fields, picnic tables, a tot lot play area an on a 9.7 acre.site located at 12970 Glen Brae NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Springs Park Master Plan a 120 space reserve), 14,400 ft. building (ccsnbined snack_ shack, added to existing playing 3 a small storage building Drive, Saratoga, CA. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed project will not have a signifi- cant effect on the environment since the proposed park improvements will not substantially intensify the existing use of the park and will improve the existing parking situation. Drainage will be in compliance with the Master Storm Drain Plan of the City. All potential impacts due to project construction will be mitigated through the application of existing City codes and ordinances. Executed at Saratoga, California this 5th day of October ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SARA 0 GA !1 i)11 DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER 19 84 FORM EIA -lb CITY OF SARATOGA CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (TO 'BE COMPLETED BY PUBLIC AGENCY) PROJECT: ��p�u� TA(_��_ FILE NO: LOCATION: 12 q -70 rz4f I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:—/ S_070 -(q00) 3Y38 3. Date of Checklist Submitted: (O/-/( ��50 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: C*-- SQL -Z. ?C,¢ 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: �' p�G 55 �P(Ztcl�r S IAYZ44 57krZ II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe' answers are required on attached sheets_) YES MAYBF. NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a_ Unstable earth conditions or in changes in =geologic substructures? �C b- Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- crowding of the soil? I X k l 40A 4P" A � RP-q K PALO yoR- PAaV_lt-A -rkf4415 eettlui, At-40 Vf* n�urznn,urt,�T C. Change in topography or ground surface relief -features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? i d. Change in the amount of surface water or any water in any water body? C. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved o >;vgen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? t g. 'Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? J. Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or chemical content of surface thermal springs? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? I -3- YES MaAY13E NO K K X IX X X K Yr.S r1AYrgi NO 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? x G L1� t1� 4"j) ) B�= nN Web F-�eZ Ate_ 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? K 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (inlcuding, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? �( b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? SKI 4�K oy btFc S 4 �Aiz-r- ��- PRo�/�- �it�flt ,✓�u. ,.col S� „� r- i�4�%� A��7 �r� -��� 4�•✓7�f, -5- --x- Y M !I E NO b. Substantial increase in demand upon existinq sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? �( 16. Utilities. will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? �C b. Communications systems? c. Water? K d. Sewer or septic tanks? 1Q e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? S�wt itl.laQ& Sf- aVJZ Ar40 (,0A-GAuZ �ACCVVwPS 17. human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the duality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ?rLoroSA,(_ 1 -7- YE'S Y B E NO c. Does the project have impacts which are indivi- dually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is- significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION gr�bE�SDC- 4�- u-1r(,lj�oV� •l'f�h11S �� tic/ y�1S71�iG� Ian/! N.( Al- !s F Sq.Pr pi s (bus f r%u� (2 "A4-t_ CF- �u 1 , 4 Z-'l L_0_f iL_AY A*.A A, 9at'A4,L_ S f s7 rr,!l AND PWIL 7,a -P, LA_ S i !- rr�oPo5Fc8 mt,(PlzoVfut(t�rttl u�il� X107 Su�SZA.c/7�y �1/S�F� ` zit- �yc.rsTlrlc, !•lSfc_. a� -CvFft- P�-� �d�(� wl��- !u- (,PRoVk- � �P�l� l Si t�(AZV�/ tai -1 01 `LPI`�� rsco� 5'O N�r.J ��1- 1zlC //�4 s �ttcfit Aeq lzz, p1le -K/A14 C?A<k- S dAACLA7 f 4 t t�{�- o� -�aa� A 'C& Of rV 41A4A . wf�� $fL xrs7i�Li, S �aarNA�� �AU�r�iiel VSl( A,V- �� Li�Y'S ,4.{�5�� �r�-x� ��A- ttil�-t -�,</� �at�'��A��atpA�2f A.SS'oG�,►� G-r-(Y cvPkS III Gt 1 SAN S -9- d4i FORM L'1A -la CITY OF SARATOGA ' UFS E.NVIRONMENT:11 IMPACT _3 O TIOXXAIRE i (to be completed by applicant) FILI \G FEE: $ DATE: IO�I /� f FILE N0: =� GE \EP�AL 1 \'FOR�LITION: 1• Name' and address of developer or project sponsor• O/r 6 3 ,c- 2• Add r s s of " 'Q PA 2- project: —s .eiNG' Assessor's Parcel \umber: A and telephone 3• Name, address a � number of person to be contacted concerning this project: ��' • O _ T 4• Indicate number of the permit form pertains: application for the project to which this 5. List and describe any other related required for this ro• Permits and other public approvals state and federal agencies: P including those required by city, regional, 6• Existing zoning district: 7• Proposed use of siteGRILKL'(I((L (project for which this form is filed): _ f Site size: q ' c � 9. Square footage: ioLr� tape: 10. Number of SNA floors of construction: 11. Amount of off -str —� eet parking: �� �. i �r:� 12. Attached ached plans? ley G .�:f -�• K f 13. Proposed scheduling: No `✓•" ��� 14. Associated projects: 1S. Anticipated incremental development: 16• If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents and type of household size expected: YES NO �S. Site en filled laud or en slope of lU Pcrccnt or more. L 29. Use of disposal of Potcntially hazardous r;atcrials toxic substances, flar;mables or explosives. such as 30. Substnnti,-,l ehanPC in demand for munici al se rvices fire, 1;ater, sewn },c, etc,.). P (Police, 31. Substantial,), increase fossil fuel consumption oil, natural Ras, etc.). (electricity, 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ENVIRO\'.!ENTAL SETTING: 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, Plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing struc- tures on the site, and the use of the structures. 3a. Describe the surrounding properties, including information en plants and anir „als and n cultu.a a > 1, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate .the tyke of land use (residential, commercial, etcs.), intensity of land use (of deve ily, apartment houses, shops; department stores, etc.) an scale of develoPment (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.). CERTIFICATION: 1 hereby certify that the statements furnished ab exhibits ove and in the attached Present the data and information required f evaluation to the best of my abilit - a phis 211 and information prescr,ted are true a' that the accts tat ts ledge and belief, corrc to i,c 1,� ✓st o My know- ledge For : i J-y dam' .d ef- G OMs, \ 6/,IIr�L 1 /wt/c Vill - o o TS ,� rlt✓ V r ,`` REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL (DRAFT) FROM: Parks and Recreation Commission DATE: COUNCIL MEETING: SUBJECT: Grant Application - ----------------------- - - - - -- - ------------------------------------- BACKGROUND - ----- Council will recall that several weeks ago it approved retaining a Consulting Landscape Architect to prepare a revised Master Plan for Congress Springs Park and to submit an application for a Grant of funds, under the California Parks and Recreation Facilities Act of 1984, which was approved by the voters as Proposition 18 in the last election. The Grant would be used to complete the parks improvements. The Master Plan Revision is required to assure that existing and proposed improvements will be in their proper location when the State Transportation Corridor is no longer available for park purposes. The Architect, Jack Buktenica, has met twice with the Parks and Recreation Commission and has presented two possible alternate Master Plans. _ The Commission invited representatives from Saratoga Little League and Saratoga A.Y.S.O. to attend these meetings. OBJECTIVES While working with, the Plan it became obvious that much of the existing improvements were put in with little regard for the possibility that the Transportation Corridor would not be forever available for park use. Because of this, we find that the reduced area will not support all of the uses shown on the existing Master Plan. After considerable discussion we arrived at the following consensus: 1. The park should retain its prime use as fields for organized youth activities. As such, Little League Baseball and soccer fields should be retained to the greatest extent possible. 2. Parking to support this prime use must be provided. 3. A "Snack Shack" and public restroom facility must be included. 4. A "Tennis Court" and /or "Multi- purpose Court" would provide for added recreational uses and should be included. 5. The existing "Tot Lot" and picnic tables should be retained. PLAN HIGHLIGHTS The Commission selected the alternative (see attached) which allowed the existing "Senior League" field to remain unchanged. This alternative also allows the existing parking area to basically remain where it is. It includes an improved Tennis Court and /or Multi - purpose Court area, large enough for two full sized tennis courts, at the most easterly end of the park. (The decision of what kind of court will be made during the preparation of construction plans.) A building which will house the Snack Shack, public restrooms, and storage is located central to the playing fields. The existing sunken "Tot Lot" will remain as is, however, the two Little League backstops and fields will be shifted southerly. To enable a soccer field to remain on the Senior League field a small area of the infield will have to be sodded annually. The number of soccer fields will be reduced from four to three. OFF SITE PARKING ALTERNATIVES The organized youth activities over the past several years have clearly demonstrated the need for additional parking. Although the reduced site will be able to hold 50 parking spaces, we believe additional space must be provided. Two alternatives for additional area have been identified. The first, as shown on the attached plan, utilitizes the P.G.& E. tower, line easement on the southern side of the railroad tracks. Details of obtaining a lease from P.G.& E. have not been finalized, but we are confident one can be obtained. The improvements of the area would be a secondary phase, and not included in the Grant application. The second alternative is to acquire the existing paved area at Congress Springs School. This alternative would reduce the improvement cost, but could be extremely costly depending on the method of acquisition. Options such as park dedication of the portion of the land, together with a P.D. type of development which would concentrate the homes and create open space could be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. GRANT APPLICATION A preliminary cost estimate has established the full cost of making the on site improvements at approximately $380,000. This does not include the off site parking, but does include $60,000 for the restroom /snack shack building. Although not finalized, we anticipate approximately half of that to come from the youth leagues involved. The Grant request will be for approximately $350,000. After we receive a determination on our Grant, Council will decide how much, if any, of our Park Development Fund should be used to suppliment the Grant for park improvement or the construction of off site parking. 2 E.I.R. Staff has made an environmental assessment and is preparing a "Negative Declaration" for Council consideration at its regular meeting. SCHEDULE In order to be considered for the first year's Grants, the City's application must be submitted to the State by November 5, 1984. If we are to meet this deadline, Council must, at its meeting of October 17, 1984 approve the Revised Master Plan for Congress Springs Park, approve the "Negative Declaration ", and adopt a resolution authorizing the Grant Application. Richard W. Vallone Chairman, Parks and Recreation Commission 3 1.0 111 5t t s RESOLUTION NO: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE REGIONAL COMPETITIVE PROGRAM OF THE CALIFORNIA PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ACT OF 1984 FOR CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK. WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California Park and Recreational Facilities Act of 1984, which provides funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for developing facilities for public recreational purposes; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the state, setting up necessary procedures governing application by local agencies under the program; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State'Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of applications before submission of said applications to the state; and WHEREAS, said applications contain assurances that the applicant must comply with; and WHEREAS, the applicant agency will enter into an agreement with the State of California for.development rehabilitation or restoration of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby; 1. Approves the filing of an application for 1984 state grant assistance for the above project; and 2. Certifies that said agency understands the assurances and certification in the application; and 3. Certifies that said agency has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project, and if the project is selected for state grant funding; 4. Certifies that said organization will provide construction plans and specifications to the state within one year of the appropriation of funds under this program and will commence work immediately after state approval; and 5. Appoints the City Manager as agent of the City of Saratoga to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests, and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project. The above and foregoing resolution was - passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the day of 1984, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY OF Se'1I21YIC CA A=T DA BILL M. :Z Z DATE: 10 -12 -84 DEPARTMENT: FINANCE SUBJECT: Community Gardens Appropriation Initial: • Dept. Hd. �J C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue Sumnary At a recent meeting Council denied a fee waiver request from the Community Gardens. At the same time, however, Council approved an appropriation increase to the Community Gardens Grant in order to.eliminate the hardship caused by the denial of the fee waiver request. a Recommendation Approve the attached appropriating resolution. Fiscal Impacts Increase Revenue.Sharing expenditures by $550.00. %hibiis /Attactrmnis Appropriating resolution. Council Action 10/17: Approved Resolution 2151.8, 5 -0. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 10/8/84 (10/17/84) DEPARTMENT: Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd. OW C. Atty. C. Mgr. SDR -1539, UP -535, -A -989, Profess ona� V page of Saratoga�T�e 'Owen Cca�ariies) Appeal ` -- SUBJECT: of Planning Ccnunission Denial of Use Permit, Building Site Approval and Design _Review Approval for 4 office buildings__�_- Issue Summary On September 26, 1984 The Planning Commission denied the subject application for 4 office buildings totaling 115,600 sq. ft. The site is designated on the General Plan as PD and thus.requires a Use Permit as well as Building Site and Design Review Appro- val. An EIR has been previously certified for the project (129,000 sq. ft. per the original application). The Owen Company originally proposed to place approximately 150,000 sq. ft. of office building on the site but modified this to 129,000 sq. ft. prior to making their applications. In September 1984 they significantly modified the design of the structures and further reduced the size to 115,600 sq.' ft. with one two -story structure proposed adjacent to Cox and Quito Shopping Center and three one - story structures on the rest of the site. Recommendation Take public testimony and determine the merits of the appeal. Staff recommended approval of the applications. Fiscal Impacts The additional cost of services for the development would exceed revenue generated by the project by approximately $6250 per year.. I Exhibits /Attachments 1. Letter o appeal. 2. Staff Report dated 9/20/84. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated 9/26/84, 9/12/84, 8/22/84, 8/8/84, 7/25/84 7/11/84, 6/27/84. 4. Plans for project. __5-__T 1 EIR Addendum .(EIR previously submitted). ___6. _] esolutions denying project. "7.- `-General.Plan and Resolution handed out at joint meeting 12/6/83. 8. General Correspondence received on project. Council Action 10/17: Held.public hearing, referred to.adjourned. regular meeting. 10/23: Approved with conditions 3 -2 (Clevenger, Moyles opposed). Date Received: 45 Project Description: ),rs- � -1-w� sio c, r- �� Ic��'nfS s �`o-r�il�'i.r 1�S �c� S Decision Being Appealed: �en,,`� ( o ` -7 Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): T Appellant's Signature ,g - (/, *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. Hearing Date: 0 Feed CITY USE ONLY APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: ��L?2d\P �'�, I,rL,86 AP (� C Address: L, Telephone: (Lj / S, Lf's— — 7 4 C� Name of Applicant: Project File No.: -�S D(R- Co,�,Q�}Nes Project Address: C o x A y'e _ 07- To A G4 , Project Description: ),rs- � -1-w� sio c, r- �� Ic��'nfS s �`o-r�il�'i.r 1�S �c� S Decision Being Appealed: �en,,`� ( o ` -7 Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): T Appellant's Signature ,g - (/, *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies) SDR -1539 UP -535 A -989 Dear Council Members: We hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission September 26, 1984 denying the referenced permits and approvals. The proposed applications are consistent with your General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for this property and have been found consistent and approval recommended by your staff. The architecture and density of the proposed project is consistent with adjacent office development and has been redesigned to respond to comments in the Environmental Impact Report. The design also responds to concerns stated by the Planning Commission. Please notify the undersigned of the date and time for hearing of the appeal. Sincerely:, - Q5__ Steven A. Douglas Senior Vice,President SAD /khc The Owen Companies 445 SOUTH SAN ANTONIO ROAD • LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 • (415) 948 -9420 • TLX 176828 SARATOGA CENTER PROJECT STATISTICS COMPARISON ORIGINAL SCHEME SCHEME "A" SCHEME "B" SCHEME "C" (5.27.83) (PRE -EIR) (1.30.84) (EIR) (9.4.84) (9.14.84) Site Area 10.25/446,620• 10.25/446.620 10.25/446,620 10.251446,620 Acres /S.F. 1 100'min.i 80'min.l 105'min. Building 146,928 129,264 129,060 115,600 Area (S.F.) 115'min. 115'min.i 50'min. ' Parking 562 439 439 423 Spaces Site 19.59 17.69 22.5 19.0 Coverage ( %) (Footprint) j Landscaping 32.02 43 37.7 40 (x) Building Areas (Total) 1 Story 1/32,400 1/32,400 1/57,260 3/57,800 Building/ i S.F. (Total) 2 Story 2/114,528 2/96,864 2/71,800 1/57,800 Buildings/ S.F. (Total) Total S.F. 146,928 129,264 129,060 115,600 (All Bldgs.) i J Setbacks , North 85'min. 100'min.! 30'min. 75 'min. East 80'min. ':. 100'min.i 80'min.l 105'min. South i 70'min. 70'min.� 70'min. 70'min. West 115'min. 115'min.i 50'min. 1 50'/125' r � REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION * Revised: Revised: DATE: Commission Meeting: SUBJECT UP -535, SDR- .1539,, A -989, Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Co.), Southeast Corner of Cox and Saratoga Avenues 9/20/84 8/1/84 6/22/84 6/27/84 9/26/84 *ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of Use Permit, Tentative Building Site, Grading Permit and Design Review for the construction of 115,600 sq. ft. of office complex in three (3), one -story buildings and one two -story building. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED/REQUIRED: Amendment or rescission of Resolution No. 897 (copy attached). Final Building Site Approval and Building Permits. PLANNING CLASSIFICATION ZONING: P -A (Professional and Administrative) GENERAL PLAN: SITE DATA Commercial - Planned Development Mixed Use PARCEL SIZE: 10.25 Acres (446,620 sq. ft.) NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Gently sloping site covered by grasses and other low growing vegetation. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 1.7% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 1.7% * GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: Approx. 1,500 Cu. Yds. Fill: Approx. 1,500 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: '2 Ft.+ Fill Depth: 2 Ft.+ ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE * SETBACKS: Northwest Side (Saratoga Ave.): 50' Min. Northeast Side (Cox Avenue): 75' Min. East Side (Quito Shopping Center): 105' Min. South Side (Single Family Dwelling): 70' Min.(1'50' to the 2 -story building) Southwest Side (McFarland Ave.): 40' Min. C ( ' 'tea Report to Planning Commissir UP -535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox & Saratoga Aves. * HEIGHT: Building 1: 18' (1- Story) Building 2: 30' (2- Story) Building 3: 18' (l- Story) Building 4: 18' (1 Story) * IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 60% (Building and paved surfaces) * LANDSCAPING: 40% * SIZE OF STRUCTURES: *Revised: 9/20/84 6/22/84 Page 2 *Buildings 1 & 4.: First Floor - 21,675 x 2 = ,43,250 sq. ft. *Building 2: First Floor - 28,900 sq. ft. Second Floor- 28,900 'sq. 'ft. .57,800 sq. ft. *Building 3: First Floor - 14,450 sq. ft. * TOTAL: '115,600 sq. ft. * PARKING: Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space for-each 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area for a professional administrative office building. This project would require 323 parking spaces and the project will provide 423 parking spaces. Two- ;(2)loading berths are also .required by ordinance (12' x 45') and are not shown..,. COMPLIANCE: The proposed project meets the basic standards of the zoning ordinance. *Exterior Materials: Wood siding, painted natural. *Roof Materials: Natural cedar shake. GENERAL PLAN: This site was discussed by both the Planning Commission and City Council during the hearings on revisions to the General Plan in 1983. At that time, the residents of the Quito area expressed their preference for residential development of the site as well as opposition to commercial development of the site. These views were incorporated in the area F - Guidelines for Area Development under Item #3 which reads as follows: 3. The vacan -t parcel located on the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue between McFarland and Cox Avenue should be developed only under conditions of uniform design and with consideration given to combined land uses. The residents of Area F support subsidized senior citizen housing or single family residential use of this site. Development of the site may include professional and admini- strative office uses which minimize traffic and noise, either separately or in combination with residential uses upon the receipt of a Use Permit. Particular attention should be given to landscaping, access, parking and site coverage. Another shopping center should not be constructed on this parcel. This guideline indicates that professional administrative office use separately or combined with residential use would be acceptable on the site. A list of General Plan Goals and Policies that pertain to this project have been attached. In review of these goals and policies, some have been complied with and others have not. The major areas of Staff concern are those goals and policies which address the design (particularly in conjunction with Resolution No. 897) and fiscal impacts of the project. In particular, it is not clear that the project is "........compatible with the site and adjacent surroundings "(LU.5.0) as discussed in the EIR. *Revised: 9/20/84 Report to Planning Commissir, 6/22/84 UP -535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox.& Saratoga Aves. Page 3 .It is clear, however, that the construction of the project as proposed will be a net drain on City Resources (See Fiscal Impact Section of the EIR). The Land Use Element of the General Plan states the following: LU.7.0 - Promote the long -term economic soundness of the City government through careful analysis of land use decisions and fiscal practices. LU.7.1 - The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City. *To offset the loss to the City at a public meeting, the Owen Company has stated that they will make up the deficit to the City annually. STAFF ANALYSIS: In review of the E.I.R. and the plans submitted by the applicant, staff has identified the following major areas of concern with the project: *1. Traffic: The EIR has indicated that the project (129,264 sq. ft. - Scheme A) will generate 1,580 vehicle trip ends per weekday and 285 vehicle trip ends during the morning peak hour (20 in afternoon peak hour). The EIR indicates that this additional traffic will not significantly reduce the existing level of service at the intersection of Saratoga and Cox Avenues. This also is true for the addition of cumulative traffic .from potential future-development on:vacent parcels in the vicinity. 2. Circulation: The applicant proposes an entry to the property on its Saratoga Avenue side which is inconsistent with City Council Res. No. 897. The applicant feels this access is beneficial for the project in terms of distributing traffic. However, this access may give the project more of a commercial appearance which the City Council wished to avoid. The City Council would have to amend or rescind this resolution if any access. were to be allowed on the site. The applicant has provided a traffic diverter on McFarland Avenue to prevent on site traffic from using residential streets. 3. Design: The-City wishes to maintain the residential appearance of Saratoga Avenue by Resolution 897. The height, materials, and windows of the structure and project landscaping are critical in this regard. The Visual and Aesthetic Resources section of the EIR states that the two -story structures proposed by the applicant would have the greatest visual impact because of their apparent height as seen from Cox and Saratoga Avenues and their contrast with existing one -story buildings in the vicinity. The project could "tie" into, or act as a transition between, the medical offices on the northwestern side of Saratoga Avenue and the commercial build- ings on Cox Avenue. The EIR suggests four (4) mitigation measures to reduce the commercial appearance of Report to Planning Commissico.. *Revised: 9/20/84 6/22/84 UP -535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox & Saratoga Aves. Page 4 *.the proposed (129,264 sq. ft.) structures: 1. Redesign the facades of Buildings #1 and #2 to be more similar to the medical office buildings. 2. Have single story structures along the street frontage of the site and two -story structures to the rear. 3. Relocate parking areas along Saratoga Avenue to the interior of the site and reduce the building setbacks. 4. Shielding of exterior night lights, prohibiting pole or building mounted lights and spotlights, and limiting the intensity of permitted lighting. *The current proposal, Scheme "C ", has 3, one -story structures adjacent to Saratoga Ave. and the residences to the rear and proposes a two -story next to-the Shopping Center on Cox, 150' away from the residences. This will still impact the neighbors privacy. The applicant pro - poses .a 12' - 15' privet hedge to'screen this visual impact. *The coverage proposed by these buildings is 19.4 %. The ratio of total floor area (includes, second floor) to acreage is 25.9 %. A comparison of the professional offices (parking at 1:400 at the southwesterly corner of Cox and Saratoga Ave. yields a ratio of 27.1 %. The rest of the offices (medical and dental with parking at 1:200) have a coverage ratio of 20.1 %. The office (existing and Proposed with oarkina at 1:40) on Cox Ave. across-the street will have a coverage ratio of 23.8% and a ratio of total floor area to acreage of 47.6 %. *4. Parking: The applicant proposes to provide 423 parking spaces on site. According to Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, a ratio of one (1) space for every 400 sq. ft. of gross floor is required for Professional /Administrative Offices and a ratio of 1:200 is required for customer service offices (medical, etc.). If the entire site were used for Professional /Administrative uses, 289 spaces would be required; 578 spaces would be required if the complex were devoted to customer service. The project provides parking at a ratio of 1:273 sq. ft. which lies between the parking ratios used by the City. The.common parking ratio for offices uses in the Santa Clara Valley is 1:250. 5. Fiscal Impacts: The General Plan states that "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions in the City." * The DEIR finds that "the project (129,264 sq. ft. - Scheme "A ") would be more beneficial to the City than the residential alternative, but would be less beneficial than the No- Project Alternative or the other development alternatives." The direct costs in dollars per year to the City (noting that approximate service costs have been used, and that a decrease in the real value of property tax revenue compared to inflation rates will occur, and an assumption of full occupancy of the project) would be $13,900, while revenues to; the City would be about $7,650. This results in a net annual deficit to the City of about $6,250 (1983 dollars). DRAFT FINDINGS: Staff has prepared the following findings in accordance with Article 16 of the Zoning Ordinance: C ( *Revised: 9/20/84 Report to the Planning Commission 6/22/84 UP -535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox & Saratoga Page 5 *1. The proposed location andcbsign of the conditional use is in accord with the ob- jectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the P -A zoning district (given City Council approval of the access to Saratoga Ave.) *2. The proposed location and design of this office use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health and safety or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. *3. The proposed office use will comply with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, the General Plan and Resolution No. 897, given City Council determination on the access to Saratoga Avenue. *RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the Staff Report dated 9/20/84 and Exhibit "B -2" dated 9/14/84, per the following conditions; after making one or more of the following findings: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. rnNnTTTnNS 1. Tentative and Final Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval required. 2. The project shall incorporate the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit "E" as part of the project., 3. Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for City Horticulturalist and Planning- Commission review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection /occupancy of any building. A minimum of 40% of the site shall be devoted to landscaping. Landscaping easements shall be dedicated to the City along the street frontages of the site. 4. The hours of operation for all uses shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 P.M. *5. Parking shall be provided at one space per 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area. No off -site parking. *6. Details for exterior lighting fixtures shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to Final Map Approval. The purpose of this Condition is to ensure that adjacent residential properties are not adversely affected by light and glare. All lighting not essential to security shall be turned off by 11:00 p.m. Security lighting to be reviewed by staff prior to issuance of building permits. *7. Berming and landscaping is required along Saratoga and Cox Avenues to visually block the cars parked within the site. rRevised: 9/20/84 Report to the Planning Commission 6/22/84 UP -535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox & Saratoga Ave. Page 6 .8. Any revisions to the site development plan or elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission: *9. Applicant shall eliminate project access onto Saratoga Avenue or petition the City Council to amend Resolution No. 897 to allow such access prior to Final Map Approval. 10. Incorporate passive solar energy use and install plumbing to allow retrofit for solar panels in the design of all structures as suggested in the mitigation measures listed on Exhibit "E ". *11. Design Review required for all signs. All buildings shall follow a consistent sign program approved by the Planning Commission. No signs shall be interior illuminated. 12. All parking stalls shall be double striped and minimum dimensions of 9.5' x 20'. 13. All loading berths shall have dimensions of 12' x 45'. 14. No medical or dental offices are permitted on this site or any other use which required one parking space or more for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area as defined in Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance. *15. A 6' to 8' high masonry block wall or approved alternative shall be constructed along the southern and a portion of the eastern property lines of the site to act as a buffer between adjacent residential properties and the project in conjunction with the proposed 10' wide landscaping strip. The precise locatoin and design of the wall shall be sub- mitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Screening of the second story privacy impacts through landscaping or building modification to be approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. Per Section 16.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission shall retain con- tinuing jurisdiction of the use permit. 17. The following mitigation measures shall be made part of this project: A. The project could include a channelization scheme for westbound traffic on Cox Ave. If installed, the Cox Ave. entrance to the site could be channelized to discourage vehicles in the westbound direction from entering or leaving the iste, thus reducing the incentive for project traffic to use Cox Ave. The scheme would cause 40 vehicles to be diverted away from Cox Ave. traffic in the morning peak hour. These vehicles would access the site by traveling on Saratoga Ave. During the evening peak hour, six vehicles would be diverted from Cox Ave. B. The City could require the project sponsor to make street improvements, in con- junction with the project, to alleviate traffic congestion in the vicinity of the site; one such suggested improvement could be a center divider on Cox Ave. that would prevent motorists from making mid -block U -turns or left turns into the site. C. The City could require the project sponsor to make street improvements in con- junction with the project, such as making the left lane on Cox Ave. into a left turn only lane, leaving only one through lane on Cox Ave. at Saratoga Ave. D. The City could require the project sponsor to construct a median barrier on McFarland Ave. to prevent U -turns in midblock. *Revised: 9/20/84 Report to Planning Commission 6/22/84 UP -535, SDR -1539, A -989 - Owen Co., Cox & Saratoga Ave. Page 7 E. To limit noise from commercial activity, the City could require the sponsor to construct a solid masonry wall, at least six feet high, along the site's boundary with adjacent residential development. This measure would reduce noise impacts of the project on adjacent residents to an insignificant level. *18. Per the developer's offer, an annual payment shall be made to the City to offset the deficit cost to the City of the project pursuant to a recorded written agreement to be approved by the City Attorney. This amount is to be adjusted annually for inflation. *19. Lower the building height on Building #2 to 271 . Report to the Planning Co( ,sion 8/17/84 SDR -1539, A -989, UP -535, Owen Co. Page 8 TENTATIVE BUILDING SITE APPROVAL If the Planning Commission approves the use permit for the project, then.the Commission can act on the application for Tentative Building Site Approval. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and a Notice of Determination will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: August 8, 1984. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1539 (Exhibit B -1 filed 1/30/84) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of.a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and'Building Ordinances, nor-with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining. Final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required. D. Improve Saratoga Ave., Cox Ave. and Mc Farland Ave. to City Standards, including the following: I. Pedestrian Walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.) 2. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities. 3. Repair damage to existing improvement. E. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the following: Report to the Planning Commission 8/17/84 SDR -1539, A -989, UP -535, ( n Co. Page 9 1. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. 2. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. 3. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. 4. On Site Retention. F. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches except Mc Farland Avenue shall be constructed so as to prohibit right turns into site and left turns out of site. G. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. H. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Street Improvements. 2. Storm Drain Construction I. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. J. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. K. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. L. Dedications, Improvements Plans; fees, and bond as required for mitigation measures as outlined in the final EIR. M. Easements and improvements for.driveway connection to Quito Shopping Center. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional 1. Soils 2. Foundation B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross- sections, existing and proposed"elevations ,'earthwork quantities).' 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, locations, etc.) 3. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewer service can be provided to this project through connection into the 10 -inch trunk sewer in Saratoga Avenue. B. Applicant to submit enumerated Jees to- County Sanitation District No. 4 in accordance with letter dated 9/21/83 prior to issuance of permits. Report to the Planning Commission 8/17/84 SOR -1539, A -989, UP -535, (-i Co. Page 10 V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT A. The existing water system shall be extended to the site; contact San Jose Water Company. B. Developer to install four (4) public and two (2) on site private hydrants that meet Central Fire District's specifications. Hydrants to be installed and accepted prior to issuance of building permits. Contact should be made with the water company as soon as possible to eliminate engineering delays. C. The buildings will require the installation of an approved automatic fire extinguishing system. Contact should be made with the water company as soon as possible to avoid engineering delays. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. C. Existing septic tank to be.pumped. and backfilled to County Standards. Seal well in accordance with County and Santa Clara Valley Water District Standards. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT. A. Applicant.shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. B. Dedicate a landscape easement for all landscaped areas along Mc Farland Drive Cox Avenue, and Bucknall Road. C. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission Approval. D. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way that are to remain unimproved and the landscaping easement dedicated to the City. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be sumitted to the Planning Department for review.and approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be installed and established within 90 days of completion of the right -of -way improvements or prior to final inspection /occupancy of any portion of the project. E. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City for those landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and landscape easement. The applicant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a minimum of one year after which the owners of the site shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaped areas. *Revised: 9/20/84 Report to Planning Commissic, �, 8/17/84 SDR -1539, A -989, UP -535 Page 11 DESIGN REVIEW - A -989 *The applicant has substantially modified the design of the project to be more residential - appearing per suggestions by the EIR and the Planning Commission. The structure will be all wood (siding and shakes) with mullioned windows and sheet metal gutters. *The two story building may have a privacy impact on the adjoining residences (150' minimum distance away) which are suggested to be mitigated by landscaping and fencing. *RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review subject to the Staff Report dated 9/20/84 and Exhibit "B -2" dated 9/14/84 per the following conditions: *1. Plans showing the location of trash containers, utility meters, mechanical equipment or other similar appurtenances and their screening shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. *2. Any minor revision to the proposed elevations and site plan shall be subject to staff review and approval. Major modifications will be referred to the Planning Commission. *3. Landscaping plans, drawn by a licensed landscape architect, shall be reviewed and approved by staff and the City's landscape consultant prior to issuance of permits. A deposit for the review is required. The landscaping shall be fully irrigated and in place prior to Final Building Approval. *4. Access on to the decking is not permitted on the rear area of Building #2. *5. Submit detailed grading and drainage plans Community Development Department. Drainage vations to be in conformance with adjacent Approved: KK /dsc P.C. Agenda: 9/26/84 with building plans to be approved by the to be approved by City Engineer. Pad ele- residences. Kat erdu Planner M ITS (4ATi dN Mf.,�502j� To reduce the _impact of the project on the need for increased police services. the Sheriff's Office recommends the following mitigation measures: - The sponsor could employ a private security service to periodically patrol the project site to discourage vandalism and theft. - The sponsor could fence the construction site to limit theft of materials and - equipment. - - -- To reduce the potential for flooding on the site, the Department of Public Works recommends the following measure: The City could require the sponsor to design the project's drainage system for a -- -- minimum of a ten -year storm. /5/ To reduce the visual similarity of the project to the nearby offices on Cox Ave. and -- -- - other office development in the San Jose area, the City of Saratoga could require the sponsor to redesign the exterior facade of Buildings 1 and 2 to appear more similar to - -- - - that of the medical /dental offices and to residential development in the area. - The City could require the sponsor to have a qualified archaeologist survey the site _.___._._............ —__ ._. prior to construction and make recommendations for protecting and preserving any significant archaeological resources found on the site. This measure is recommended by the Northwest Information Center. To reduce energy consumed during construction: - --- The sponsor could select materials available locally for use in construction to reduce the energy costs of transporting materials to the site. - Where more than one construction material is available for the same purpose, the - - -- - sponsor could select the material requiring the least energy for its manufacture. - - -- -- To reduce energy consumed by project occupants: - -- - - -- - The sponsor could design structures for passive solar heating by locating most of their glazed area on the southern exposure and by locating few windows or doors on the -- - - - - -- northern exposures. The sponsor could enhance passive solar heating by incorporating - - thermal mass materials (concrete, brick, plaster, adobe) in the interior of structures - -- - - -- where the mass can absorb solar heat entering windows on the southern exposure. - - - -- The City could require that plumbing and HVAC systems be designed to allow retrofitting with solar heating units. - The sponsor could design structures with large windows and insulated skylights to - allow natural lighting of interior spaces, but provide eaves, overhangs, and vertical partitions, and deciduous trees on the south sides of structures, to avoid excessive - solar heating of interior space during the warm season. This measure could reduce electricity demand for lighting and air conditioning. To limit temporary noise impacts from construction: - The City could require the sponsor to limit construction activities to between _ 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, to reduce disturbance to nearby residents. The City could require the sponsor to certify that power construction equipment to be used on the project site was furnished with state -of - the -art noise shielding and muffling devices. - During project construction, sprinkle unpaved construction areas with water as often as needed to keep soil moist. This measure would reduce dust emissions by about 508. Require the project sponsor to design the site grading plan to balance cut and fill on the site. This would eliminate the potential for off -site impacts from grading. Require the project sponsor to retain a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer, soil engineer, or structural engineer to analyze the soils on the site and the structural design of the project in detail, and that the project sponsor implement the recommendations of this consultant. To reduce the potential for structural damage from settlement or earthquakes, require the project sponsor to use flexible materials and connections for pipes, utility lines, and conduits. - To reduce potential hazards from earthquakes, require the project sponsor to install - and label manual shut -offs for gas lines. - - -- - Require the project sponsor to securely anchor light fixtures, structural ornaments (if any), water heaters, bookcases, and other fixtures to walls and ceilings. - Require the project sponsor to reduce slopes on berms to reduce the rate of runoff - - — from them. ------- _ - - - -- - Require the project sponsor to construct a retention pond near the center of the site. Runoff from the site could then be directed to the pond and released into,the storm - - - -- - drain after peak storm runoff subsided. Planning Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 9/26/84 Kennedy (cont.) that he feels it makes more of a safety hazard to go from wide to narrow and he thinks the road ses ld be consistent and have the same basic width all the way along, so people ar used to it Commissioner Crowther stated that he thinks it is the steepn ss of that road that creates the safety problem, and whether you make it wid r or not isn't going to make much difference. Lester Sachs, 19941 Suns t Drive, stated that he is one of the parties taking access from Hume Drive. le indicated that he is concerned about the Staff analysis which states tha the proposed structures.will be well screened from the Peach Hill area but wi 1 be somewhat visible to homes taking access from Hume Drive. He requested he Commission to have some reasonable screening requirements as to the home that take access on Hume. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SM -6. Commissioner McGoldrick second the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. Commissioner Crowther moved to pprove SM -6, V -665 and A -1009, per Exhibits B and C and the Staff Report da ed September ommissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was c rried unanimously,7 -0. Commissioner Crowther moved to re ommend approval of GPA -84 -1 and C -210 to the City Council, per the Staff Report dated September 17, 1984 and Exhibit B. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded t e motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. Commissioner Crowther moved to brin Item #15, LLA #4, forward for discussion. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the m tion, whic was unanimously 7 -0. Commissioner Crowther moved to defer ondition F of LLA #4, but require the overlay on the existing road. Commis -oner Siegfried added, on the basis that, with the change to HCRD and basi ally at this point with the same struc- ture that is there, there is no change in the use today. After discussion it was determined that Condition F woul read: "One inch overlay of existing entire street fronting property. City tandard asphalt curb along frontage. Engineering plans, fees and bonds for th se improvements." Condition H is to read: "Widen pavement to provide two nine (9) foot lanes plus one foot shoulders. (D.I.A.) ". D.I.A. was added t Condition P regarding the access road. It was noted that there is a condition for landscaping under Design Review. It was determined that Staff will work with the applicant regarding the grading for the sprinkler system in front of the swimming pool. Com- missioner McGoldrick noted that there is a -nce there and the applicant was informed he would have to come in for a vari nce or take it down. Commis - sioner Burger seconded the motion, which was arried unanimously 7 -0. Discussion followed on.Item #9, V -656, Duppen. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that the Staff Report asks that t e set ac e £t.; it is now 3� ft. She commented that she feels the applicant is Willi to make a compromise on the setback, which the Land Use Committee found reas nable. The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Duppen, the applicant, stated that a setback f 6 ft. would mean that a couple of large trees are encroached upon. He sug ested a compromise of 6 ft. from the side yard with the neighbors for safety r sons and 4 ft. for the front yard. He indicated that he will then make th garage 2 ft. narrower to accomplish that. It was moved and seconded_to close the public hearing The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V -659, making he findings, and changing the condition to a 6 ft. setback it the side a d 4 ft. at the front, per the Staff Report dated September 21, 1984 and Exhibi B -2. It was noted that the garage width will be Commissioner I ris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS (:3.)-UP-535 SDR -1539 - Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies), Request - for Use permit, Building Site Approval and Design Review 10c. A -989 - Approval for 115,600 sq. ft., in 4 office buildings, one of which is two- story, at the southeast corner of Saratoga and Cox Avenues in the P -A zoning district Chairman Siegfried reported that since the last public hearing the applicant 77 7747 Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 9/26/84 SDR -1539, UP -535 and A -989 (cont.) has made some modifications and described the currently proposed project. Staff commented that, with the modifications the applicant has made, they are able to make the findings and recommend approval of the applications. They noted that they have had conversation with the applicant regarding the con- dition concerning the parking ratio of 1:250. They indicated that the appli- cant has explored that and, through a variety of means, would be able to achieve that. The parking, stall widths, and building height were discussed. The public hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m. Steve Douglas, of the Owen Companies, stated that he would like to address condition 17 at a later time and introduced Colin Russell, the architect for the project. The City Attorney addressed Condition 17, commenting that it is phrased in terms of "could ". Therefore, there has to be some discussion so the applicant is clear as to what is or is not being required. He commented that, as presently worded, it is more of a suggestion or possibility. Colin Russell, the architect, gave a.presentation on their current proposal. fie described the changes made, including the height of the structures, the number of buildings, consolidated parking, additional landscaping, and mater- ials. He discussed the parking ratio and parking spaces. A diagram of the proposed height of the buildings was also submitted by Mr. Russell, who addressed the present height. Steve Douglas addressed the projected occupancy load for the buildings, using the other office buildings that the Owen Companies have constructed as a basis. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels the applicant can meet the parking through compact and the 9 ft. wide combination. She commented that she is still concerned about the size of the buildings. She suggested a greater set- back from Saratoga Avenue. She noted that it is now a 50 ft. setback on one of the buildings, and she would propose that,one cube of that building be made smaller. She added that she has the feeling that these buildings are going to appear from Saratoga Avenue to be one large building. Colin Russell commented that one of the things•that reinforces the fact that they will appear individual is that the roof does have an up and down profile and is not a straight roof. He added that they appear in plan and will appear in elevation as separate building. Discussion followed on the elevations and setbacks. Mr. Russell addressed the suggestion to increase the setback off of Saratoga Avenue. He indicated that he feels that setback could be increased by 10 ft. without giving up much landscaping. Commissioner Crowther noted that the proposed berms would tend to reduce the perception of building height. Steve Douglas gave a history of the project, stating that he feels they have complied with the recommendations in the EIR about the redesign; have respond- ed to the comments of the Commission relative to the redesign and materials of the project;.have decreased the density from 1.47,000 to 115,600, and have done all of those things even though the City's ordinances and General Plan would have defined the original project. lie added that he believes that they have cooperated and are at a point now where they believe that the project deserves the Commission's support and asked for their favorable decision. _ Mr. Douglas addressed the conditions of the Staff Report, specifically Con- dition 17. lie spoke to the channelization of Cox, indicating that they do not believe it is necessary; however, if the City deems it.necessary they are prepared to do it. Commissioner Crowther commented that he would like to see that as a deferred improvement which is going to be conditional on whether a problem occurs; if a. problem occurs then the applicant would be committed to go in and fix it. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he is not so concerned about the channelization as he is the straightening out of what may just be a matter of striping. He commented that he thinks it is a major problem the way it goes from two lanes to one lane as cars cross Saratoga. It was noted that Item C would take care of that issue. Staff commented that they are not sure that in fact the channelization would affect the pattern of traffic approaching the site; therefore, they feel the idea of a Deferred Improvement Agreement for Item A makes a great deal of sense. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would like to see Items C and D made firm that the applicant will do those, but feel that A and B should be open if a problem occurs. It was determined that the applicant could work with Staff on Item 1). Discussion followed on Condition 18. The City Attorney stated that this whole subject is strictly contractual. It was a consideration in terms of whether the pro- ject should or should not be approved in terms of land use. Basically the 4 IL Ron- �+! y�P, Planning Commission Page 5 Meeting Minutes 9/26/84 SDR -1539, UP -535 and A -989 (cont.) applicant has responded to that by saying that they think the use is appro- priate and if the City has determined that they are going to suffer a net revenue loss the applicant will pay each year the amount of that loss. Jim Russell, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, addressed the fact that their Area'D is highly sensitive to the General Plan change from P -D to P -A. He stated that their area's concern is crime, safety and the configuration of the parking. He addressed Condition 18, as to the basis under which the City can request adjustment. Mr. Russell spoke to the proposed buildings, and the two -story building that already exists in the area. fie indicated that the recommendation from the Homeowners. Association was to be single- family detached, and they would like.the Commission to recommend that this be rezoned to R -1. Commissioner Siegfried pointed out that if it were single family residential on the corner, the thought occurred to him that, given traffic patterns and what has been done on other streets, that we might be looking at a wall there. The City Attorney clarified Condition 18, regarding Mr. Russell's question. He commented that it is really a matter of contract and negotiated item between the applicant and the City; however, once that agreement is executed, then it is an enforceable document and then becomes a potential lien on the property. He added that once the contract is in place it becomes almost equivalent to a tax assessment and it will be of record and a financial obligation of the property. Commissioner Crowther asked, if there were a consensus among the Commission that we should make this site single family residential, and the applicant has been proceeding based on the current General Plan and zoning, how would you implementthat sort of thing? The City Attorney explained that a rezoning pro- cedure would have to.be initiated, and he thinks the General Plan would have to be changed because it calls for a P -D mix. He commented that that use includes residential, but he thinks a reasonable interpretation is that it calls for either a mixed use or would allow office use. He added that he would have to look more carefully at how.the designation is described. However, his initial reaction without checking the exact language of the General Plan is that it would require both a General Plan change and amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Carol Machol addressed the Commission, stating that she would like to support Mr. Russell's statement about having single family and stress the detached part, rather than single family condominiums. She stated that she feels that this will bring the lowest possible traffic pattern as well as upgrade that section, which she feels is something the City has been trying to do. She commented that you won't see another project of this size consisting of office buildings anywhere in the City. She asked why the Commission is considering anything that is two- story. She added that the thing that bothers her the most is that people will start using the neighborhood streets.. She urged that the Commission redesignate it as single family detached residential. Dora Grens totally agreed with Ms. Machol and Mr. Russell. She stated that the General Plan Committee indicated that they wanted single family residential; the Planning Commission agreed with the General Plan recommendation, and the present City Council overturned that. She stated that she feels the Commission would be setting a terrific precedent in approving this project. John Lundell, 18951 Ainsley Place, stated that this would be a significant change in the character of this portion of Saratoga. He commented that lie also feels that it will set a precedent. He added that he feels that such • project, if it were to be located in Saratoga, would be more appropriate on • site along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Lundell commented that for the subject site he feels it would be more appropriate for single family residential or condos at worse; or if need be, even a single story medical complex such = as is across the street from the subject site. Michael Millhall, Ainsley Place, agreed with the previous speakers. He stated that he hates to see the area deteriorate, and he would like it to keep its special character. Adnan Daoud asked for clarification regarding the figures of occupancy rate. Mr. Douglas explained that they did a survey of the actual footage rented in those buildings. Mr. Daoud stated, that the total square footage is .far too large for a development for this area. He added that it will create a lot of traffic and the congestion will be much greater than depicted. — - 5 - Planning Commission C Page 6 Meeting Minutes 9/26/84 SDR -1539, UP -535 and A -989 (cont.) Joan Faunce, Bucknall Road, stated that she feels the comments regarding access onto Saratoga Avenue are relevant; however, she feels the parking on Saratoga Avenus is probably more relevant. She commented that one of the things this project addresses is apparently adequate and maybe more than ample parking for the occupancy that they have. She indicated that they had gotten feedback from 500 homes in the area and residential was preferred. However, they also felt that maybe something else may be good as long as there was some open space and a good feeling that it was Saratoga. She commented that this project brings to mind the fact that there has not been a consistent effort made by all the parties in Saratoga to coordinate Resolution 897 with current activity, when there is much developable land yet on Saratoga Avenue and also land that is developable that will impact on some of the residential areas that are adjacent to that. Ms. Faunce commented that single family housing can be cluster housing with lots of open space; it can be townhouses crammed together, and it can be lots of single story condos. She stated that the people in her area have said verbally many times that they would like single family dwellings; they did not ever.say that they had to be separate houses. However, they were concerned about traffic, and the traffic through E1 Quito Park is their major concern, more than even the residential nature or not of that particular development. Laurie Landwehr, 18803 Devon Avenue, stated that they had moved here because Saratoga has a quality of life that they wanted. She described the low key shopping center four years ago and stated that they did not want this proposed development in the neighborhood. She expressed concern about the traffic and crime, and stated that they wanted single family dwellings, basically detached. She added that her neighbors feel the same way. Eleanor Sabella asked for clarification of the height and spoke against the project, stating that she wants to keep Saratoga the way it is. Terry Griswold addressed the Commission, stating that she was involved with some of the poll- taking in the Quito area and was present at some of the board meetings. She indicated that after they had walked all of the streets surrounding this project and any street that would be affected by the traffic, the poll turned out to be 40% for it, 40% against it, and 20% could not make up their mind. The public hearing continued at 10:00 p.m. after a break. No one else appeared to address the Commission. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. The following comments were made by the Commissioners: Commissioner McGoldrick referenced the packet that she gave the Commissioners containing the minutes of the General Plan.meetings and prior meetings on this property. She stated the following: Unfortunately I was not.able to attend the meeting of the homeowners when Building A, which is across from my home;. was discussed. However, I remember distinctly Cheriel Jensen talking about how mammoth that building was going to look.and the people who were in the homeowners group at that time, including one who is a City figure now, fully bought the fact that there were somecompromises being mane and that the building was not going to be as overbihelming as it was. We bought it, but we were very unso- phiscated at that time. So that was the major error, which set the ,precedent. We have the opportunity now to prevent that same sort of thing from happening. I am sure that when the homeowners looked at those drawings they had no conception of how overpowering that building was going to look. When I look at this it looks wonderful, and when I hear 40% landscaping, that's almost half- -that sounds terrific. So visually I don't know what it is going to look like, just like I didn't know what Building A was going to look like. So I think the Quito homeowners' point that it is a moot question as to whether berms are better than walls is indeed a moot question. All I know is that after it is built it is too late to do anything about it. So I am going to direct my thoughts to the traffic, because that is one issue that, no matter where you are in Saratoga, it is a primary concern. I refer to the response dated July 24, 1984 to the Planning Commission for the EIR single family alternative: "This alternative would generally have less impact on traffic congestion and circulation than the project. It would generate about 290 vehicle trips per day, about 20% of the trips generated by the project. That is tremendous to me. That has a lot of impact. I don't think there is any question as to how I am going to vote. - 6 - a ' ec E77772 7- Planning Commission Page 7 Meeting Minutes 9/26/84 SDR -1539, UP -S3S and A -989 (cont.) Commissioner Burger stated the following: I would like to make the point that my decision tonight to approve or deny this project I feel has to be based on the current zoning of that particular parcel. However, I feel that what happens there is going to have an impact on every Saratogan, not just the people in Area F or the people who live in areas that adjoin Area F. No matter where you live in Saratoga, it will have an impact because it sets a precedent for future development along Saratoga Avenue. I think the precedent that it sets will.have an adverse impact on Saratoga. I think the project, from my point of view, is too massive and it defeats the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. I cannot, under any circumstances, vote for any two -story building on the project. Therefore, I will not be voting in favor of the project. Commissioner Crowther stated the following: I feel we have some very major problems in our ordinances and our General Plan. I think the plan the appli- cant has come up with is a major improvement. I agree that it is going to have a lot less impact than the other plan, and I sort of feel lie has been led down the primrose path a bit, in that I think we haven't moved.as quickly as we should have to straighten out our General Plan and our.ordinances to get thi -s zoned to what it should be. I would hope that we can move as quickly as possible to do that, because I think we need to straighten out the existing problems that we have in that area. I don't think the project is in character with Saratoga t,,d I: can't vote for it because of.that.: I feel it is just too large an office complex.,, Commissioner Schaefer stated the following: I want to compliment the developer on this particular project that they have put together and the fact that I think it has tried to meet our concerns. She reiterated what she had said before, that she thinks P -A is appropriate but she would want the smaller scale. Commissioner Harris stated the following: Being as new as I am on the Com- mission, I still am very confused about the General Plan and the way it is stated, and I certainly appreciate Commissioner McGoldrick's time and effort in bringing me up to date on what exactly went on. Even in reading those minutes I am confused, but I still feel that the residents were not asking for this type of development on that property. Had the developer even come in with a mix of P -A and residential, that might have been something I could consider, because I think that's what the residents were saying all along. I can't go along with this as it is. Commissioner Siegfried stated the following: Having been on the Commission the longest time, I agree that it is unfortunate perhaps that it has taken us so long to reach this point. I would agree with Commissioner Schaefer; I think P -A is appropriate. I do not, however, believe that this proposal has reached the point that it is in character with the style, the feel of the medical - dental complex across the street. It still gives me a feeling _ of much greater density, although the numbers don't say that; the size and style does. It is unfortunate that the two -story building cannot be reduced to less than 27 or 28 ft. in height. It seems to me that maybe it says you have to go back to the drawing board. I am not necessarily opposed to a two -story building on that site. I like the concept of the offsetting of the modules. I can't get a feel, however, from this architectural style. I think ' that, even though the roof line differs, you are not going to get the sense of independent buildings. If you had that sense, if the buildings were sop- arated, which probably means they would end up being somewhat smaller in size, I would be somewhat inclined to vote favorably. I will not be voting favorably. One additional thought, if in.the future a proposal came forward to change this zoning to residential, I would not be opposed to that if it were clustered or condominiums. I think we are all making a mistake if we think you are �? going to end up with single family detached housing on that corner. The reason I raised the point about the wall is, given the style, the size of homes that are detached, as much as we try to restrict them and limit the height, there is a feeling of density. I am afraid if this were single family detached you would have a very dense feeling. So I would say okay for residential, but it would have to be clustered or condominiums. I think P -A is appropriate, but it has to have a different feel, so I will be voting against this. Commissioner Schaefer added that the idea has been brought up as to having mixed, and she thinks if you will look at what happened on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, where that got to be a compromise of commercial /retail and multi - family or single family units, nobody really ended up very happy with that at all. Therefore, she really thinks that P -A is very appropriate for this if it could — ` x - 7 - Planning Commission �' Page 8 Meeting Minutes 9/26/84 SDR -1539, UP -535 and A -989 (cont.) get a smaller feel to it, or possible condominiums. However, she really thinks that P -A, with a little bit of working over it, is an appropriate use for this site. Commissioner Crowther stated: Since the neighborhood wants residential on this site, and since traffic is a major issue that affects all of Saratoga, it seems to me that the traffic issue is the key one. If you go with any kind of a P -A complex there it.is going to have a major impact on traffic. It would just seem to me that maybe there is a way to combine single family residential with some form of clustering or low density condominiums, which would give some open space near the corner. I am just wondering if there isn't some way we can get that resolved and move on, and get our General Plan and ordinances changed. We are in a bad situation here. We have it zoned P -A and we have ordinances that can lead to a project that we are not going to approve. I think we need to change that as quickly as possible. A mixed use is a disaster; we have it over on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and it hasn't worked. I don't think that is the right way to go, and we ought to go for residential. Commissioner Harris moved to deny UP -535, SDR -1539 and A -989. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 6 -1, with Commissioner Peterson dissenting. Discussion followed on possibly voting to deny without prejudice.* There was a consensus that a change of significance is necessary. Commissioner Schaefer asked if the Commission wanted to give indications of whether there is a majority on the Commission who will consider P -A without having any residential put in it. She commented that she thought she heard Commissioners Siegfried, Peterson and herself saying that P -A would be fine. Commissioner Burger also agreed to that. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would prefer residential. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she would go for P -A if we are talking about small little pods that are not very huge numbers of people. Commissioner Peterson commented that one of the advan- tages to P -A is the fact that it is in use from 8:00 to 5:00 and empty on weekends and at night. lie indicated that he is very leery of anything mixed; in his mind it should be P -A or single family, and he feels P -A does have some advantages relative to the use. There was a consensus to let the motion stand, and the applicant was informed of the 10 -day appeal period. lla. Negative Declaration - SDR -1578 - William Lisac llb. A -1003 - William Lisac, Request for Design Review and Tentative Build - llc. SDR - 1578- ing Site Approval for a two - story, single - family dwelling over 26' in height on a hillside lot in the NHR district at 21045 Comer Drive It was directed that this matter be continued to October 24, 1984. 12a. Negative Declaration SDR -1581 - Wilbur & Gayle Fisher 12b. SDR -1581 - Wilbur and Gayle Fisher, Request for Design Review and 12c. A -1014 - Tentative Building Site Approval to allow an existing single story dwelling to be converted to a two -story dwelling in excess of 4800 sq. ft. in the R -1- 20,000 district at 15069 Park Drive It was directed that this matter be continued to October 10, 1984. 13. V -658 - Mr. and Mrs. Ron Martin, Request for Variance Approval to allow the construction of a one -story addition that will maintain a , 15 ft. rear yard setback where 25 ft. is required at 12420 Radoyka Drive in the R- 1- 10.000 zoning district Staff explained the proposal, stating that they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, indicating that the house has mature landscaping along the edges. She noted that the other logical place for putting on the addition might be where the site plan says existing deck and concrete. She added that if the applicant were to build there there is a huge tree that would prevent having any access to the back yard. She commented that the applicant had an older proposal for building up and had opposition from the neighbors, so they with- drew that proposal. She noted that there are no other two -story homes in this neighborhood and the Homeowners Association is very opposed to having any. *addition on Page.8a Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9/26/84 Owen Companies (cont.) Page 8a *Commissioner McGoldrick stated that what she heard her neighborhood say is that traffic is the most important concern. Therefore, if this P -A was reduced significantly maybe in half, and she does -not know if that is feasible, then we are discussing the traffic.they'had in mind: (She noted�at the October 10th meeting, for the Council's information, that she distinctly remembers posing to the applicant at a Committee -of- the -Whole meeting a proposition that was smaller than the number of square feet they presented to the Commission at the last meeting; however, it was certainly not half.) Planning Commission !� Meeting Minutes 9/12/84 l A -998 (cont.) Page 3 and recommend approval. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report. She indicated that their only concern was that which has been addressed in the Staff Report, regarding the north side of the property. She commented that with the addition of some landscaping and either reducing the number or using stained glass for the windows, she feels that the privacy impacts are mitigated The public hearing was opened at 7:S2 p.m. Mike Dillon, the landscape architect, addressed Condition #1, indicating that he would like to have the option to either reduce the windows or opaque them, rather than both. Mr. Dillon described the proposed windows and discussion followed. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A -998, per Exhibits B and C and the Staff Report dated September 12, 1984,,modifying Condition #1 to read: "Use opaque or stained glass to minimize potential privacy impacts." Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. lla. SDR -1539 - Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies), Request for llb. UP -535 - Use Permit, Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval llc. A -989 - for 129,264 sq. ft., in 3 office buildings at the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue in the P -A zoning district; continued from AUQUst 22, 1984 Chairman Siegfried noted that this item will be continued to a study session on September 18, 1984 and the regular meeting of September 26, 1984. He commented that there was great concern expressed at the last meeting and there appeared to be a general consensus against the project as proposed. Therefore, he assumes that a different version will be presented at the next meeting. The public hearing was opened at 7:59 p.m. Mrs. Eleanor Sabella, Devon Avenue, submitted signatures of neighbors against the Owen development, in favor of single family residential. Jim Russell, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, commented that he will continue working with the City. It was directed that this be continued to a study session on September 18, 1984 and the regular meeting of September 26, 1984. 12. A -1004 - Robert Schiro, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second -story addition to a garage at 13092 Upper Hill Court, in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district; continued from August 22, 1984 It was directed that this item be continued to September 26, 1984. 13. UP -185 - Allen Wong, Request for review of an existing Use Permit for a pre - school facility in the R -1- 40,000 district at 19010 Austin Way, to determine if the Use Permit must be modified per the provisions of Article 16, Ordinance NS -3 Staff explained the use permit and gave the history of it. They indicated that in May of this year complaints were received relative primarily to the number of cars that approach this site in the morning, block traffic, lack of parking, wedding receptions, flea markets, etc. Staff reported that they have reviewed the site and have found thzt there is a second dwelling on the site. They stated that a second unit use permit would have to be obtained for the dwelling to continue. Staff addressed the traffic and parking and indicated that, with appropriate conditions, they are able to make the finding and recommend continued use of the school. They noted the correspondence received. The public hearing was opened at 8:04 p.m. Allen Wong, the applicant, stated that they will try to do everything they can to upgrade the school. Mark Krag, representing Daniel and Jean Krag, 15705 Lancaster Road, read a letter from the Krags which summarized previous complaints, i.e., it is an eyesore, traffic, and they fee]. it is a nuisance. Planning Commission Page 3 Dleeting !Minutes 8/22/84 A -995 (coat.) session. Staff indicated that it is their understanding that there will be backfill placed against the wall, which will in effect reduce its visible height to 5 feet. Staff also noted that they have reviewed the plans that were approved by the Planning Commission, and the deck was shown there. flow ever, they did find that there are approximately 45 sq. ft. of additional de, that was not on the plans. It was directed that the Land Use Committee will review this on their next visit and it will be continued to the regular meeting of September 12, 1984. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7a. SDR -1539 - Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies), Request f, 7b. UP -S35 - Use Permit, Building Site Approval and Design Review Approva 7c. - for 129,264 sq. ft., in 3 office buildings at the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue in the P -A zoning district; continued from August 8. 1984 Chairman Siegfried noted that there had been previous public hearings on the Environmental Impact Report on this project, and it was certified adequate a' the last meeting. Staff referenced a memo dated August 17, 1984 to the Comm sion, expressing their concerns relative to the use permit. They suggested that the public hearing be opened, testimony taken, and the matter continued to a study session on September 4, 1984, for a more detailed discussion of tl application. The public hearing was opened at 8:08 p.m. Collin Russell, the architect, reviewed the basic planning principles employ in the design of the project. He gave a presentation on the project, dis- cussing the setbacks and height. He added that they felt they had complied with all ordinance requirements. Steve Douglas, of the Owen Companies, discussed the Staff memo regarding the fiscal impacts, indicating that they have offered a fee in lieu of tax agree ment. Relative to the comment concerning potential income to the City from ; commercial mixed use project, he stated that he believes that the Area F gui( lines say that there shouldn't be another shopping center on this site, and he thinks the only way the City is going to get any tax revenue is with shop] He addressed Resolution 897,.indicating they are not going to be asking the City Council to amend or rescind this resolution. However, what they are sa ing is that this project can be reviewed on its own merits; a decision made to whether or not an exception will be granted from that resolution for this project, and then in the future any other project could be judged the same 1,r on its merits. He addressed the Staff Report dated August 1, 1984, pointing out that they waited from December of 1982 to June 1983 for the General Plan amendment and the zoning to be brought into compliance with the change for t. P -A zoning of the property. Therefore, they believe that the proposed proje is consistent with the General Plan and the Staff Report notes that it is co . sistent with the zoning. He commented that he thinks it is important that i is a transitional piece of property and is heavily impacted by the surroundi development. Mr. Douglas discussed access, circulation and design. He stat that, if approved, they would take issue with Condition No. 2 in the Staff Report which says the project shall incorporate the mitigation measures list in Exhibit E, only to the extent of basically calling for the redesign of th project as far as the aesthetics. Ile also discussed the parking, stating th . they were prepared to go forward with the 1:300 basis, since they feel that yields more landscape areas to the project. lie indicated that they would li to resolve Conditions No. 6 and 16, relative to the exterior lighting and wa with the City at the appropriate time. Jim Russell, Saratoga Park woods Homeowners Association, addressed the proje Ile indicated that their recommendation is anything residential in nature wit certain constraints. Ile added that, if not residential, their suggestion fo an alternative would be professional and administrati.ve similar to the build ings across Saratoga Avenue. lie referenced the Owen letter re a timeframe. Joan Faunce, President of the E1 Quito Homeowners Association, stated that they have been interested in having a r,.sidential development on that proper She noted `hat they have not had the qu,;stion answered as to the potential k of trips that might be made if that particular block was develcped into tcwn houses or condos, which appears to be what might be the only other fnasib ?e „ws•' 7 J� Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8/22/84 SDR -1539, UP -S3S and A -989 (coat.) r4 i P1ge 4 project for that area. She commented that, however, they are looking at this project and traffic is their main concern. She indicated that they appreciat the fact that there is a reduction in the amount of access onto McFarland. She stated that they have in the past proposed that there be on Cox : \venue so kind of a divider which will eliminate left hand turns for people who would come from the east on Cox Avenue. She suggested a barrier she had seen on Austine Avenue in Santa Clara, to be used in the E1 Quito Park area at Cox Av and also on Bucknall Road and on Paseo Presada. Ms. Faunce discussed the design and color of the proposed building and su;aestcd a masonry wall betwee . the project and the six houses that are on the ?icFarland -Devon circle to help the noise factor. She also suggested low level lighting. When asked by Chai man Siegfried what their preference would be other than the proposed project, she indicated that they have always and continue to prefer a single family development, which.could be houses on lots, condos, townhouses or a blend. Chairman Siegfried discussed the letter from Owen Companies relative to the t frame of the consideration of the project. He assured the applicant that Mahe: it becomes the appropriate time for a vote, he would assume a vote would be taken. He addressed the comments as to time limits of speakers, stating that they are not limits, they are guidelines. He added that the thing that dis- turbed him the most about the comments is that those limits have never been imposed on the applicant at any time and they have been allowed to speak for far beyond the ten minutes that any applicant would get normally. It was not, that the City Attorney had commented previously that Commissioner McGoldrick could request a full commission for the vote. Commissioner Peterson commented on the project, stating that he is fairly new to the Commission and is having a difficult time dealing with the question of whether this project should be houses or offices. He discussed the zoning an, stated that, in his mind, if the consensus over the year would have been that it should have been houses, he feels it would have been zoned residential. H, commented that he is not an expert so he has to look to the EIR as his guide- line for this particular project. Regarding land use, lie has to go along wit the EIR; it is relatively compatible with the existing land use, the shopping center, the winery, the offices across the street, and the church on the othe corner. He indicated that he has some significant reservations about the visual impact and will not support the project as it stands now relative to the visual impact. Regarding traffic and circulation, he stated that lie read . nothing in the EIR that says this is going to significantly impact the traffi, Regarding noise, whatever is done on that site there is obviously going to be a significant amount of noise during the construction and the noise problems have to be mitigated. He added that he cannot go along with any kind of two - story along Saratoga Avenue and could only support single- story. Regarding tl access on Saratoga Avenue, he can see some advantages to access on Saratoga and would leave it up to the City Council to resolve the issue of Resolution 897. He indicated that he agrees with the Staff and the EIR and would like ti see the buildings along Saratoga Avenue moved up; he would like to see at lea: a 4 ft. berm with some very nice landscaping to mitigate any kind of impact. He commented that he would like to see some answers to these concerns at the study session. Commissioner McGoldrick added that, even though there is Paul Masson and the shopping center adjacent to this project, there are also houses on McFarland and an orchard across the street, with a great deal of open space and a churcl She stated that she could not support a second story anywhere in the vicinity of the houses on McFarland. Commissioner Burger noted that she is also new to the Commission and agreed with Commissioner Peterson's comments and ethos his concerns. She added that not only is she concerned about any two -story buildings on that site, she wou not at this point even be able to support a two -story nearest to the commer- cial area on Quito. She stated that she would also like to consider and poss bly suggest that the developer dedicate a portion of their land to improve McFarland from Saratoga Avenue into the entrance to the project even further than what has been proposed. She added that, to be more specific, she would like to consider something like an expanded median strip that would include berms and trees in the center of McFarland Avenue. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he has substantial concerns about the project in total. Ile indicated that, while it is zoned P -A, lie has serious reservations about P -A buildings of this size. He stated that he thinks he expressed these before when the proposal was for research and development. 1.r ' _ t Planning Commission Page S Meeting Minutes 8/22/84 C SDR -1539, UP -S3S and A -999 (cont.) commented that his concern still is that in the future, with moves and change although the City would restrict the use at this time, we are -oin, to be in position where that is the kind of use that is going to end up, Fie added tha he thinks that it will promote an entirely different kind of P use than any one of us ever thought, and he doesn't think anyone ever conceiv-_d buildings this size. He stated that he has serious problems about the acc:_ss; lie reall doesn't think it is good access the way it is proposed, and lie doesn't think there is good access for this kind of development. Flo indicated that lie has serious problems about what this will engender in terms of future development on the vacant sites. He added that lie frankly has felt that in time the industrial use of the Paul Masson site may very well disappear, just because the value of the land. lie added that lie tends to feel that we are headed in the wrong direction. Commissioner Harris stated that she does not think she could say anything bet than the way other Commissioners have said it, except that she moved to.Sara- toga because it was a residential community, and she would like to see it sta that way. Commissioner Crowther stated that he knows the applicant has said he is not going to raise the issue on Resolution 897, but it seems that it lizis to be addressed. He commented that he does not know how it can be done and thinks maybe it is an issue for the City Attorney. He commented that, since this is a Council adopted resolution and it would seem that the Commission could into pret that. resolution that this project is inconsistent with it, it is not fai to the applicant to keep going on without facing up to that issue. Therefore he would like to see that somehow brought to a head if possible, and perhaps the City Attorney could raise this issue with the City Council and as,k them h they want to deal with it. The City Attorney commented that he thought he heard Mr. Douglas say that the did not intend to request the Council to modify the resolution because they felt that it could be interpreted to allow the project. tie stated that lie looked at the resolution while Mr. Douglas was speaking, and it says in very expressed language that no traffic shall access directly onto Saratoga .Avenue Therefore, while there may be other language within that resolution which cou be subject to interpretation, the restriction on access from Saratoga avenue is very clear, and he feels the Staff is correct in saying that if this Com- mission does approve the project, it would have to be subject to a condition that-.Resolution 897 be amended by the Council. He added that perhaps Com- missioner Crowther has a good suggestion for the applicant to assess the feel ing of the Council. If circulation is heavily dependent upon access from Saratoga Avenue, then there would have to be some determination by the Counci to modify or repeal that resolution. lie stated that lie cannot interpret that resolution as allowing the access, in the absence of any action by the City Council. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he does not agree with everything in the Staff Report. He stated that he likes the large setbacks from Saratoga Avenu and he would like to see those preserved. Fie commented that he agrees, how- ever, that the building near Saratoga Avenue should be single story. Fie stat that if this site could be used for single family residential lie thinks that would be a favorable use, in comparison to this project. However, if it were to be developed in condominiums, especially any kind of condominium project typical of the density that has been approved on other sites, lie thinks that would be much more environmentally damaging that what is proposed here. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on Septomber 4, 1984 and the regular meeting on September 12, 1984. There was a consensus that the Commission would like to see a physical layout of the buildings, by staking them, and having a site visit to get a feeling of height. The site visit was scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on September 4, 1984, before the study sess 8a. SDR -1576 - Dorothy Shaw, ct al., 14502 Bid Basin h1ay, Request for Tcnta- 5b. A -997 - tive Building Site Approval., Dcsign Review and Variance 8c. V -652 - Approval to allow the construction of a two -story 11,412 sq. ft. office building which would provide 17 parkins- spaces .whcre.a minimum of 28 spaces are required, 0 loading berths where 1 is required, maintain a 0' rear yard where 18' is required, and 0' side yards where 8' is required Staff explained that there was a Committee- of -thc -Whole last week on this C 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8/8/84 A -99. (cont.) C Page 4 wishes to provide any condition.ng along those lines whatsoever, they would suggest that the Commission put them in the form that the Water District revic it, because it is quite possibl that putting bank protection on one side of the creek simply causes a redis ribution of the flow and the velocity, etc.; and it may be worse than leavin as is. Chairman Siegfried indicated tha lie feels the point about the signs is an appropriate one, since people ou ht to be aware that there is activity going c there. Commissioner Harris adde that she would like to see a condition that there be no parking of any type f vehicle outside the fence. Commissioner Peterson moved to a prove A -994, per Exhibits B, C and D and the Staff Report dated July 31, 1984, as amended. After discussion the following amendments were made to the Staff Report: (1) Delete Condition 111, but Stafi should approve the location of th pillars so they not obscure vision; (2) Moc fy Condition H2 to state that the second story balcony on the rear elevation i to be deleted or landscape plans hat will minimize the potential privacy im- pacts to the adjacent property shall be submitted, to be approved by Staff; (3) Add Condition 116, to state tha Herriman Avenue shall be properly signed during construction, and (4) Condi ion 117, to state that there shall be no parking on the James property betty en the fence and the street. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, wh ch was carried unanimously 5 -0. Discussion followed on A -999, Meri go and Feiler. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that the house teat is a lacent to tie proposed property is to be sold, and she was concerned that no one would appear here tonight because of that. She explained that the prop ed windows of the family room of this application appear to be looking st aig}it into that home, and she feels that there might be ways to either mitig to it with landscaping or adjusting the angle of the house. The public hearing was opened at 8: 0 p.m. Don Coffey, representing the applic nt, commented that the Staff Report recom- mends landscaping along the propert line to take care of the privacy issue. He indicated that they agree with tlat, in fact their plan does show landscap- ing down that side of the property line. Staff noted that the plan calls for specimen trees. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to clo e the public hearing. Commissioner Harri seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A -999, per the Staff Report. Commis- sioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously S -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. -1=8 - Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies), Considera- 8b SDR-1539 - tion of Final EIR and Request Use Permit, Building Site Approv 8c. and Design Review Approval for 129,264 sq. ft., in 3 office 8d. A -989 - buildings at the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenues in the P -A zoning district; continued from July 2S. 19 Chairman Siegfried reported that the issue tonight is whether the Commission c certify the EIR as adequate. He stated that the Commission has received the consultant's responses to the comments raised during the public hearing, and the public hearing is closed on the EIR. He commented that, if there is a vot in favor of the adequacy of the EIR, it in no way reflects any Commissioner's feeling on the merits of the project; it is simply the first step in the whole process. He noted that there is a public hearing scheduled on the various stages of the project for the meeting of August 22, 1984. Staff noted that the EIR consultant is here to expand on the responses if the Commission wishes The City Attorney emphasized that the public hearing is closed on the EIR detc mination, and it would be inappropriate to take further public testimony on that subject. However, the Commission is certainly free to make its own deter mination Chat they need additional input or not. lie stated that the decision before the Commission tonight is whether the EIR, as supplemented by the respc ses based upon the public input, is adequate. If it is adequate the Commissic :an make that determination, and again that does not speak to the merits of th project .itself, only the adequacy of tLe EIR. lie noted that there will be additional public hearings on this project. C J" Planning Commission Page 5 Meeting Minutes 8/8/34 C E -1 -83 (cont.) Commissioner Peterson moved to accept E -1 -83, acknowledging that this project will have a significant impact on the environment. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. It was directed that the applications on the project be continued to August 22, 1984. 9. A -9198 - Mr. and Mrs. Donald Rumph, 14968 Granite Court, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two -story addition to an existing one -story residence in the R -1- 40,000 District It was directed that this be continued to September 12, 1984. 10. V -649 - Mr. Fred Schumacher, 14561 Westcott Drive, Request for Variance Approval for an existing carport in the required side yard set - back area in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district; continued from July 2S, 1984 Staff explained the application, recommending denial since they are unable to make the findings. Mr. Schumacher addressed the proposal. He stated that the only one that it impacts is the neighbor, Airs. Smith, and she also feels that it is attractive He noted that behind his home there is a two -story structure that is sitting on the property line, and he does not believe there would be any precedent setting problem in granting this variance. Dolores Smith, 14560 i'lestcott, spoke in support of the project. She indicate( that she would be most affected by this carport, and she feels it is a posi- tive addition. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger commented that if the Commission did grant this variance there would have to be what appears to be.some substantial changes to the carport as it now stands, so that it would meet the Building Code. Staff agreed, stating that when it is that close to the property line the Building Code calls for a one -hour fire wall, and it is an open structure at the moment Therefore,.that side, next to the fence, would have to be enclosed and be of substantial construction. The findings were discussed, and there was a con- sensus that they could not be made. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to deny V -649, per the Staff Report dated July 15, 1984 and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, whicl was carried unanimously 5 -0. Chairman Siegfried stated that the Commission feels that the granting of this would set a rather dangerous precedent and noted the 10 -day appeal period to the City Council. Break - 9 :05 - 9:15 p.m. 11. A -983 - Richard Geno, Tollgate Road, Lot fl1S and #16, Tract 6623, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two -story single family residence on a hillside lot in the MIR zoning district Staff noted that, because of modifications to the proposal, the variance application is no longer applicable. They indicated that the height limita- tion has been modified such that it is within the 30 ft. They added that there is no longer a need for the grading permit because it has been reduced. Staff explained the proposal, indicating that they cannot make the findings and recommend denial. They noted the applicant's comments in the packet rela- tive to the Staff Report, specifically No. 13, which is not applicable at this time and should be struck from the comments. Commissioner Harris questioned Condition 9, stating that she did not recall any discussion regarding decks, and 6" does not seem appropriate. Staff was asked to review this and clarify. The public hearing was opened at 9:20 p.m. Mr. Geno submitted pictures of the site and discussed the modifications that have been made. Fie discussed the findings in terms of the bulk issue, noting that there appoars to be a wide range of sizes in the homes and properties wit in 500 ft. of .the subject property and there has been design review approval for homes up to 10,195 sq. ft. in the MIR zone. Planning`= mmission ( Page 4 D)ceting ( rtes 7/25/84 PUBLIC HEARING CONS17NT CALENDAR No. 6, A -991, Shasby, was removed in order to add a condition to it relative to the removal of the concrete and addition of landscaping. The public hearing was opened at 8 :27 p.m. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing on Items 7 and S. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve Items 7 and 8 listed below. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. 7. A -992 - Mr. and Mrs. Alfred J. Cali, 19939 Charters Avenue, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second story expansion to an existing two -story residence and to exceed the 4,000 sq. ft. allowable floor area standard, in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district 8. V -646 - Michael and Barbara Ulrich, 21235 Deepwell Court, Request for Variance Approval for a wood deck in the required sideyard set- back, in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district Discussion followed on A -991, Shasby. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that on the Land Use Committee inspection, they had clarified with the applicant that he would be removing the concrete and putting landscaping in; however, she felt that a condition should be added to the Staff Report. Commissioner - Harris moved to close the public hearing on Item 6. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried. unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A -991, per the Staff Report dated July 19, 1984 and Exhibit B, adding a conditioni that the concrete driveway shall be removed and replaced by landscaping. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9a. E -1 -83 - �nd fessional Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies), Considera- 9b SDR -1539 - n of EIR and Request for Use Permit, Building Site Approval 9c - Design Review Approval for 129,999 sq. ft., in 3 office 9d. A -989 - buildings at the southeast corner of Saratoga and Cox Avenue in the P -A zoning district; continued from July 11, 1984 Chairman Siegfried commented that the matter tonight is the adequacy of the EIR. He noted additional amendments to the EIR, addressing the addition of an alternative consideration, which was single family residence and what its impact would be on traffic. Collin Russell, architect, represented Steve Douglas from the Owen Companies. He commented that they have done some studies on the traffic channelization and the question of the extension of Route 85. Fie noted that Jack Peers, of PRC Engineering, the traffic engineers, is present tonight. Mr. Russell indicated that Mr. Peers has forwarded to them a very diagramatic scheme for the channelization of Cox, which they have drawn to scale. He submitted this, explaining that what they are proposing is a restricted left -hand turn into the site as y6u are heading west on Cox. He indicated that it is restricted by a center median. fie further described the proposed channelization of Cox. Jack Peers, from PRC Engineering, further discussed the channelization, along with the additional residential developments, the appropriateness of the trip generations, and the Route 85 issue. lie reported his conclusions, after talking to the Transportation Commission and Caltrans, regarding the schedule for the 85 West, Valley Freeway, indicating that the project will probably be initiated as early as 1990 and completed in approximately 2005.. He addressed two key elements in relation to this project, (1) changes in land uses that are going to take place as a consequence of the freeway, and (2) the change in existing traffic as far as its impact in the immediate vicinity of this site. At the request of the Commission, Mr. Peers stated that he would be happy to provide a summary of the points made tonight at the meeting. Bob Mulford stated that his property borders on Cox and inquired about the channelization of Cox. Ile indicated that he is also a Public Safety Commis- sioner, and one of the things they are .interested in is that particular inter- section and the lights. He stated that his concern, from a commission point of view, is )low the current two lanes of traffic, feeding westbound on Cox across Saratoga into a single lane, is going to be dealt with. - 4 - j PlanninV Co}' rion Page 5 Meeting'Plii1 3 7/25/34 Owen (cont.) Jim Russell, Saratoga Park Wood Homeowners Association, submitted a traffic analysis chart and addressed the traffic. He stated that he feels that the north commercial growth has not been factored into the traffic counts. Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, stated that she would like to have the Jobs !-lousing and Balance issue addressed, and also what the traffic will be when the 3S corridor goes in, and what it will be under metered conditions as it backs up. She added that she feels the Commission should talk to the Safety Commis- sioners in general before approving such a project, so the Planning Commis- sion can get the same report and input they do as to where the problem areas in the City are. Craig Scott, Cox Avenue, expressed concern over the visual impact, the traffic flow and circulation. Staff discussed the channelization on the McFarland side into the project. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels the issue of traffic coming from the east should be addressed, specifically identifying the most likely streets and what the impact will be. Mrs. Sabella, Devon Avenue, expressed concern regarding the traffic and accidents that the project will generate, indicating that she cannot get out of her driveway after 2:00 p.m. .. Mary Beth Gandrue, from the E1 Quito Homeowners Association, asked if the Paul Masson's undeveloped property had been considered in the traffic flow, and Staff clarified that all of the empty sites were considered. Chairman Siegfried noted that the recommendation from Staff is that the public hearing be closed, which would give the consultant time to respond to any of the concerns tonight. The Commission can then review those responses and vote on the adequacy of the EIR at the next meeting. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion. Commissioner Harris asked if the public hearing is closed on the EIR, when is the public going to respond to the responses from the applicant. It was noted that the EIR consultant responds to the concerns, not the applicant. Staff also noted that the public input would be closed on the EIR; however, there will be public hearings on the project itself. Commissioner Crowther commented that lie would be strongly opposed to closing the public hearing. Chairman Siegfried stated that at the last sessions there were some rather detailed reports on traffic and the Commis- sion is asking for some additional responses, and reiterated that there will be further hearings on the project. The City Attorney explained the procedure, indicating that in future public hearings any member of the public has the right to comment on the EIR. Ile commented that if additional concerns should surface, i.e., further changes in the circulation pattern, there is nothing to foreclose the Commission from requesting' additional information at a future date from the applicant or traffic engineer as additional traffic patterns are studied. He stated that nobody has bought into the channelization of Cox or any other traffic proposals, and those issues are not really before the Commission directly other than the overall traffic impact of the project. He added that all op- tions remain open and all possibilities can be explored. He commented that there will be a public hearing on the aspects of the project. Commissioner Crowther asked if the public hearing could be reopened on the EIR if there were a request for some reason based on the responses. The City Attorney answered that he is not sure that it could be because in effect what the Com- mission is doing now is making a determination that the EIR is adequate, and Commissioner Crowther's question presupposes inadequacy of the EIR. He added that the Commission might be able to supplement it. Commissioner Crowther commented that lie still believes that the public should be permitted to com- ment on the adequacy at that point after everything is there, and if it is not possible for the public hearing to be reopened to let the public do that, should they request it, then lie would be opposed to closing it. The vote was taken on the motion to close the public hearing on the EIR. The motion was carried 4 -2, with Commissioners Crowther and Harris dissenting. Break - 9:40 - 9:55 p.m. °•I� - 5 - Planning Com on Pao 2 Minutes - Me .g 7/11/84 C ` C PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR (cont.) S. A -982 - Gerald Butler, Request for Design Review Approval for a 5,870 sq. ft., two -story single family residence in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district on Lot R1, Tract 6632, Montalvo Heights Drive 6a. Negative Declaration - A -985 - Warfel 6b. A -985 - Thomas Warfel, Request for Design Review Approval for a two -story addition to an existing single- story, single family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district at 21279 Canyon View Drive 7. A -987 - Lynn $ Susan Weber, Request for Design Review Approval for a 4,127 sq. ft. single- story, single family dwelling which exceeds the allowable floor area standard of 4,000 sq. ft. in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district at 12885 Pierce Road 8. A -988 - R. F. Anderegg, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two- story, single family residence at 21771 Congress Hall Lane, in the NFIR zoning district 9. A -925 - Chester Spiering, Request for Design Review Approval to enlarge Mod. a second story addition at 15135 E1 Camino Grande, in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district David Smith, Quito Road and Aspesi, addressed A -981, expressing concern about the widening of Quito Road relative to the Highway 85 Corridor. Staff commented that if in fact the improvement of the West Valley Corridor involves acquisi- tions along Quito Road, those will be made by CalTrans at the appropriate time. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A -981, Dewe and Otterlei. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10 SDR -153q - Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies), Considera- UP -535 5 - tion of EIR and Request for Use Permit, Building Site Approval A -989 - and Design Review Approval for 129,000 sq. ft. in 3 office buildings at the southeast corner of Saratoga and Cox Avenue in the P -A Zoning District; continued from June 27, 1984 Chairman Siegfried stated that the public hearing had been continued in this matter until this meeting to get input on the traffic studies from the traffic consultant. The public hearing was opened at 7:58 p.m. Steven Douglas, of Owen Companies, introduced Jack Pearce and Brent Ogden of PRC Engineering, who conducted and prepared the traffic studies. Jack Pearce gave a presentation on the traffic study relating to traffic counts, impact on the local neighborhood, the impact on Saratoga Avenue and access to Saratoga Avenue. Brent Ogden discussed the overall process and findings made during the study. Regarding conclusions and mitigations, he indicated that the project has been made smaller and attempts have been made to redirect some of the traffic. Discussion followed on the square footage used in the assumptions for the study. Mr. Douglas addressed the probable uses for the buildings. Discussion also followed on the possibility on putting a portion of the building below grade level. The applicant's representative indicated that this would be possi- ble; however, they do not feel it would appreciably reduce the mass of the building. He added that he does not feel there would be much difference seen unless a whole story was put underground, and that is impractical. Jim Russell, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, addressed the traffic, referencing his letter of July 21, 1983. He discussed the other buildings and uses in the area. Commissioner Harris inquired about the channelization of Cox. Mr. Pearce replied that they have been working with the developer to see if a channeli- zation scheme can be found that will provide a similar kind of access to that which is shown on the plan for `tcFarland. He indicated that they would like to come back to the next meeting with the.appr.o.priate information. - 2 - Planning Co ion Page 3 Minutes - M _ng 7/11/84 SDR -1539 (cont.) Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, addressed access onto Saratoga Avenue and the heavy traffic in that area. She stated that she feels the study should have taken the proposed freeway into account. She commented that Saratoga Avenue is not a highway; it is an arterial, and the City would not dream of putting something this size on other arterials in the City. She added that the City has encouraged seniors to live in this area and money was appropriated to put in a park in that area to give a feeling of open space. She spoke against the project, stating that it is large and will destroy the visual look of the corner and will set a precedent for other large undeveloped parcels near it. Mrs. Machol indicated that she would like to see the parcel developed into residential. She noted that there are homes around the Argonaut Shopping Center and it works out fine. She added that she feels.the low- density resi- dential look is what the City has always wanted. Joan Faunce, President of E1 Quito Park Homeowners Association, stated that she still feels that they need to address the traffic impact that some of the other undeveloped parcels would have as far as count is concerned, i.e., the Teresi property, the E1 Quito Park School property and development of 85. She added that they appreciate the efforts that the developer has made and reit- erated that they feel strongly that the channeling of traffic on McFarland is very important, and if something similar could be managed on Cox Avenue she feels it would also eliminate a great deal of traffic that would impact on their area. She commented that she feels there may be some consideration of change in the ordinance that has to do with no more access on Saratoga Avenue in order to make that work. Ralph Sutton, Ronnie Way, addressed the traffic and stated that if this kind of development is allowed to begin, the streets will become one big shopping center. He stated that he would like to see the area be residential. It was noted that single family residential was not an alternative in the EIR, and there was a consensus that the Commission would like to see that alterna- tive considered. Staff commented that they will discuss that alternative with the EIR consultant. It was directed that the public hearing be continued on the EIR to July 2S, 1984, to allow the traffic consultant to answer ques- tions on the channelization of Cox and the potential impact of Highway 85. Break - 9:02 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. lla. A -983 - Mr. and Mrs. Geno, Request for Design Review Approval to con - llb. V -654 - struct a 3- story, single family residence and Variance Approval to exceed the 30 ft. height limit at 21449 Tollgate Road, in the NHR zoning district Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. Staff described the project, stating that they have found that there is a potential to reduce the height without otherwise modifying the building, by putting a concrete slab in the area, which would reduce the height of the house. They indicated that they are unable to make the findings for the variance, design review, and the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance, and are recommending denial. The access was discussed. Staff noted correspondence _,received on the project. The public hearing was opened at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Geno gave a presentation on the project, indicating that he would like a variance for 32; ft., reducing the height from 35 ft. He submitted a picture from Saratoga High School, showing a view of the home,and also an enlarged photo graph of the site and the home drawn to scale. Mr. Geno discussed the pro- posed stone to be used for the exterior and submitted a sample, indicating that he had gotten the concept from Windsor Castle. He commented that he feels the color of the stone will blend into the environment. He stated that the home is not really a three- story, noting that only the garage, basement and shop area are on the lower level. Mr. Geno commented that he has the support of his neighbors. The elevations for the proposed home were discussed. Mr. Geno indicated that he would slide the house back to accommodate a 5 ft. retaining wall. lie explained the design of the home, stating that the 321i ft. height is needed for the architectural design of the house. The driveway was discussed, and Staff commented that the barricade is suggest- ed as a condition relative to protection of driving off of the driveway. Mr. - 3 - I Planning Commission l ( Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 6/27/84 V -643 and A -977 (cont.) the signage. Bill Lang, 12324 Julie, a member of the Oak Creek Homeowners Association, spoke ' support of the, sign. Tt was dot clmiin d that the sign shal� b located to the rear of tie planting area, with a mean ering slcicwal- between the Sign an tic street. Mrs. Daubert, of Daubert Printery, asked for approval of the signage so that they would be able to advertise their business in front of their building and have some identification. Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther commented that Staff has proposed taking 12 sq. ft. of signage out by reducing the existing Sirloin F, Brew sign, and that doesn't seem to be practical. He proposed to reduce the size of the freestanding sign by 4 sq. ft. He.explained that he feels the freestanding sign perhaps has a greater impact than the signs on the building; therefore, it would have a bigger effect and would still give them sufficient area to identify the busi- nesses. Discussion followed on the Sirloin F, Brew sign. The City Attorney commented that normally the owner is required to apply, as opposed to the occupant. He explained that it is customary for Staff to treat signage based upon the property as a whole. lie indicated that he has no problem saying that upon expiration of the lease Sirloin F, Brew should reduce the sign. He added that he does think, however, that the Commission is entitled to treat the entire property, and.if that means reducing the signage of one area to accommodate another, that can be done. That doesn't mean the applicant has the present ability to comply. It may mean postponement of his freestanding sign unless the Commission wants to grant him some relief in that regard or waive the condition. He added that he assumes the owner applied for the permit, and even if he didn't the Commission still has jurisdiction over it. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve V -643 and A -977, per the Staff Report dated June 20, 1984 and Exhibits B, C, D and E, changing Condition No. 1 to state that the existing Sirloin F Brew sign shall be reduced to a total of 17 sq. ft. when and if the lease expires on that particular portion of the building, thus reducing the total signage permitted on site to 54 sq. ft., and adding a condition that the freestanding sign be held to no greater than 3 sq. ft. and have a minimum front yard setback of 8 ft. instead of 5 ft. It was also determined that Condition No. 7 should read that all sign illumination shall be turned off by 10:00 p.m. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. Discussion followed on the lettering of the sign and the Sirloin F, Brew lease. It was determined that Condition No.. 1 should be amended to read: "The exist- ing Sirloin F, Brew sign shall be reduced to a total of 17 sq. ft. when the present term of the least expires, not considering any potential renewal terms, thus reducing the total signage permitted on site to S4 sq. ft." Commissioners Crowther and McGoldrick accepted that amendment. The motion was carried unani- mously 6 -0.. 15. A-964 MCBain f, Gibbs, Inc., Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a 2 -story single family residence on Tollgate Road, Lot .N14, Tract 6628, in the NHR zoning district; continued from June 13, 1984 It was directed that this matter be continued. 16a SDR - -1539 - Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies), Considera- 16 . UP -S3S -_ tion of EIR and R>,-,quest for Use Permit, Building Site Approval 16c. A -989 and Design Review Approval for 129,000 sq. ft. in 3 office buildings at the southeast corner of Saratoga and Cox Avenue in the P -t1 Zoning District Chairman Siegfried commented that the public opened tonight, and the applicant has asked tion. Staff commented that after the input consultant needs to answer the comments from conti.nuc the hcar.i.ng until the next meeting consultant feels that would not allow enough The public hearing was opened at 9:42 p.m. 7 - hearing on the Draft EIR would be for a 10 -IS minute slide presenta- from the public hearing, the EIR tonight, and the Commission might or to another date certain if the time. Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes - Meeting of 6/27/b,,_ - SDR -1539, UP -535, A-989 and EIR (cont.) The Owen Companies gave a slide presentation on the project, describing the character and intent of the project. They discussed setbacks, parking, land- scaping, materials and appearance of the building., Steve Douglas, of Owen Companies, indicated that they do not agree with the findings in the Staff Report and commented on the General Plan and area of guidelines as they relate to the project. Chairman Siegfried noted that there is a cony of the EIR at the Library and also a copy for loan at the City Hall offices. Betty Laughlin, a merchant in the Quito Shopping Center, submitted signatures from the merchants in the center, strongly supporting this project. Robert Black, 12750 Paseo Presada, expressed concern regarding the traffic, specifically the area of Cox Avenue and McFarland. Jim Russell, representing the Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, addressed the EIR. He expressed concern regarding traffic, stating that the traffic engineer never addresses Mellon, Saratoga Glen Place or Palo Oaks. He suggested that the traffic study be done again at a time when the schools are operating and residents are not on vacation. lle added that it is not rele- vant today because of the high growth that has taken place in the last year and because it was taken during the summer. Mr. Russell also expressed concern regarding smog. He stated that he did not agree with statements that residences cannot be built in a well traveled area. He questioned how the 129,000 sq. ft. is going to be filled, and asked what happens if the offices don't rent. lie indicated that the Homeowners Association would like residences, a combination of condos and single family, maybe seniors, who will best represent Saratoga and observe traffic and take care of the landscaping. lie commented that if the office buildings are allowed, that they be one story and at the same den- sity as the medical professional buildings across the street. Jack Key, 18774 Devon Street, expressed concern with the traffic. He indicated that if an office building is built that it be one - story; however, he would rather see it residential. Marve Christal, 18993 Palo Oaks Court, expressed concern over additional traffic. He commented that he does no is correct t feel the traffic report because of timing. lie also indicated that he does not want two -story build- ings. Mary Hawkins, representing Quito Park Homeowners, expressed concern regarding the traffic. She commented that she feels the Commission should just con- centrate on traffic now and not plan anything until that problem is solved. She commented on the current traffic problem on Paseo Lado. A resident at 18955 McFarland addressed the traffic and suggested making McFarland one -way. lie commented that the building will be in his back yard and suggested some kind of wall to cut down the noise of the cars. Joan Faunce, President of El Quito Homeowners Association, stated that the traffic is of prime importance to them. She commented that their area seems to be the shortcut for people to avoid the signal light at Lawrence Express- way and Bucknall and Quito. She commended the developers for the manner in which they have worked with her group. She suggested that if a curb which was higher than the one at Paseo Presada and.Cox was installed that was also longer, hich.wo'uld not allow any left turn on Cox into the project, they feel that w would also eliminate through traffic through the area from Quito to the project. a general traffic study and She added that they would also be. supportive of one that particularly looks at the area of Saratoga Avenue and Quito and areas that are impacted by the traffic. She noted that RV vehicles and trucks are parked on Saratoga Avenue in front of the vacant lot between the townhouses and the medical area, and also that the medical area has access to parking, all of this on the bike lane. She commented that she feels this should be reviewed and both of those should be considered to be eliminated. She suggested an .8 ft. stucco or concrete wall..along Devon in order to provide a sound buffer. She discussed the development, specifically the setbacks and height. She indicated that in.general the Homeowners Association would have preferred to have a mix with some residential in it. However, they are aware of some of the problems developing l etrare. general. added with the present P roject aspresened,imyb- oneofthe betterdevlopmentstha - 8 - % Planning Commission , t' Minutes Heoting oC 6/27/, Page ( •SDR -1539, UP -535, A -989 and EIR (coat.) they might have seen, and it will eliminate a corner that is becoming a garbage dump and a fire trap. She added that she feels that the developers have donela reasonably good job, but feels that there needs to be continued attention spent on traffic and noise. In relation to the traffic and the number of parking' spaces, they would encourage excluding professional like dental and medical in that facility, which can add to car trips, as opposed to other types of admin- istrative offices. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels a new traffic study should be done when Nest College and other schools are in session. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would like to know when they did the study, what average was being used, and what happens if you are at the low end of use vs. the high end of use, and what square footage assumptions are used in terms of employees per sq. ft. He stated that he would like the answers to those questions, and if they don't agree he would like to see another study. Commissioner Crowther added that .lie would like to see an analysis of coupling of any traffic peaks with Nest Valley peaks. Commissioner Peterson stated that he would support a new traffic study but would like to hear why the study was done at that time and the methodology of factoring. Commissioner Harris commented that she would like to see figures on the traffic that would be generated. Commissioner McGoldrick asked if it would be feasible to lower the building into the ground, so maybe half of the first floor would be below ground. Would drainage be possible? Commissioner Schaefer asked if perhaps the parking lots could be lowered. She added that another concern that she has is the square footage in those buildings, since she feels it would affect the traffic. Com- missioner McGoldrick noted that in the EIR, under S -2, Noise, it reads: "Once occupied, the project would generate intermittent noise typical of commercial development but average noise levels on the site would not increase." She commented that she does not want it to be typical of commercial development- - it is not commercial; why was there no mitigation mentioned? Commissioner Crowther stated that many people have mentioned residential as an option. He commented that he is not sure the EIR has done justice to the residential option, and he would like to see more evaluation, particularly single family residential coupled with perhaps condominiums. Chairman Siegfried commented that the Commission needs to have a session where the applicant can go through the traffic study and allow the questions to be asked, to see whether the traffic study is adequate and`the assumptions were reasonable. If they were not the Commission should determine what needs to be done. Commissioner Crowther added that he would like to know what basis was used for estimating the noise impacts and how they correspond relative to the Saratoga Noise Ordinance. It was directed that this matter be continued to July 11, 1984, at which time the traffic consultant should be present and the Commission will be looking at the EIR mainly from the traffic standpoint. COMMUNICATIONS Oral I. Commissioner Crowther gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on June 20, 1954. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on .file in t he City Administration Office. 2. It was noted that the League of California Cities Conference will be held September 23 -26. 3. Chairman Siegfried thanked the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. RSS:cd .�nF•�t1:13 <7.;:v2ii3.i Y ti Rc� R tf 1] clll l�ohclt ti. $l" ok, Secretary C REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 8/2/84 Commission Meeting: 8/8/84 SUBJECT: E -1 -83 - Final EIR, Owen Company, Saratoga Center, SE corner of Cox and Saratoga Avenues ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- BACKGROUND: The Draft EIR on this project was the subject of public hearings before the Planning Commission on June 27, July 11, and July 25, 1984. Communications received on the Draft EIR were presented and all present who wished to speak on the Draft EIR were heard. The public hearing on the Draft EIR was then closed and the. item continued to Planning Commission meeting of August 8, 1984. THE FINAL EIR The consultant has submitted responses to the comments received at the public - hearing, as well as in writing prior to July 25, 1984 which incorporated, with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final Environ- mental Impact Report. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff finds the Final EIR provides adequate information on the environ- mental effects of the proposed project. It is recommended that the Planning Commission certify the Final EIR as adequate, acknowledging that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The certification of the EIR does not constitute approval of the project. Further public hearings will be conducted on the project. After the public hearings on the Use Permit, Tentative Map, Design Review are Ity Report to Planning Commission 8/2/84 E -1 -83, Owen Co., Cox and Saratoga Avenues Page 2 closed, the Commission may take action on the project. A statement of overriding considerations is required should the Commission deter- mine to approve the project, finding that certain environmental impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. APPROVED Kathy s Planni ng KK /kah P.C. Agenda 8/8/84 C C - -- -- - - - - - -- - f 7�3lorIc �A"t /t �; e et , ,, � sa7� /K/ �- -' - — . _ ell _ ~~. - ' - - o C REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 6/15/84 Commission Meeting: 6/19/84 SUBJECT : UP -535, SOR -1539 & A -989 - Professional Village of Saratoga (The Owen Companies), S.E. Corner of Cox and Saratoga Avenues ---------------------------------------------------- -- --------------- - - - - - -- This has been placed on your Committee -of- the -Whole agenda to allow you to review the proposal prior to the first public hearing on the project which is scheduled for June 27; 1984. The three (3) adjacent homeowners groups and property owners within 500 ft. have been notified of this meeting and the first public hearing on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Report. You have previously received the Draft EIR on the project entitled "Saratoga Center ". Additionally, attached for your review are; 1) The Project Description submitted by The Owen Companies; 2) General Plan guidelines and policies that relate to the project; 3) Resolution No. 897 adopted by the City Council in May, 1979; and 4) the beginning descriptive pages of the Draft Staff Reports. At the meeting, the applicant hopes to have a model of the project available for your inspection and he intends to make a pho- tographic presentation at your meeting on June 27th. The applicant has submitted a letter which is also attached, requesting your considera- tion of a procedure to determine the effect of Council Resolution No. 897. The project, as proposed, is not in accord with this resolution. Either the resolution needs to be rescinded or amended by the City Council or the applicant needs to revise his project. If you will need further information at this time, please contact me. Kathy Kerdus Planner U KK /dsc Attachments P.C. Agenda: 6/19/84 C7 I I C\+ Submi}lcd ley '-,Ae Ow.;,% CO Mw arli(S Saratoga Center Project Description SITE General The site consists of 10.25 acres located at the Southeast corner of the intersection of Saratoga and Cox Avenues. Its southern boundary is fronted partially by McFarland Avenue and partially by single family residential lots. To the east lies the Quito shopping center. Across Cox Ave. are a small office building, a nursery school, a senior citizens center, and some single family residences. A one story 7redical building is situated directly across Saratoga Ave. TOPOGRAPHv The site is relatively flat, sloping an av�2rage of 1.7% from southwest to northeast, with a total fall of approxi -ately 10 feet. At present, no significant vegetation exists on the parcel. BUILDINGS The applicant is proposing to develop approximately 129,000 square feet of Office space for leasing purposes. As the attached Site Plan (Sheet 1) indicates, the facility consists of three buildings. Buildings 1 & 2, which front on Cox Avenue, are two stories in height, while Building 3, toward the southern boundary of the site, is one story. The two -story structures rise to a maximian of 30 feet above grade in accordance with Saratoga Planning Department requirements. Building 3 is a maximum of 17' in height. It has been the Architect's intent to create a low - profile, "campus" ambience in the facility. Setbacks which significantly exceed code requirements will serve to visually reduce the building masses, while landscaped berms along Cox and Saratoga Avenues will screen auto- obiles from view. The buildings are situated around a central courtyard which will be used by the occupants as a seating and picnic area. The project will be built in one phase only; staggered phasing is not contemplated at this time. Dock facilities for regular loading _:-xi unloading of materials will not be provided, though the site plan indicates one service area per building which is to be used for occasional offloading of furniture, fixtures, and equipment rec_a r 3 by tenants. PERMITTED USES The intended use for the project is of office /administrative in conformance with the City of Saratoga General Plan. i' I WATER USAGE VASIN The project water usage will be that normally required for office a o,. . domestic hot and cold water for restrooms; irrigation for Iandacna:n:: tenant- required water for cleaning, etc. SEWAGE Sewage requirements are likewise limited to normal office use. No ho :ar':rn:•: waste will be generated. SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE The attached Preliminary Grading Plan (Sheet 6) indicates that site dratn..a,:L- will be accomplished by sheet runoff to catch basins in the parking .,;c.,.. Existing storm drain lines occur in both Saratoga and Cox Avenues, and alon: the southern boundary of the site, all at approximately 10 feet below - , which is sufficient for gravity flow from the catch basins. PARKING, LANDSCAPING, VEHICULAR ACCESS As indicated on the Site Plan (Sheet 1) parking for 439 spaces has provided. This will be shielded from view by landscaped berms alon,: Saratoga, Cox, & McFarland Avenues. Landscaping is extensive and varied, will further soften the appearance of the low -rise buildings. Vehic�l.t: access is provided from three points to promote easy ingress /egress to :,nc: from the site. At the request of the Quito Homeowners Association, a directionally- controlled ingress /egress will be provided on McFarland Avent::! to prevent unwarranted use of that street by through traffic from thi; development. A screen consisting of flowering shrubs will be placed along t... southern property line to protect the privacy of neighboring residences. TRAFFIC The applicant has retained a licensed Traffic Engineering Consultant to existing traffic conditions. His findings will be made available as soon a:; they are completed. PROPOSED MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION 1. Type of Construction: Type v Allowable Area: Unlimited with Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 2. Roofs: Cedar Shake or Tile 3. Shear Walls: Sandblasted or Board- formed Concrete 4. Glazing: Grey - tinted, non reflective 5. Spandrels: Stucco, GFRC panels, or wood siding PROJECT STATISTICS Please refer to the attached Project Statistics sheet for building areas, site coverage, landscaping areas, etc. t, -2- C C SARATOCA CENTER SITE STATISTICS Site Area: 10.253 Acres (446,620 sq.ft.) Building Areas: Building 1: 48,432 sq.ft. Building 2: 48,432 Building 3: 32,400 total 129,264 sq.ft. Site CoveFage: Building 1: 23,312 sq.ft. Building 2: 23,312 Building 3: 32,403 total 79,024 sq.ft. 79,024 = 446,620 = 17.69% (50% permitted) Building Heights: Buildings 1 5 2: 30' Building 3 17' Parking Required: 431 Provided: 439 Hardsurface Area: Parking 5 Roads: 175,600 sq.ft. .= 400.0 sq.ft. /car 439 cars Landscape Area: 446,623 - (175,600 + 79,024) = 191,996 = 42.99% (4.40 acres) 446,620 Floor Area Ratio: 129,264 _ 446,620 = .29 C-.�r-- f 1 C-.�r-- r 3xS �3F N ; E& Qq AS REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 6/22/84 Commission Meeting: 6/27/84 SUBJECT: E -1 -83, Draft EIR, Owens Co., Saratoga Center, SE Corner of Cox and Saratoga Avenues PURPOSE OF THE EIR The State EIR Guidelines define an Environmental Impact Report as: an informational document which, when fully prepared in accordance with the CEQA and these Guidelines, will inform public decision - makers and the general. public of the environmental effects of projects they proposed to carry out or approve. The information in an EIR con - stitutes evidence that a public agency shall consider along with any other information which may be presented to the agency. While CEQA requires that major consideration be given to preventing environmental damage, it is recognized that public agencies have obligations to balance other public objectives, including economic and social factors, in dtermining whether and how a project should be approved ". The guidelines provide direction in implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which says: "The purpose of an environmental significant effects of a project alternatives to the project, and such significant effects can be CONTENT OF THE EIR impact report-is to identify the on the environment, to identify to indicate the manner in which mitigated or avoided ". The Draft EIR evaluates the impact of constructing a 129,264 sq. ft. office complex on a 10.25 acre site at the southeast corner of Cox and Saratoga Avenues. The EIR focuses on environmental areas deemed to have the potential for significant impact according to the City's initial study. Any mitigation measures for which could reduce the environmental impacts are listed at the ends of each section. Report to the Planning Commission 6/22/84 E -1 -83, Draft EIR, Owens Co. Page 2 e' The major concerns of the EIR are traffic and circulation, design, and fiscal impacts. It finds that there are no un- avoidable adverse impacts with the development of the site since there are no significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided. CEQA guidelines require an EIR to describe all reasonable alter- natives to a project "which could feasibly attain the basic ob- jectives of the project, and why they were rejected in favor or the ultimate choice ". The EIR presents alternatives: 1) no project 2) 110, 000 .square feet of neighborhood commercial 3) 65,000 square feet of office space + 65,000 square feet of commercial uses 4) 100 units of multi - family The first would mean the site would remain vacant. The second would cause about 4 times the trip- ends -per day generated by the proposed - project but create significant revenue for the City. The third would cause about.") times the trip -ends per day generated by the project and would also.create revenue for the City. The fourth alternative would cause only 65% of the trip -ends generated by the project and. would be compatible with the adjacent land uses, but have a net fiscal deficit to the City of about $12,700. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission.open the public hearing for purposes of testimony on.the adequacy of the EIR. Written comments received during the 30 day review period have been forwarded to the consultant for preparation of responses (see attachement). Those reponses, in addition to any which shall be prepared after this public hearing, shall constitute the final EIR. Following conclusion of the public hearing, it is recommended, that the item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 25, 1984 (assuming the EIR consultant agrees he can provide responses to the comments in this time frame). At that time the final EIR may be certififed as complete and adequate. APPROVED -� Kathy Ke� dus Planner KK /bjc P.C. Agenda 6/27/84 VARIANCE 3 .USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. UP- 535 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILE NO.: UP -535 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received (Owen Co.) the application of Professional Village of Sarato(-fbr a 115,600 sq. ft. in 4 office buildings, 1,2- story, at s/e corner of Saratoga & Cox Aves. and WHEREAS, the applicant (hes) (has not). met the burden of proof required to support his said application; NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for -the Use Permit be, and the same is hereby (- gr- a�) (denied) subject to the following conditions: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that heTete -be- -approve- d- an- d- a- d- op -t -e-i) (the Planning Commission could not make all of -the requisite findings), and the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 26th day of September 19 84 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners, Siegfried, Burger, Crowther, Harris, Mc Goldrick and Schaefer NOES: Commissioner Peterson ABSENT: None ATTEST: airman, Plan ing m' Sion e Cretarv. an inn mm�ticcinn j RESOLUTION - - ION NO. DR 1539 1 RESOLUTION DENYING TENTATIVE MAP OF OWEN COMPANIES WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of 1 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SDR -1539 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed sub- division, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is not consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is not compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the approved Staff Report dated September 14, 1984 ,and /or the findings.on the reverse page, being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofore prepared for this applicable provisions of CEQA, and received.and considered the (EIR) project in accord with the currently WHEREAS, the.conditions set forth in Subsections (a) and (b) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval= should not be granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 30th day of January , 19 84, and is marked Exhibit "B -1 in the hereinabove referred to file be and the same is hereby denied. The rationale of said denial is as more particularly set forth on Exhibit attached hereto and incorporated herein be reference, and the approved minutes. The.above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the (Planning Commission) at a meeting there- of held on the 24th day of September 1984 , at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, Crowther, Harris, McGoldrick, Schaefer and Siegfried NOES: Commissioner Peterson ABSENT:None ATTEST: Secretar ADVISORY AGENCY Chairman DESIGN REVIEW FILE NO: A -989 RESOLUTION NO.A -989 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval of 115,600 sq. ft., in 4 office Saratoga Ave. and Cox Avenue _buildings; one which is two - story, at the southeast corner of and WHEREAS, the applicant (ham. (has not) met the burden of proof required to support his said application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Professional village of Saratoga (Owen Co.) for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (granted) (denied) subject to the following conditions: PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 26th day of September , 19 84 by _the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners, Siegfried, Burger, Crowther, Harris, Mc Goldrick and Schaefer NOES: Commissioner Peterson ABSENT: None Chairman, Plann ATTEST: 0� j ecretary, Pla -nning Commission ssion ;11 it 1� I C RESOLUTION NO. 897 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING POLICY FOR LOCATION OF COMMERCIAL USES ALONG SARATOGA AVENUE WHERE OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY USE PERMIT IN COMMERCIAL ZONES IN AREAS GENERAL PLANNED PD MIXED The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Due to its concern that lands fronting Saratoga Avenue retain their general residential character, it shall be the policy of the City of Saratoga, in relation to the arrangement of mixed uses in those areas along Saratoga Avenue general planned for PD mixed uses, that where such mixed uses are otherwise permitted by a conditional use permit, NO use shall be deemed acceptable which places a focus of commercial activity onto Saratoga Avenue or otherwise causes a departure from the generally residential appearing atmosphere now present, nor shall traffic from any such development access directly on to Saratoga Avenue. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of May 1979 by the following vote. AYES: Councilmen Kalb, Matteoni, Callon & Corr NOES: Councilman Kraus ABSENT: None ATTEST: X CITY CLERK / MAYOR I C s T� (-r A 7 L)v Si -1 AREA F, QUITO The Quito area is bounded on the north and east by Quito Road, on the south by the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR), and on the west by Saratoga Avenue. The majority of the Quito area was subdivided in the late 1940's and early 1950's. The predominant zoning is R- 1- 10,000. In terms of land use, Area F is the most diversified in the City. Quito contains the City's only industry, the Paul Masson Winery. Along Saratoga Avenue is located one of the City's five neighborhood shopping centers which has recently been enlarged and is complete with a mall, two banks and a grocery store. Another of these local service centers is located on Quito Road near the railroad crossing. E1 Quito Park Elementary School, leased by the County for the multi - handicapped program, two churches, and one park also serve the residents of this area. Adjacent to the SPRR and the PG &E right -of -way is a portion of the proposed West Valley Freeway right -of -way. The major traffic carriers in this neighborhood are Cox and two which form its boundaries -.Saratoga Avenue, and Quito Road. While almost completely developed, the Quito area contains some planning problems. One of the most critical of these problems is C evidence of declining maintenance in some of the older residential neighborhoods in the area. Evidence of poor structural maintenance and illegal conversions is compounded in many places by poor street maintenance and drainage problems. Strong neighborhood organizations, strict code enforcement and prompt City attention is needed to prevent these older neighborhoods from becoming areas of blight. Use of the few vacant parcels remaining in this area will have a significant impact on the overall character of the area. One parcel has recently been developed as senior citizen condominiums. The remaining pa:.rcel is -recommended for planned development, with uniform design. Both of these sites front on Saratoga Avenue between_Bucknall and Cox Avenues. Consideration should be given to residential development on these sites which can serve the elderly. The site fronting on the southeast side of Saratoga Avenue between MacY—ariand and Cox should e eve oped with a combination of an uses including pro essiona , a mi.nistrative and multiple residential- T„ nrrl,= - + � - _P _P_..1.: __.-., __ -iic�. l.1 VC1 LC u-Laze t ese mixed uses, a precise plan should be approved prior to development. One of the two service stations has been replaced with an office complex - opposite the Quito Shopping Center. Except for the elementary school north of the SPRR tracks and a city park site at the El Quito Park School, open space and developed recreation area is very limited. This is particularly serious since residential densities here are among the highest in the city. The lack of developed recreation areas makes the creation of the pedestrian pathway and bicycle trails park link very important to this area. Through much of this area the PG &E right -of -way will have to be used; the City should obtain recreation trail 4 -17 J AREA F, QUITO and pathway easements through the proposed freeway right -of -way property before development is permitted. Two of the major traffic carriers form its boundaries. The most critical of these is Quito Road. This road is heavily used by students driving to West Valley College from the northeast. The County's improvement of the Lawrence Expressway to six lanes places additional pressure on Quito Road for through- traffic to Highway 9 (Saratoga -Los Gatos Road) and for traffic desiring access to Campbell and Monte Sereno. A study should be done of this area to determine methods to increase safety and improve traffic flow. Current traffic jams and high volumes of traffic along the length of Quito necessitate its being upgraded. 4 -18 AREA F - GUIDELINES FOR AREA DEVELOPMENT 1. Expansion of existing industrial uses in the Quito Area should be closely reviewed and subject to strict design control. 2. The City should encourage neighborhood organizations, pursue strict code enforcement, and improve public facilities in the older higher density neighborhoods in this area. 3. The vacant parcel located on the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue between MacFarland and Cox Avenue should be developed only under conditions of uniform design and with consideration given to combined land uses. The residents of Area F support subsidized senior citizen housing or single family residential use of this site. Development of the site may include professional and admini- strative office uses which minimize traffic and noise, either separately or in combination with residential uses upon the receipt of a use permit. Particular attention should be given to landscapinc aycess, parking and site coverage. Another shopping center should not be constructed on this parcel. 4. All vacant residential parcels shall be developed at a density no greater than Medium Density Residential (M -10) with the exception of the 2.5 acre± vacant parcel near the southeast corner of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road. Th4.s site shall be zoned R-2-1-5000 P -C so that the design of anv proposed proiect will be effectively controlled to ensure compatibility with adjacent single family residential development. 5. The City should investigate use of the P.G.& E. right -of -way as a link in the pedestrian pathways and bicycle trails linear park. Should portions of the proposed freeway right -of -way be developed, easements for the linear park should be obtained in advance. 6. The side of Quito Road should be beautified through regular main- tenance of the existing landscaping and the addition of new land- scaping. The present bicycle path should be repaved. Quito Road should be designated as a heritage lane from approximately Saratoga - Los Gatos Road to Pollard Road. No major improvements (street widening) to Quito Road from Saratoga Avenue to Pollard Road should be allowed except for alterations needed for public safety. 7. The property at the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and MacFarlan Avenue, currently occupied by the Paul Masson Winery, shall remain zoned industrial. Existing City ordinances shall be amended to provi for public hearings and notification of same prior to the issuance of permits for any future industrial development either through the use permit or design review process. 8. The El Quito Park should be purchased from the Moreland School Distri and maintained as a park since it is the only open space in a densely populated area of the City. 4 -19 -� P� -�1�. i rl S To Q w.��N S Gd • �P�� � �-T. 9. Noise and sanitation codes regarding the park. and Quito Shopping Center areas shall be strictly enforced. - 10. A pedestrian crosswalk should be installed from Paseo Lado to the Quito Shopping Center. 11. The roads in the Quito area should be brought up to minimum City standards. 12. Amend the existing Zoning Ordinance to require all new uses that serve alcoholic beverages to receive a conditional use permit prior to locating in a C -N (Neighborhood Commercial) District. r 13. The utilities for all new building in this area are to be underground. 4 -20 F-�-AV / ADO LU.3.1.(Imp) To be implemented by the Heritage Preservation Ordinance and the Heritage Preserva- tion Commission. LU.4.0 Encourage the economic viability of Saratoga's existing commercial areas and their accessibility by residents, keeping in mind the impact on the surrounding residential areas. LU.4.1 Non - residential and industrial uses shall be buffered from other uses by methods such as set- backs, landscaping, berms and soundwalls. LU.4.1 (Imp) Review the Design Review and Limited Industrial Ordinances to determine if increased setbacks and landscaping are required. LU.4.2 Non - residential development shall be confined to sites presently designated on the General Plan for i non - residential uses. Existing non - residential zoning shall not be expanded nor new non - residential zoning districts added. LU.4.2 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) LU.4.3 The City shall revise the zoning ordinance to allow bed and breakfast establishments as conditional uses• in commercial or residential zoning districts where such uses have not previously been permitted and where such uses would be appropriate. LU.4.3 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) - LU.5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. . LU.6.0 Relate new development and its land uses to presently planned street capacities so as to avoid excessive noise, traffic, and public safety hazards. If it is determined that existing streets need to be improved to accommodate a project, such improvements shall be in place or bonded for prior to issuance of building permits. LU.6.1 Prior to initial approval, the decision making body shall consider the cumulative traffic impacts of single family residential projects of 4 or more lots, D�_NC7-r�S Qw NS Cv P 7; 2 -3 C C multi -famil y residential projects more units, and commercial projects fdesigned rfor an occupancy load of more than 30 persons. = LU.6.1 (Im ) Applications for new subdivisions shall include reports that describe the cumulative traffic impacts from development of adjacent vacant properties. LU.6.2 Proposed land uses and development proposals shall be evaluated against ordinance standards to assure that the related traffic, noise, light, appearance, and intensity of use have limited adverse impact on the area. LU.6.2 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) LU.6.3 The capacity of existing streets shall be recognized prior to tentative building site or subdivision ap- proval of any project. New development shall be designed to minimize disruption to the area caused by an increase in through or heavy traffic. LU 6.3 (Imp) See LU.6.1 (Imp) LU.6.4 The number of through streets connecting arterial and /or collector streets should be minimized. Collector streets that both begin and end at inter- sections with the same arterial street shall be encouraged. LU.6.4 (Imp) Implement through subdivision ap- proval process. Amend Subdivision Ordinance accordingly. LU.7.0 Promote the long -term economic soundness of the City govern- ment through careful analysis of land use decisions and fiscal practices. LU.7.1 The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City. LU.7.1 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) 2 -4 c r LU.7.2 The City hall adopt a y p n ordinance which will authorize exactions in the form of improvements or fees required from developers to compensate the City for the direct and indirect economic effects that arise from proposed development and to insure implementation of this General Plan. LU.7.2 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) LU.8.0 Affirm that the City shall continue to be predominantly a community of single- family detached residences. LU.8.1 Existing non - developed sites zoned single - family detached residential should remain so designated. i LU.8.1 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) LU.8.2 Industrial land use in Saratoga shall be limited to existing sites. LU.8.2 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) 2 -5 ' CIRCULATION AND SCENIC HIGHWAY ELEMENT (CI) A circulation element consisting of the general location and . C extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, trans- portation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan. A scenic highway element for the development, establishment, and protection of scenic highways pursuant to the provisions of Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 260) of Chapter 2 of Division 1 of the Streets and Highways Code. CI.1.0 Promote a balanced transportation system in Saratoga with attention to energy efficient transportation. CI.1.1 The City shall encourage and participate in the County -wide implementation of a variety of modes of transport to serve Saratoga. CI.1.1 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) CI.1.2 The City shall work toward improved public transit, including more frequent service and access to the village. CI.1.2 (Imp) Coordinate with County Transit on City efforts necessary to increase transit availability. CI.1.3 The West Valley Corridor right -of -way shall be designated as a public use corridor. CI.1.3 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) CI.2.0 Facilitate the safe movement of vehicular traffic within and through the City, taking into consideration the environmental, historical, and residential integrity of the City. CI.2.1 The City shall require public right -of -way to be offered and all private roads designated as collectors. CI.2.1 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) CI.2.2 For safety, every new or developing public or pri- vate cul -de -sac greater than 500 feet in length, and every new and developinq residential area in the City with more than 15 residential lots on a cul -de -sac should have a primary and an emergency access. 2 -6 CI.2.6 (Imp) Modify Subdivision Ordinance accordingly. CI.2.7 Prior to further development of major residential (4 or more single - family units; 8 or more multi- family units) or major commercial (more than 30 person occupancy) projects along the City's major arterials, the impacts of increased traffic shall be studied and a plan for minimizing these impacts shall be developed to the extent feasible. CI.2.7 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) CI.3.0 Protect the aesthetic, historic and remaining rural qualities of Saratoga through street design and landscaping. CI.3.1 Minimum City street standards shall be adopted based on location, terrain, character of areas and the anticipated function of the roadway. 2 -7 C - CI.2.2 (Imp) Modify Subdivision Ordinance accordingly. CI.2.3 Through collector streets shall be designed and aligned to minimize adverse impacts on the character of residential neighborhoods through which they pass. CI.2.3 (Imp) Circulation design guidelines should be developed to be distributed to residential developers. CI.2.4 The major traffic generators in the City should be provided with adequate access which is the least disruptive to local neighborhoods. CI.2.4 (Imp) Circulation design guidelines should be developed to be distributed to commercial, in- dustrial and institutional developers. CI.2.5 Assessment Districts formed to improve existing streets shall be encouraged. CI.2.5 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) CI.2.6 If it is unlikely that a substandard street will be totally improved, the City should take a deferred development agreement as a condition of approval for infill projects rather than requiring improvements concurrent with development. CI.2.6 (Imp) Modify Subdivision Ordinance accordingly. CI.2.7 Prior to further development of major residential (4 or more single - family units; 8 or more multi- family units) or major commercial (more than 30 person occupancy) projects along the City's major arterials, the impacts of increased traffic shall be studied and a plan for minimizing these impacts shall be developed to the extent feasible. CI.2.7 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) CI.3.0 Protect the aesthetic, historic and remaining rural qualities of Saratoga through street design and landscaping. CI.3.1 Minimum City street standards shall be adopted based on location, terrain, character of areas and the anticipated function of the roadway. 2 -7 C C CI.3.1 (Imp) Develop general street standard criteria based on varying physical factors and make part of the Subdivision Ordinance. CI.3.2 Conventional City street development standards, as C described in the City's Subdivision Ordinance, should be allowed to vary in order to preserve environmentally sensitive roadside features where traffic safety will permit such variations. CI.3.2 (Imp) Modify Subdivision Ordinance accordingly. CI.3.3 The function of a street shall be recognized in ad- vance of construction, and design criteria used to minimize disruption to the area caused by through or heavy traffic. CI.3.3 (Imp) Implement through Subdivision Ordinance " CI.3.4 The City shall encourage the planting of trees and plan the development of landscaped medians along major arterials. CI.3.4 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) CI.4.0 Strive for aesthetically pleasing views from all roads in Saratoga and the Sphere of Influence. CI.4.1 The City shall adopt an ordinance requiring the re- view of the design, appearance, and setbacks of al.l new fences, walls, and accessory structures that would be visible from, and on lots adjacent to, the City's arterial streets prior to the construction or issuance of building permits for those new fences, walls and accessory structures. The purpose of this ordinance is the enhancement of the scenic character of the views from these roads. CI.4.1 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) CI.4.2 The City shall rigorously enforce ordinances to pre- vent the use of non - conforming roadside signs on all roads and highways within the City. This shall include the use of all signs whether they be erected by private individuals or business enterprises. CI.4.2 (Imp) Implement through Sign Ordinance. Re- duce authorization time limits for signs in the scenic highway corridor. CI.4.3 The City shall require increased setbacks of up to 100 feet for structures, walls or fences to be located on lots adjacent to officially designated scenic highways where it is determined by the City that such increased setbacks are necessary to preserve the scenic qualities of the highway. C C CI.4.3 (Imp) Modify Zoning Ordinance accordingly. CI.4.4 The setback and landscaping requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance for commercial and multi - family residential structures on corner lots adjacent to arterial streets may be increased to reduce the visual impact of such structures and to enhance the appearance of important intersections. The City shall determine the extent and configuration of the landscaped areas necessary to create attractive developments on such corner lots through the design review process. CI.4.4 (Imp) Modify Zoning Ordinance accordingly. CI.5.0 Use presently planned street capacities in determining land uses and acceptable development densities. If it is determined that existing streets need to be improved to accommodate a s project, such improvements shall be in place or bonded for prior to issuance of building permits. -- CI.5.1 The City shall require adequate access in keeping with the density of development. CI.5.1 (Imp) Implement through Subdivision Ordinance. CI.5.2 The City shall establish a minimum acceptable level of service for city streets during peak travel periods. Development which will have the potential to lower the level of service below the standard shall be changed so that the acceptable level of service shall be maintained. CI.5.2 (Imp) Develop level of service criteria based on accepted traffic engineering methods. Ser- vice criteria shall be developed for arterials, collectors, and feeder streets and made part of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. CI.6.0 Integrate safe bicycling, walking, and horseback riding into -,the total transportation system. CI.6.1 Bicycle lanes shall be designated only where a road can accommodate them safely. CI.6.1 (Imp) Modify trails and pathways portion of General Plan to include bicycle lanes and implement safety criteria. CI.6.2 Parking shall be prohibited in designated bicycle lanes on thoroughfares and collector streets. CI.6.2 (Imp) Adopt required ordinance. CI.6.3 Where economically feasible, the bicycle route system should connect with the bicycle routes of adjacent communities, thereby increasing their accessibility to Saratogans. 2 -9 C(Imp) Study existi�� bicycle route systes and determine the necessary modifications appropriate to the City's adopted trails and pathways. CI.6.4 Rights -of -way of the West Valley Corridor, express- way, Santa Clara Valley Water District and utilities shall be used for trails wherever feasible. CI.6.4 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) CI.6.5 Encourage equestrian and pedestrian trails and path- ways along roadways in areas where safety and aesthetics permit. Equestrian pathways should relate to the equestrian zones. CI.6.5 (Imp) Review trails and pathways portion of General Plan to ensure consistency with this policy. CI.6.6 Motorized vehicular traffic shall be prohibited on trails, pathways, parks and dedicated open space areas except for maintenance and emergency purposes. CI.6.6 (Imp) Develop, adopt and enforce an ordinance prohibiting motorized vehicles on trails, pathways and parks. CI.6.7 Assure implementation of the City's trails system by requiring trail dedication, construction, and a method of trail maintenance as part of the sub- division or site approval. CI.6.7 (Imp) Implemented through Subdivision Ordinance. CI.6.8 Trails, sidewalks or separated pathways should be pro - vided in areas where needed to provide safe pedestrian access to schools, along arterial streets and along collector streets. CI.6.8 (Imp) Review trails and pathways plan to determine if adequate access is provided to schools and along streets. CI.6.9 Encourage the trails policies noted in the Specific Plan for the Northwest Hillsides. CI.6.9 (Imp) Include these policies as part of the Circulation Element. CI.6.10 Bike paths should be placed on both sides of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road where traffic safety permits. CI.6.10 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) 2 -10 C C i CI.10.0 Traffic impacts that could create excessive noise, safety hazards, and air pollution shall be mitigated. The City shall use the standards established by the State of Cali- fornia and in effect on February 14, 1983, to determine what constitutes excessive noise, safety hazards, and air pollution until the City adopts its own standards or more restrictive standards are adopted by the State. 3 2 -12 CO.5.0 Protect historical and archaeological values and significant geographic landmarks from destruction by development whenever possible. CO.5.1 The natural beauty of the ridgelines shall be protected as prescribed in the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan. Only minimum cut and fill should be permitted. CO.5.1 (Imp) To be implemented by the NHR Ordinance. CO.5.2 Encourage the preservation of the Saratoga School building on Oak Street for its historical value. CO.5.2(Imp) (The policy is specific and does not .require an implementation measure.) C0.6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere.of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new developments. -��CO.7.0 Enhance built -up areas with landscaping and maintenance, especially in commercial areas and along streets. CO.7.1 Encourage the formation of assessment districts to improve and maintain landscaping throughout the City_ CO.7.1 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) 2 -19 June 7, 1984 JUN 13 U8 "^ I " NITY DEVELOP11"" Planning Commision City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Saratoga Center Cox and Saratoga Avenues Dear Members of the Planning Commision: Public hearings on our applications will begin soon and I am concerned about Council Resolution No. 897 at it relates to the processing of our application. It is not clear to me how this particular item is handled precedurally. Where does it fit in the application process? Who makes the decision? I would appreciate your consideration of this question ('as to procedure). It is important that we all understand the process at the outset. Sincerely, G Steven A. Douglas Senior Vice President SAD /khc The Owen Companies 445 SOUTH SAN ANTONIO ROAD • LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 • (415) 948.9420 • TLX 176828 Q D 0 m9aUav June 21, 1984 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Subject: Professional Village of Saratoga, Southeast Corner of Saratoga and Cox Aves. Gentlemen: LAS- �3 Due to the fact that a number of Quito Village merchants will be unable to personally attend the meeting on June 27 during which you will begin review of the above matter, we wish to inform the Planning Commission that we strongly encourage the development of the open land situated at the corner of Cox and Saratoga Aves. for an office or professional complex. i Il W�II 1 IV JUL 23 79al C M'1" vy DEVELOPS ""- 20201 H 11 venue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 July 21, 1984 Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Commissioners,' Apparently Owen COMDanies are unaware of the fact that Saratoga was incorporated by its residents to be a residential city of rural atmosphere. That it still their strong intention. The Owen application is quite the contrary. Three buildings, two of which are two - story, 129,000 square feet, five hundred employees, four humdred and thirty -nine parking places is a massive concentration completely out of place in Saratoga. We attend tq the necessity of keeping land uncovered-to absorb the rainn `r be -tTrbw tall trees for shade and fresh air as well as beauty, to avoid large concentrations of buildings, people and vehicles. That is why we have chosen to establish our homes here, incorporated it as a residential city, and consider that the primary consideration. Regional Exchange July 1984 reports "Suburban office development has been cited by the Chronicle as the major cause of the Bay Area's traffic congestion, 'the new Chaos', and now the number one public concern according to a recent poll." Transportation of Owen's five hundred employees would be concentrated, in morning and evening peak traffic times causing more traffic con - gestion, more air pollution, and more energy consumption. We have chosen to establish homes here where we can walk or bicycle and enjoy fresh air and peace. It appears Owen does not understand the intention of the residents and their government.. Care of Owen's property has been so neglected it has been an eyesore in the city. When used, it was an eyesore of metal fencing and glaring lights characteristic of San Carlos Street San Jose. We have chosen moonlight over street lights which seems not to be Owen's preference. Owen may see their application has been mis- placed and withdraw it.' If not, it deserves to be denied. Respectfully yours, Margaret Dennis I "Man sr) El Quito Park Homeowners Association P.O. Box 2893 • Saratoga, California 95070 THE Oi4ENS COMPANY PROPOSAL FOR THE DEVELOPI'•4ENT OF THE 10,2 ACRE PARCEL, COP•II,IONLY KNOWN AS THE ABRAMS PROPERTY (S.E, corner Cox and Saratoga) IS AS FOLLOWS: FOUR TO FIVE BUILDINGS WITH THE COMBINED USABLE SPACE OF 144,000 sq.ft. APPROX. TWO (2) ACRES OF LANDSCAPING. EMPLOYEES: APPROX. 600 PARKING SPACES: 581 USAGE: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROS: 1. They say there would be minimal traffic on weekends and evenings. 2. They say employees would be arriving in the neighborhood as residents are leaving, and leaving neighborhood as residents are returning home. 3. They say the proposals they now have are from executive and engineering levels of the electronics industry, who would be doing mainly research and a minimal amount of prototype assembly. 4. They say all manufacturing would be done outside of the city. 5. They say no toxic chemicals or materials would be used on the site. 6. Although we have no accurate study, it is generally believed that the traffic generated from this number of employees would be a little less than if the site were developed as Professional and Administrative. CONS: 1.' If developed as R & D, traffic would be approximately two and one half times greater than if this site were developed for condominiums. 2. EXACTLY WHAT IS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT? This use has never been proposed in Saratoga, therefore the city does not have an ordinance defining nor regulating such use. If the title is considered literally, then R & D means that ANYTHING THAT CAN BE RESEARCHED OR DEVELOPED would apply to this proposal. 3. RESTRICTIONS: If the Planning Commission were to amend the ordinance to include Research and Development, the city would apply restrictions to the USE PERTKITS regarding performance standards. i.e. TOXIC WASTES AND CHEMICALS, NOISE, VIBRATIONS and all other necessary restrictions to ensure the public's safety. HO[4EVER, A FUTURE COUNCIL COULD AMEND THE ORDINANCE AND GRANT A PERMIT FOR USES WHICH WERE NOT ORIGINALLY INTENDED. 4. The residents would have to keep VIGILANT watch in the years to come, to ensure that they were PRESENT for PUBLIC HEARINGS, should the present or any future owner request changes to the ordinance. 5. The City Council could AAiEND the ordinance AFTER public input. it-at F W M! —011s) rKOJfCT -,TATI7110 5A 01 GFNTM PFLLIMINAhT 711L MAM I 1984 PERMIT REVIEW 17 K-61 A Ze lz� " 5-i -zle A01-1 Sj IR970, We - U17 7, ILC 0 ,-) 7� -6 � -K-3 2'9- l J, I le � J Pe-vr-"l �Lle, der CA, 3 �0 C�27 aA- L-7. 'Oa vo yv b , 6,c i _ _ 7g c/ ISSUES 9 TRAFFIC COUNTS TAKEN WHEN COLLEGE WAS IN SESSION (both times) • IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD — WILL BE REDUCED WITH MITIGATIONS SUGGESTED • IMPACT AT SARATOGA /COX — NOT SIGNIFICANT • ACCESS TO SARATOGA AVENUE — NOT CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY 5 -S Resc,.�, RESEARCH ISSUES WHAT CONCERNS ? " "WHAT FACTS ? " BASIC TRAFFIC STUDY PROCESS - - - - - -m -m-m- mREPEAT FOR 'CUMULATIVE' TRAFFICMM�1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DETERMINE TRIP GENERATION DETERMINE TRIP ISTRIBUTION "HOW "GOING MUCH ?'v WHERE ? " ASSIGN TRAFFIC TO NETWORK ... DETERMINE PROJECT IMPACTS 1 1 SPECIFY 1 ..J MITIGATION MEASURES "WHICH "WHAT " WHAT STREETS ?" EFFECTS ?" HELPS ?" DRAW CONCLUSIONS DATA SOURCES USED LAND USE * CITY OF SARATOGA �K OWEN COMPANY FIELD SURVEY TRIP GENERATION CIRCULATION SYSTEM * CITY OF SARATOGA MAPS FIELD SURVEY �k CALTRANS TRIP GENERATION STUDIES * INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS HANDBOOK PRC ENGINEERING STUDIES EXISTING TRAFFIC PATTERNS * HAND COUNTS MACHINE COUNTS FIELD SURVEY SIGNAL TIMING �k CITY OF SARATOGA (Maintenance Contractor) FIELD OBSERVATION CONCLUSIONS 1) TRIP GENERATION 1600 DAILY TRIPS (In & Out) 285 AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS 210 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS 2) MOST HEAVILY AFFECTED LOCATION: SARATOGA /COX INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE * AM PM EXISTING g C EXISTING & PROJECT g C EXISTING & PROJECT & CUMULATIVE C C * A = BEST, F = WORST 3) PROJECT TRAFFIC ON SARATOGA AVENUE + 4% 4) SIGNAL COULD BE RE -TIMED TO REDUCE DELAYS 30 0 0 x e 0 x I A U L j 20 } J W O J i- 0 f.- VEHICLE DELAY DUE TO CYCLE LENGTH AM & PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Ootlmum Cycle. I.K H °ua .,01-- 10 j I 1. ~ R�eomm�nd�d *Target Cycle' \Optimum Cycle, Existing Traffic :Iatinp Traffic 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100 110 120 CYCLE LENGTH, (Seconds) MITIGATIONS 1) PROJECT HAS BEEN MADE SMALLER. 2) RE- DIRECT TRAFFIC TOWARDS SARATOGA AVENUE TO REDUCE IMPACT ON IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD. HE GOOD GOVERNMENT GROUP of Saratoga, California, Inc. P. O. Box 371 Saratoga, California 95070 October 8, 1984 Tot Saratoga City Council Subjects Appeal of Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies) from Denial of Planning Commission, SDR 1539 The Board of Directors of the Good. Government Group urgeu that you uphold the.Planning Commission in their denial of a use permit for the Owen Companies. We feel that the proposed development is unsuitable for Saratoga Traffic congestion in the Cox - Saratoga area is one of our major concerns. We feel this problem was not satisfactorily covered in the Environmental Impact Report, particularly with respect to increases that may be expected in the future. Everyone whg uses Saratoga Avenue during the rush hours is familiar with the problem as are those who use the Quito shopping center. A similar situation exists on Cox and McFarland. A larger question is whether or not the proposed project is consistent with the nature and character of Saratoga. The GGG Board does not think so. Even though the architect has done an excellent job of designing buildings that blend in well with the neibhborhood, the concept of a large office complex is inconsistent with the residential character of Saratoga we wish to preserve. Approval of this project could set a precedent for more of the same along our main arterials. Sincerely yours, Charles H. Robbins President Saratogans in action since 1957. �: C11-2-1 = =�C' G� z`�`r• �i! � �rr��u�. -�-�� _ � cue. ��'�`� ` "`'� -ws.�v Pee FIL .11 /41P r I f r'' 1 i 20201 Hill Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 October 10, 1984 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvaie Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070. Dear Councilmembers, The Owen Companies' massive 'request,, for a'•115,600 square foot office complex in one'two -story and three one -story buildings having over four hundred' parking places a nd'five. hundred, more or less, employees is completely' out ,of place in Saratoga, a city incorporated for the very purpose of being a RESIDENTIAL city of RURAL character. That fact alone is enough to.deny the request. Besides destroying the quiet, open, peaceful, garden atmosphere of residences, the proposal covers large areas of land which will interfere with NATURAL rain absorbtion and also our cherished climate. Employees obviously will be travelling to and from work at peak hours thus increasing the congestion, air pollution, noise, and personal tension on all main roads at those times, not..only Saratoga and Cox Avenues. For example, it is already very dif- ficult to get on the Saratoga -Los Gatos Road from side streets then. Air pollution is more than unpleasant in some adjoining aeras, and the traffic noise is audible several or more blocks away. A recent Bay Area study shows one of the major causes of Bay Area traffic congestion is the recent trend of locating office buildings in the suburbs. NOW we can at least avoid adding this local burden to the through - traffic problem which we cannot solve soon. I hope you agree. Respectfully yours, Margaret Dennis Z- 451 ems✓ w� y,L� c._, - - -- - - - -- - - - -- � - - �I- -- � - °C - i Y -- _ , - - -- - - - -.� - -- ��� � - . ti 12 -2 41 - (OL Z�cl 12 14 Pe 2 1q. IT( C()OPC IL 10-1-7-fq Glll� 'DEVOIJ 374-59rP vtVo 7 7c 5�7 Z., x 5�z f7 l L' .11.x, '• r �' �`; ©[_ r L� U �2 �l �� �'I - �f',j� , f � 7 -7,-- Alt, c .77 VIA"! 37� Zi ca - -Y I u e- L(X 3 -3:70 -32ZL 117 375? -7 7 K -77 LID �J' 7 C, 0 b3 3:2 - , .;,.:�.,- '' . , .. ,:1,"';,�X-i1r; . '. , �,, 'I.: �. . ",.:` , �:. I I , * - ., - , - .. ... . . �.- -�, � � , . . . , . ; . .., - - .,; - I . . . a �.. , '"') , *1 , . . . . , , �, , " , � , I . - - .... " : �_ -: i .. -!, : - " - I . I. , , . 1. '', � - :. ::4 .. . . HUG � . OW4a . �l rGy� I COMMUIVIf.Y. Uty :LOPM.F.I''; . .... -_. I 11 . i . i -' -- ... 1. i - -- August 10, 1984 . 1 f,• y J. } 1. Mr Richard Siegfried ` ,1 1. „ , ,�'`' Chairman of the Planning Commissio 1 :r `' Cit of n ,, { y Saratoga i , 1 ,, , ;;= 11 13777• Fruitvale Avenue M ,,Ft� Saratoga,''CA. .95070' } .+ I. ':'� RE Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies)t, 1. r.: �.A Dear Mr Siegfried ` I'll �. �jyrt. C �/ r I am concerned about the schedule for hearings onrour application 'and r �'T -7. I. how the hearings will be conducted ,�r 11 v ! _ 7. r . , y p ` 1. t .. , .. 1 f;. t ) r , As to schedule; my'specific concern relates to the request by Commissioner ' . McGoldric.I. . .the commission not,vote on;the 'i6ject'w"thout' her present.,', :, 1 - ii.Y,'. ' ,While'I. appreciate her interest iri the matter,: we. have been.very cooperative, ;,�,;- J�` . all delays._with�our:'application to`date However ,' -we have been at r: }� r” this o.;" -, year•and believe that the' current,meeting' should.maintain'.:;„ ir' ! i ! — y t r /., ' schedule `. -Y- - .attorney attended last evening.'s meeting and believe's.:that ' 1. V-4 r> r. 71, "' it is inappropriate for the vote to be delayed due to one comr►issioner's „ ��` ,` ; ? 1' absence `� 7 ,. `, J r ( ly 1 L 1 , t i , .. , i i vi r. 1 , 4 , .. r J o f =�( '.- ; As to how the hearings are conducted, my- concern -..is that speakers. will' not`', I` r: s , y. focus on the`general. plan,' zoning and design issues but.will rehash matters already presented and included in� the EIR� such as traffic. There :also;:;'. r !; :.; seems to be some reluctancei to enforce the time limit per pea ecerprinted , i our agen a -�- ,, , . _ , i 1.11 ! 4 } r { ! ,' , s t 1 r u! k• ,.1,, ! t ,. .�I 11 , ' [7 ' I �t�::.. r °-,1,t i t;iN,, ' We would _appreciii your help' in keeping.,the meetings focused' and, timely - ,1`:,- '" "so that a decision on the project may be reached within a reasonable•'sch** ' Sincerely �. y li �' " 1 f •Il i 1 i, 1. A Y&�� .! ----� ; . ., I . , . . � � . . ; `- , - I , r. �, ,,� ( '�. "-'w;,' 51 Steven A. Douglas % Senior.Vice President '• f ;,; ,`; � ,tr SAD /khc . R. 1 , . •.. cc Dave Fletcher r ,. r , ' . The Owen Companies : . , . 445 SOUTH SAN ANTONIO ROAD • LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 • (415) 948 9420• TLX 176828 ' 1ii'.,'; : 1. I , -cq,�- � I? yy CIO C. r 7,e-Al- S cLf t-6 d�-� OW4il October 22, 1984 Ms. Kathy Kerdus City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Professional Village of Saratoga The Owen Companies Dear Kathy: This letter is intended as an update of the density of development information submitted in my letter of September 19, 1984. The neighboring buildings and their statistics are as follows: 1. 10,000 SF existing single story building at the corner of Cox Avenue and Saratoga Avenue. Site Area: 36,831 SF /.85 acres Ratio of total office space to total site area: 27% Ratio of building footprint to total site area: 27% SF /Acre: 11,765 SF /Acre 2. 22,681 SF existing two story building at the corner of Cox Avenue and Paseo Presada: Site Area: 54,104 SF /1.24 acres Ratio of total office space to total site area: 42% Ratio of building footprint to total site area: 21% SF /Acre: 18,291 SF /Acre The Owen Companies 445 SOUTH SAN ANTONIO ROAD • LOS ALTOS. CA 94022 • (415) 948 -9420 • TLX 176828 n 3. 13,700 SF proposed two story building on Cox Avenue contiguous to item #2 above: Site Area: 28,749 SF /.66 acres Ratio of total office space to total site area: 48% Ratio of building footprint to total site area: 24% - SF /Acre: 20,758 SF /acre 4. 5,250 SF approved single story dental building on Cox Avenue (Sterla): Site Area: 20,141 SF Ratio of total office space to total site area: 26% Ratio of building footprint to total site area: 26% SF /Acre: 11,413 SF /Acre The Owen Companies' proposal is as follows: 115,600 SF in four buildings, three of which are one story and one of which is two story. Site Area: 446,060 SF/10.25 acres Ratio of total office space to total site area: 26% Ratio of building footprint to total site area: 19% SF /Acre: 11,278 SF /Acre In summary, The Owen Companies' project is somewhat less dense than items #1 and #4 and significantly less dense than items #2 and U. I have provided 5 copies of this letter so that you may furnish this information to the City Council. Sincerely, Steven A. Douglas Senior Vice President SAD /khc CITY OF S11R1\IC GA ACa-DA BILL h'0. DATE:_ c =b r 17, 1984 01' 1� .. nua M. - . - SUBJECT: Removal of Parkin along ng Lex irx3ton Court Issue Sumnary Initial: / Dept. Hd. C. Att,&.- _\ C. Mgr. There continues to be a chronic problem involving students from Saratoga High School loitering on Lexington Court between Herriman Avenue and-Chalet Lane. There have been frequent reports of littering, vandalism, and the use of controlled substances. T resulting public nuisance has.been consuming Sheriff and Ccm uanity Service Officer (CSO) time responding to citizen con plaints. 0 Reccmnendation '[he City Council adopt a Resolution restricting parking between 8:00 a.m. to 4 :00 p.m. on those days when school is in session, and that this action be re- evaluated in four months to determine if it has effectively resolved the problem. Fiscal Impacts There would be an initial cost of $370 for the purchase and installation of eight no parking signs. -Xh ibiis /Attachmenis 1. Staff report 2. Sheriff memorandum recommending removal of parking. 3. Memorandum from CSO to Community Services Director 4. Correspondence from City to affected Lexington Court residents Council Action 5. Survey responses 6. Resolution removing parking 10/17: Approved Resolution MV 159,. 5 -0, to be reviewed after 4 months. �a o� &1&o `g" C 95 r1W o2 0&%ZUQ) (5& 6c � �� �6 � o o 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 October 10, 1984 To: Mayor & City Council From: Todd Argow Subject: Removal of Parking on Lexington Court COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon Martha Clevenger Virginia Laden Fanelli Joyce Hlava David Moyles Purpose Staff seeks Council adoption of a resolution which would remove parking along both sides of Lexington Court for first 550' closest to Saratoga High School. The purpose of the action would be to eliminate the problem caused by Saratoga High School students loitering in the area and causing public disturbances. Analysis Both the Sheriff's Office and the City's Community Service Officers (CSO's) have reported a chronic problem involving Saratoga High School students and their friends parking along the first 550 feet of Lexington Court during school days and creating a public nuisance. Residents from the general neighborhood area complain that the students block traffic, change clothes in their cars, use offensive language, use drugs and alcohol, litter and vandalize, and are generally inconsiderate of the neighborhood residents. The problem has been expensive for the City, as both Sheriff deputies and Saratoga CSO's must repeatedly respond to complaints in the area. Saratoga High School is unable to take any action in the matter as the affected section of street is outside their jurisdiction. In an effort to resolve the problem, the Sheriff's Office recommended the removal of parking along Lexington Avenue from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. when school is in session. Approximately 12 residents would be affected by the parking restriction. Both Saratoga High School personnel and the City's CSO's surveyed the residents and determined their attitudes about the removal -of- parking proposal. Six supported the concept, four opposed it, and the remaining two agreed to go along with the majority. City Council Conclusion * I. The problem involving students concentrating and loitering on Lexington Court has become chronic and is both disruptive to the neighborhood and costly to the City. Therefore, it is the staff recommendation that parking be experimentally removed from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday when school is in session on the affected section of Lexington Court. It is further recommended that the situation be re- evaluated in four months to determine the effectiveness of the action, and the findings resulting from the re- evaluation be reported back to the Council at that time. Todd Argo Community Service Director lmc Attachments: 1. Sheriff's Office Memorandum dated Sept. 26, 1984 recommending removal of parking 2.Memorandum from CSO to Community Services Director detailing problem and proposed solution 3. Map enlargement showing affected area 4. Correspondence dated May 17, 1984 from the City to Lexington Court residents requesting their opinion on the proposal to remove parking 5. Survey responses 6.Proposed Resolution removing parking on Lexington Court for the first 550' closest to Saratoga High School 2 memorandum C 6' - r i�ciil A C 6 0 TO FROM LT. WILSON DEP. H. ARRANTS #520 SUBJECT DATE LEXINGTON CT. HERRIMAN PARKING PROBLEM 09-26-84 *12 DURING THE LAST SCHOOL YEAR, AND NOW STARTING AGAIN THIS SCHOOL YEAR, THERE IS A CHRONIC PARKING PROBLEM EXISTING IN THE FIRST 150' OF LEXINGTON CT. DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL. THIS PROBLEM CONSISTS OF STUDENTS (AND NON— STUDENTS) PARKING THERE DURING SCHOOL HOURS, AND CONGREGATING THERE BEFORE SCHOOL, DURING LUNCH, AND AFTER SCHOOL. I HAVE BEEN IN THE AREA DURING THAT TIME AND HAVE FOUND AS MANY AS 50 -75 JUVENILES SEATED IN THEIR CARS, LOITERING ON THE CORNERS, AND STANDING AROUND IN THE STREET THERE. FROM A SAFETY STAND — POINT, THEY POSE A REAL SAFETY PROBLEM BY STANDING IN THE STREET THERE, IMPEDING TRAFFIC. FROM A CRIME— PROBLEM STAND — POINT, WE HAVE HAD CONTINUAL REPORTS OF DRUG SALES AND INFLUENCE, DRINKING OF ALCOHOL, LITTERING, BLOCKING DRIVEWAYS, AND HAVE RESPONDED TO THE AREA REPEATEDLY TO FIND THESE CLAIMS TO BE BONIFIED. THIS PROBLEM SEEMS TO HAVE DEVELOPED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AS THE STUDENTS HAVE REALIZED THAT THE EDUCATIONAL CODE DOES NOT HAVE ANY REAL INFLUENCE OVER THEM THERE, AS IT IS SITUATED JUST OUTSIDE THE EDUCATIONAL CODE DEFINITION OF AN AREA WHICH IS "DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO OR NEXT TO" THE HIGH SCHOOL. IF A SARATOGA CITY ORDINANCE CAN BE ENACTED TO PROHIBIT PARKING IN THAT AREA I FEEL THAT OUR AGENCY AND THE SCHOOL WILL BE BETTER ABLE TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE STUDENTS IN THE AREA AND GET RID OF A REAL PROBLEM. R[Opoca it ©26—A REV 9/83 r +�a�c T rJ9C0 a"eAf*r v.� 3 OFFICE: Community Service Officer COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon Martha Clevenger MEMORANDUM TO Community Service Director Virginia Fanelli Joyce Hlava David Moyles This is to request that you ask the City Council to Consider the creation of a No Parking zone on Lexington Court; Between Herriman Avenue and the sou- thernmost intersection of Lexington at Chalet Lane. The parking prohibition would be between the hours of 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday, during the months of September through June. There has been, and continues to be, a frequent problem on this portion of Lexington Court caused by .Saratoga High School students parking their veh- icles on this res.idencial street on days that school is in session. (See map - attachment 1.) Saratoga High School Vice- Principal Henry Rogalsky, the Sheriff's Department, and the city has received and continues to receive com- plaints from the involved residents about students littering, loitering, changing clothes and using illicit substances while in and around their vehicles parked on this portion of Lexington Court. This is occurring on a daily basis before and after school and during the lunch break. Efforts by the Saratoga High School staff and administration, the Sheriff's Department, and Community Service Officers to resolve this problem have not been successful]. Although there is sufficent on campus parking, the High School does not have the authority to require that students park on campus, The involved students have not been responsive to requests by the school that they not park there, or requests that they conduct themselves as good neighbors by not littering, loitering, etc. Efforts by the Sheriff's Department and Community Service Officers, such as extra patrol and increased enforcement, have yielded only sporatic and temporary results. On March 5, 1984 Vice Principal Rogalsky sent a letter and survey to the involved residents (attachments 2 & 3). He received responses from ten of the twelve residents living on this part of Lexington Court. Nine gave a 'yes' re- sponse to the statement: "I am interested in eliminating the parking of cars by students on Lexington Avenue." Seven gave a 'yes' response to the statement: "I favor using resident parking permits for each vehicle for residents on-Lex- ington Avenue," Seven also provided a 'yes' response to the statement: "I favor the posting of No Parking signs as described above on a portion of Lexing- ton Avenue," (The No Parking signs were described in the cover letter as saying; No Parking 8:00 am to 4:00 pm on days school is in session.) In April, when Mr Rogalsky had received the returned surveys, he contacted the City Manager, Wayne and I discussed the matter, We both felt that, although the administration of a permit parking program for the twelve impacted residents not be cumbersome, the establishment of such a program could result in other large areas requesting a permit parking program, �� Ph 13777 F13.t1I7VAI,E A AVENUE - - SAFiATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 ('1101 '7 ' -. i 3 OFFICE: Community Service Officer COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon Martha Clevenger MEMORANDUM TO Community Service Director Virginia Fanelli Joyce Hlava David Moyles This is to request that you ask the City Council to Consider the creation of a No Parking zone on Lexington Court; Between Herriman Avenue and the sou- thernmost intersection of Lexington at Chalet Lane. The parking prohibition would be between the hours of 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday, during the months of September through June. There has been, and continues to be, a frequent problem on this portion of Lexington Court caused by .Saratoga High School students parking their veh- icles on this res.idencial street on days that school is in session. (See map - attachment 1.) Saratoga High School Vice- Principal Henry Rogalsky, the Sheriff's Department, and the city has received and continues to receive com- plaints from the involved residents about students littering, loitering, changing clothes and using illicit substances while in and around their vehicles parked on this portion of Lexington Court. This is occurring on a daily basis before and after school and during the lunch break. Efforts by the Saratoga High School staff and administration, the Sheriff's Department, and Community Service Officers to resolve this problem have not been successful]. Although there is sufficent on campus parking, the High School does not have the authority to require that students park on campus, The involved students have not been responsive to requests by the school that they not park there, or requests that they conduct themselves as good neighbors by not littering, loitering, etc. Efforts by the Sheriff's Department and Community Service Officers, such as extra patrol and increased enforcement, have yielded only sporatic and temporary results. On March 5, 1984 Vice Principal Rogalsky sent a letter and survey to the involved residents (attachments 2 & 3). He received responses from ten of the twelve residents living on this part of Lexington Court. Nine gave a 'yes' re- sponse to the statement: "I am interested in eliminating the parking of cars by students on Lexington Avenue." Seven gave a 'yes' response to the statement: "I favor using resident parking permits for each vehicle for residents on-Lex- ington Avenue," Seven also provided a 'yes' response to the statement: "I favor the posting of No Parking signs as described above on a portion of Lexing- ton Avenue," (The No Parking signs were described in the cover letter as saying; No Parking 8:00 am to 4:00 pm on days school is in session.) In April, when Mr Rogalsky had received the returned surveys, he contacted the City Manager, Wayne and I discussed the matter, We both felt that, although the administration of a permit parking program for the twelve impacted residents not be cumbersome, the establishment of such a program could result in other large areas requesting a permit parking program, �� Ph On May 17, 1984 1 sent a letter and survey (attachments 4 & 5) to the involved residents. The letter and survey was to seek their opinion of the No Parking proposal. All twelve either returned completed surveys or were contacted by telephone. Six indicated that they favored the creation of the No Parking zone, Four indicated that they would not favor the No Parking Zone. The.remaining two indicated that they would be willing to go along with whatever the majority decided. Copies of the responses to both Mr. Rogalsky's survey and the survey from the city, both of which contain com- ments by the residents, are included with this report. Because the support for this solution was not unanimous, and with the ending of the school year, a decision was made to await further action on this matter until the start of the new school year. This was to see if the problem continued, and to give both the students and residents notification of any public hearing. The problem resumed on the first day of school when three students were cited for possession of marijuana after a complaint to the Sheriff's Department by one of the residents. Since then I have observed loitering and litter on almost a daily basis on Lexington Court. It is my opinion, shared by Mr Rogalsky, that the creation of this No Parking zone, with a provssion to cover the signs on a particular day upon request of one of the residents, is the most viable solution to what has been and continues to be a problem for both the residents, the High School, and the city. Respectfully submitted DAVID M. 1C Community Service Officer cc (w/ attachments): Vice Principal H. Rogalsky Lt. Wilson via Sgt Medlin 1:3777 FRUITVA1..I AVE17U11_ . • SARATOGA. CA LAFOHNIA 95070 (-108) 1367 -3,138 A/9). i COUNCIL MEMBERS: Office: City Manager Linda Callon .Martha Clevenger May 17, 1984 Wiginia Fanelli John Mallory David Moyles Dear Lexington Court Resident: Mr. Henry Rogalsky, Assistant Principal of Saratoga High School, has told me of your concerns about Saratoga High School students parking, littering, and loitering on Lexington. Court between Herriman Avenue and Chalet Court on school days. He has shared with me the survey that you and your neighbors completed. In an effort to temporarily alleviate the problem, my partner (C-S.O. Betty Snowden) and I will, along with Saratoga High School staff members, give extra patrol to this area during the remaining four weeks of school. Also, if you observe criminal activity such as vandalism, use of illegal drugs, littering, etc., please telephone the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department at 299 -2311, and they will have a deputy respond. They are aware of your concerns and will also be giving this area extra patrol. For a more permanent solution, I would like your support in asking the Saratoga City Council for an ordinance creating a No Parking /Tow Away Zone, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, September through June. This zone would be on both sides of Lexington Court between Herriman Avenue and Chalet Court. I think that it is fair to assume that by eliminating street parking during school hours the loitering and littering problems would be greatly reduced. Mr. Rogalski shares this opinion. Although it might be feasible to create a "Resident Permit Parking Only" for your area, it would be difficult to administer. Also, other larger areas might then also wish this, thus causing an even bigger administration and enforcement problem If a. No Parking ordinance was adopted, it would include a provision to suspend enforcement on a particular day. If you anticipated having company on a weekday between 8:00 and 4:00 p.m., you could telephone Saratoga City Hall and the signs would be covered that day. I would welcome your input. Please think this over and then return the enclosed "Reply Request" as soon as possible. If a majority of you and your neighbors support this idea, I will proceed with efforts to obtain an ordinance that would be in effect by the start of the next school year. If you have any questions, please call me at 867 -3438 and leave a telephone number where I can reach you during ther day. Sincerely, David M. Lapi Community Service Officer i Enclosure cc: Mr. Henry Rogalsky ' 7n95 t:. ,• 1% -1 O . 'il ) 1 1.0114 to14a Powt4 to3o4 1 /!, 1, l 7o1p4 I1 L� 2or4� Intt 1 2dt10 �o146 X71 r,1. V41 el 1 •( (. O T. _ i111 01 1 311 0l �7r o/ 371 01 j11-or i71-nr- i91-o1 3,I.or i1! nl -. 49 (_p 1. " L2 b 9 4r.•1 b5 64• L? %.,7 to -/nj- 'b (,>) (•e, i•9? r20, C7 1 2a) 7r�cp C71" o' x6) 1251 r -2,� i1T� ?ot1S 2oTp1 2n7� "l 2625) Zo7!'• n2 L! Tot I,"S w i -ZA? w 2s CL1� 2o71S T.ow11'+ 71,+101 ?n ?,1 ?1 x01 Znir� 1 ,ib°r4 S ��1-01 111` 7. ?12.1+2 o11p j,1 -0 411.01 1�1 a" c1 �,r•or 1! ,S ♦41 -0 '�� �Al, 4, n• • ,\ 1•r�. c!? �d ZOIL'1 )\�or �,� -,1 r X910 711 111 OI 1.141 all 110 j91c`r\r ?c+• !\t -or 1lS r VISTA err^ r 111 eI. :IS 7. 4t. �►., r — SARATOGA ,�., , CHALET LN. 111. 1•.41 � 1.11r76 \91• 1 loj,h ol�lc, ?1`rb1 Tut 4. 101 \J ?nt IL 1- 10 1 a` 19 Ilr., ?1) r 27.E 11r•dl (, ) N, -VI S,1•el 7\r 01 �\I el • T1r n1 �1 a 1642.+ o4 13 w1 70474 7n41 L 7. 4n'=0 IO,A6 %'' 1 74 241 1,b11S 114 1146 1N ,a i 7 ),1.0 \ 6 ►' 1tr a1 tll o, 77/1,2 1, /.N rI e^ t•1•o• Ir. 110�M >,1 0l r • 1)001 b•• _ 747 X46 r1S 744 741 141 rlhlo I (1rl 1 191 or 0 i1b9•-, ]'1101. ej 21)1„0., If 21421 O J �"' V — e1 1 T Qt 1��1 Ir.) * r Is6�1 (� 71(.01 r 1 40 «� 1212 or h7 ♦ 1 7 �` 17 C16) CIS 2141 (lil 137o0 1 V y - I) 700 (? 1,� r j4r of °� 1 101141 1. U4 b7 2n47ti 7"111 1044'1 "Val- i11 0l 219 1 .( xO 1 ;7c,! Of of- \y V `f i 1 I 111►•6, �..� t q•1 to- S S 117 1o1 4S /rr )ql -or 192.02 4,1.1,2• 7 111 0l 21 t SI 7. � 171-01- D� 1 7 1'�7•il 1011' i11•ol- 24 Z 44 5o o 1312 (371U TnZS' �, n' '"/ •'. 2r° CHALET LN. �.. �. (1) .,101 11 11262 10 „If,7 Iv7 1.717 . - (� i ?4 c>,y el Vi R R I C K DR. _ 1>,a . •,, 14'1 1 �. , A�, r W (� 70•,16 7 '� rn•71• 2n4AN ( •�}� .t. / 149 ( 1 IR/ C,) f,rnl (� �e ' 'r)�t11 try 1 Z {/� cN-21 21 0,. X91.01 �91c.r. 1,1 OI MIOI Q 1L"\ ,,... /C � (+1 1x715 201,0 toT 7o ToT 6ri !n7 �0 2071C !AI•'�1 >4 I too Q aj 214 220 221 '222 1,1 %•7 Id , j7'S6 172 of - gl-al 142 14'1 VII el -111• 1 ,Y ),1 -01 , !•I of r 1 l •rN,. -,r JIr7 )L O 1 ai ` •/, C. S) cil `'1111• / 117.4 iW (V 1g7s[ 1j7g4 J 1b1 a1 7` (� 1 it4r lrl ol•ISo 17784 117rq IS77t W 20 1 17-149 F tr,r of .,( Ill x91 01 1s sit et- 1 1,1-x2 1 Sy 1 ,• 1 ^ 3 jai b 15749 1&* IS7•e CALLE TACVBA >0 1171:1 �- Qs, : *' 17) IQ,. f4) •1 �.n ;.tr O Q I'll I s:, 15 716S IS77db 13'0', 17715 117041 1L 20199 13yi7L 571 0l– !11 01 I S,F- of - 711.01 S411-01 -1 111 -e1- r'!7 311 01 Z'9a 1 ! r �l Al I S1 1'! 31 154 197 Ito t6 �I i17•�, - tc+)67 /0141 2ai1s ot[q Tot r4 Idt(�1 fn241 to12r I)Sil S 11/0 r�A• jn 1-o1- .it 2.61- x'11-01-201 )hl-O /- 7'11.01' 3,(•61 ;71 -OI -4 S7 w1►a �i-01- ),r -M /t♦ �1 <, 712 711 =wS as4 its 2 r 1 L RRIMAM AVE. if t 2o�1l1 .+o-3-152- 0 to (I,) 0 547- t-+- OL I^ i0uo 04D , -st SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL aos+►2. M _ 1 •w A 05 .02 sot 65.02 e1.0 CHALET LN • o CD 11T.!S 9O 90.30 114.99 90 7 Iry i3�� Y o o — � Ld 139 I -4 - - - - -- L — . -- — �- — — — — — -- -� 73 1ee.�d 13 `p FIf V0/? nT.es 135 — -4 `. — v -- — l // 8 L" lA jig 137Y9 N F�9va� • . ± � , , � `NEc.I r � .6 °_ _n a 14 — - 3 u fit 1 3 7,C1• w d F,q von? w n�as� 142.3 4 14 J — — 13173 ol 0) 1377�Z /l/EGlT/�.9L 18 3.Ta — — 133.49 N / 1` I I 3�Ss O �U ,� _D N 0 I o 0 i9 FAvo r- , `l 1,55 113.24 ti ' e0 ee.18 M is AVE. —rl - - --� LFXIN C7oN COURT 6 FAVOR 4 OPPOSED 2 NEUTRAL Did not respond to survey. Contacted by telephone. Both indicated that they would go along with majority. Pii TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AS A RESIDENT OF LEXINGTON COURT (BETWEEN HERRIMAN AVENUE & CHALET COURT) : X_ I would FAVOR the creation of a zone of: No Parking /Tow Away 8 :OOam to 4:OOpm Monday through Friday September to June I would NOT favor this No Parking/ Tow Away Zone COMMENT: We are very tired of having students make themselves at home in our front yard, smoking their marijuana, changing their clothes, and leaving their trash all over our yard. They show no respect for people's property or hard work plus expense trying to keep our yard looking nice! Name Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Davis Address 13785 Lexington Court, Saratoga Date 21 May 1984 RETURN TO: Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: D. Lapic, C.S.O. TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AS A RESIDENT OF LEXINGTON COURT (BETWEEN HERRIMAN AVENUE & CHALET COURT) : I would FAVOR the creation of a zone of: No Parking /Tow Away 8:OOam to 4:OOpm Monday through Friday September to June COMr Name Addr I would NOT favor this No Parking/ Tow Away Zone oafe�� RETURN TO: Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: D. Lapic, C.S.O. TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AS A RESIDENT OF LEXINGTON COURT (BETWEEN HERRIMAN AVENUE & CHALET COURT) : I would FAVOR the creation of a zone of: No Parking /Tow Away 8 :00am to 4 :00pm Monday through Friday September to June XXX I would NOT favor this No Parking/ Tow Away Zone COMMENT: _A tow -away zone would place a difficult burden on our guests, gardeners and other service people, and -it does not address the problem of youngsters _walking down the street to eat lunch or smoke in our yards. It would seem more desireable to advise students at the beginning of the year that the campus will be closed whenever there is a problem. Name Lane C. Tronson Address 13761 Lexington Court. Date 5/22/84 Suggestion: If a No Parking /Tow Away zone is tested, change .the hours to 11:00 am to 3:00 pm. This would allow residents to schedule around the restriction. RETURN TO: Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: D. Lapic, C.S.O. Soo TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AS A RESIDENT OF LEXINGTON COURT (BETWEEN HERRIMAN AVENUE & CHALET COURT) : I would FAVOR the creation of a zone of: No Parking /Tow Away 8 :00am to 4 :00pm Monday through Friday September to June I would NOT favor this No Parking/ Tow Away Zone COMMENT: 2f%6 /�H /.S .�i/��ifi(r /,f/ �T�� SOT /�'✓'v�� � ,� �,rsi �6� �iiT,✓ %�� ,d�Sy.�T.ay Ti�,aT �ar�.riG mw AW- 0116T6 10 'W'w Name Address /3737 writ/ lvx/ Date_MZ /Y /�� RETURN TO: Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: D. Lapic, C.S.O. TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AS A RESIDENT OF LEXINGTON COURT (BETWEEN HERRIMAN AVENUE & CHALET COURT) : I would FAVOR the creation of a zone of: No Parking /Tow Away 8 :00am to 4 :00pm Monday through Friday September to June I would NOT favor this No Parking/ Tow Away Zone COMMENT: Name A.AX/IJ6 PP-0 ,5/ /0 Address 137,1-5- .C.erx'06 -Tax1 CT/ Date (O RETURN TO: Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: D. Lapic, C.S.O. ft TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AS A RESIDENT OF LEX,NGTON COURT (BETWEEN HERRIMAN AVENUE & CHALET COURT) : I would FAVOR the creation of a zone of: No Parking /Tow Away 8 :50am to 4 :OOpm Monday through Friday September to June I would NOT favor this No Parking/ Tow Away Zone COMMENT: Name_ I g , -S� , lc::� f 0( Address j ---3%�4 Date 7-4- — RETURN TO: Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: D. Lapic, C.S.O. 66 TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AS A RESIDENT OF LEXINGTON COURT (BETWEEN HERRIMAN AVENUE & CHALET COURT) : 1 would FAVOR the creation of a zone of: No Parking /Tow Away 8 :00am to 4 :00pm Monday through Friday September to June I would NOT favor this No Parking/ Tow Away Zone COMMENT: Name MR- m IQs_ L F INAI Address ��j� �6 L EX I N CTO N cT SA,PA i 0 G )q 95-0 Date M M Y 2-z' 1 2� RETURN TO: Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: D. Lapic, C.S.O. TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AS A RESIDENT OF LEXINGTON COURT (BETWEEN HERRIMAN AVENUE & CHALET COURT) : I would FAVOR the creation of a zone of: No Parking /Tow Away 8 :60am to 4:OOpm Monday through Friday September to June I would NOT favor this No Parking/ Tow Away Zone COMMENT: Name Addr w r Date, & ' / O RETURN TO: Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: D. Lapic, C.S.O. TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AS A RESIDENT OF LEXINGTON COURT COURT) : (BETWEEN HERRIMAN AVENUE & CHALET 1 would FAVOR the creation of a zone of: No Parking /Tow Away 8 :OOam to 4 :00pm Monday through Friday September to June I would NOT favor this No Parking/ Tow Away Zone COMMENT: Name Address l.� %lo a L P iii j a A (° ��7L� fiUb�� ,z 20 V Date RETURN TO: Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: D. Lapic, C.S.O. TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AS A RESIDENT OF LEXINGTON COURT (BETWEEN HERRIMAN AVENUE & CHALET COURT): I would FAVOR the creation of a zone of: No Parking /Tow Away 8 :50am to 4 :00pm Monday through Friday September to June I would NOT favor this No Parking/ Tow Away Zone COMMENT: T.' Name Address /37,?y LQ,7;, Date 51-2-v RETURN TO: Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: D. Lapic, C.S.O. T X41 1c 136!35 �1[-0l' sTMOI 391 of tl -o1- 371 -ol 311 ot- r1i 3 / or 311 oi- 174 l 7 198 13� ro C 3[) 247 246 245 244 Z4; 1-2,69 a �J145 [2 141 IQfa 179 391 -ot- 1 -3 1) 0 13 66 { 20421 391-01- 1 13690 �2 13669 3y,_o1_yis 391 01 -;03 1-01 -217 1 40 19695 311.01- r C17� C10 c15� (14) C13� V c9 39r•ol- Q 032) 13700 l ro (� Ct3i P 13($0 C2 13(082.9) 3 20455 20467 20475 20487 20499 20434 391 -01 - r37oo '\ h /� [ o . �1 Isr:85C1) 39(101- 1385 391 -or- 391-01- 101- 311 or 31101 391 0l- 239 13705 341 oJ- V �� �O 391 of- 246 311-0, -St: 02 341-01 - 24q 250 Siq 252 =• CS3) 391 -01- �.% 7 Z18 0 (37rZ 1 7 O Q \J C4) (3) 13fi1(� 2� 13760 3c H A L ET LIr. X41 01 „ r37to Zo251 2°231 2oz1 311-oi- 13703 391 - of - /0l (33) 238 137Jg 391'01- 391-01- 391 -01- 391-01- C3) 39/ -OI -87 r6 /bg Ilo7 3712 34) (35) O3f.) C37i (38) l 3 716(71 20446 20454 20462 20476 20488 zo44z 13724 3'142 W E R R I C K DR. = 3 1 130 -,0(- 137/924) -341 -01 -100 3' 391 -oJ - 11-0 - 9f O1- 91-01 39!-01 - 391-01-224 341-01- J 21q 22o 22! 237 (Z) b ') fro) C) 39I-oI -ga (a �u 12.3 C 13737 13736 391 os ` 20290 20 70 20250 20230 CI) qC !3'72 I S73L 391-01-22 391-1 ` 311-01 -lG2 391- 1 - 391 -01- 2021!0 S11 0l- 5 -311.04 99 1' 149 g 14 C 1 /103 / 1,61 391�ot- V r2 13741 2 - c5) 13733 (4) C57 r4) C3) C2) 137 4 391-o1-Fs'4 137,+0 S> 13749 13'748 '111-62 -150 ► 01_0 _ 3754 137(P4 13772 19782 1379+ J 391 -01 6 39 - 39/ -0/ 226 1239 C4) 391.01 311 -01- 341-01- 391-01- !t 137,sq ) (3745 391 -oJ- W !be 13 1 8 157 3T1-Of -94 1 3 -rf-4 >= 1 »t:, 34101 -131 CALLE TACUBA M- I C27; 31101.97 1, ► -o r - Z -20453 391- 01 -Z27 234 LS) C6 C7) 27 13777 C37 39!-01 - 230 �) 13772 C3) 13758 13765 1377q. 1370 f9) •' i%) 39!-01 -q( l 2780 39 (3773 0 391 012 3�ti-ef- 311 -e !3715 ..1J 117sS 391 -01-96 341 r -233 1- 391-01- 391 -o7 -i 44 z 34, 152 154 155 'r ��Li1 137!5 ((437 - o/- y2 C27 13 795` 20367 os4s 2 0 315 f� J cS) 391 -o1 -9s 3A1 -o1 -229 391ror- 371-0) 371-01-201 0291 20275 20261 2o2g1 2022/ 13811 13810 13813) A 232 23► 311 0/- 391.01- 311 -ol 391-01- 257 ho!- c1) 2Sy 294 253 39ro1 3110 3Yl -ol- 93 Zo 1 Z y I ••���... - 256 182 125 391 -o /-`Alt 34 .Q O 0 h Q Q .N ' AGENDA BILL NO. ! �� DATE: 10/8/84 (10/17/84) DEPARTMENT: Ccmm3nity Development CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: V -656 and SDR -1580, Pacific Coast Investments, 14732 Oak Street ------------- Variance for lot width and approval of a two lot subdivision Issue Summary 1. At its meeting of September 12, 1984 the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request for a lot width variance (68ft. where 85 ft. is required) which would have allowed a two lot subdivision of 49,065 sq. ft. (88.775' x 552.74') property. 2. Two dwellings currently occupy the site; the rear unit is proposed to be expanded. 3. Adjacent property owners expressed concerns that a large two- -story dwelling would be built on the rear lot and adversely impact existing views and privacy. 4. Other lots in the vicinity have substandard widths. Recommendation 1. Staff recommended conditional approval of the variance and two lot subdivision to the Planning Commission. 2. The Council should open the public hearing, take testimony on the appeal then close the public hearing. 3. If the Council determines that the project should be approved it must: a. Adopt the Negative Declaration. b. Make the required findings per the Staff Report dated 9 /4/84. c. Approve the project per the conditions in the Staff Report and Exhibit "B" (Variance must be approved prior to subdivision approval) . Fiscal Impacts None anticipated. Exhibits /Attachm?nts Exhibit A- Negative Declaration. Exhibit B- Staff Report dated 9/4/84. Exhibit C- Planning Ccmmtiission Resolutions SDR- 1580 -1 and V- 656 -1. Exhibit D- Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting on 9/12/84. Exhibit E- Correspondence received :on project,-including appeal letter. Council Action 10/17: Appeal denied 4 -1 (Callon). EIA -4 Saratoga C DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No: V -656 SDR -1580 u �/ ,f �* x-A16 i� A The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and.Resolu- tion 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project involves a variance for lot width (65' where 85' required) to allow a two lot subdivision in the R- 1- 10,000 district at 14732 Oak Street, Saratoga, CA. Two dwellings exist on the site, so no new dwellings will be added although they may be expanded. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION PACIFIC COAST INVESTMENTS 338 Village Lane, suite 8 Los Gatos, CA 95030 The project will not have a significant effect on the environment since no new dwelling units will be added and urban services need not be significantly extended. All construction impacts for additions will be mitigated by appli- cation of existing city codes and ordinances. Executed at Saratoga, California this 23rd day ' of August , 19 84 ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVx NMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SAiZ\NT Gft A DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER r` r c F'xw&a- f� REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 9/4/84 Commission Meeting: 9/12/84 SUBJECT: V -656, SDR -1580, Pacific Coast Investments, 14732 Oak Street ----------------------------------------------------------------=----------- ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of: 1) Variance to allow a 68 foot lot width where 85 feet is the miminun required. 2) Tentative building site approval for a two lot subdivision. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final building site approval, design review approval, and building permits. PLANNING CLASSIFICATION ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL.PLAN: Residential - Medium.Density Single Family SITE DATA PARCEL SIZE: 49,065 Sq. Ft. NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Gently sloping lot'with pine, oak, and orchard trees. A 16" walnut tree would be removed to accommodate an addition to the rear most dwelling unit. Several smaller trees would also be removed. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 4.37% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 4.37% PROPOSED LOT SIZES: Lot A - 13,005 Sq. Ft. (gross); 10,075 Sq. Ft. (Net -minus easement) Lot B - 36,063 Sq. Ft. STRUCTURE SIZES (PER APPLICANT): Lot A: Existing - 1625 Sq. Ft. (including garage) Lot B: Existing - 815 Sq. Ft.; proposed - 2146 Sq. Ft. (including garage) STAFF ANALYSIS: The dimensions of the subject property are 88.775' x 552.74' which shows Report V -656, to Planning Co mission SDR -1580, Pac : Coast Investments, Oak St. C 9/4/84 Page Two that the property has a very long and narrow shape. Normally, a property of this size of a more regular or square shape could accommodate two to three R -1- 10,000 lots. This is clearly not possible given the long, narrow shape of the property. The applicants propose a two lot subdivision with access to . Lot B provided by a 20' wide easement along the northern most property line of Lot A. This easement line becomes, by ordinance definition, the new side property line thus reducing the width of Lot A to 68.775' which necessitates this variance application. This would be similar to a corridor lot situation. There are two existing dwellings on the site which meet ordinance setback requirements. The rear dwelling appears to be an existing second unit. The garage for the Lot A dwelling would have to be replaced (added to the front of the existing dwelling) in order to allow the proposed access easement. Some of the lots in the vicinity along Oak Street and Lomita Avenue are substandard with widths as narrow as 50 feet. A narrow lot width for this site would not be incompatible with existing development. FINDINGS: 1. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR UNNECESSARY PHYSICAL HARDSHIP: A strict or literal interpretation of the ordinance would create a practical difficulty in subdividing the property due to the physical circumstances of the lot in terms of its long, narrow shape relative to its size. The narrowness of the lot requires a variance to provide adequate access to the proposed rear lot but does not allow an increase in density. 2. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: The long, narrow shape of the property relative to its size creates an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance not applicable to other lots in the R -1- 10,000 district which are generally of a more regular shape relative to their size. A second dwelling already exists on the site so no new dwellings would be added to the site. There are also many lots in the vicinity that are sub- standard in terms of width. 3. COMMON PRIVILEGE: Denial of this variance would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the R -1- 10,000 district and in this vicinity in that there are other properties that maintain substandard lot widths. 4. SPECIAL PRIVILEGE: The granting of this variance would not be a grant of special privilege since there are exceptional circumstances associated with the site which warrant a variance. Granting this variance would not be inconsistent with the limi- tations on other properties classified in the same zoning district and in the immediate vicinity. 5. PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. J Report to Planning Commission 9/4/84 V -656, SDR -1580 Paci Coast Investments, Oak St. C Page Three COMMENT: The Planning Commission has not typically granted variances to allow properties to be subdivided. If the Commission decides not to grant this variance the applicant would still have the option of applying for a second unit use permit to legalize the existing second unit on the site. However, this unit could not then be expanded. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per staff report dated 9/4/84 and exhibit "B" subject to the following conditions: 1. Project shall comply with the conditions of SDR -1580. 2. Design review required for the additions to the existing dwelling on Lot B. Report to Planning Commission 'V -656, SDR -1580 Pacific C-ast 9/4/84 Investments, Oak Street Page Four PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorders' Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: August 23, 1984 The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1580 (Exhibit "B" filed August 1, 1984) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordiance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site Approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking & recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, sumit three (3) to- scale prints). C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a (25) ft. Half - Street on (Oak Street). D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for easements, as required. Report to Planning Commission 9/4/84 V -656, SDR -1580 Pacific ast Investments, Oak Street C Page Five E. Improve Oak Street to City Standards, including the following:(DIA) 1. Designed Structural Section 20 ft. between centerline and flowline. (DIA) 2. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (V -24). (DIA) 3. Pedestrian Walkay (4 ft P.C.C.) (DIA) 4. Under4rounding Existing Overhead Utilities. (DIA) F. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse. G. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base from "Oak Street" to within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. Note: a) The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft. b) The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. c) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. H. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. I. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base. J. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by the Director of Community Development. K. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road inter- sections. L. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. Report to Planning Commission 9/4/84 'V -656, SDR -1580, Pacifi(-"_oast Investments, Oak Street Page Six M. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street. N. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Access Road Construction. 0. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. P. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improve- ments to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. Q. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the re- quired improvements marked "D.I.A." R. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required im- provements. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DTVTSTON OF TNSPFCTTnM .gFRVTCPq A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional. 1. Foundation B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earth work quantities). 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.). 3. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. 4. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sewer service shall be provided to both dwellings in conformance with the policies and ordinances of County Sanitation District No. 4. B. All existing sewer connections not in conformance with district requirements shall be terminated. C. Consider the ideas outlined in the district's letter dated August 22, 1984. Report to Planning Commission 9/4/84 V -656, SDR -1580, Pacifi�-"oast Investments, Oak Street Page Seven V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT A. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 122% without adhearing to the following: 1. Driveways having slopes between 122% to 15% shall be surfaced using 21-,,inches of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base. 2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 172% shall be surfaced. using 4 inches of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced to 4 inch aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length. 3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. B. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 21 feet. C. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification and comply with the requirements of the district outlined in its letter dated August 16, 1984. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION A. Design Review Approval required on Lot B prior to issuance of permits. B. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances or shown as removed on the approved site plan. C. Both dwellings shall be accessed by a single, common driveway. Revised plans showing this shall be submitted for staff review and approval. D. The existing accessory structure which encroaches into the sideyard setback of Lot B shall be removed or relocated in accorda ce with ordinance requirements. Approved: Michael Flores Planner MF /sw Agenda: 9/12/84 ,40 RESOLUTION NO. SDR- 1580 -1 u RESOLUTION DENYING TENTATIVE MAP OF�PSi% H PACIFIC COAST INVESTMENTS WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of 2 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SDR - 1580., of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed sub- division, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is not consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is not compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the approved Staff Report dated - --- - -- ,and/or the findings.on the reverse page, being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received.and considered the Ct= (Negative Declaration) prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) and (b) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval-should not be granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the lst day of August , 19 84, and is marked Exhibit "B in the hereinabove referred to file be and the same is hereby denied. The rationale of said denial is as more particularly set forth on Exhibit - - - - - -- attached hereto and incorporated herein be reference, and the approved minutes. The.above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the (Planning Commission) (�L,�C�X�b?XX�?tXX:b??f.Yj at a meeting there- of held on the 12th day of September 19 84, at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, Crowther and..Harris NOES: Commissioners Peterson and McGoldrick ABSENT: Commissioners Schaefer and Siegfried ADVISORY AGENCY w Chairman VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO.V -656 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILE NO.: V -656 WHEREAS, the City,.of Saratoga Planning Commission has received the application of PACIFIC COAST INVES'1'2'►S for a Varianr -a to allDW the creation of a two -lot subdivision with one lot ha vinq minimirn iritl, of fia cwhare 85' is required and WHEREAS, the applicant (hag) (has not) met the burden of proof required to support his said application; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for .the Variance be, and the same is hereby (g ca&) -c (denied) subject to the following conditions: Per Exhibit "B ". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that &iXl&t�IbIX�X�iC�II;�I�€X3�3��I )b=M(XAEY,X XIXOM�X&X ckXI&04XIK(Xa) (the Planning Commission could not make all of.-the requisite findings), and the Secretary be, and is s hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12th day of September 19 84 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, Crowther and Harris NOES: Commissioners Peterson and'McGoldri ABSENT: Commissioners Siegfried and Schaefer ATT ST : Lu__� Chairman, Planning Commission Secretary, Planning Commissi.on Planning Commission ( C Page 9 Meeting Minutes 9/12/34 17a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1.530 - Pacific Coast Investments 17b. V -6S6 - Pacific Coast Investments, Request for Variance and Tentative 17c. SDR -1530 - Building Site Approval to allow the creation of a two -lot subdivision with one lot having a minimum width of 68 ft. where 85 ft. is required in the R- 1- 10,000 district at 14732 Oak Street The project was explained by Staff, who indicated that, because of the unusual shape of the lot, they are able to make the findings for the variance and recommend approval, and also recommend approval of the Building Site Approval. They noted the correspondence received on the project. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that she did not feel there was any effect on the neighbors by adding a second story to the building. She describe the lot and stated that there appears to be a second story on the house furthes from Oak Street. Staff clarified that the neighbors are not concerned that the existing building would be expanded; they are concerned that either the exist- ing building would be converted to a guest house or accessory structure and some new larger building would be built further back on the lot. They noted that there would be a public hearing for design review if that happened. The public hearing was opened at 10:02 p.m. Warren Heid, the architect, described the proposal. He addressed the condition of the Staff Report, stating that he feels they should have two driveways. He also addressed the 14 ft. driveway and turning radius under the Fire District conditions, which would seem appropriate for a single driveway going to the rear. Wells Marvin, the owner, discussed the request for two driveways. Staff des- cribed the plan for the common driveway. Jean Bogosian, 20630 Lomita Avenue, stating that she was also representing the Hopkins, their neighbors. She summarized their letter, expressing opposition and concern that at some future date it will be developed as condos or a two - story house. Susan McChesney, 20620 Lomita Avenue, stated that they had just purchased the Lawrence property and submitted a letter. She expressed concern that once a variance is given for the road, that it could continue back. She questioned real use of the property. Jerry Girley, the neighbor next door, expressed concern about the granting of a variance of this magnitude. He stated that the applicant knew what the stan- dards of the City were when they bought the property. He described the lot, indicating that it is very deep and narrow. He indicated that a two -story home on the existing location of the cottage would bother him. He submitted letters of concern from the neighbors. Mr. Girley also expressed concern about two oak trees in front of this property which will be affected by any additional drive- way and traffic. He added that this is now a very quaint and unique house and they are planning to change this home drastically. He commented that the pro- ject is not compatible with the thinking of the neighborhood, and lie cannot believe that the Commission would grant a variance of this size. Mr. Girley clarified that the adding of a second story would impact his privacy, rather than his view. Discussion followed on the second unit on the lot. The other substandard lots in the area were addressed by Staff. Commissioner Crowther indicated that lie opposes this type of subdivision with a substandard lot that is a flag lot. lie stated that it seems to be poor planning practice. Wells Marvin commented that the existing'second unit is already twO - story, with a total height of about 20 ft. He added that there are a lot of lots in that area that are less than 8S ft. The ownership of the lot was discussed, and it was clarified that Pacific Coast Investments is the owner of the lot. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he cannot make the findings for the vari- ance. lie stated that, although lie thinks there are substandard lots in the neighborhood, he would question whether there are substandard flag lots. lie added that lie thinks it is poor planning, and he would not create a flag lot ''3.�, by granting a variance on width. Planning Commission Page 10 Meeting Minutes 9/12/34 V -656 and SDR -1580 (cont.) Commissioner Harris agreed. She added that there is already the second unit and it sounds like it could be legitimized. She commented that she feels that is a privilege that the owners have and it doesn't require the Commission to make the variance. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she "was having a diff.iculttime with this -- because'she thinks it is a special circumstance. She commented that she think the Commission would be denying this owner the privilege that others on the street have. She added that she feels very strongly that there be one driveway and she does not see the problem with the flag lot if you have one driveway, because it is not that different from any of the other substandard lots. She commented that, as far as what is going to happen with the property in the future, although her neighborhood is very sensitive to that, she cannot see denying something on the basis of what might be. She added that she would be able to make tire findings for the variance. Commissioner Burger indicated that she was also have some problem with this, in both directions. Regarding Commissioner McGoldrick's concern about the driveway in particular, she thinks the impervious coverage will be increased with one driveway as opposed to two. She stated that her major concern focuses around, although it may not be valid, who owns the land. She commented that she feels a lot better about an individual owner coming in and asking for a lot split, when he intends to maintain title to the land, rather than Pacific Coast Investments or a similar company owning the land. She indicated that she could not make the findings and would be voting against it. Commissioner Crowther moved to deny V -656, on the basis that the necessary findings cannot be made. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 3 -2, with Commissioners Peterson and McGoldrick dissenting. Commis- sioner Crowther moved to deny SDR -1580, per Exhibit B. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 3 -2, with Commissioners.McGoldrick and Peterson dissenting. The 10 -day appeal period was noted. 18a. A -1007 - Joseph $ Sharon Schauf, Request for Design Review Approval 18b. V -661 - to allow a second story addition to an existing one story residence and Variance Approval for the existing one -story structure that maintains a 50 ft. setback where 60 ft. is now required at 19965 Douglass Lane in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district Staff explained the proposal, stating they are unable to make the findings for the Variance and recommends denial. They added that if the Commission is able to make the findings for the Variance, they are able to make the findings for the Design Review and would recommend approval of it. Commissioner McGoldrick gave the Land Use Committee report, indicating that there is a great deal of mature landscaping on all sides and no privacy impacts. She commented that, although Staff must go by the ordinance as it is, she feels that the Com- mission is changing the ordinance and shetcan make the findings. The public hearing was opened at 10:40 p.m. Oscar Sohns, architect, described the project. lie submitted an aerial photo- graph, displaying the fact that it would be extremely difficult for this addi- tion to be seen from most areas. He added that they feels that, since the ordinance is being considered for change, the one -story portion that is there should not be removed just to satisfy this 60 ft. setback. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V -661 and A- 1007, per the conditions of the Staff Report elated September S, 1984, making the following findings: Common privilege - Within as -long a time as it takes for the ordinance to be changed this will be a privilege glranted in common, and therefore not a special privilege. The addition would have no privacy impact and it is on the front of the house. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously 5 -0. Commissioner Crowther stated that he voted for it, but lie does not think it is a good idea to make such findings contingent on an ordinance we haven't made yet. Ile added that he had other reasons on which lie could make the findings. Commissioner McGoldrick agreed, stating that if there had not been a strong :fi:-�r. ? ,tom Date Received Hearing Date: Fee ` p-d1v CITY USE ONLY APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: J4 c..('rL C0,54 '1' hvc .)3 y".c,,,1t Address: 3 3 (l(��u ( L +� S� i �t Q L0) Gu 1os 30 Telephone: 0y 35Y — yS Name of Applicant: P T o Ve)'f mer(l f Project File No.: V 6 S �, Project Address: 7 31 Cc' K St Su "I o 9 ci Project Description: gc41ye) U,; V';0-,1,Y ay(� yiJio 0�, tvJo ywu 1,rS Decision Being Appealed: D(11(al or- 1/0r1on., 0VUJ Suk di si�n Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): _tvs ,Q�r�(Cufiu.� ivu5 huf A6(L /.� Hove u %ill ht,t,�l.�hy ,J3 I'VC, OF t P) uVInt. l� ivMP"IS /u"A Mck"hev 4.(rr dbS-e tt. .A 15o S{V(Vv( ntr)hhoei or fkc Pra ccf ��5 1h 1 °J✓'YV`u�lV►� Uhv�E Our 1K�(tir C- pv�Ct1'►11n� �C �Ort(�Y'u�r Or- 10 r'c -tX, s��y��, ''►, �1 . Vxe0 -iv" t%.il( ,. -' - I,v�aar$�or.t�ix5.1 t u h C t r "I i p l f 'il`c /I (i y h h J rS W► i S Appellant's Signature *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF HE DATE OF THE DEC SIGN. WARREN B. HEIR AIA A N D A S S O C I A T E S A R C H I T E C T S • P L A N N E R S 14630 BIG BASIN WAY a P.O. BOX 14 a SARATOGA e CALIFORNIA 95070 a 867 -9365 March 30, 1984 Planning Commission of City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Commission: The following information is presented to you as the findings for the request for a variance for the property of Pacific Coast Investments at 14732 Oak Street, Saratoga, CA. t-D pemut an easement of 20' over the front portion of his property to permit the long and narrow lot to be split into Parcel A and Parcel B, with two existing residential buildings being on each lot. 1. ,A strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified reg- ulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance because the physical shape of the property, 88.775' wide by 552.74' deep, is large enough to be div- ided into two parcels for the zoning, but is not wide enough to maintain the 85' lot width with an easement for the rear driveway under the inteepretation of side yard in the Definitions of the zoning Ordinance. 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appli- cable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district in that the property has existed prior to the formation of the City of Saratoga when properties in this general area, but not in other R- 1- 10,000 districts, were subdivided into narrow sites due to the normal layout in earlier days. 3. A strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified re- gulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district as there is a lot to the rear of this property that is served by an easement on a lot facing Lomita Avenue with a width of only 76' including the easement. 4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special pri- vilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district as the same condition exists as mentioned in No. 3. 5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the property is adjacent to Madronia Cemetery to the southwest and none of the residences facing Lomita and abutting this property to the south- east are within 100' of the adjacent property line. The two residential buildings are in existance, and any additional construction would conform to the present building lines, except that a new garage will be added in front of the residence on Oak Street, thus removing an existing garage near the easterly property line. Planning Commission Variance - 14732 Oak Street, Saratoga, CA. March 30, 1984 - Page 2. The intent is to provide Parcel A at the front of the property with 13,005 sq.ft of area and Parcel B at the rear of the property with 36,063 sq.ft. of area. The cottage at the rear will be the residence for Parcel B and will not damage or change the present intensity of view or use, or cause any loss of privacy. Your assistance and consideration of this project is appreciated, and I will be happy to meet with any of the Commissioners at the site. warren B. Held WBH:hw cc: Pacific Coast Investments Sept. 6, 1984 r?ECsEIVED Planning Commission SEP U 6 , j�� City of Saratoga Saratoga, CA-95070 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMFnI- Re: y -656, SDR -1580 Pacific Coast Investments, 14732 Oak St. We are opposed to the granting of the above- mentioned subdivision and variance on the following grounds: Construction of an additional structure on the back lot, although not presently proposed, will have an adverse impact on the view and privacy of the three residences bordering on the back lot (referenced on your map as Hopkins, Bogosian, and Iawrence). The following are issues critical to this decision: 1. Forum for discussion: Although we realize that any new building that would be constructed on the back lot would be subject to design review and a bublic hearing, we believe that due to the unusual shape of the lot (406'X881), the choice of design for a potential structure would necessarily be limited to a two- story, or split -level house. We understand that the Fire Department requires a 32 foot radius turnaround, and even if that were to be modified, the driveway turnaround combination would most likely necessitate the design of a two -story structure, especially of 10 foot setbacks were to be maintained. Therefore, in the absence of any realistic possibilities two -story house, the issue of design of a potential structure becomes one and the same as the issue of subdivision /variance It would seem highly unlikely. and indeed unreasonable from t other than a effectively approval. of the land, and then turn around and deny him /her the opportun the only type of house the lot could realistically accomodate. subdivision itv to build Another factor suggests that the issue of design of potential structure should be addressed here: In the plans accompanying the application for the proposed subdivision, the owner includes a proposal for an addition to the existing d,tructure on the back lot. Although we understand that this building addition will not be reviewed at this time, nevertheless, it has been presented for consideration as part of the overall plan for subdivision. The plans call. for an addition of approximately 800 sq. feet, for a total of approximately 1600 sq. feet. There is a question as to whether this structure as proposed in fact represents the best use of the land from the standpoint of a potential buyer. The maximum floorspace for a house in this zoning district is 3500 sq. feet. The question arises how useful, and indeed how saleable this lot would be with a small house and over 300 feet of unused back lot. The construction of a larger residence on the back of the lot, with the conversion of the present structure to a guest house, might be considered more efficient use of the land by a potential buyer. To conclude, there is reasonable doubt as to whether the plans that have been presented represent the actual use of the land by a potential buyer. It is our position that due to the shape of the proposed back lot, any new structure built. on that lot would most likely be a two -story p. 2 structure, so,,.therefore the iumpact of that structure on the neighboring properties becomes a critical issue in the granting of the subdivision and variance. 2. Impact of a two - story structure on neighboring properties: Privacy: A two -story structure would adversely affect the privacy of the Hopkins, Bogosian, and Lawrence properties. None of these properties have vegitation tall enough to screen out a two -story house, and given the fairly steep slope of the land, the inclusion of a vegitation screen would be marginally effective at best. Furthermore, a tall vegitation screen would block out needed sunlight in the rear portions of the yards. There are two large black walnut trees on the back lot of the proposed subdivision. Since they are decidious trees, they offer little visual protection in winter. If the two trees were to be removed for the construction of a house, the neighboring lots would have even less protection. View: Both the Lawrence and Bogosian houses are designed to accomodate the view of the hills. A two -story structure would most seriously obstruct the view of the Bogosian residence, as it is a one -story house. Slope of the ground is the controlling factor. If there were a gentler slope, privacy and view would not be so greatly affected. It has been the policy of the City of Saratoga to allow growth consistent with sound planning principles which have maintained a high quality of life unequalled in Santa Clara County. So far, the City has not approved any structure in this neighborhood which has affected privacy and view to such a great degree as would a two -story structure on the proposed lot. We respectfully request the Commission to deny the application for subdivision and variance. Signed: Jean Bogosian 20630 Lomita Av. Saratoga, CA 95070 C C September 10, 1984 Members of the Planning Commission, City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: V -656, SDR -1580, Pacific Coast Investments, 14732 Oak Street; Notice of Objection to Application for Variance Ladies and Gentlemen: As homeowners whose property is contiguous with the subject parcel, we have grave concerns over the above referenced application for variance, and therefore we are submitting this letter in strong objection thereto. As you will note from the attached map, our property designated as Item 9 is contiguous with the subject parcel, designated as Item 4. In addition, you will note that properties designated as 5, 10 and 11 would also be directly effected by the granting of a variance. Briefly, we first became concerned with the subject application when we noted that the applicant was Pacific Coast Investments. Since we have been living Lomita, the owner of the property as we understood it, and based on representations by him, was Sven Tveter. We have reviewed the files located at the City regarding this application and it appears that Mr. Tveter is not listed on any of the forms, but that Pacific Coast Investments is consistently listed as the applicant and owner. Many of the neighbors have called Pacific Coast Investments as a result of this notice and have been told that actually the president of the company owns the property. However, according to a local title company, Mr. Tveter is currently the owner of the property. In addition to the ownership problem which is by no means of little concern -to us, there have.been serious misrepresentations as to the proposed division of the lot in question. For the last several years Mr. Tveter has approached us and has asked us both in person and through his realtor to sell off a portion of our property running from Lomita back to his parcel so that he could represent to the City dual access to that property. According to Mr. Tveter, he has always intended to ask the City for approval to build condominiums. Naturally, we have consistently said no to this offer to purchase and would hope that the City would never allow the building of condominiums in this residential area. In addition, Mr. Tveter has approached us on several occasions C City of Saratoga September 10, 1984 Page Two regarding signing a petition agreeing that he should be allowed to subdivide his property. Very recently Mr. Tveter approached us with a map which he represented to be the proposed division of,.the lot. The map indicated and indeed Mr. Tveter explained that he was applying to the City to divide the property into two lots that ran from Oak to the very back of the property line, e.g. two lots narrow in width and long in length. We checked with the City this week and it appears that the application to divide the property is such that the two lots will not be divided into two equal long, thin lots but.instead will be divided into a small lot at the front of the property and a large lot on the back. As you are aware, the building indicated on the application is merely proposed. We believe that if the variance is granted, the applicant, who we also believe is the builder, will apply to the City to build a large structure located in the middle of the property. Again, as you will note from the attached map, this would have a direct impact on our property. In addition, it would have a significant impact on the environment. We believe that anymore building on this lot would effect the soil in the area. In addition, our property currently serves as a feeding ground for a family of deer and raccoons in the Spring, Summer, Winter. Lastly, any structure built on the lot could have a potentially damaging effect on our view of the hills. When we bought our property, we reasonably relied on the zoning in the area and the fact that the lots would not be subdivided. We are concerned that if the planning commission does grant a variance at this time, their hands may be tied if the owner of the property later applies for approval to build. Our concern is that at the variance stage the planning commmission does have discretion and does have strict limits within which it must formulate a decision. However, once the owner obtains approval and gets beyond this stage, the City, as we have seen so often lately, would be hard pressed to deny them the right to build a large structure on the property, as long as the set -back requirements are met. It is our opinion that variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall only be granted when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surrounding, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property C C City of Saratoga September 1, 1984 Page Three of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Any variance granted should be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. It is our opinion, that a variance cannot be granted in this specific fact situation according to the definition set forth above. A variance is intended to alleviate a situation in which uniform zoning for an area includes a parcel which is different from others in the area. As is clear from the attached map, the parcel in question is not different from the other parcels in the area. Our lot, and indeed most of the lots are very deep thin lots. We relied on this zoning in fact when we bought our property. We ask that the Planning Commission consider the following standards when it considers approving a variance for the subject property: 1. That the variance have no adverse effect on the public; 2. That the variance have no adverse effect on neighbors and; 3. That the property be such that it is eligible for a variance. We do not believe these standards are met with respect to the application submitted by Pacific Coast Investments, and indeed upon a review of the subject property itself. With respect to the requirement that the variance have no adverse effect on the public, we believe that it would be contrary to the intent and the spirit of the zoning ordinance in this area. There are several lots in the area which have second units located upon them. If each and every neighbor was granted a variance, and indeed this case may set a precedence for such relief, then the area would be comprised of much smaller lots. This is not consistent with the spirit of the zoning ordinance in the Lomita /Oak Street area. We believe that the effect on the whole concept of zoning should be considered by the Planning Commission when they consider this application for variance. The neighbors' interest is an important factor to weigh when considering the propriety of a variance. We believe that despite the merits of the application, the presence of � C City of Saratoga September 10, 1984 Page Four objecting neighbors should make it less desirable to obtain a variance. Our property, which is contiguous with the subject property, would be directly effected by the division into parcel A and parcel B. In fact, a variance would be inconsistent with our property interest. The value of our property we believe would be significantly reduced if the variance is granted. This is especially so where as here, the City cannot guarantee that a large two -story structure will not be built which is placed directly in front of our back property line. In fact, we believe that the variance would have a depreciating effect on all the neighboring property, as lots designated as 9, 10, and 11 currently enjoy a view of the mountains. There is no necessity to grant the variance in this case in order to bring disadvantaged property up to the level of reasonable use enjoyed by other neighboring property. All of the property in this area is zoned for a single family residence, with lots consisting of a minimum width. There are no other lots in the area that have been subdivided. Property zoned for a large lot, single family use, is not entitled to a multiple family use. The owner /applicant in this case has indicated that if the variance is granted, they will sell off the larger parcel, e.g. parcel B for a very high price. We believe that the application for a variance is not an effort to alleviate a hardship, but is in effect an effort to make a significant amount of money by obtaining a change in'the zoning as to this lot. We believe that the City could try to condition the approval of a variance on the fact that no new structures would be added, and upon the fact that the existing structures, while they could be improved, could not be moved. However, we are wary as to the legal effect of such conditions, and whether the City could properly impose them. - Clearly then the variance in this case would have a significant effect on our neighboring property and on the other neighboring parcels in the area. Even if a variance has no harmful effect on the public or the neighbors, we do not believe it is proper to grant a variance unless the property is unique in some way so that the zoning restrictions cause unusual hardship. In this case, since all the other property is subject to the same zoning restrictions, and indeed since the neighboring property is similar in shape, there is no unusual hardship imposed on the subject property. The property in question City of Saratoga September 10, 1984 Page Five is not special, unique, exceptional, or extraordinary in the sense that a variance should be granted. In addition, the standard of hardship with regard to applications for variances relates to the property, not to the person who owns it. We believe that the application filed in this case may be the result of personal financial hardship. However, this-is not a ground for the approval of a variance. The zoning in this area may reduce the values of the properties in the respect that if all the landowners were allowed to subdivide their property, they could sell it off piece by piece for a large profit. However, this is not considered a valid hardship under variance standards. Because of the concerns we have as to the proper ownership of the property and as to the misrepresentations directly to us with respect to the proposed division of the property and the application that was submitted to the City, we strongly object to allowing Pacific Coast Investments to obtain a variance. In addition, based upon the information set forth in this correspondence, and based upon the information contained on the application located in the City's files, we do not feel that any of the standards for granting a variance have been met. To the contrary, we believe that the specific directives against granting a variance all exist in this case. Very truly yours, JIM & JANE HOPKINS 20650 Lomita Avenue Saratoga Hand Delivered i (D CD cr- 0 O X. /55.519_ O L/ Y= 278445 of FICE Planning Commision City of Saratoga Saratoga, CA. 95070 �t 1� September 12, 1984 Re: y -656, SDR -1580 Pacific Coast Investments, 14732 Oak St We are opposed to the proposed variance for the same reasons that were stated in a letter to the commission from JEAN BOGOSIAN 20630 LOMITA AVENUE. Basically those reasons are that it is highly impropbable considering the value of the'lot in question, that if a variance were approved, that the Pacific Coast Developement Company would limit its construction on said property to an 800 sq. ft. addition. The probability of a two -story structure directly behind either the Bogosian's residence, or ours, if this requested variance is passed is highly objectionable. We have recently purchased the property listed under the name Lawrence at 20620 Lomita Avenue. Two of the main selling points were privacy and an unobstructed view of the Saratoga foothills. It would be very distressing to have both these bent-fits negated by this proposed variance. Hopefully the City of Saratoga will continue to do Sts best to maintain the high quality living environment which makes Saratoga such a desirable place to live. Signed' t%'����� % /:�y�` I',, ichael J. McChesney San M. McChesney X0620 Lomita Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 . . A TfIE GOOD GOVERNMENT GROUT' of Saratoga, California, Inc. P. O. Box 371 Saratoga, California 95070 October 9, 1984 To: Saratoga City Council Subjects Appeal of Pacific Coast Investments from Planning Commission Denial Regarding Site at 14732 Oak Street. v -656, SDR -1580 The Board of Directors of the Good Government Group urges that you uphold the Planning Commission in its denial of a variance and t entative site approval for property at 14732 Oak Street. The request would allow two lots i•.ith a width of 68 feet where zoning regulations require 85 feet. We feel that 68 feet is far too narrow for the lot width and should not be accepted. This is particularly true because the back lot would be a flag lot. Although there are other lots in the neighborhood that are less than the minimum 85 feet wide, these lots were created many years before the incorporation of Saratoga. They are legal non - conforming lots fofmed under County regulations rather than under City of Saratoga rules. Please uphold the present Saratoga regulations and deny the appeal. Sincerely, Charles H. Robbins, President Good Government Group Saratogans in action since 1957. October 10, 1984 Jim and Jane Hopkins 20650 Lomita Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 City Council City of Saratoga Re: Appeal of Denial on Variance of Lot Width and Subdivision of Lot into two lots, V -656, SDR -1580 Ladies and Gentlemen: As homeowners whose property is contiguous with the subject parcel, we objected to the proposed split of the lots at the planning commission stage. Since the decision of the Planning Commission is being appealed, which decision we fully support, we would again like to voice our objections. Attached is a copy of the letter we submitted to the Planning Commission which details our concerns. Specifically, we feel that a variance is not justified in the case at hand. We have done a considerable amount of research in the area and there is significant case law to back up the propositions set forth in our September 10 correspondence. The property in question is not unique when you look at other property. In addition, a variance would have an adverse effect on the neighbors, and possibly on the public. Lastly, we do not believe that the property is eligible for a variance. If the proposed division was to divide the lot into two narrow deep lots, our feelings might be different. Such a division was originally proposed to us, but upon reviewing the files at the Planning Department, we discovered that the division on file was quite different. Also attached is a letter which we received from Pacific Coast Investments, apparently the current owner of the property. We were very disturbed to receive this letter as it sets forth a parade of horribles and implies that if we don't support the proposed division, we may end up with a large house or condominiums for elderly residents. We are specifically referring to Page two, paragraph three wherein Mr. Jeffs states that there are some voters and planners who would like to see such a site developed as condominiums for elderly residents. We firmly believe and hope that if such a proposal were ever drafted, the neighbors in the area would have ample opportunity to discuss and object. We believe that the letter written by Pacific Coast Investments City Council Page 2 is unfair in that it implies that if we do not support the plan for variance, we will probably have a far worse proposal forced upon us. As stated in our previous letter, we believe that granting a variance in this case would establish a dangerous precedent. Nearly every week we read in the Saratoga paper of foreclosures. It seems unreasonable to allow parties to subdivide their lots in an effort to clear up a loan default. If the variance is granted in this case, it is our opinion that the City Council and Planning Commission would be hard pressed to deny others variances to help them out of financial problems, especially where the property is not particularly unique. We do not believe that the grant of this variance would probably remove the chance of a higher density use within the foreseeable future, as the letter of Pacific Coast Investments suggests. If the division is granted, we see no hindrance to Pacific Coast Investment selling the property, specifically the large lot, to a developer who could tear down the small existing structure and build a very large house. The division as filed with the Planning Commission proposes construction. However, there is no guarantee or covenant that this is the only construction that would be conducted. We believe that the property could be sold to someone who could do whatever construction they thought necessary as long as within the City's planning guidelines. We might feel differently with respect to this variance if the division were as originally proposed to us, e.g. two narrow very deep lots. However, by the very division that is proposed, we feel strongly that other construction plans are anticipated. If the division is granted, the neighbors are left with no recourse to prevent the construction of a major structure on the premises. The parties involved in the request for the lot split have not been willing thus far to even suggest a covenant restricting building. Mr. Jeffs suggests in his correspondence that the prior owner received eleven supporting signatures to the proposal. We too were approached with a petition to sign in support of a proposed division. However, as detailed in our previous letter, the proposed division was signifantly different from that currently on file with the Planning Commission. In fact, we -4► d City Council Page 3 did not sign the petition because we did not want to be placed in the position of signing a petition for a lot split when the actual lot split proposed and filed with the City could be quite different than what was represented to us. In addition, we would submit that many of the eleven signatures received were probably from neighbors whose property was not adjacent or contiguous with the subject property, and thus these neighbors are not directly effected by the division. Very truly yours, JIM & JANE HOPKINS A. 20630 Lomita Av. Saratoga, CA 95070 Oct. 9, 1984 City Council City of Saratoga Saratoga, CA 95070 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: V -656, SDR -1 80 Pacific Coast Investments, 14732 Oak St We are writing to advise you of our opposition to the variance and subdivision proposal by Pacific Coast Investments, 14732 Oak St. As next -door neighbors to the proposed development, we believe that the sub- division of the land will be detrimental to the neighborhood. We ask that you carefully consider the following issues, and urge that you uphold the Planning Commission's decision of Sept. 12, 1984 to deny the variance and subdivision. Conditions for a Variance do not Exist At least two of the five conditions necessary for the granting of a variance do not exist in this case. It is our understanding that all five, conditions must be satisfied in order for a variance to be granted. Common Privilege: - The zoning ordinance states that a variance shall be granted when special circumstances applicable to the property including shape, topography etc. deprives the owner of privileges enjoyed by others in the vacinity under identical zoning restrictions. We maintain that there are no other existing lots in the neighborhood similar in shape to the proposed rear lot (flag lot). Therefore, the owner is not being denied any privilege shared by neighboring owners. In fact, the lot on which the variance /subdivision is proposed is similar in shape to lots surrounding it. The lots located at 14721 Oak St. (Gurley), 20650 Lomita Av. (Hopkins), and 20620 Lomita (McChesney) are also deep lots with orchard land behind the main residence. None of these lots have been subdivided, and each have a single family residence. We realize that there are lots of pubstandard width in the neighborhood, but ,thds6'lots were established before the zoning ordinance was passed. Most of these lots were established earlier in this century, and none exist in conjunction with a flag lot created by variance. Special Privilege: The zoning ordinance states that the granting of a variance shall not create a privilege not enjoyed by neighbors in the surrounding area within the same zoning district. The proposed variance, which essentially enables the owner to construct access to the rear portion of the property, will create a flag lot that other property owners of similar shaped lots cannot have. In turn, this will result in an opportunity for development not available to n6ighboring property owners. The Oak St. lot presently has two houses on the property: a main house facing Oak St., and a rear unit of 800 square feet of floorspace. Under the proposal outlined by Pacific Coast Investments, the rear unit would be expanded and would represent the main residence on the k_ p. 2 proposed rear lot. However, we can find nothing ih-the variance or subdivision laws which restrict the owner to only developing the existing rear unit. Since there exists.the minimum number of square feet in the rear lot, there is nothing preventing a potential buyer of the rear lot from building another structure on the rear lot in addition to the existing unit. The existing unit could be used as a guest house, and indeed the argument might' be made fori,legalizing it as a second unit (granny) on the grounds that is was an existing structure. In any event, once access to the rear lot is established by the granting of the variance for the underwidth front lot, there is a real potential for three residences on what is now one lot presently zoned for a single family residence. The owners of similar neighboring lots do not even enjoy the use of a second unit, let alone a third building. Further, we would like to note that if the owner of the land merely legalized the existing second unit, he would even now be enjoying an opportunity not available to his neighbors, given the limitations of the construction of new second units in the R -1- 10,000 district spelled out in the recently enacted second unit ordinance. Granting of the Variance would set a Precedent It has long been the objective of the City of Saratoga to maintain a high quality of life for the citizens of the city. In keeping with that objective, zoning ordinances were enacted. Among the purposes of the R -1- 10,000 zoning ordinance are included: " To preserve appropriately located areas for family living at a reasonable range ofnpopulation densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety." (Art. 3, Sec. 3.1a,-Saratoga City Code) " To ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling." (Art. 3, Sec. 3.1b, Saratoga City Code) It has been the policy of the city to avoid using the variance procedure to create substandard lots that would thwart the objectives of the zoning ordinance. In Haas (V -529, 1980) the city council on appeal denied a variance request for a 128 foot width where 150 was required (R- 1- 40,000) on the grounds that special privilege existed. Concern was voiced by council members that granting the variance would be creating a substandard lot. Even in Behel (V -549, 1981) where a variance was granted, the record shows that the council seriously considered the implications of setting a precedent of creating a;! .substandard lot, notwithstanding the fact that the five conditions for a variance existed in the case. To grant the variance to Pacific Coast Investments in this case would not only be creating an underwidth lot, it would be reducing the width of the lot from code specifications by a magnitude greater than either of the two cases cited above. The owner is asking for a variance of 20°6 under, required width 68 feet where 85 feet is required). In Haas 7V�.529, 1980) N `f P. 3 where variance was denied, the magnitude of variance on width was 15 %. In Behel (V -549, 1981) where variance was approved, the magnitude of variance on width was only 4 %. Furthermore, the § ubdivision in this case resulted in two lots almost identical in shape to the lots on either side of the original parcel. We hope that the City would not establish a precedent by approving a variance of magnitude and nature proposed by Pacific Coast Investments. Granting of a Variance and Subdivision would create a Hardship for Neighboring Landowners An additional structure on the rear lot of the proposed subdivision would interfere with the view and seriously affect.the privacy of the Hopkins, Bogosian, and McChesney properties bordering the lot to the north. Although we realize that the plans submitted by Pacific Coast Investments do not call for anything more than an addition to the existing second unit, nevertheless a potential buyer of the rear lot would not necessarily be bound to follow the plans of the present devdlopers. Mr. Michael Flores, staff planner, confirmed that once the variance and subdivision were granted by the City, the owner of the back lot could, subject to city design approval, construct an additional building,. When the shape of the Tear ~.lot is considered (88X400') along with fire truck access and minimum setbacks, it appears that the only structure that could be reasonably accomodated on that lot would be a two -story structure. This type of structure would adversely affect the views of at least two of the three Lomita Av. properties. -.,Both the Bogosian and McChesney buildings are designed to accomodate a vieV dt the surrounding hillsides. Due to the slope of the ground, a two -story structure would affect the privacy of all three of the Lomita Av. residences, especially in the back yards. We do not foresee that the City could reasonably deny an owner of the back lot the only type of structure that the lot could accomodate, after allowing the lot to be created in the first place. Since it appears that the lot can accomodate only one type of building (two - story), the issue of the adverse impact of that structure on neighboring properties must be considered when.a variance /subdivision is granted. We maintain that the back lot cannot reasonably accomodate an additional structure that would not create an undue hardship on the properties bordering the lot. It is interesting to note that the plans submitted with the variance subdivision application by Pacific Coast Investments call for an addition of approximately 800 square feet to the existing second unit, which presently is about 800 square feet in size, for a total of 1,600 square feet. Considering the fact that 3,500 square feet is the maximum allowable in the R -1- 10,000 district and that most of the neighboring structures equal or exceed 2,000 square feet, it seems highly unlikely that the proposed '1;600 square foot structure on the rear lot represents the best use of the property. Indeed, it is doubtful that a house of this size with accompanying land would be saleable in this neighborhood. The unusually small size of the proposed house strongly suggests the probability of an additional structure elsewhere on the lot, once access is established. In summary, we do not believe that the variance /subdivision should be granted. P. 4 First, the owners of the property are not being denied a privilege enjoyed by neighboring property owners. There are no flag lots in the neighborhood, and the present lot is not fundamentally different than other surrounding deep lots. Further, the granting of a variance would create a special privilege for the owner, allowing as many as three houses on what is now one lot in an R -1= 10,000 district. Second, the granting of the variance would be creating a lot fully 20% under the minimum width specified in the Saratoga City Code. This would run contrary to the long standing position of the City not to create substandard lots by the variance mechanism, and would establish a precedent detrimental to the well -being of the neighborhood and the rest of Saratoga. Third, the granting of the variance subdivision effectively opens the back lot to the construction of an additional structure. Due to the shape of the lot, this structure would necessarily be a two -story structure that would affect the view and privacy of the neighboring lots. For these reasons, we ask that the Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision of Sept. 12, 1984 to deny the variance and subdivision. Y s truly,, f Jean Bogosian We are opposed to the granting of a variance and subdivision at 14732 Oak St., Saratoga, to Pacific Coast Investments. The proposal calls.for a variance of 20% under minimum lot width. We believe that the granting of a variance and subdivision will establish a precedent which will be detrimental to this neighborhood and the rest of Saratoga as well. Recognizing the quality of life we have in Saratoga, we respectfully petition the Council to uphold the Sept. 12, 1984 decision of the Planning Commission denying the variance and subdivision. NAME ADDRESS ,Q CRI . 1 1211,2 a31- © ) o 24- e-1 lq72cl 0 0 K S(, (-t 1�17o? k4lt clan-e, <: 6 A: erz - 6 oat 01�C.22 S-;42A� S Av-� r-o 4 4 r et/ Ch?, If 0 • fi 4 n vn . Cxxvst Pacific Coast 349 North Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, California 95030 Telephone: 408/354 -4555 October 9, 1984 To: Saratoga City Council Re: 14732 Oak Street (Applications V -656 & SDR 1580) 1nv nt5 This application is to split a 50,000 sq.ft. lot into 2 lots, one of about 11,000 sq.ft., and the other of 39,000 sq.ft. The location is one of 10,000 sq.ft. zoning. The property is very unusual, 89 ft. x 550 ft. approximately, long and thin. There have been many discussions about this property, but to my knowledge our proposal is the first that has been formally made. Other suggestions have ranged from a dozen condominiums to demolishing the existing 2 structures and building a new 6,000 sq.ft. house. Our proposal is modest; to improve the house fronting on Oak Street, to improve and expand the rear house to 1,600 sq.ft., approximately and to create separate lots for each structure. Access exists at present, which will be widened to meet City requirements. Of the many suggestions, this proposal is thought to have the least impact on the neighborhood because it simply incorporates the existing structures, and-little physical change will result. It was also thought to have the best chance of prompt approval. The City Staff recommended approval, but we were surprised to find that some neighbors voiced objections, although 11 neighbors including a previous occupant of the house of one objector signed a petition of support. I think the staff have thoroughly described the issue of fairness in recommending the variance. From a planning standpoint, the extraordinary shape of this lot calls for a special approach which is what they gave it. The neighborhood objections do not center on the variance nor on our proposal, as made. The neighbors who wrote about the proposal seem to object only to what, might be built on the rear site, if our proposal is approved. I have tried to explain to tFiern that the possibility of any further lot split or higher density being proposed or approved once our proposal is adopted, would be extremely remote. The access allowed across the front lot would be for one rear lot only. A future owner of the rear lot would • have two almost insurmountable obstacles in trying to increase the density on that lot. 1 q • r To: Saratoga City Council October'9, 1984 • Page Two One, the City's ordinances would necessitate a wider access driveway and two, the access would be across another owner's land and this owner's approval would be required to widen the easement. I enclose a letter sent to the neighbors who objected (Hopkins, Bogosian, McChesney and Garley). I believe this gives a good background to the issue and also answers their legitimate concerns. There was clearly some misunderstanding about what we have proposed. I also hope to include a mdj showing the lot split at the rear of our property which allowed access over a less than minimum width lot to two rear lots. On one of these a two storey house was built in the early seventies hard up against the rear fence of this property, and a subsequent two storey addition over the garage was approved and built in the late seventies. This house certainly impacts the privacy of our property and that of the Iii. Ot U,.Wev w a 0 One last point, at the Planning Commission hearing, one member stated that she would view our application more sympathetically if a corporation was not applying. I do not feel that such considerations should apply in considering a planning request. Apart from this, we are a very small, two man company. We reluctantly obtained this property because of a loan default and are proceeding with an application that the previous owner would have liked to have made himself had he the funds. One result, if our proposal is • adopted, is that the previous owner will have the chance to own the front property where he and his family have lived for ten years. • • • 4 ..Dear Neighbors, Pacific . Coast 349 North Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, California 95030 Telephone: 4081354 -4555 October 2, 1984 Investments I am the President of Pacific Coast Investments (PCI), the company that now owns the Tveter property. I am also a neighbor of yours as I live at 205:00 Lomita Avenue, and a friend of Sven Tveter. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the recent Planning Commission meeting, but I have read the correspondence and wish to address your concerns. As I live in the neighborhood, I have many of the same concerns as you. Firstly, PCI is not a "large corporate developer ". We are a small investment company that has two active employees, Wells Marvin and me. We obtained title to Sven Tveter's property, reluctantly, as a result of a loan default. Although Sven had talked of many ideas for his property in the past, none had ever been presented for City approval. We reviewed all the possible options with Warren Heid, our architect, and decided upon one which we feel is about the most modest and one which would have the least impact on the neighborhood. I can appreciate some thinking that this is the "thin end of the wedge ", but it is not. In fact, if this proposal is adopted the chance of a higher density use is probably removed for the forseable future. Whereas if this proposal is not approved, there is a good chance that a less desirable plan, from the neighbors' standpoint might eventually be proposed by a subsequent owner and approved. Our objective is to dispose of the property and recover our invested capital as quickly as possible. In this instance, we are not seeking large profits. Unfortunately, both houses on the site need considerable work, especially if the rear house is to be legitimized as a "Granny" unit. The options we have are to sell the property "as is" (probably to someone else who will make another lot split proposal) or fix up the houses and sell, or demolish the houses and build a large new one, or split the lot, fix up the houses and sell as we have proposed. Without going into the economics in detail, I hope that you can see that if our proposal is denied, the option of pulling down both houses and rebuilding might compare favorably with fixing up the two existing houses. You are correct in assuming that a large two storey house probably would be built in such a case if not by us, by someone else. It would be hard to deny an owner permission to do this, as two storey houses already overlook the property - October 2, 1984 • Page Two notably the Hunter and McChesney properties. In addition the site is 50,000 sq.ft. in size in an area of 10,000 sq.ft..zoning. When the Hunter house and McChesney additions were built, there were no objections by,$v�z7veter on the basis of invasion of privacy. It would be hard to justifyius, or a subsequent owner, the same priviledge that has been afforded to others where the density proposal is less than zoning allows. Our proposal to split the lot is coupled with a proposal to expand the existing 2 storey rear house. This house was there before almost every house in the vicinity and is currently occupi6d. Expanding it by a modest amount surely has negligible impact. If it is remodelled and expanded, the possibility of it being torn down in " the future to be replaced by a larger house set further back is much less likely. Please be assured that our proposal is as presented. We have no plans to turn around and propose a new larger house later. The modifications to the front house and the rear house will be in good taste and.of high quality, they would only add value to neighboring property. A large (50,000 sq.ft.) site near the Village of Saratoga will always excite the interest of developers. There are also some voters and planners who would like to see such a site developed as condominiums for elderly residents. In that there are quite a few alternative access points to this property, such a development (even without . such access) could be proposed. Our proposal, again, would make such a prospect highly unlikely in the future as considerable investment will have been made in the ,existing structures, the rear.lot will be less than an acre and access from the front will already be restricted by the conditions of this proposal. Even though your concerns are centered naturally on what is ultimately built on the property, I would like to deal with the logic of the lot split from the standpoint of precedent. The planning staff have clearly laid out the reasoning otherwise, (unusual shape, zoning etc.) The precedent is immediatly relevant. To the rear of the property lies the - Hunter /Darlington properties. These structures, on flag lots, resulted from a lot split in the mid seventies where access is provided over a lot.of less than minimum width. An almost identical situation to this. Not only that, it led to a two- storey house being built hard up against this property. The two storey precedent was reinforced by the Lawrence's addition, as mentioned before. I can understand the concern if we were proposing high density condominiums on the site or a huge monster house. But is it not unfair to deny the same priviledge to a neighbor that has been enjoyed by other neighbors? In summary, I hope that you can see that our proposal is very modest, that the impact on neighbors and the environment has been very much taken into account and finally that the alternatives could ultimately be less desirable. • r' October 2, 1984 • Page Three The decision of the planning commission is being appealed to the City Council. From what I hear of what happened at the planning commission meeting, I feel that our proposal might have been rejected because of some misunderstandings. In one letter of objection it was stated that PCI had been contacted by other neighbors, this was not the case. Sven Tveter did speak to some neighbors about the proposal and received eleven supporting signatures (including the Lawrences before they moved). Sven has a continuing interest because he would like to continue living in his old house which he now rents. He will be afforded this opportunity to buy it back if and when we are able to split it off, as he might be able to handle the repurchase. I would like to give Sve'h and his family the chance to continue to live in their home, but I very much doubt that he or we will be able to do this, without a split of the property. If you have any questions about our proposal, please feel free to call me or Warren Heid (867 - 9365). My hone number is 867 - 4203.. Warren has suggested a meeting of concerned residents should there seem to be a need. I would welcome this. Yours sincerely, • Robin E. Jeffs • ,l PMIF- --)0 -Lev �.1°1CRl J G. - ,, c,:DuNT-r e:e\rir-^Tior-i c)ks, GT No- -4 517 E SLOPE .0022° IL ! Ozzl. (n 1075 Coh7C)Ufz, IH KiCl-- - OF-pl-LIL "TVK^44T - - �ITt JNI-QrP,- ION lo, 000 LOT 88. • 77,5* x . I,-, _ F. 7OTe\l- -XrT LOT p' 80.7'5' - Nei"I �a TOTAIL Lor P & L A-r4 D S (2 F--- Z.�r3�S OF' GDTLLIYY ( LP�KOS OF �AOPW-1?"'5 11.111 F v I C- IN I -Ir V^1- 6ri T. .5 � I Z-15 lbt-12! uv UT •4 C� —'br F1540V= LST or ^Ama- &i,�Lrr • P&NO1 rNj u fr 717�� GK--S& uv 14LrT Q L! rvm--� N i5r J~Lri rriiw- 0 zw --5, i cr LZ qu—L OF CITY Or SARA'IC GA A =TDA BILL NO. -7/1 DATE: October 17, 1984 DEPAMME�7r: Commity Services SUBJECT: Curfew (Anti- Loitering) Ordinance Issue Sunmary Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Recent case -law has found that curfew ordinances which restrict minors from being in public places under all circumstances during specified hours (e.g., 10 :00 P.M. ' to 5:00 a.m.) to be unconstitutional. Curfews which simply prohibit loitering in public places during specified hours are legal and enforceable, however.. Reccmrendaticn Staff reconmends Council schedule a public hearing so that the draft ordinance (attached) can be considered for adoption. The draft ordinance would make it illegal only for minors found loitering in public places between the hours of 10 :00 p.m. and 5 :00 a.m., and would increase the penalties for parents who knowingly allow their children to violate the law. Fiscal Impacts None crh ibits /Attachm-_nts 1. Staff report. 2. Correspondence dated August 15, 1984 from the City Attorney. 3. Draft ordinance prepared by City Attorney and proposed adoption. Council Action 10/17: Ordinance amended and set for public hearing 11/7. 11/7: Ordinance introduced 3 -0. 12/5: Ordinance 38.124 adopted 5 -0. P , 0 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon Martha Clevenger Virginia Laden Fanelli Joyce Hlava David Moyles October 10, 1984 To: Mayor & City Council From: Todd Argow Subject: Changes in Curfew (Anti- Loitering) Ordinance Purpose Staff requests that the City Council schedule a public hearing to consider changes in the City's curfew (anti- loitering) ordinance to improve its effectiveness and enforceability. Analysis Recent case -law has found "curfew" ordinances in their pure form to be an unconsititutional invasion of privacy. Local governments can no longer enforce ordinances which make it illegal for persons of any specified age to be found in a public place during certain hours. Local governments can, however, enforce ordinances which would make it illegal for minors to be found loitering in public places during certain specified times. Therefore, the old "curfew" laws are not enforceable, but "anti - loitering" laws are enforceable. The City Attorney has modified the City's existing ordinance so that it is not in conflict with existing case -law and would only prohibit minors from loitering in public places between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. Another change in the ordinance is an increase in the penalties for parents or legal guardians of minors who knowingly allow their children to violate the City's anti - loitering laws. Conclusion Recent court decisions have indicated that local governments can no longer enforce curfews which prohibit minors from being in public places during certain hours. Only loitering can be prohibited under such circumstances. The changes in the City's Code recommended by staff with regard to curfews would improve the enforceability and effectiveness of the City's anti - loitering laws. Tod rgow Community Services Director i' ATKINSON • FAI.ASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAUL B. SMITH 660 WEST DANA STREET ERIC L. FARASYN P.O. BOX 279 LEONARD J. SIEGAL MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 04042 HAROLD S. TOPPEL STEVEN G. BAIRD (415) 967 -6941 JACK L. BRIDGE GREGORY A. MANCHUK August 15, 1984 Mr. David Lapic Community Service Officer 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Dave: J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979) Re: Saratoga City Code Section 10 -2 through 10 -5, Curfew Regulations Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the above - referenced sections of the Saratoga City Code with particular concern being given to the constitutional validity of those code sections. It is my opinion that those code sections may be constitutionally enforced as written. However, I would also suggest that those code sections be amended to more closely follow the wording of other curfew ordinances which have been upheld by the California courts. In People v. Walton, 70 Ca1.App.2d Supp. 862 (1945), the defendant alleged that a Los Angeles County curfew ordinance violated Article I, Section 1, and Article III, Section 1, of the California Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The ordinance in question made it a crime for any parent, guardian or other person having the the legal care, custody or control of any minor under the age of sixteen years to allow or permit such minor to remain or loiter on any street or public place between the hours of 9:00 p.m, and 4:00 a.m. of the following day, unless accompanied by an adult having the care and custody of such minor, or unless the minor had in his possession a permit issued by the Sheriff showing the necessity of such minor to so use such street or public place. The court construed the words "remains upon" as meaning "to stay behind while others withdraw "; "to tarry "; "to stay ". The court determined that such a provision was aimed at preventing such minors from tarrying and staying unnecessarily upon the streets and public places, and did not restrict those minors who are using or are on such streets or places while actually in the process of going to or from places of business or amusement or otherwise. That ordinance also contained provisions for a parent or guardian of a, minor to make application with the Sheriff's Office for a permit allowing the minor to use the streets and public places by himself or herself during the restricted hours. The application requested standard identification information and an explanation as to why. the minor is required to remain or loiter on the streets and other public places during the restricted hours. The Sheriff was then entitled to grant such a permit if he found that it was "reasonably necessary ". The court upheld the permit portion of the ordinance against defendant's challenge that it was an arbitrary and unlawful delegation of discretionary authority to the Sheriff. However, it should be noted that the court did not require the permitting process in order to validate the curfew ordinance. Mr. David Lapic August 15, 1984 Page 2 In Alves v. Justice Court, 148 Cal.App.2d 419 (1957), the defendant challenged a City of Chico curfew ordinance as violative of Article I, Section 1, of the California Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That ordinance stated that "it shall be unlawful for any minor under the age of seventeen years of age of be in or on any public street, park, square or any public place between the hours of ten o'clock p.m. and five o'clock a.m. of the following day, except when and where said minor is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian having the care and custody of said minor, or where the presence of said minor in said place or places is connected with, and required by, some legitimate business, trade, profession, or occupation in which said minor is engaged." The ordinance further made it unlawful for an adult to aid and abet that type of activity and created a presumption that the parent or guardian having the care and custody of a minor aided and abetted the minor in any such violation. The defendant did not question the right of the City to adopt a curfew ordinance. Rather, the challenge concerned the extent to which the ordinance interfered with the exercise of the defendant's constitutional rights. In holding the Chico ordinance unconstitutional, the court distinguished the Los Angeles County ordinance adjudicated in People v. Walton. The Los Angeles County ordinance prohibited minors from remaining or loitering on public streets or in public places so as to prevent such minors from tarrying and staying unnecessarily upon the streets and public places, and did not restrict those minors who were using or in such streets and places while actually in the process of going to or from places of business or amusement or otherwise. However, the Alves court held that the Chico ordinance prohibiting minors from being "in or on" any public street or public place was too restrictive and did not have any real or substantial relationship to the primary purpose of the ordinance, thereby making it an unconstitutional invasion of personal rights and liberties. Neither the Walton nor Alves decisions have been overturned or modified by subsequent court decisions. (You advised me of a case involving a curfew ordinance in the City of Dixon, and I will review that case if you can provide me with a case book citation.) In applying those cases to Sections 10 -2 through 10 -5 of the Saratoga City Code, those code sections may be enforced to the extent that a minor is found to be "loitering" during the restricted hours. The remainder of the prohibitions and exceptions recited in Section 10 -2 could be deleted by amendment, the reason being that the additional prohibitions (namely, ". . . be in or upon, stroll, or play . . .") may fail under the Alves decision, and the recitation of specific exceptions may inadvertently create unintended loopholes. The "loitering" standards should be sufficient to permit the officers to adequately enforce the ordinance. An amended Section 10 -2 might also recite that the ordinance is for the protection of minors as well as for the protection of the community, and the ordinance should be drafted in more direct prohibitory language (i.e. "It shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor to . . ."). Finally, it is also recommended that Section 10 -5 be amended to increase the amounts of the fines imposed on adults responsible for allowing a minor to violate the curfew code section. f , Mr. David Lapic August 15, 1984 Page 3 In conclusion, the current Code Sections 10 -2 through 10 -5 are enforceable so long as they relate to minors loitering on the streets or in public places during the restricted hours. However, I recommend that Sections 10 -2 and 10 -5 be amended as discussed above. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter. SGB /d Very truly yours, STEVEN G. BAIRD Deputy Saratoga City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTIONS 10 -2, 10 -3, and 10 -5 OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 10 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE PERTAINING TO CURFEW REGULATIONS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Section 10 -2 of Article I of Chapter 9 of the Saratoga City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 10 -2. Loitering - Persons Under 18 Years of Age. It shall be unlawful and an infraction for any person under the age of 18 years to remain, stay, tarry or loiter in 'or upon any public street, avenue, highway, road, alley, park, playground or place of amusement or entertainment, vacant lot, or other unsupervised place, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. of the following day, unless such person is accompanied by a parent, guardian or other responsible adult having control or custody of such minor. SECTION 2: Section 10 -3 of Article I of Chapter 10 of the Saratoga City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 10 -3. Same - Responsibility of Parents & Guardians. It shall be unlawful and'an infraction for any parent, guardian or other adult person having the control, custody or care of any minor under the age of 18 years to permit, allow, or let such minor violate of Section 10 -2 of the Saratoga City Code." SECTION 3: Section 10 -5 of Article I of Chapter 10 of the Saratoga City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 10 -5. Same - Penalties. Each violation of the provisions of Sections 10 -2 or 10 -3 shall constitute a separate offense. Any minor violating the provisions of Section 10 -2 shall be dealt with pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare & Institutions Code of the State of California. Any parent, guardian or other adult person violating Section 10 -3 shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined $100.00 for the first conviction, $200.00 for a second Rev. 10/17/84 -1- conviction within a period of one year, and $500.00 for a third or subsequent conviction within a period of one year." SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty 30 days from and after the date of its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted this day of , 1984, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Rev. 10/17/84 &a MAYOR CITY OF SAR ICGA A =TDA BILL M. a- 1a SUBJECT: Purchase of Re- conditioned Emergency Power Generator Initial. Dept. HI C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue Summary During time of any local or wide spread emergency, the City of Saratoga is legally and primarily responsible for directing and coordinating relief operations to the community. Such operations will require a dependable source of electrical power to establish an emergency operating center in the event of a failure in the public power supply. The City does not have adequate capacity for such emergency power at the present time. The Emergency Planning Volunteer Coordinators have sought to meet this funda- mental need as a major objective. They have recommended a low cost and effective program for doing so by locating a source of a used re- conditioned generator which can be mounted on a City trailer. The full cost of the program is $5,100 which can be financed from the Equipment Replacement fund. Recommendation Authorize the purchase of a re- conditioned 12.4 KW generator and appropriate $5,100 from the Equipment Replacement Fund. Fiscal Imoacts There are no significant costs of the program beyond the initial purchase and installation. Maintenance and fuel costs are minimal. ilie equipment should retain its full value if properly stored and maintained. In time of an emergency, the immediate availability of the equipment could save considerable expense in renting or obtaining alternate power and could enable the City to maintain relief operations. i %h ib i is /Attactun-z2n is 1. Report from City Manager, 10/11/84 2. Draft report to City Manager from Emergency Preparedness Coordinator Council Action 10/17: Approved. 5 -0 with funding to cane from Capital improvement budget. A SA.R9 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 10/11/84 COUNCIL MEETING: 10/17/84 SUBJECT: Purchase of a Reconditioned Emergency Power Generator ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Issue The Volunteer Emergency Planning Coordinator has recommended that we purchase a reconditioned 12.5 KW electric generator to supply emergency power to the City's Emergency Operating Center (Community Center Building) and the City Hall. The need for this generator was not anticipated in the current year budget. The City Council would have to authorize the pur- chase at a cost of $5,200 and appropriate monies from the Equip- ment Replacement Fund. Background and Analysis Establishing an "operable" emergency operating center for the City is one of the major objectives determined by the Emergency Planning volunteers. Such a Center would be needed by the City during a time of local or widespread emergency for coordination and direction of relief operations to the community. There is no adequate facility available to us at this time. The volunteers have determined that the Senior Wing of the Community Center offers the best available facility for locating the EOC during an emergency and are now in the process of determining, gathering and storing equipment and supplies that would be needed. Representatives from both State and Federal emergency management assistance agencies have looked at the site and have approved its designation. However, it lacks a fundamen- tal requirement, which is a source of emergency power sufficient to operate during an emergency. The volunteers sought the advice of Herman Durell, a local electrical contractor on requirements for emergency power to operate the E.O.C. It was determined that a 12.5 KW electric generator would fully satisfy the needs. At present, the City has only one generator at 3.5 KW capacity which is not adequate. Having determined the need, the volunteers sought options for obtaining the required generator. A request for donation of a new generator, at a cost of $11,200 was included in "The Wish List" this past summer. Also, leads for obtaining "used" or re- conditioned generators were explored. While no one has responded to the Wish List request, several leads have been successful in locating used, reconditioned equipment at substantially reduced cost. The best of these sources is the Pacific Fruit Express Company in Tuscon, Arizona which has fully reconditioned 12.5 KW diesel generators at about one third the cost of new ones. PFE will deliver the generator to Watsonville and sell it to the City at a cost of $4,500. The volunteers estimate an additional cost of $600 to mount the generator on an existing City -owned flat trailer and to provide for the necessary connections to the power supply at the Community Center. Total cost of the project is estimated at $5,100, with the volunteers supplying the labor and skills for picking up the generator, mounting it on the trailer and making cross connec- tions available at the E.O.C. under Mr. Durell's supervision. The money for this project could be allocated from the City's Equipment Replacement Fund which has a current balance of $140,491. Mounting the generator on a City -owned trailer would provide mobility and flexibility for the generator that a fixed base mount would not provide. The generator could be stored and maintained at the service yard and moved to wherever it was needed. In addition, if maintained, the generator would retain its value and would not depreciate. Our experience has shown the public power supply is easily disrupted. During any sort of local or widespread emergency, having a standby emergency power source is essential to maintain- ing operations or directing and coordinating relief operations. The City's present capacity is inadequate and we could not rely on obtaining a generator from other sources at the time of need. The demand for such equipment would be widespread. In my opinion, the volunteers have determined a basic and fundamental need of the City and have found a cost effective alternative for meeting that need. Recommendation Authorize the purchase of a 12.5 KW reconditioned generator from Pacific Fruit Express and appropriate monies from the Equipment Re lacement Fund for the purchase. J ay Dernet C ty M ager lmc R 0 U G H D R A F T Memorandum For: City Manager From: Emergency Preparedness Coordinator Subject: Procurement of 12.5 KW Generator PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to outline a proposal for meeting our generator requirements, including ancillary equipment and housing. BACKGROUND Earlier this year, in consultation with Herman Durell of w � Saratoga Electric, we concluded thal�12.5gl5K is about the right size for W 0 our emergency generator to serve basic needs of the Sege Center (Z) A in the event of a power outage during a local emergency. !R e V learned of a source of used 12.5K generators salvaged from worn out f Pacific Fruit Express and similar railroad refrigerator cars. The source os "Johnny" Johnson, a master mechanic who works with the San Mateo County OES at the County Yard in Redwood City. We visited Johnson and looked over the generators which were available "as is" at about $1150. The generators showed considerable wear and affects of weather and we were of the opinion that extensive overhaul was probably required to meet our needs. No further action was taken. A second source of these same generators was discovered in Sacramento. Ed Hobday, who operates a construction equipment rental company at 3512 West Capitol Avenue, West Sacramento, has a warehouse with 60 - 70 salvaged generators, all of which are in operating condition. If they don't run when they're bought from PFE, he has a mechanic make repairs before placing them -2- on the floor in the warehouse. These generators also show wear and evidence of hard outdoor use. But some are obviously in reasonably good operating condition. The price is $2000 as is. We were of the opinion that one could be selected which would meet Saratoga needs. However, the total project would require additional equipment along with suitable housing. The 1984 Wish List includes a standby generator at $11,200. This Wa3^' [is based on an estimate for new equipment obtained from Air Cooled Engines, �)) 1076 N. 10th Street, San Jose (295 - 4789): 15KW water cooled diesel (Onan) w/batteries, silencer, rain cap, 15 gal. fuel tank $8700 Transfer panel and exercise clock 2500 ( 1� THE BASIC GENERATOR Invite Herman Durell and another volunteer who knows diesel engines to make a trip to Sacramento and assist,in selection of one of Hobday's generators. Take a City truck along and load up the one selected (weight about 1900 lbs.). Cost $2000, plus trip expense. ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT Exhaust Pipe and Muffler These parts are not salvaged and must be tailored to the new installation. z. Estimated cost $100 - 3 Battery and Wirings Estimated cost $150_ '. .' Fuel Tank 15 gallon capacity. Estimated cost $50 Housing Alternative A Build a "generator house" on a concrete slab to be located on the east side of the Senior Center next to the parking lot. U -3- Wood frame, wood siding to match senior center. Estimated cost of materials for an 8 x 10 house $250 Labor to be furnished. r Alternative B P UFQd CL a f' -off, -, generator on i+- with suitable rain protection. Store the trailer in the maintenance shed. In the event of emergency, move the trailer to a pre- selected location in the parking lot on the east side of the Senior Center ready to hook up.. :� Estimated cost �'�'`''t(1 PANELS AND CABLING Modifications would be needed in existing panels and cabling in the Senior Center vestibule. Depending on which housing alternative is adopted, additional cabling would be required with some type of panel at the generator to allow easy hookup. Estimated cost a� COST SUMMARY Basic Generator $2000 Procurement trip 60 (not including City truck) Ancillary Equiprient 00 J ` Panels and Cabling G 0 0 ' RECOMME,NDATION J Zr._ , 6 t ACE-:,,,DA BILL m. 117 �. •.- •; a- is CITY OF SAR IC QN Initia Dept. C. Atty. C. Mgr: SUBJECT: Reclassification of a Landscape Maintenance Worker position from a I to a II. Issue Sunmary The Director of Maintenance has recommended upgrading an existing Landscape Maintenance Worker position from a I to a II. It is believed this change would provide improved coordination of effort in the City's expanded median maintenance program and establish greater accountability for results. The need for this change was anticipated at the time the median maintenance program was expanded in August 1984, but no action was taken pending further analysis and cdeterrnination of work tasks and schedules. 'That analysis, now completed, appears to justify the recommended change If approved, the staffing levels would reflect changes previously approved by the City Cowzcil in 1978 but which were not fully implemented. Subsequent reductions in staffing levels, with resultant shifts in responsibility, also support the recommendation. Recommendation Approve a reclassification of an existing Landscape Maintenance Worker position from a I to a II level. Authorize an appropriation of approximately $2,850 from the budgeted General Fund operating reserve for the cost of the change for balance of the fiscal year. Fiscal Impacts She full annual cost of the recommended change is estimated at $4,275. It is believed this cost will be justified by improved productivity through better coordination of effort and increased accountability in the median landscape program. -hihits /Attachments 1. Report from City Manager, 10/10/84. 2. Parks Division Area of Responsibility of Staff 3. Areas of Responsibility by crew member and area member 4. Memo from Maintenance Director to City Manager, 8/21/84 5. from Roy Swanson to Dan Trinidad, 8/16/84 Ccurci I Action 6. Report to Mayor and Council, 8/31/84 10/17: Approved 5 -0. �14 O 3 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 10/10/84 COUNCIL MEETING: 10/17/84 SUBJECT: Reclassification of a Landscape Maintenance position from I to II ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Issue The Director of Maintenance has recommended that one Land- scape Maintenance worker position be reclassified from a I to a II level. The annual cost of this change is about $4,275. However, it is believed that change is necessary to maintain proper staffing relationships and would result in improved productivity and increased accountability in the Median Landscape Maintenance Program. Background and Analysis At present, the Building and Landscape Maintenance Division of the Maintenance Department is staffed as follows: Supervisor Maintenance III Maintenance II Maintenance I Japanese Garden Japanese Garden Custodian Specialist Caretaker Total 1 position 1 position 1 position 5 positions 1 position 1 position 2 positions 12 positions This change would not affect the total number of positions, but would increase the number of Maintenance II positions from 1 to 2 and reduce the number of I positions from 5 to 4. The monthly salary range for Maintenance II is $1,681 to $2,144 and for the Maintenance I is $1,448 to $1,847. The change is considered important for maintaining adequate lead and supervisory relationships among the landscape maintenance positions serving park and landscaped- median maintenance activities. The attached chart "Parks Division Areas of Responsibility of Staff" displays how the responsibilities are now divided among the authorized positions. As a result of recent upgrading of median maintenance activity directed by the City Council, there are two Maintenance I positions assigned fulltime to median maintenance work. Additional staff hours are allocated from among remaining maintenance positions to supply total labor hours needed for the authorized service levels. With only one Maintenance II level position, it is not possible to designate lead authority and responsibility for coordination of effort for both park and median maintenance activities. The Maintenance Director's recommendation would correct this problem and provide designated lead responsibilities for the median land- scape program. A detailed definition of work tasks and schedules for the maintenance activities also accompanies this report. The need for this reclassification was anticipated and sug- gested when the expanded median maintenance program was reviewed with the City Council. No action was taken to authorize the suggestion however, awaiting the analysis of need and definition of revised tasks and schedules. The accompanying charts are intended to meet the Council's request for more information. In his analysis and request for the change, the Parks and Landscape Supervisor points out the City had authorized three (3) Maintenance II level positions in 1978. However, only two of those positions were filled at that time continuing to the present. As a result of the recent reclassification study, the City Council approved a change of one of these positions from the II to III level. This upgrade was justified and made necessary by the deletion of a "Building Foreman" position in 1982. The Maintenance III position now performs some of the repair activi- ties formerly handled by the foreman. However, the result of only a single II position leaves the division with inadequate lead or senior level staffing as described above. Approval of the recommended change would allow designation of lead responsibility for coordinating the activities of a number of I level positions in the median maintenance program and would provide increased accountability for this work. The advantages of these affects should improve overall cost efficiency, offsetting the increased out -of- pocket expense to the City. It is anticipated that a higher service level of median landscape maintenance activity will result and be continued. Recommendation Authorize the change in classification of a Landscape Maintenance Worker I to a II level. Approve an appropriation of the pro -rata amount (estimated at $2,850 from November 1, 1984) of the $4,275 annual cost from the budgeted operating reserve of the General Fund. J.WaynV Dernetz City Manager lmc 2 ' Parks Division Areas of Responsibility of Staff Area and Site Crew Members * * ** ** * ** * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** AREA I* Stirtz I Westreich I Martin II Hallman I Hebert I Reimer I Kirk III Tomlinson Ishihara Gardiner Park x x X x Saratoga Ave Median X X X X Fruitvale Ave Median X X Allendale Ave Median X X Library X X City Hall X X X Community Center X x x Service Yard X City Orchard X X AREA II ** Congress Springs Park X x E1 Quito Park X X Brookglen Park X X Kevin Moran Park X X Prospect Road Median X X X X Azule Pathway X X Kevin Moran -Azule (undev.) x X AREA III * ** Wildwood Park x x x x Foothill Park X x x x Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. x x x x Historical Site x x x Blaney & Memorial Sites x x x 3rd & 4th Street Planters x x x Street Trees x x Squirrel Hollow Oak x x Mendleson Oaks x x Cox - Sara /Svle (undev.) x x SPECIAL & OTHER * * ** Hakone x X X Buildings - x Equipment x Irrigation x Facilities x PARKS AND LANDSCAPE DIVISION Areas of Responsibility Crew Number I - Area Number I Edwin Stirtz Neil Westreich Areas: Gardiner Park Saratoga Avenue Median Fruitvale Avenue Median Allendale Avenue Median Suggested Scheduling: Library City Hall Community Center City Orchard Litter Pickup and Area Checks Daily - City Hall & Community Center Monday, Wednesday, Friday - All other areas Trash Removal Monday, Friday Mowing and Edging Tuesday - Saratoga Avenue Thursday - Brookglen Park & Memorial Plaza Friday - City Hall & Community Center General Maintenance Gardiner - Monday a.m. Saratoga Ave. - Wednesday a.m. Fruitvale Ave. - Wednesday p.m. Allendale Ave. - Monday p.m. Library - Thursday a.m. City Hall - Thursday p.m. Community Center - Friday a.m.' Watering As needed, but use guide below: Saratoga Avenue - Summer - Daily except Tuesday, 2 short cycles Spring & Fall - Monday, Wednesday, Saturday Fruitvale Median - Summer - Tuesday, Low volume soak Allendale Median - Summer - Monday, Low volume soak Library - Summer - Monday & Thursday Parking lot rainbirds - Monday Spring & Fall - Monday Community Center Automatic System - Summer - Monday, Wednesday, Friday -2 cycles Spring & Fall - Wednesday Community Center Manual System - Summer- Turf, Monday, Wednesday, Friday 2 hour City Hall, other areas - Thursday 2 hour Spring & Fall - as needed �� 3 PARKS AND LANDSCAPE DIVISION Crew Number I - Area Number I Present needs and future projects in Area I: Location and Description Community Center (Back area) - 1: Put screens in area by horseshoe pit. Place tie, sand by pegs & screens between. 2. Check coverage of system. 3. Remove and replace dead material where necessary. 4. Extend sprinkler system by picnic tables. 5. Level and put D.G. in picnic area'. 6. Trim trees, shrubs - skirt thin and form. 7. Place ships in areas that are bare and between shrubs. 8. Renovate, reseed old lawn. (Front area) 1. Improve coverage of Hypernicum, move header and install new head by bench to right facing front. _. 2. Cut and fertilize Hypernicum in spring. 3. Trim and shape all shrubs and trees in front and in parking area. 4. Put ornamental fence barrier at Senior entry. 5. Plant Xylosma by office window and corner to left of Senior entry. 6. Trim walnuts this winter. City Hall 1. Trim and shape all shrubs, trees, and ground cover in all areas, back of curbs and walks. 2. Water, fertilize, and thin Festuea and skirt Liquid Ambers. 3. Water olive in raised bed, trim and shape both. 4. Spray Bermuda late September around Magnolia and Abelia. Replant Juniper in bare areas. 5. Remove all volunteer and seedling material. 6. Mulch roses. 7. Renovate,.reseed, fertilize turf. 8. Plant Pink Breath of Heaven (Diosma) by Finance. 9. Asphalt where dumpster is. 10. Trim all walnuts. 11. Trim Juniper and clean up Morrea. 12. Trim and shape Xylosma on Civic Theater parking. 13. Replant Abelia and Juniper next to parking and turf area. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Fruitvale Avenue Clean up ends and replace D.G. Weed bare areas. Check system. Trim Manzanita Saratoga Avenue Trim Photinia on small triangle. Continue to repair and utilize sprinkling system on all ends. Renovate, remove thatch, and fertilize turf. Check system and check coverage of turf system. Keep tree wells, planted areas and curb line weed free. Allendale Avenue Weed Coprosma. Maintain moisture. Prune and thin Melaluca. Library Weed, prune, fertilize Osteospernum. Remove Agapanthus blooms. Clean, prune, weed Xylosma area. Edge all areas. Weed annuals, replace when necessary. Prune Wysteria and put trellis on wall. Prune all material where needed. Remove Pampas Grass on side towards orchard. Clean up patio area, edge, prune, weed. Gardiner Park Put more bark in area. Spray bare areas and put chips on. Renovate system in bare area and replace some trees and shrubs. Prune and shape Birch. Clean up area under sign. Skirt Oaks by turf area for good sight from street. RECOVER fAUG 2 0 198,4 CITY RfikNA.CER @0 0 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Dernetz DATE: August 21, 1984 FROM: Dan Trinidad SUBJECT: Maintenance II Position for Parks Division I concur with the findings of Roy Swanson outlined in the attached memo regarding the Maintenance II Position for Parks Division and would like to meet with you and Roy at your earliest convenience to discuss and make recommendai4gns regarding this action. Da►YTrinidad Director of Maintenance (;�� Y 0919'T 02 0&MZUQ)(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 M E M O R A N D U M (408) 887 -3438 TO: Dan Trinidad DATE: August 16, 1984 FROM: Roy Swanson SUBJECT: Maintenance II Position for Parks Division The City Council, by it's resolution 85 -938 dated September 6, 1978, established and created three positions for the Maintenance II classification in this division. It was suggested at that time that only two openings be filled, which was done, and we have had those two positions since that time. Now, with the classification study, we have gained a Maintenance III but lost a Maintenance II with no recommendation of filling that slot. As far as I can see, the Maintenance III position is one that is involved with doing a variety of tasks not associated with the Maintenance II and recognizing the expertise necessary in this classification. The Maintenance II was also created to recognize expertise and experience above the Maintenance I class. The division has been given a great deal more responsibility and certainly direction from council. We have been allocated funds, material and man power to achieve these responsibilities and directions. We now must also have the organization to accomplish this. The Maintenance III position will enable us to keep our equipment and vehicles in good condition and ready for the crews so their time can be fully used in the field. It will also give us the flexibility of utilizing the position whenever and wherever needed. With only a single Maintenance II in the field it does not give us the ability to have a person responsible and acting as liaison between me and members of the crew. in the areas of major thrust we have been charged with. The two areas that we need constant field responsibility and direction in are, as we all know, Medians and Parks. The make -up of the crews now affords us the ability to maintain the geographical areas and the development of pride and ownership with the crews and the flexibility to give man power in the areas of need, when needed, both on a routine as well as on as needed basis. My proposal is to fill the vacant Maintenance II as soon as possible. The one Maintenance II would be responsible.for the field functions of all Parks and the downtown, or Area III The other Maintenance II would then be responsible for the field functions of all Medians, Civic Center Complex and other sites in Area II. This would give me the organization needed to implement and carry through the goals and objectives of this division. Day to day routine functions would be their responsibility. Also, routine scheduling and monitoring day to day activities. This would enable me to coordinate the implementation of the median refurbishing, Congress Springs Master Plan changes and the activities at Hakone, to name just a few. My recommendation that was made with Edwin Stirtz's 4jLt �_ Memorandum To: Dan Trinidad From: Roy Swanson Subject: Maintenance II Position for Parks Division Page 2 evaluation still stands and he is the person I feel can implement the direction we have, maintain a good rapport with the other members of the division and follow directives from me. I feel that because of Jim Martin's background he should be the Maintenance II for the Parks and miscellaneous areas and that Edwin Stirtz take responsibility for the medians and areas mentioned before. I would like the opportunity to discuss this with Wayne and you if you feel it necessary. We need to move now and we need the Maintenance to efficiently complete and maintain our objectives and goals. Ro wanson Parks Supervisor REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITE.'" COUT-sTCIL D DATE:August 31, 1978 COUNCIL MEETING: September 6, 19; SUBJECT' Resolution No. 85 -9.38 Establishing Parks & Landscape Maintenance II Position. ------------------ Sum� - _____. ________ You will find attached a copy of Resolution No. 85 -9.38 which establishes the Position of Parks & Landscape Maintenance II in the City's classification system. The adopted budget.-for fiscal year 1978 -79 provides for the upgrading of three Park Maintenance I positions to Parks & Landscape Maintenance iI. The action in adopting Resolution No. 85 -9.38 formally establishes these positions. Both the Park Maintenance Man I and Maintenance Man I positions are pegged at range 68. It is proposed that the Parks & Landscape Maintenance II position be established at range 83 (15% higher) with a salary scale from $1,121. to $1,431. This would place the position at parity with the Maintenance Man II Position, and is consistant with the differential established by other survey Cities. You will also find attached a background report from the Director of Community Services outlining the rationale and justification for instituting this classifi- cation. The position calls for greater technical expertise and higher skill levels and more experience than the Park Maintenance Man I classification. This is highlighted under " Distinguishing Characteristics" in the job description. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the establishment of the class- ification of Parks & Landscape Maintenance II through the adoption of Resolution No. 85 -9.38. Although three such positions are included in the fiscal year 78 -79 budget, it is recommended that the Council authorize that we only fill two of the positions. With this action, the staff can proceed to establish a promotional procedure for filling the openings. JH /lj Jim Hendric bn Attachment �� 6