The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-08-2003 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 1~CTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Cynthia Barry, Mohammad Garakani, Susie Nagpal, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, ~uchi Zutshi and Chair Jill Hunter ABSENT: Commissioner Uhl STAFF: Planners Livingstone ~ Oosterhous, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 24, 2003. (APPROVED 6-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regardingOral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 2, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #03-195 (510-O1-003) QUICKE, 19892 Mendelsohn Lane; Request for design modification to a previously approved project. Specifically, the modification is to the tower element, which is at the rotation point of the structure. The plans approved by the Planning Commission on November 21, 2000 had smooth exterior walls with no window glazing. The height of the tower element has increased and there are now windows. (Continued from Meeting on September 24, 2003) (ToNI SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 6-0 WITH CONDITIONS) .~ 2. APPLICATION #03-211(503-69-030) -Appellant CURRY, Site Location - 21851 Via Regina; - Appeal of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit to remove two Eucalyptus trees. The two Eucalyptus trees are approximately 3 feet and 11 feet in circumference. They are located at the periphery of the property. (CxRISTY OosTERxous) (TIED 3-3, GARAKANI, NAGPAL &r SCHALLOP OPPOSED. Pursuant to Article 2-15.040, Rejected motions and evenly split votes, this matter will be placed on the next Agenda and heard when all 7 Commissioners are present) 3. APPLICATION #03-182 (397-04-026) - FORMICO, 14456 Sobey Road; -The Applicant Requests Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to add a circular driveway to the proposed project. The gross lot size is approximately 61,855 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 6-0) 4. APPLICATION #03-183 (CITYWIDE) ZONING ORDINANCE AMEMDMENT REGARDING MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT; -The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishes development standards for mixed-use developments in the Commercial and office zones of the City of Saratoga. A mixed-use development is one that has commercial or office along the street frontage and residential uses in the rear or on a second floor. This proposed amendment implements Programs 1.2 of the Saratoga Housing Element of the General Plan. (ToM SULLIVAN) (CONTINUED TO DATE UNCERTAIN) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS Discussion of Application #03-02-182, Sagarchi, 13089 Quito Road, and whether this project still requires a Study Session with the Planning Commission. (NO STUDY SESSION NECESSARY) COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on September 3, 2003 ADJOURNMENT AT 10:40 PM TO THE STUDY SESSION - Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 5:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@sarato a.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION _ LAND USE AGENDA .. DATE: Tuesday, October 7, 2003 -12:00 noon PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #03-182 FORMICO Item 3 14456 Sobey Road 2. Application #03-195 - QUICKE Item 1 19892 Mendelsohn Lane 3 Application #03-195 = CURRY Item 2 21851 Via Regina LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions, which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. i CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Cynthia Barry, Mohammad Garakani, Susie Nagpal, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Jill Hunter PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 24, 2003. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 2, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #03-195 (510-O1-003) QUICKE, 19892 Mendelsohn Lane; Request for design modification to a previously approved project. Specifically, the modification is to the tower element, which is at the rotation point of the structure. The plans approved by the Planning Commission on November 21, 2000 had smooth exterior walls with no window glazing. The height of the tower element has increased and there are now windows. (Continued from Meeting on September 24, 2003) (TOM SULLIVAN) 2. APPLICATION #03-211(503-69-030) -Appellant CURRY, Site Location - 21851 Via Regina; - Appeal of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit to remove two Eucalyptus trees. The two Eucalyptus trees are approximately 3 feet and 11 feet in circumference. They are located at the periphery of the property. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 3. APPLICATION #03-182 (397-04-026) - FORMICO, 14456 Sobey Road; -The Applicant Requests Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to add a circular driveway to the proposed project. The gross lot size is approximately 61,855 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) 4. APPLICATION #03-183 (CITYWIDE) ZONING ORDINANCE AMEMDMENT REGARDING MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT; -The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishes development standards for mixed-use developments in the Commercial and office zones of the City of Saratoga. A mixed-use development is one that has commercial or office along the street frontage and residential uses in the rear or on a second floor. This proposed amendment implements Programs 1.2 of the Saratoga Housing Element of the General Plan. (TOM SULLIVAN) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS Discussion of Application #03-02-182, Sagarchi,13089 Quito Road, and whether this project still requires a Study Session with the Planning Commission. COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on September 3, 2003 ADJOURNMENT TO STUDY SESSION - Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 5:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your a-mail address to plannin C~saratoga.ca.us • .7 MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION G~~~Ir' DATE: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of September 10, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of September 10, 2003, were adopted with minor corrections to pages 7,14 and 21. (7-0) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. David Mighdoll, 13664 Ronnie Way, Saratoga: • Stated that he represents five to six residences surrounding ,13641 Ronnie Way with concerns about a construction project currently underway on that property. • Advised that the neighborhood concerns have been raised with staff in both the Building and Planning Departments. • Implored that something be done immediately. • Said that the issues include bulk and height of the new structure. • Added that the plans approved had errors regarding natural grade by one-and-a-half to two feet. • Said that there have been lots of problems with this project right from the start and said that the developer is trying to get away with things. • Pointed out that the maximum height approved was 16.5 feet and that this 4,000 square foot basement includes three bedrooms. • • Declared the height is one-and-a-half feet higher that the pre-existing grade resulting in neighborhood concerns about the bulk and building height. • Said that they received no response to their complaints to the City staff. • Requested immediate action to stop construction and to assure that nothing taller than 16.5 feet above natural grade is ultimately constructed. • Thanked the Commission for its time. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 2 Commissioner Zutshi asked what stage of construction has been reached. Mr. David Mi hdoll re lied that as of today, the framing above finished floor is being installed.. • g P Commissioner Zutshi asked if it could be clearly seen that there is a difference in natural grade between this house and its neighboring properties. Chair Hunter asked staff to reply. Director Tom Sullivan advised that he had the Building Official contact the developer. A surveyor has found that the project is consistent with the approved plans. The developer knows he is required to build according to the approved plans. An investigation of what is the natural grade is underway. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. David Mighdoll if he is comfortable with the steps outlined by Director Tom Sullivan. Mr. David Mighdoll replied no, he is not comfortable. Said that while some issues have been addressed through the Planning Department, they did not catch this problem. He added that it is clear that the pre-. existing grade is not correct on the plans. Emphasized that the maximum height is to be 16.5 feet. Chair Hunter pointed out that this project does not come before the Planning Commission as it falls below 18 feet in maximum height. Director Tom Sullivan clarified unless appealed. Chair Hunter asked if this represents an appeal. Director Tom Sullivan replied no, it is beyond the appeal period. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this is a Code Enforcement action. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. David Mighdoll if the neighbors were notified of this project when it was originally proposed and whether they were able to look at the proposed plans. Mr. David Mighdoll replied yes. He added that everyone was happy with the maximum height being at 16.5 feet above the natural grade. However, there has been a falsification of what the natural grade for this site actually is. Commissioner Garakani stated that staff would look into this matter. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that it seems that staff will look into this situation but wondered if Mr. David Mighdoll is concerned that this is not happening fast enough. • Mr. David Mighdoll replied yes, pointing out that they raised concerns two months ago. Agreed that the City has a great staff and that Director Tom Sullivan had directed the Building Official to look into this matter and get back to him. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 3 Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the natural grade has to be established. Chair Hunter asked Director Tom Sullivan what can be done with this item since it is not a part of this evening's agenda. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that staff is moving forward with the gathering of information. Commissioner Garakani asked if there is any way this matter could come back to the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan replied no, there is no jurisdiction for this to come back to the Commission but that he would report back if the Commission so desired. Cautioned that this issue has now gone way beyond Oral Communication interactions. Mr. David Mighdoll said that in conclusion he feels the City is culpable and that several of his neighbors have already contacted legal counsel. Cautioned that if progress continues, these problems will have a snowball effect. Commissioner Barry said she would like to suggest agendizing this matter either as a Director's Item or for a Study Session. Pointed out that this is the second project where the issue of height has arisen when a basement is involved. Questioned how this can be prevented. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the mechanisms to prevent problems are already in place. Commissioner Barry said that she would like more understanding although it is clear that there are things in place. Director Tom Sullivan said that he would bring to the Commission at its next meeting the checklist used. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 18, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hunter announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. • *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 4 APPLICATION #03-116 (397-26-002) RAISSI, 14195 Saratoga Avenue: Request for design review approval to construct atwo-story residence, a detached second dwelling unit, a detached three-car garage and a basement, which is to be located under the main residence. The maximum height of the residence is 21 feet, 8 inches. The proposed floor area of the main residence is 2,380 square feet. The project includes the demolition of two existing buildings, aone-story residence and a detached garage with living space.. The property is zoned R-1-12,500. The property is located along Heritage Lane and the .Heritage Preservation Commission has reviewed and approved the proposal. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval for atwo-story residence, detached second unit, a detached three-car garage and a basement under the main residence. • Described project materials as including beige wood shingle siding including stone veneer on the main residence and second dwelling unit, slate roofing and copper down spouts. • Explained that a Design Review approval was granted by the Planning Commission in July 2000, after two public hearings, and subsequently expired. The Commission had required several revisions to the original plan including the inclusion of clearstory windows on one side elevation, wood shingle siding instead of stucco and the reduction in driveway area. • Added that the Heritage Preservation Commission has found that this proposal would have no negative impact on the Heritage Lane. • Said that the appearance of mass is reduced with the reduction of the second story and the maximum height being less than 22 feet. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the second unit includes a full kitchen. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes, the second unit includes a kitchen, living room and bedroom. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that the Commission is conducting Design Review and that the use of the secondary dwelling unit is not up for discussion as the State has removed the issue of allowing secondary units outside of the public hearing process. Chair Hunter said that the secondary dwelling appears to be about 600 square feet. Commission Barry pointed out that a second dwelling unit would normally have a kitchen. Commissioner Zutshi said that she thought only one kitchen is permitted for asingle-family residential property. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that this is unless there is a second dwelling unit. Reminded that the State of California has removed the authorization of these second units from the public hearing process. Commissioner Barry reminded that the City could still perform Design Review. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 5 Commissioner Nagpal asked for the reasoning behind the previous Planning Commission requesting . clearstory windows on the left side of the house. Questioned whether it was the result of neighbor concerns. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the Commission imposed that condition out of potential privacy impacts without neighbors themselves raising the issue. Mr. Dick Finnegan, Project Architect: • Said that they initially submitted in 2000 and conformed to all Planning Commission requests. • Said that they moved one setback by one foot to meet updated requirements. • Added that another new requirement was to have a geotechnical review, which was-also done. • Described this as anon-typical Saratoga lot, as it is narrow and deep. • Said that he has tried to design this like a small estate. • Made himself available for questions. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the driveway was to be 15 feet wide. Mr. Dick Finnegan said that it was initially 20 feet wide and reduced to 16 feet at the 2000 hearing. Advised that they have not altered the original plan except for the one setback. Commissioner Barry said that she met with Mr. Sam Raissi, the property .owner, who expressed willingness to dedicate the second unit as a BMR (Below Market Rate) unit. Mr. Dick Finnegan said that he has no knowledge of that fact. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the Arborist has recommended that. the old driveway be removed by hand around Trees #7, #12 and #15. Mr. Dick Finnegan said that the owner is willing to comply with that requirement. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the Condition of Approval for the driveway is for a minimum 14- foot wide, which is the minimum standard set by the Fire Department. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Dona Tobiason, 14130 Squirrel Hollow Lane, Saratoga: • Stated that her property backs up to this one. • Said that her main concern is the potential impacts on the surrounding oak trees. • Questioned what procedures are in place to ensure that the Arborist's tree protection requirements are met during construction and how to make sure that the driveway removal around the trees. called out in the Arborist's report, which must occur by hand, actually does. Chair Hunter said that the City staff supervises the compliance with all of the Conditions of Approval. . Director Tom Sullivan: • Stated that the Conditions call out the requirements during construction. • Said that City inspectors make regular trips to the site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 6 • ,Pointed out the issuance of a tree bond and the Arborist's requirement for protective fencing. • Assured that all these requirements become a part of the Building permit and are enforced. • Commissioner Uhl urged Ms. Dona Tobiason to report any violations she might notice to the City. Ms. Dona Tobiason asked if City staff comes on site on a daily basis. Chair Hunter replied yes. Director Tom Sullivan said particularly in the early stages of a project. Ms. Dona Tobiason stated her belief that this developer has had previous problems. Director Tom Sullivan said that he is not aware of any past problems. Commissioner Barry said that sometimes it is the neighbors to a construction project that are the first to notice changes or problems. Asked Ms. Dona Tobiason to be observant and to contact the City if anything improper is noticed. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that the City's Code Enforcement, Planning Department or Building Department would be appropriate contacts. Commissioner Zutshi asked about after hours contacts. Director Tom Sullivan said the Sheriff's De artment rovides the Cit 's Police services. • P P Y Chair Hunter reiterated her suggestion for neighbors to keep an eye out. Ms. Dona Tobiason stated that this is a narrow lot with lots happening. Chair Hunter said that the Architect has assured that the trees would be protected. Commission Uhl asked about the bond amount at $70,000. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Dona Tobiason if she has seen the plans that depict the profile of the building, which will be facing her property. Ms: Dona Tobiason said that the living room and deck will overlook her property and questioned the setback distance. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that there is a 110-foot distance from the rear of the residence to the rear property line. Commissioner Barry pointed out that usually once a design review is granted the project architect is no longer involved during the construction. Mr. Dick Finne an: • g Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Se tember 24, 2003 Page 7 • Agreed that he has no formal contract to supervise the project during construction but also pointed . out that over the last 50 years, there have been no problems with his projects. • Said that the Arborist's report is very specific. • Pointed out that most trees are on adjacent properties rather than on this one. Chair Hunter pointed out that this does not always make a difference when it comes to the potential for tree damage during construction. Commissioner Nagpal questioned whether the neighbors on Worden Way were approached. Mr. Dick Finnegan said that the owner made the contact with surrounding neighbors and that he is not certain that the adjacent house on Worden Way is even occupied. Commissioner Barry asked staff if the property owner has agreed to dedicate the second unit as BMR. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied no. Commissioner Barry asked if any square footage bonus was allowed. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied no. Commissioner Barry asked if staff is aware as to whether this property would be owner occupied. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied no. Commissioner Barry asked if it is known who the contractor for this project would be. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied no. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Hunter: • Stated that this is a lot of building on a long and thin lot. • Reminded that a big cedar tree would need to come down for the driveway. • Pointed out that this lot is on the Heritage Lane and is hidden from the road. • Said that the design is pleasing and there appears to be no neighbor objection. • Added that this is a very large house on a small property. Commissioner Schallop: • Stated that he sees no reason to deviate from the previous Commission's approval. • Said that it is unfortunate that there could be impacts to exceptional oaks near the granny unit but these impacts can be minimized with the Arborist's recommendations. Commissioner Barry: • • Agreed with the previous comments that this is a lot of house on this property. • Agreed with the findings of the Heritage Preservation Commission. • Said that the appearance would neither be big or bulky from the front of the property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 8 • Expressed support for a Condition of Approval to increase the percentage of the tree protection bond or some other financial incentive for the owner to ensure the protection of the surrounding • trees.. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission could indeed increase the bond percentage Commissioner Ciarakani pointed out that the site has a iot of handscape and questioned 'now drainage issues are addressed and where water goes. Director Tom Sullivan directed the Commissioners to Condition of Approval 6, which addresses site drainage. Commissioner Barry asked if this Condition is met prior to issuance of building permits. Director Tom Sullivan replied correct, to the satisfaction of both Building and Planning staff. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that she agrees with the comments of the other Commissioners. • Said -that she remains concerned about the left side elevation, finding it not to be the most attractive of elevations. • Stated that she would rather see normally placed windows with adequate landscape screening. • Added that while the adjacent parcel to that side may currently be uninhabited, it would have neighbors living there in the future. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the use of clearstory windows was deliberate since there is only a six-foot setback at that side. Commissioner Nagpal stated that this elevation looks like a prison wall. Chair Hunter said that the property owner is perfectly happy with those clearstory windows, which are in two bedrooms. Commissioner Barry suggested that fast-growing screening landscaping be added on the Landscape Plan for that side of the property. Commissioner Nagpal said she would feel more comfortable with that additional landscaping. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out the Landscape Plan from the plan set. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous pointed out that there is no provision for screening on the left side in the current Landscape Plan. Commissioner Barry suggested a Condition of Approval requiring the applicant to add screening landscaping on that side as long is it does not require the removal of existing landscaping. Director Tom Sullivan proposed language that "requires landscape screening in a manner that does not remove existing trees. " Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 9 Commissioner Uhl said that there appears to be lots of building on a small lot and that he has concern for the trees. However, the neighbors have seen the plans and support this proposal. Chair Hunter pointed out that most of the trees are located on the property line, far .from the construction area. Commissioner Uhl stated that he wants to increase the bond percentage as well as require more landscape screening to reduce the bulk of the structure from the left side. Commissioner Nagpal asked what percentage of bond is proposed. Commissioner Uhl deferred to staff for a recommendation. Director Tom Sullivan proposed 50 percent. Commissioner Barry pointed out that this would result in a bond of $35,000 based upon the $70,000 valuation in the Arborist's report. Commissioner Garakani reminded this project was originally approved two years ago. There may be new neighbors now. Asked staff if surrounding neighbors were notified of this hearing. Chair Hunter replied yes. Commissioner Schallop asked if the Commission is being consistent with the bond amount imposed. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the Arborist's report for this site was prepared in 2000. Things have changed since then. Commissioner Zutshi asked what a current day value of these trees might be. Chair Hunter pointed out that this Commission is very pro tree and takes the protection of trees very seriously. Commissioner Barry agreed that this Commission is establishing a track record of being tough on tree requirements. Things to take into account in this case are the fact that this property is located on a Heritage Lane as well as the concern that the trees are located on neighboring properties and require careful protection. Commissioner Zutshi agreed and expressed support for the 50 percent bond amount. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #03-116) to allow the construction of a two-story residence, a detached second dwelling unit, a detached three-car garage and a basement, which is to be located under the main residence on property located at 14195 Saratoga Avenue with the following • additions to the Conditions: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 10 • Increasing the tree protection bond percentage to 50 percent of the total valuation to ensure the protection of the trees on this site and at the property lines during construction; and • Requiring additional landscape screening on the left/west side elevation in a manner that does not remove any of the existing trees, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~~~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #03-195 (510-01-003) QLTICKE 19892 Mendelsohn Lane: Request for design modification to a previously approved project. Specifically, the modification is to the tower element, which is at the rotation point of the structure. The plans approved by the Planning Commission on November 21, 2000, had smooth exterior walls with no window glazing.. The height of the tower element has increased and there are now windows. (TOM SULLIVAN) (Applicant requests this item be continued to meeting on October 8, 2003.) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is currently out of the country and staff feels it is best to wait until his return to proceed with this application. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 and this item was continued to the meeting of October 8, 2003. ~** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #03-176 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA: Multiple Zoning Ordinance Amendments updating and expanding Section 15.06: Definitions, of the Saratoga Code. The proposed amendments to Article 15-06 provide for consistency between ordinance requirements and long time practices as well as simplifying the rules. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Explained that these general definitions appear at the front of the Zoning Ordinance, definitions that the Planning staff deals with on a daily basis. • Stated that four planners and two City Attorneys have reviewed and amended this draft. Commissioner Barry asked if .there is any substantial change between this draft and the report distributed at the last meeting, which was continued to tonight's meeting. Director Tom Sullivan re lied no. This re ort is the same one. • P P b Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 11 Director Tom Sullivan: • Ran through the list of definitions, pointing out those that were amended as well as new definitions that have been added. • New definitions include: Access, Accessory Structure, Accessory Use, Apartment Unit, Application, Application for Development, Architectural Features, Architectural Style, Attic, Development, Sight Triangle, Off-Site Storage, Variance, Vested Right, Zoning Map. • Amended definitions include: • Alley • Approving Authority -added legislators • Attached (minor modification was made to the definition to require a shared structure such as a common wall, etc.) • Creek Bank (definition was reworded to read better) • Day Care Facility (definition was changed from six children to eight persons. Director Tom Sullivan advised that State Law has changed allowing eight when previously it was six) • District (definition was substantially changed) • Dwelling (definition was amended to include "permanent or portion of a permanent building") • Family (definition changed to include household help) • Floor Area (definition was changed to take out any confusion) • Garage (definition clarified to require "a permanent roof and enclosed on four sides") • Height (definition has been made simpler and more straightforward, more of a formula, a mathematical solution and allowing the Community Development Director to use the best information available, such as surrounding neighborhood, topography, survey monuments, trees, etc.) • Home Occupation (definition was cleaned up) • Impervious Surface (definition additions of gravel and concrete) • Institutional Facility (the Commission recommended the removal of the prohibition of on-site retail since senior care facilities often sell toiletries as a convenience to its residents) • Lot Line (minor change) • Loading Facility (minor change) • Manufacturing Zone (definition removed outright since there are no such zones left in Saratoga and the term does not appear in the Saratoga Code) • Non-Conforming (struck one sentence that made no sense) • Nursing Home (minor change) • Plan Line (removed definition. This term was used in the SOs and 60s but is now considered to be a taking. A plan line is no longer designated without an easement.) • Quasi Public Use (includes churches, hospitals and educational services) • Second Unit (the definition was removed from this section as it is included in the Second Unit Ordinance. Commissioner Schallop also pointed out a missing period at the end of the definition sentence for this item.) • Setback (modified) • Slope (no change) • Stable (modified slightly) • Street (definition explains that driveways serving four or fewer homes are not streets but private driveways) • Wall (defined as six feet or more) • Yard Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 12 • Variance (the Commission recommended adding text "and any other requirements" and "by City Council on appeal. ") • Vested Right (definition includes the fact that requirements are frozen in place when an approval, such as a Vesting Tentative Map, is granted. Once approved, the City cannot change its rules/requirements for that approval) Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission recommended .that City Council approve multiple Zoning Ordinance Amendments updating and expanding Section 15-06: Definitions, of the Saratoga Code, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Barry asked that the Commission's appreciation of the Planning Staffs' and City Attorneys' efforts and work in amending these definitions be formally recorded in the minutes. Commissioner Nagpal wanted to commend Building staff for their work done on site. ~~~ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan: • Announced that a neighborhood meeting is scheduled to discuss the Orchard Project. This meeting will occur in the Community Room at the Library on Monday, September 29th. • Asked the Commission if it still wanted a Workshop on the Orchard Project. (Note: After discussion amongst the Commissioners and quick look at a draft proposed subdivision with a reduction from seven to six lots, it was decided that a Workshop is not required at this time.) • Announced that Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous has scheduled a Study Session to review preliminary plans for a small inn. This Study Session will occur on October 22nd at 5 p.m. Sandwiches will be provided. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hunter said that last night's meeting was very insightful. She announced that- Council discussed the Tree Ordinance and that a second reading is set for October 15th. Asked staff to distribute a copy of the revised Tree Ordinance to the Commission prior to the second reading so that changes made since the Commission sent it on to Council can be studied and understood. Director Tom Sullivan agreed to forward the revised draft to the Commission. COMMUNICATIONS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 13 S None. AD TOi:fRNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk ~J ITEM 1 I' i• i~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: Department Head: 03-195 19892 Mendelsohn Lane QUICKE Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director October 8, 2003 510-O1-003 ®®®~41 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is coming back to the Commission to gain approval of a change to an architectural feature. The "tower" that was approved for this remodel was significantly different than was included on the building plans. What was actually constructed was also different from either the plans approved by the Planning Commission or the Building Permit version. The project gained Planning Commission approval in November 2000. The Building Permit was issued in June 2001. One of the City's contract planners approved the plans for building permit issuance. For more than a year I have been dealing with the applicant (Mr. and Mrs. Quicke) and the neighbors (Mr. and Mrs. Baker) trying to see if there was resolution that could be gained between the two parties. Section 16-05.035 of the Saratoga Code states: 1.6-05.035 Mod.if..icati.on of building }?l.ans anal develop. ment. co.nd.i.tions. No modification shall be made. to any building or site plans previously approved by the City or to any development conditions imposed by the City, unless such modification has been approved as follows: (a) Where the modification does not result in any exterior change to a structure or material change to an approved site plan, and does not otherwise violate or change any- development condition relating to the project, the modification maybe approved by the Building Official. (b) Where the modification involves any change to a development condition, the modification shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission if the condition was originally imposed by the Commission or by the City Council on appeal, or subject to approval by the Community Development Director if the condition was originally imposed by said Director. (c) Any modification which is not described in either subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this Section shall be referred to the Community Development Director, for disposition as follows: (1) If the project was originally approved by the Community Development Director, the modification maybe approved by said Director. (2) If the project was originally approved by the Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal, the modification shall require approval by the Planning Commission if such modification results in any material change to the project or any adverse impact upon the surrounding area; otherwise, the modification may be approved by the Community Development Director. A material change shall include, but is not limited to, any ascertainable change in the size, height or elevations of a structure or its placement upon the site; any change in the approved elevation of a building pad; any ascertainable change in the location or design of access roads, driveways or parking areas; or any change in a specific requirement of an approved grading plan or landscape plan. (Ord. 71-193 ~ 1 (part), 1999) Since the change meets the criteria in the code section above and since the change has become an issue between neighbors the only two courses of action made available to the Quicke's were to either comply with the design approved by the Planning Commission or seek approval of a Q~~~'~~ modification. This was communicated to the Quick's in October 2002. Plan sets have been provided that show what was approved by the Planning Commission and what was included in the building construction set of plans. Photographs have been provided to show the existing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the requested modification by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Plans (Exhibit A) 3. Photos (Exhibit B) • ~®~®®3 • Attachment 1 • RESOLUTION NO. APPLICATION NO. 03-195 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a modification to approved plans; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant -has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The proposed modification is in accord with the objectives of the Residential Design Handbook in that there is no unreasonable interference with views or privacy; the modification does not have any impact on the natural landscape; while different, the modified tower does not present an element that is incompatible with the height and bulk of the neighboring area; and there are nor grading or erosion control measures involved in the modification. ^ That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the property has numerous trees that mitigate the view of the house and tower. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration. of the architectural drawings and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Mr. and Mrs. Quick to modify the approved architectural design is hereby granted. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.. ~~~~®5 :ate of • ~~~~Q~ .. ~ ~~(1 U 1~ L1 __ - QUICKE RESIDENCE 1 ADDITION ~: REMODEL B i L L G o u L~ D Es r ~ N I ART & ARCHITECTURE ~ 19892 Mendelson Lane I' Saratoga, CA 95070 ~ 3"'°'-P""""""a6L"° Los 6Atas, Ce 95030 • ~~ I ` I~ -~ Iy u II ~ ~~l ILA ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o ~ ~ \ ~ ~ I~- ~I I~ b I J~ II I~ ~ ~I ~ I~ ~ ~ ~___ ~ ~~ _ '~ » ~ ~. I I I ~ I ~, ~l ~ ~ iL I _ - J~ (E) NOODfN -ECK ~ / ~ E ~ 4 / I~ - ` '0' HIGH WOAD FENCE/ ~~~~~,~ . ~ \ 169 I ~ ( (E)TREESALANOSCAPE TO REMAIN ~~ 21 ~f I • I EE 52 /J ,~^ r ~ ,~~~ »ezo L`< ,J J ,"` (yl~~ ( 1 l \~~ ~~~ 2!6 I 1 POIX EOUfPHENT PRIORTD FOUNDATION IN9PECfION BYTHEI I I M OELSOHN ~ LANE t CRY, TREBLE OR LLS RECAR09HALL PROVIDE A,WRRTEN CE CAAON THAT ALL BUILDING SETBACKS AREP RIHE APPROVED PLANS ``~ I //C'//j / ------- N.s9'36'00'W. 114.BOB'•--- -- ~ I \ I L_ 1 ~ I 1 0:' ~. z 4~ Fs3~400.871.J149 Paanc u6a~6n.3LUB snam Iadaa A-1 TRLE SHEET, ROOF PLAN, 9ITEPUN A~1 DEMOLITION P W" p-3 FIR9T FLOOR PL4N Aa SECOND FLODR PLAN k5 E%TERIOR ELEVATIWS Ab EXR:RIGR ELEVATIOIIS h7 SECTIONS AA ELECTRICAL LAVDIR FOR FIRSrd9ECOND LEVEL t a; F ~ " ~ kB BANNING RESDLUTION rf. +,:.._ J , EG1 ENERGY COMPLIANCE /^P +L>~' ~` M ' 50 9PECIFICAAONSeOEfAIL9 G ~ ~'~iy, a S1 FOUNDATION PLAN _ ~ Fes' ttk 94 SECOND BOOR FRAMIN[aPL~N $ ~'tli~ 3 - ~ j Y .1C' S. 93 fl00F FRAMING PUI4j ~pR Oy`~F ~~ 54 FOUNDATION DETAILS -' 4pN a 95 FARMING DETAILS i d { ~ ; 96 FRAMING DETAILS C7 GRADING8~6iPINAGE PLAN ' ~6{~ !-c ry g ~~ ~ ~`~. i ~~ Pare S3 7~Nardiay i PI re~ui~L~u,~ Ctir n „-~; ~, d~ ~,-.I;~„a- fee ~ P~drme QUICKE RESIDENCE ADDITION & REMODEL 19892 Mendelson Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 I• ',J E~ I r, , 1 mar ' ~ w No fleuisimslSs .~ _____ _ ___ __ _ ____n I 1. TO PERMR ' CONO FL _ ~ - I EBE1Ba N SW p~ ---~ ~ --' "may i 2. TO PERMR (9 FRONT I, E[EV tF. 1 I 1 X I 1 115 (E) 1 TO PERA/R I ,~~ v1/ I 910E E30'W000 1^ ~14-r (E) ~ ~~ ~j ~ (SETBACK l1NCE UFr030'-0'1 i i FENOE ~ „¢I/~ EeVL,F , ~ 1FRONTEET6ACNj Onxtg Tple SWIMMING POOL ~ 1 I ~~ L ~T Fr ExLS~hc HousE x . I' / ' ~,' ~ f ~i ~ 560&4 // E4E~ rF 16 MIN u~1~/ ~ \ ~ ' BIDE ~/ %~ I 9ETBMJf ~., 1 1tl ~/ /t I SECOND FL i ~ I I _____ _______________~ I -' , f I I I 1 I l I j I I . ~__________ _____ _ I _ __________ __ __ ~ 0=~ ~J 0 Date 03.05.01 04.03.01 {W'46 06.1407 TITLE SHEET '°" ~,.•• •..~ O"S.Z Archlled Sea^I! i ~. zc 6 zze -, 6@iI~ uleMCl+r UlASCfnn u ~~-~ I G ~' L~ °~ No. C.1391 T l 11 ~ ~~of t ~ REN.9~3°-99 ? _ D I (( III / 1 A `N CP CpN1F I ~ I IiLL~J ~ ~~ ~a•;nBNo ~ I ~ ~~ n m II ~ I I -\ I \I LI. ~ -~/~__+54 (v`• \ ~ V --___ WOD~FENCE - ---fY5.00' --------- Prolat NU. H_ ~L-1:7,- I 24019 2i6 Dale 1/8"=1'-0" 1 SITE PLAN ~ 1"=20'-0" o22s.o1 - 2 ROOF PLAN TECHNICAL INFORMATION VICINITY MAP QUICKE RESIDENCE: ~' 4°A ab M a _1 ~~l TOTALSRE ACREAGE=043ACRES gSSESOR'S PARCEL#: 51001003 SIZE OF STRUCTURE:(FLOORAFEA CALCULATIONS-SEE SITE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE DETERMINATION: ~.y7 ~cK~P.Ef a /'--`W~~~ t' _._. `~ ~~afd SLOPE CALCULATION: PLAN FOR INDICATION OF AREAS USED) 4' ~ I 1 `~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ADDRESS', 19892 MENDELSOHN LN ALLOWABLE COVERAGE 45%=6,410 s.f. ~ ' 5=0.002291 L =0.00229139(60'1'0,96%°rt% GARATOGA, CA 95070 FIRST FLOOR EXISTING. 2950 s.f. ® .: ~ ~ IJ'T ~Op ~1 ~, ~ ~~C\D °~, PROPOSED. 50B s.t. ^C AREA 0.43 acres PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT 3438 s.f. nt ~ ~?e. ES n~ Brae Yak 1 r c ~ ~ s A / OWNERS NAME: ROBERT&JANIE QUICKE I ~ ~-----~ 'tM ,1 AVERAGE SLOPE (aJ BUILDING SITE: 1% SECOND FLOOR EXISTING: 0 s.f. DRIVEWAY 8 FRONT WALKWAYS, SIDE PATID 1,636 s L ~ I ( ~ ~ ', Cry ~i , EXISTING USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PROPOSED: 537 s.L REAR DECKING 640 s.G I ""i-H^fhArc- !, ~Rndeta hi n~ lthrea Oaks VJ~p POOL B CONCRETEDECKING SURROUNDING 1,600 s.f. ~ -fib 7 ~ ~_ ~~ ~' '~ 8=0.00229 1 L = 0.0022816')(110'1=2.83%°r3% AREA 0.43 aces SIZE OF LOT: GROSS: 16,700 s.l. TOTAL EXISTING 8 PROP0.5ED AREA: 3,995 s.L '..~ *f IU W On R~ C ~ D~..~:-' I ;1 . ~8,, Q . rol NET: 16,700 s.f. (INCLUSIVE OF GARAGE AREA: 441 s.t.j TOTAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE 50. FOOTAGE :7,516 s.r ,. I~ sc~(~ '~ ~ ~~-~ AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: J% I<10% O.K( THIS IS 894 s.f. LESSTHAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE ~~~ a _' ZONING DISTRICT: R-T-20,000 nl _ ~ s' Abndf LO `! ( `f~~°~ THI51540 s.i. UNDEROUR MAX. ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(4,035 s.L) COVERAGE OF 8,410 s.f. _;~ ) ~ ~~.I ~fc!~,~ f OCCUPANCY: R3 MoRralvD ~ ( -~~ RSOhIn~Wa ~; , ,4;(e a},,.,:,. CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-N 7`, , ~T L3Tlf~~ ~~. rv I~ 1r ~m ~BLn {0~q l .. (1. ON ORDINANCE SIZETREE 9HPLL BE REMOVED I 1 _ ~ •2.''Mn --- a ~~ Wfi}iDUT FIRST OBTAININGATREE / ` \ ,~``1 _ \ ' I ~ (' 11119 ~ \ APPP.OVED REMOVAL PERMIT. J _ _ LANDSCAPE ~\ \ L 1pV u jj _ _ ~r~~III,~~L lon hu heen e.°d for rom~~ (2ND FENCE OR WALL SHALL E%CEE06'-0'IN HT. \ '~ ~ PNOi~`° 1M1 111e "A~I•gu ['y Cn~2e I ~ i' * '~JS l J ~ Aah99vah I pi f r eNO FENCE ORWALL LOCATED WrtHIN ANY ~71E ~ - lf7 ASPHALT PP °r Meg ,. S 114, Y,. ~RE9UIflED FRONT YARD SHALL E%CEE07-0'IN HT ~ J ~\ W7 CONCRETE WALKWAY \,, °PO~.ol dq ly Me w,n„„~~I ~ I a_ I i `~g~N t ~~ ~ ' ar qu°I'ry °f I. de, ' 2~ 3. N09TRUCNRE SHALL BE PERMITIEO IN ANY ` f I (~ 1 LANDSCAPE ° Y b' Awoi romm,am, b°,ed °n hu I ~ I TA ' ( EPSEMEM. 1'`~, ~~`f.~ ! LANDSCAPE ~~~' \ \ Pbn An pen„ nw d ~~, "I ,• ~1 BACK PAT.- I ~ ~\ ,h II , ° Punuunr heelu, u; L "~~-~/ ~ ~ ,~ ,.r'` I ~ ° t' ,k°mmmdm~ °, ew°r f _ I °`~', ~d`. \ / 1 ~ ^ `~ \ Nent, 6u °° perm um only. ~ ~ ,. ~. V V ~,i U ~~ _ J L ~ v /~` `~ / 1 \ F°r B ild ' ONi°kl I ! ) - ± ~ - '`,I jl I~ I ° ____ I - I 71 ~ \~ ~`. ~ v ~ ~ G7 ~B °,,,q ~ ~ ~ ~~` 4 I'~ ~~I I~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i~~ ~ 3 PARCEL MAP ~ 1 1"=200'-0'''~ I I ~~ I B G L DESIGN ~f l u ILL OU D ART & ARCHITECTURE ~ 1p1o7-PNw1n5sTExBwo ~ Los Gros, C, 95058 FU. u08. A71 3149 PxoxE 408, 811.7140 Ganarel Naxrt iS'0'T.O.P.® __ __ ~SECOt D LDOR 14'3` T.O.P _ „ ®STAIRS 1'-G' 119'F.F.~ sEC~4DF1aat~----- - ®SNOY ~ ~ / ~ ~~ /i ~ ~. 3tl' F.F. ®FAAIILY \ • I 1 I; I I c ~i E ,. ~ti~ o J "~~5. 1 Ney Plan SOUTH IJ CD CT Ptopd Tine QUICKE RESIDENCE ADDITION 8 REMODEL 19892 Mendelson Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 No ReWsionsl6ubmiaebna Dale 1. TO PERMIT 03.05.01 2. TO PERMIT 04.05.07 3. iO PERMR 06.15,01 2vna9 rua ELEVATIONS ARhiteq • -___--___ ___ __LlvRxlut3cp , REN. 0,1001 ~~ ,adNa q_6 24079 Dale '~ 7 EAST ELEVATION (LEFT SIDE} 114"=1'-0" az.zs.oi r I _________________ ____~___ (EI GRADE552 §GARAGE __________________ @ENTRY I v r ~ ___ ~1p0"T.O.P® [~ __-___ _-________ _. __ ________ _ ___ ______ ~.,1 COIOSERVATOR _ __.__ _ __.LLT.O,P~_~ GAPAGE I I ~ g SOUTH ELEVATION (REAR SIDE) 114"=1'-0" i. . I ~~ ~~ I, BILL COULD DESIGN ~ ~,I ART & ARCHITECTURE 14107-P NIn[NES1Ea BLVn ~ I Los 9cr9s, [, 95839 Fax 406.871.3149 I P NNeE 408671 3140 ' NOT TO ECCEE021'0' .. _ _ __ _ _ _ ~ _ - - - - FflOM FINISEI GPAOE ' C1A59 A PRESIOENTLAL COMPOSRE ROOF RYP.1 _ _ _ _ _ _ I~ .190' T.O.P l9enaml Noce ENTIRE NOOSE SHALL BE BEDROOM '~ -- RE~ROOFED - TYP, StUCw ' cuss BLGCKS ~ ~ I Wintlows, Doors & Fascia ~ ~ ~ ~ Base & Trim 1 I Roof _ _ I _ _ __ _ _ n .nro•F.F.~ ~ ~ I~ SECONtl FL00R ~/ iq _ ____ ~E P n ~~ R~E6V ~_~~EJ TO.P ~_ __ ~ t.' GUEST BED / II I ~ ~~ ~ ` 1'~0' /~~J'i0~0" F.F. ~ EMRY _ _ . - ~ ----' ~ - 0 F.f.,g ~EM~RY (~ ''-'- -1YY FINISH GRADE '~T~ BEOROO~J Kay Plan - ~1'0'FINISN GRADE (E GUtA~E 5a9 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - ~_J"~" _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - ~ _____ - - I TEMPERED OIASS _ - - - - - _c___ STUCCO (IYP.1, _______ I _____ __~-_ B _- I ______ -- NORTH T TEMPERED GLASS FINI6H T.B,O. ~ C L ----- BWCK FASCIA NEW ADORION ~ EKISTING I I , ~ ) ~ ~ i /~ Q ( NORTH ELEVATION (FRONT SIDE) bo~~~ I) I - t PloiaGrma I I QUICKE RESIDENCE ADDITION & REMODEL ' NOT TO EXCEED 33M' 'FROM FlNISHGRAOE _ ._- - - - - - ------- ---------_ sn•TGP 19892 Mendelson Lane '6EORDDM- 7 Saratoga, CA 95070 J ^'~' ~) I No ReuieknMSuhmledons Dale STAIRS - I _ ~ 11 1, Z TO PERMIT TO PERMIT 03.95.01 I I I ~~I II I . Od,06.01 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ 3 TO PERMR 0611A01 ~ ~ ~~~ ~ { I C . ~ ' ' .~. '.J ... __ _ _ IEI T_O.P ~~\ °i ~STi1DY V I Drnxn9 TWa ~ IEIT.O.P~_ MASTER BED - ~ ~ ~ a ~ I ~ ELEVATIONS ~ / ~ ~ ~ S _ _ !TO' F.F, MI FAAflLV 1 ` \ ® ® ® ~ - --- - - _ ~ _ - _ _ _ _-_ .~~~~ AlUilaG Seal s0'0'FF. QM. BED ___ __ _ __ _- _ - _- - I 0 ~ o _ _ _____ - SIAIE INSET PANELS Y3~~ ,' ~ , s_ (EI GRADE 54B ~ EXISTING ~ NEW AODmON _ I 1 // ' ~ l/ >t '. / ~~ No. 623919 C N 1 ' ~/~ ~ REN. 530.01 2 y f op F ~ ~LrF I I Olewing No I' Pmfaq n. q_5 I 24079 _ ~ 174"=1'-0" Dam oz.zs.oe ] WEST ELEVATION (RIGHT SIDE) ~. .~ • • POINT OF ROTATION ~ I i \ BILL COULD DESIGN ART & ARCHITECTURE ~ F 14107-P MIIICN ESTEA BLra • Los G11os. [~ 95030 Fa3 YOB. 811.3149 PN9NE LL68.071.3190 v ---__- -_ ~s2I~o' ~ CHIMNEVL Gererzl Nolea ~ NOTTO EXCEE02T0' +2217'flIDGE ~ ROTATION LME I I ~ I ~ ~ I i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ I - ~ ~ _ _ _ - FROM FINISH GPAOE ~ _ _ ____ SECOND FLOOR ~ +19'4'TO.P SWCCO : DE 1021 Windmvs, Doors & Fascia : DE 279 a tt T _ SECOND FLOOR err co a Base & trim : I6'0'RIOGEIg_ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ __. _ _ _ __ _ _ .._ _ _ .. I ' Roof :Charcoal Bieck LIVING. FAMILY _ . _ I ' I ' I 111111 I I ~I i II I I I .. I . _ _ _ _ _. «i6 P RIDGE STAIR3.FAMILY CCLCUR$ +13'3' RIDGE ®GUEST BEO I W :I: I I fl ~ ~~~ ~ _ _ _ _ I I _ _ _ 139'PIDGE MATE BED(E) DE 279 : WaI( BCall DE 1O2~ :TIAe ~_ I; / r , \ i SECOND FLOORL .9tl'T O j I I ~ - _ - _ _ NPO'T.O.P -MASTER BEO(E) n . .P y~_ _ _ CHEST BED _- _ -- _ - i 1 r i l ~ ~ I I ~ _- ((-- 1 ( l i I ' ~ ~ ~ I I I - I j 1 I i I 29'F.F. "FAGI~-- I ~I ~ I ~• j; ~ .. ' I 1 1 ~ I ~ I tl'FF +2 ® fff 111 111 __ ~J _-__ -_ _ -_ ®FAMILY • (1 ~atl~F.~ENTRY TL _ . G - N _ _ i _ _ _ __ __. _.._ _ _ _ _ +_ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ __ _ _ - _ _ ~__ _ _ . _ _ 01Y F.F. oo ~ -- ri R M ner Plaa I I ~ g NORTH ELEVATION (FRONT SIDE) I I / r~lppIlI ~~T~II~~ ~ } ~\ '~ ~~ 74a' -_------ /CHIMNEY 22'9'RIOGEQ NOi 70 E%CEED 236" SECOND FLOOR F70M FINISH GFFDE- 2± 19'd'i.0.P9 « SECONOFLOOR FAMILY '6TAIR$ ~ - --®-- - - -- ---- '' ~ -- I I II I I ~ ~ - - --------------- I I~ I ;IIII. I I I' 1 1 I III IIII I I ! , IIII ~ f I 111111 II ~ ~~~ '---- I I I i t II I I I II I ~ "~~" I I~ MOTTO ECCEE021'0' 21'D', ---- ..~ FROMFIHl9MGRA~ RIDGE a I __ +19'U'T.OP _---- SEGONDFLOOR Pmjecl me QUICKE RESIDENCE DDITION 8 REMODEL 9892 Mendelson Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 V , ~ ~ ~ No flevisbnal5ubmbslons Dale 13'9'RIOGE I S 7 PLAN CHECK ' afJ MASTER BED . 1106.00 ~ . \ -- ~ - .12!12'ftIOGF~ ~_ ~116'F F. ld _ V SECOND FLOOR ~- _ _ - _ ~-~ . , @S1llDYfE) «I~'6'FF. I~ _ p N79'TO Pna -_~ MASTER BED -- - ~ 1" - SECOND FL00 ~ • ~ . ,__ I ~ L -1--- -. (J FAMIL'/ ~ i I _ - 1~ , , I J- - ~-- - I / I I I I i '. ~ ~ I~ ~. I ~ ~ FJ-•1 _ ~~ I ~ i «1D9 TOp J---~~NDY~j ~ I ~~ i X2'0' F F Q FAMILY _ _~ '1'6'FlNISH ORApE E'S62~ Oramng iiUe LEVATIONS • i L, ~00'FF®_ _ _ I l M BED ~. HGRADE (E-548)1 10'FINI6 - _ . I- _ _ I _ _ ~_ I ._ _._. _ _ -_ _. _ _ _ _ .._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . '90"F.F.®ENTRY '' - -MASTEfl BEDROOM U' I' J ( Mhllacl Seal ~~55~ RCN/ `E1~1Nn E. ~\, GO ~0 >• R Nn 673919 T N REN.9J0.01 2 0 9F~ Q° CA \F Q I, ~ ( Orawyy No P mlecl lla. 24019 A-5 7 1NEST ELEVATION (RIGHT SIDE) 0 114"=1'-0" a1B m.o7.o0 ~-- `F.z~ .-. .e, ~, ,~ ,. ,.,. ., ~~~ ~ g SOUTH ELEVATION (REAR SIDE) ~-. ~\ ~~ \ n~ 1 d'd IR"TO.P~ `~ ~GNSER~RP-_- 11'B'T.O.P (g~ G~ERVVaiORY -.. _ rR'1R T.O.P (d GARAGE(El _____ I X14 FINISH ORAGE X651) P _ r au~EF. --------~--- ----. _-- ~~ ENTRY BILL GOULD DESIGN ART & ARCHITECTURE ~ 14107-P Hip[n CSSEa BLrp ~ los GpiOS, Li 93R 30 Fep 408.871.3149 P xap[408. 811,3140 ~ Generel Noses Kay Plan Q ENTRY V P,e~ rue QUICKE RESIDENCE ADDITION ~ REMODEL 19892 Mendelson Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 No R,mepx,ys~nmmionp Dam 1 PLAID CHECK 11.08.00 G~Iy nue ELEVATIONS Nchilect Seel 5E0 ANCy \. v~~pM E ~T r F 3 ~ 0 4 ~ Na C-23919 C Nf REN.9~30-01 ? \fF ~. CA~14o~ I ~ ' 1 Pmieu NO. H_N 244,9 V 17 EAST ELEVATION (LEFT SIDE) ~ Dale • `~~,;,.. ~`'s ^' ~~ r ~ .. ~~9G~~ ~ x: • • ~~,,~ ttti} tr ~ n ~^ ~ ~ r } y t ; ` Y fl " ~ k*' fi~4 ~ "` r S ~ ~ ~ - ~. _" ~ ~~ i 3 .~ ~~Xy~ ~ ~ W~'Se ~ ~~4 i• ~-t ` ~ ~ y}k 7~r~ i x' ~~ .. v ~,~ r r.t= r, ~`i w' r f ~u+ ~P '~.~ ' ~,-~.. ~~ r ~~rW'; r ~~ ,tFN~ t ?~~ ,'~~~}~yj~~~y~~~~ ~~ ~ 7 .. .~~ ~, ~. .,~ ~ ~~ u~ ," ' s r ~ ~, - - - _ - , A _ _ T" __ ~~~ '~°~": v T tdr-. ti `4 Ss. t s,Y~dr~ ~ r ~~r t k `ri x ~ n ,.'!~ ~r ' i ~ L~ -1 ~. A cr+~ ~ s; r ~ ~ ~ T Z. ~~}~k7„~ ~ III ~ !`<i ~ I' y i„.`ter a`~ 4'>n Ytay' S ry ~~ ~ i k _ r ~ yti~J ~ r,i ~ y.,. ~` . ~ tr~ ~' ~~~ r .. }~ r ~' ~, t ~"V[~ ~ f~ . f T~ ~µ "~; V ~ ~ "711~~.~ S •''f~i6 Y .~ , 4 ~ y.. , ... ~ ~/ ~ ~ ~.. r ,: ~:~;~ ....:w,;;; W~.. „,K,, L.~3e:Y~ ~_ ti~G,.,... x"tci u-~.: ~t~.. w~fi 14 s. ~ ~'rt .~ 3~.„ , iI _ ...._.. ~__~_..._ Y - f F~j Y ~_~ +~ 4} ,~..~ j}~ 1 • ~i.J~ ~ J • tr. ~iy ~ `~• ' i s~ r •~ ` h > 1 ~: i~ `i ti yam.; ~ ~' f. ;~~;~: ~~+a y ~. _.. , ~ ~~ • ,; ,Tr r ~~~ ,~ r''•~>~ ,.,. '.a :-~ ~-':: r,..w --~\ C • ~, _-° "x',ti ,~ t,- ~ _ ~ ~~' ~ ~~ - ' , ir'' ~~~ F, ~ ,.r n - ~ ' -" _ ~ _ » r .~ ~. ~ ~ ~ 'fir. ,_ ~U ~k~. ; . r.' ~ y~: ,t,,~ d`'~ ~` h`' t~ `may I I~-.~y ,L< t`> ~ } ~ ~ ~ ~~ rw,, ~ P~ 1` ~~` 7d~'z&la~.w ~„~ - , J~ , ~ ,~ ~'~ :~' ~ ~ '~ rte` :'P• ~4~~[ '~', ",k m - ~~JG'° ' T . ~ r 'f~ i~~~ v~° ~ ~ - ~ aC "' ~.~ ~ f ~ ~~ef~ ---- ~ ~ A -.y~~. ~tSF" J L2 j ~ ~`~a ~ ~ ~ __ x.~~ r ~~'S r~~,ere ~ t~F~ 4^Y.~,r,~~ S1~F r+Jlf ~# n 1.~a~3r.. .~ - .~ t ~~ /~t+ ~ S`'' i t~ ~ + ~ ~ ~~$. 1 ~ ~ .. ?~ ~ ~ rC , ~r,G~`~ n`F T ~ ~ t i ~ ,t 1 ~~ ~ r ~~ r ~~ t '% _,i: _~ +M.1t"~ !~ti, tr~j h4~'.';' > .v '~o'"~.~ „~~'A~u" ~,~ t Garl~r~~r. ,-yiytr4 ~ ` i~+'~,. ~~.~, ~~ y~. n'ka ~ ~ YID 2'~~~yi ~1~'..a'k`~'~' 3'y ~s y' '~~ ~~~~~ ,{`''~ ~ ~%C7 '~„, ~,:~ ~ y~ f ~ ' -s ..~` ~f ~ 1!~k t rr`...~. .. L -_ .b _.~''~ ~~ a ~.^. 'I~ K~ ~ 1"34 ~~ r-~~ ~ ~;;t -:'t f ~~ 'M ; -' ~; L ...feyiV ,r } 17~ - .. - ~, '~-°x`~t' ~ '` ~ ,, .,~. -~ wi1., . _ - .,Y i ~ ~. .~"r' ,, i ` '. -- ~,s~ ~~ iti... S ~ s ' .. ~r ~ - t-E- Y. .. ~ ha '£ C ~ ~ y ~ ~hj~*1]{~~+`~~~{}yj~3y5~',~t.,a~ _ ~.j:~ -~ ~.~ _ ; I.'.,~1~~ ~~ji i i~ s 1 Yrsh~Fi a+ q s ~ -t- _ 1X'e- 1{ ~y '4p t ~ _.~ is c~ ~ ''##' .•_ ~ ~l t':• ' r*' , ~= " , ~~=~ ~ ~ d ;, t_ -++~" "' ~ ~~ ~ j t • ,,, ~ ~_ i } ~~ # ti ; , . - ~., ~~' ~ .. - - Y. ~.;,x ~r" z. r > ~_- ~ ~~. ~. i, >a.'. -~. .ice t., ~ G' S v .~ ;r •. r i ,~ I~ _ f_ ~~ft_ ~_ _ J 1~:. ~n _ nth S!.~ - .. ~' I A '~ a ~ t ~~" "~ra,-tT i ~ *~1 '~ ice.. ~: y '7~~~,r...v~~ ~ ^ r 7 ,~ y y ~. ~ `"~~ i. ... . r ,{~ -I. ~ :t ~•~ .: ",t ,#~~! R. a"~ ~ _ ~~, y ~ ~° i 2 ~. j ' ' ~ .,,c :, ~ .-~: ~s ~ _ - r ~'. `r, mT.ti~ _ f ~'- ,~ t ' w. .. . .. _.. ~._ _ I ~ .. I' r ~-_, ~ ~„ y.,,.. ~-..... ~: ilk p t ITEM 2 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 03-211; 21851 Via Regina Type of Application: Appeal of a Tree Removal Permit Applicant/Owner: Connie Curry, Appellant Jennifer Constantino, Property Owner z - '- Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner' Date: October 8, 2003 APN: 503-69-030 Department Head: • • ~~~1~®1 21851 Via Kegina n Application No. 03-211; 21851 Via Regina PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City granted a tree removal permit for two Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees located at 21851 Via Regina; the Constantino property. A neighbor, Connie Curry, has appealed the tree removal permit. The two trees are approximately 3 feet and 11 feet in circumference. The trees appear to be healthy. Numerous mature Oak trees are located at the periphery of the subject property, as well as, throughout the surrounding areas. Eucalyptus trees are non-native and non-ornamental. Eucalyptus trees have inherently weak structures and are prone to limb failure for no apparent reason. They require frequent maintenance to minimize risk. Blue Gum Eucalyptus are extremely messy due to their bark regularly sloughing off the trunk, they become extremely large, and present a significant risk to property and persons. Generally speaking Blue Gum Eucalyptus are the least desirable of the non-native trees for the reasons mentioned above. The appellant has cited concerns regarding soil erosion if the Eucalyptus trees are removed. There are generally two ways tree removals affect soil erosion. Soil surface may become exposed to rainfall from the canopy being removed and the soil may destabilize from the removal of the stumps and roots. To address the possible destablilization of soil, the roots and stump could remain intact. This would involve poisoning the stump to deter sprouts from regrowing. As for exposed soil, a thick layer (such as 10 to 12 inches) of wood chips could be spread beneath and 20 feet beyond the Eucalyptus canopy perimeter until the canopies of the replacement trees are established to provide adequate cover over the soil. Decomposition of the wood chips layer is expected to be 3 inches a year requiring replacement approximately every five years. As for replacement trees, they would take 10 to 20 years before becoming truly effective at deterring erosion. If located away from property and persons, the arborist suggests a fast growing species such as another type of Eucalyptus the Evergreen Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) which will not present the same negative characteristics as the Blue Gum. The Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) and Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) are also good choices near or away from property or persons. Italian Stone Pines (Pinus pinea) is another good choice if away from structures. The arborist would suggest two 24-inch box size trees as replacements. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-50.080 the following criteria shall be used in determining if a Tree Removal Permit shall be issued: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and interference with utility services. (2) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values and ~~`~~®~ • established standards of the area. (5) The number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and take appropriate action. ATTACHMENTS 1. Tree removal permit, including applicant's site map and city approval. 2. Appellant statement from Connie Curry and Robert Kahn. 3. Mailing labels for notification of Appeal. • ~~C1~~3 • Attachment 1 • ®~~®~ Date Receive o ~ ~- Tree Removal Permit Application Permit No: Permit Cost : $25.00 Expiration Date: Property Owner: ~ ~ Phone :(hm) ~ (wk) ~~7 ~ ~5c (O Mailing Address: 21 ~ ~ \ ~ i ct ~ ~ a SQ~Q-'~c~~~ - ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~' Address where tree(s) to be removed: ~~~-~~/~` ~~ %'x~ L,tS' GL~c~VI/ Nearest cross street: ~- ~ r Company to remove tree(s) ~~r 1 f'PP 5~. r-v icy , I understand that the trees} may be removed only if found to be with in the criteria as established by Artic1e15-50.080 of the City code and that by signing this form, I am certifying that the tree(s) to be removed is/are solely on my property. nature o }'roperty Owner ree Removal permits are required for the removal of trees of the following size or larger (size refers to the circumference of the trunk measured 2 feet above the natural grade). Oak Trees: 32 inches or larger, All other Trees 40 inches or larger.. Please list all trees to be d ' th tabl b 1 • remove m e e e ow. SPECIES SIZE REASON FOR REMOVAL -~ ~ ~o ~t01'~LQ., ~ Ql~-¢~!C ~ ~}c ~iLe~, ~, Location of Trees Prepare a small site plan the area below,showing all trees to be removed from the property; include ~~ ~^ ~w ,~.() dimensions from property lines and existing structures. L~ ~~ -,~:C/t!~ ~~~ AUG 1 8 2003 CITY OF SAt~7~~ "'nMMUN1'fY t~~M~'t1.~~fid~~ a ;: FEES PAID: ~~ RECEIPT NO: ~~ ~ Z ~ - ~~'~~®~ • • • ~.~ ~''~ f ,~~ 1..'.: ,. a ,a ~ _ g;.. ~. '' 9 ''', . ~ ~~~~~~~ >_ - ~,.~ ti t~~ t ~ \ ~r ~ ~ ~~ ~, ~\ ~. , ~,.~. u '~ t ~ ' ~ ~;~da r j ~ ~ ~T fs~rrwa a ~ i _ s ~z ^s ~a~ ~aar~°+r~s° per r ax~sas~swnrrsoswarwMs ~. ~ ri ~r s r~i~ ~®a ris ®~ ~s rr. v ~'~ ~} ~ pad ~`.. -- - ~ Ma IQgo! M OAK rrrt • a ~• ,~~' y ~ ~ .._.. r . ~MIIO iM' O !-[ Ir~O Q ~ i1CA r8tt 'c,~, . -t" •~ 7mIRi Qf1QM as L1E s~ ~ p ~ !N JtllYr~~ -. _w • Applicant: ~ • • CITY OF SARATOGA Tree Removal Permit # l~ ~r ~~ Address Where Tree(s) Are To Be removed ~~ ~~ To Be Coin leted B A Field Ins ector This tree removal permit is APPROVED in accordance with Article 15-50 of the City Code based on the following findings.. _ The Condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to the existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services. Removal for economic or other enjoyment of the property. • The topography of the land and the effect of the removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. _ The number, species, size and location of the existing trees in the area and, the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, and any established standards of the area. ~./ The number of healthy trees on the property is able to support according to good forest practices. Conditions of Approval: Replacement tree(s) shall be planted within 3 months from the approval date. The City will re-inspect to ensure compliance with all conditions of approval. This tree removal permit is DENIED for the following reasons: 15-50.090 APPEALS (a)Except otherwise provided in the subsection (b) of this Section, any person objecting to a decision by the Planning Duector made pursuant to any of the provisions of this Article, may appeal such decision to the Planning Commission in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15-90 of this Chapter. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 15-90.020, the decision of the Planning Commission shall be final and no further appeal maybe taken to the City Council. . PERMIT EXPIRATION DAT: ! 3, - P - /~ `~~~~~ • Signature ~~~~~~~~~~Date of Effective Date of Permit Co unity Development Representative ~~~~~~ ~~. U • Attachment 2 • ~~~~Q~ i • ~~ 2+ v ;~',,\ ~~ THIS BOX TO BE COMPLETED BY THE C Y CLTRK DATE RECEIVED: ~~ 2l~ HEARING D~AT~ ~ -' ~ U FEE: RECEIPT # ~j ~ GI ~ ~~- CITY OF SARA,TOGA PLANNINGCOMMISSION APPEAL APPLICATION • rui va calendar days of the date of the decision. :tom ,~ , ,i z ~~ sz ~~_ ,~,~ n a~+ -,. ~!f This two-part application must be submitted to the City Clerk, 13777 F ~t le Avenue Saratoga CA 95070, by 5:00 p.m. within fifteen (15) Appellant Name: Address: Telephone #. Name of Applicant (If different than Appellant): ~. C Project file number and address: ,. ~~ Decision being appealed: v~ 2 ~ i,~c ~ Q tt.S `~ (~~S Grounds for appeal (letter may be attached). A • Appellant's Signature Date (Please do not sign this application and the attached authorization until it is present at City offices) ~00~~9 r Co~ie R. Curr~~ and T. B. Law~nce 21823 Via Regina Saratoga, Calif. 95070 City of Saratoga August 25, 2003 Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 Re: request by 21851 Via Regina to remove two eucalyptus trees Dear Community Development Department. We request that the City deny the request of 21851 Via Regina to remove the aforementioned trees. The trees were planted approximately 30 years ago by the former owners of our parcel in the easement corridor we have on the 21851 property. This easement grants us control over the grading, drainage and planting in a 17.12 foot wide strip along the common border of our parcels as shown on your map. The trees, which are approximately 6 feet from our property border and drive, are needed to stabilize the hillside in this <<rea from rain run-off and to prevent erosion. The trees are .approximately 125 feet from the nearest dwelling and pose no danger. These eucalyptus also contribute significantly to the wooded aesthetics of our area. If you have any questions concerning our easement 'rights in this matter please fee free to contact our attorney, Robert S. Kahn at 408-353-3456. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ~~ Conniellz'!'Curry & Thomas B. Lawrence encl: copy of easement description ic. Robert S. Kahn -Attorney at I~aw • ~~~~~~ .~ ~ , •. ~ ~ Orde o. L(3 433033 • • for the purpose of installation and maintenance of power lines, telephone lines, water pipe lines, gas pipe lines and sewer lines, over the following described parcel of land: Beginning at an iron pipe at the Easternmost corner of the 12.369 acre tract of land described in the Deed to M. G. Milsted, et ux, recorded July 25, 1~~47, Book 1489 Official Records, page 135; and thence northvresterly along the northeasterly line of .the said 12.3fi9 acre tract, the following courses and distances: PT ,. 19° 50' 32" W., 174.29 feet to an' iron pipe, ti. 49° 56' 40" 41. , 147.83 feet to an iron pipe, N. 50° 05' 19" W., 281.07 feet to an iron pipe; N. 47° 26' 48" W., 310.55 feet to an iron pipe; Tl, 44° 17' 36" W., 213.65 feet to an .iron pipe; thence leaving the said northeasterly line .of the 12.369 acre tract S. 82° 18' 30" E., 117.30 feet; thence S. 36°.11' ;;0" E., 259.23 feet to an iron pipe; thence. 5..50° 29' 30" E., 109.12 feet to an iron pipe; thence~S. 68° 08' 30" E., 180.54 feet to an iron pipe; thence S. 31° 23' 45" E.;, 101.84 feet to an iron pipe; thence S. 31° 23' 45" E. 101„84 feet to an iron pipe; thence S. 10° 06' 30" E., 129 .9 fec~t to an iron pipe and s. 28° 59' 30" E•, 90.76 feet to an iron pipe; thence West 60.00 feet to the point of be~;inninf;, as granted in the Deed to Forrest E. Gowen, et ux, recorded April 23, 1953 in Book 2632 Official Records, page 418. Together with the right to have coni;rol over the grading, I drainage and planting of the.excaval;ion and fill banks within the following described slope control. easements: ONE: -Beginning at an iron pipe set at the' northeasterly corner of tha certain 1.246 acre Parcel "A" shown upon that certain map entitled "Record oP Survey of the Lands of Gowen" recorded in Book 246 of P4aps page 56, being also on the westerly right r~ of wa .line ~f Via Regina Road; thence N. 82° 25' 52" W., 73.33 U feet to 'iron pip "; hence .. ron P P 5° 45' 27 a ong the northeasterly 24' O9" W., 17.12 fee ; thence line_.saD_ run ng N. 2 ° 45' 27" ,~': 147 fe~+, thenc 70° E. , L= • J J l + J n•, +~~. v i ~ v Ma ° t~.~ 97.7.9 feet to an iron pipe; p line of said Parcel "A" leava last said northeasterly,, E. ~ 93.8 eet; thence. N. 54° 35' S1" 82 .fee o the point of beginning.. F I (Cant inued) W ~ A t'i+ 4 F c: ~ r~N~ _.. ~_~ -~_- 011 • THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT S. KAHN • ROBERT S. KAHN August 26, 2003 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 D ~ ~ ~ ~ n~ ~ ~ 25263 TERRACE GROVE ROAD 11Wg S TOS, CALIFORNIA 95033-9705 Telephone (408) 353-3456 p~G 2 g 2003 Facsimile (408)353-3499 KAHNLAW@EARTHLINK.NET CITY OF SARp,TOGA ^~MMU1dITY DF.VELOPMF'''~' Re: Response to "Notice of Application for Tree Removal" by owners of 21851 Via Regina, Saratoga, CA 95070 - APN 503-69-030 ("subject property") Dear Department and Council Members and Interested Parties: This office represents Tom Lawrence and Connie Curry, husband and wife, the owners for 28+ years of 21823 Via Regina, Saratoga, California 95070 - APN 503-69-031 (hereafter the "L-C Property"). The Lawrence-Curry home is northwest and their driveway and area of the subject tree removal is southeast and contiguous to the tree removal applicants' property. This letter is in opposition to the Application and will underscore and address the salient issues relative to the City's consideration. It should be considered in conjunction with the letter objection filed with your department by M/M Lawrence and -Curry on August 26, 2003. The applicable regulations include Article 15-50 "Tree Regulations". The findings and purpose of the Article are set forth in subsection 15-50.010 that states: The City Council finds that the City is primarily a residential community; that the economics of property value is inseparably connected with the rural attractiveness of the area, much of which is attributable to the wooded hillsides and the native and ornamental trees scattered throughout the City; that the preservation of such trees is necessary for the. health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City. in order to preserve scenic beauty, prevent erosion of topsoil, protect against flood hazards and the risk of landslides, counteract pollutants in the air, maintain the climatic balance and decrease wind velocities. It is the intent of this Article to establish regulations for the installation, maintenance, preservation and removal of trees within the City, consistent with the reasonable use of private property. • It is uncontroverted that the two subject trees are eucalyptus "protected trees" as defined by Article 15, subsection 15-50.050 (a). As such they require a permit for removal and it would be unlawful for them to be intentionally removed, damaged or injured without City permission and approval. • ~~~~~~ • City of Saratoga Community Development Department • August 26, 2003 Page 2 The former owners of the subject property planted both trees [and those few others that surround them] approximately thirty (30) years ago. The subject property, which is part of a rolling hillside in a subdivision off Pierce Road, was recently sold to the current owners. Since their ownership they have proceeded to denude the property of a substantial portion of its erosion control ground cover vegetation. The trees themselves are on a portion of the subject property that former owners specifically recognized as being prone to erosion and in need of slope control. The problem was so acute, and so impacted the L-C Property and driveway access, that a recorded easement was granted to the owners of the L-C Property by the prior owners of the subject property that is directly germane to the issues presented. That easement, which is part of the L-C Property description, and applies specifically to the property where the trees are located; states and grants to M/M Lawrence and Curry as owners of the L-C Property: [t]he right to have control over the grading, drainage and planting of the excavation and fills banks ...within the ...described slope control easements {See Record of Survey filed June 5, 1969, Book 254 of Maps, page 43 et seq., Parcel Three, Santa Clara County Records} In addition to all the reasons that follow, it is also submitted that this easement gives legal rights to M/M Lawrence and Curry and that those legal rights compel that the applicants' cannot act alone and without the acquiescence of M/M Lawrence and Curry, and for this reason alone, the Application must be denied as incomplete. Furthermore, I am informed that the justification for removal set forth in the Application consists of two grounds, to wit: alleged potential damage to the applicants' residence and the applicants' allergies to eucalyptus trees. Addressing these points separately, the subject trees are a minimum of one hundred and twenty-five (125) feet from the applicants' residence or any other significant structure. This compels the applicants' need to explain their allegation; calls into question their veracity, motives and good faith, and further compels denial of the Application. Attached with the Application submitted and hereto are two different site maps. Both have been submitted to depict the approximate location of the trees and residence. Both clearly demonstrate that the statements submitted in support of the Application are erroneous. Also, as a point of information, there is at least-one hundred (100) feet of clear space and non- combustible materials between the subject trees and the Applicants' residence. Therefore, the statements of danger in support of the Application cannot be reconciled with the reality. ~~~~~ • • City of Saratoga Community Development Department August 26, 2003 Page 3 A review of Article 15-50 subsection .080 "Determination on Permit" regarding permit applications for tree removal, states that when a tree removal permit is applied for, that it shall be reviewed and determined based upon five expressly enumerated criteria. Those five criteria are: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, .imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services. (2) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface water. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values and any established standards for the area. (5) The number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. Nothing in any criteria says anything about allergies. It is self-evident that these are clearly not the only eucalyptus in the forest or this neighborhood, the trees are nowhere • near the Applicants' residence or any structure, the Applicants' knew or are imputed with the knowledge that these and dozens if not hundreds of other eucalyptus existed when they elected to purchase their property inclusive of heritage trees at the entrance of the subdivision, there is nothing physically wrong with these trees, these trees are -not in the Applicants' view corridor and there is no economic reason for their destruction, the topography and easement rights granted compel the retention of these trees to prevent erosion and soil retention, the trees are scenic and beautiful, afford privacy and economic value and screening from the sun to the L-C Property and driveway entrance, and are only two of a very few trees in the immediate area. Any permit that would allow their destruction would be directly contrary to the mandates of the findings and purposes of Article 15 as set forth hereinabove, common sense and the law. There is no legitimate or legal basis whatsoever for the removal of these trees. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Application must be denied. Very truly yours, Th,,e~I=;a Bice of Robert hn ..1,,. ,'"~°.% Roti'e S. Kahn RSK/d' J 082603.It1/Iir to CDD ~~~~~~ • i • EXHIBITS • • E X H I B I T S ~~~~~~ P' ~\ ~,0 ~In`~ ~ \, =-'~1 ~~ r1 T~ V ;, • t` ~S ;~: ~~ ~ -:i•._- ~~ _ ~ - ~~° ~ ~c~~ 1~°~ .~ (iy~' ~' ~'~`~ ~~. ~ _ ~; ~~ P - ~~~ ~~ ~ w. ~ ~ ~~ o ' ;, ~3: era. --~~,r r..,. a ~~ ~ ~',~i~rr"' ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ (!\~ O r~ ~ Yit 1~~ 1C as1~~s CI ~ ~a Y'~ ~.+ ~ ~~ l ' 1f IK ~T~~[ ~~ ~ . iMr ._._. __. ....... S ~~ „• • • • ~/; `{ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ `-- v - ~ - .'~~^ - QEGo~P ~ P c~ C~ ~~ --_. .p i ~~ 1~ ' ~ ~ SURVEYOR'S GERTIF'C ATE '~ ~ e. 1 ('147 _ _ - re,. .ae cp,r.cn, •...].n.. ].r ..r ape. e, pr 3~ _ __ _ ~.~.f .~- p,r.~r,Dn - ~?1 N~. of tn. Lana 8ufr.ypr:: ;C,n•G; °rn:•,:av.: •or••~ .w.n. J `~ ... .. rn O(.TJBER , 19~ M COUNTY SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE r.• •. `ee rm• +aD na• >•n e.pr•~nw ro` con o n nc. •, n• r ~n..nn or n ~a na s~r.•yor •~~-~~> . ~ i ,e .•, per. -..- owry SJ' .e>or -' LL ~ • ~ ~ ~ BY D••uty ~ IJCG' - ~ ..... \\ ~ 3: 2 98Y6 RECGRDER'S CER?•FICATE p ap p, •I•-°` - ~ tnf 9Dp.-4~s1.- pD. p• DpC. ~pt r.VUf,t of ~~ JpCY M Cnr ]ifneon. \\ - Gounry A•cpraar \~~ . n.~els of sera r-:-a: NOTES AND LEGEND - rV •,e :2."5 .. •cr< er a.- ~ '~ . O Iron D~D• e••(3/4'1 e( OO JO NE "~ ~ •••^ na `~51~ rwd eC t..~r a .~ < P p,Da Iou nG (J/4~tnlel: rCt•rJ C:nef r_f) Irpn ' y C a.SFE...n. ~ Bae- •f w.a GPI .~•ewka - - ~ F,. rs.d5 v ~ - . .. >.wr n• ,e •n.- w.aa. r :d - MOnvln •nt Iounp ~ •~ a own nar•on ~ aefoncea one_ a•wenamns - or•~ o.. .• . . u. .-__ - _ ._.. _. __. _ ._._.----.. In ra •J pnp p•c~e~ple fn•r•of. _ _ ... ~f/ _ ~ _.~------- -- Ar~tENDED . - _-_ ~-__ ~ ~ SURVEY RECORD OF ... _ LANDS. OF F GOWEN, BEING A POR- . ... ~ TION OF SECTION 2, T8S_R2W Iti1.D_ ~- B.aM., CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA ^•~CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AMENDS RECORD OF SURVEY RECOP,DED BOOK 246 OF MAPS AT .PAGE 56 SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS. " - . - .. -' - _ DATE APRIL, 19c~ SCALE I"=50' 2 ~~~.~ . -~ _ PARCEL B ~ 5 ~~~~ 3 4 "_3 ~ ~ - _--= ~,c, - ,. . air a 3 ..y _ ~ ~o: :.` v, ~ r PARCEL A ~ Z ~, - - _ - ~~ ~~ ~7 ~~ ~~ r~ '~..~~_ ___ '~~, ~U ~ .J- ,~ ~ '.-__ ~aefi ~2. ~hrlstcnson _. -- ~ anD ~ssociatcs . I _. , '~ - - ,. 12 1 N. iN al - San Jea_. G•11t 95110 :.. • St _- ~ .: ' • • Order No. LG 433033 . 1 ~` Those parcels of land in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: PARCEL "A", as shown on the Record of Survey filed June 5, 1969, Book 254 of Maps, page 43, Santa Clara County Records.. PARCEL TWO: A non-exclusive easement 60.00 feet in width for the purpose of ingress and egress and for the installation and maintenance of public utilities and for the purpose of installation and maintenance of power lines, telephone lines, water pipe lines, gas pipe lines and sevaer lines,- the centerline of which easement is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an iron, pipe in the centerline of Pierce. Road, at the southernmost corner of that certain 62.663 acre tract of land described. as Parcel 1 in the Deed to Alfred S. Evans, .recorded August 8, 1944 in Book 1217 Official Records, page 110; thence along the said centerline of Pierce Road, the following courses and distances: N. 36° 35' E., 35.94 feet to an iron pipe, I1. 51° 35' E., 203.91} feet to an iron pipe, N. 32° 05' E•, 315.48 feet to an iron pipe and N. 59° 15' E., 118.75 feet to an iron pipe set at the true point of beginning; of this description; thence leaving the said centerline of Pierce Road and running the following courses and distances: N. 80° 57' W., 75.93 feet, S. 47° 36' 30++ ~~7., 195,22 feet, S. 32° 116' 15" ~,1., 157,48 feet,. S. 57° 42' 45" W., 68.89 feet; thence on a curve to the right with a radius of 108.12 feet, throuP;h an angle of 119° 09' 45", for a distance of ??_4.86 feet; thence N. 3° 07' 30" U~•, 259.07 feet, N. 18° 36' 30" E., 195.67 feet and North 158.47 feet to a point which bears East 30.00 feet from an iron nape set at the easternmost corner of the 12.369 acre tract described in the Deed to M. G. Milsted, et ux, recorded July 25, ,191{7, Book .1489_____ Official Records, page -_13~--, as granted in the Deed to Forrest E. Gowen, et ux, recorded April 23, 1953, Book 2632-:.,Official Records, page 1118. ~ - PARCEL THREE: A non-exclusive easement for the purpose of ingress and- egress • and for the installation and maintenance of public utilities and (Continued) ~'~~~~ 8 • • - ~. Order P1o. LG 433033 for the purpose of installation and maintenance of power lines, telephone lines, water pipe lines, gas pipe lines and sewer lines, over the following described parcel of land: Beginning at an iron pipe at the Easternmost corner of the. 12.369 acre tract of land described in the Deed to M. G. Milsted, et ux, recorded July 25, 1947, Book 1489 Official Records, page 135; and thence northwesterly along; the northeasterly line of the said 12.369 acre tract, the following courses and distances: rT. lg° 50' 32" W., 174.29 feet to an~ iron pipe, P1. 49° 56' 40" 4T. , 147.83 feet to an iron pipe, Pd. 50° 05' 19" W., 281.07 feet to an iron pipe; N. 47° 26' 48" W., 310.55 feet. to an iron pipe; P1. 44° 17' 36" W., 213.65 feet to an iron pipe; thence leaving the said northeasterly line of the 12.36g acre tract S. 82° 18' 30" E., 117.3.0 feet; thence S. 36° 11' 30" E., 259.23 feet to an iron pipe; thence S. 50° 29' 30" E., 109.12 feet to an iron pipe; thence S. 68° 08' 30" E., 180.54 feet to wn iron pipe; thence S. 3l° 23' 45" E., 101.84 feet to an iron pipe; thence 5..31° 23' 1!5" E. 101.84 feet to an iron pipe; thence S. 10° 06' 30" E., 129.9 feet to an iron pipe and S. 28° 59' 30" E., 90.76 feet to an -iron pipe; thence West 60.00 feet to the point of beginning;, as granted in the Deed to Forrest E. Gowen, et ux, recorded April 23, 1953 in Book 2632 Official Records, page 418. Together with the right to have control over the grading, drainage and planting of the excavation and fill banks within ~ the following described slope control easements: Q ON F.: ~ Beginning; at an iron pipe set at the northeasterly corner of that. ~j certain 1.246 acre Parcel "A" shown upon that certain map m ~ entitled "Record of Survey of the Lands, of Gowen" recorded in Book 2716 of Maps page 56, being; also on the westerly right of way line of Via Regina Road; thence N. 82° 2.5' S2" W., 73.33 feet to an iron pipe; thence S. 54° 35' 15" ~^r. , 1411.01 feet to an. iron pipe; thence S. 25° 45' 27" W•, 97.79 feet to an iron pipe; ~~, ~ thence along the northeasterly line of said Parcel "A" N. 35° o ~ 24' Og" W., 17.12 feet; thence leaving; last said northeasterly line and running N. 25° 45' 27" E., 93.87 feet; thence N. 54° 35' 51" E. 147 feet; thence S. 70° E., 82 feet to the point of beginning. (.Continued) ~~~~~9 • TWO • Order No. LG 433033 Commencing at an iron pipe set at the southeasterly corner of that certain 1.246 acre Parcel "A" shown upon that certain map entitled "Record of Survey of the Lands of Gowen" recorded in Book 246 of Maps, page 56, being; also on the westerly right of way line of Via Regina Road; thence along the southerly line of said 1.246 acre Parcel "A" and its extension N. 49° 17' 09" W., 164.84 feet to the true point of heginnin~;; thence from said true point of bee;inninp~ continuing; along; last said course N. 49° 17' 09" j~]., 10.30 feet to an iron pipe; thence S. 54° 35' S1" W., 125.01 feet to an iron pipe; thence 250 45' 27" W., 11.42 feet; thence N. 54° 35' S1" E., 132.98 feet to the true point of beginning. • • ~~~~2~ Attachment 3 • ~~~~~~ THOMAS C & ANNE FURLONG WILLIAM B TOSCANO 13929 VISTA REGINA WAI-YAN & TSAI-PI HO 13935 VISTA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID R & DAWN KOCSIS 13945 VISTA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 VIA REGINA ROAD INC 18809 COX AVE 200 SARATOGA CA 95070 MAYELLA T DANGELO 21710 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL & ZDENKA RASHKIN 21780 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL W SIMPSON 21818 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL W SIMPSON 21818 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 RUSSELL G & SUSAN PERRY 21846 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 FREDERICK J & FUMIKO OSSENBECK 21950 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 JANET F REDD 1340 POMEROY AVE 322 SANTA CLARA CA 95051 GARY A & YII-DER HLADIK 21871 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 ARTHUR F & ET OKUNO 21811 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 ANTHONY N HOEBER 21786 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN P & BETH MCLAUGHLIN 21800 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 HAMID LOTFIZADEH 21820 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 PRITHVI & ANITA RAI 21848 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 TOROSSIAN P & CLARA DER 21978 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 HANNELORE E THOMAS 21955 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 GUILLERMO & IRENE MARTINEZ 716 DAKOTA DR SAN JOSE CA 95111 CHARLIE C CONKLIN 21799 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 NORMAN L KOEPERNIK PO BOX 966 SAN JOSE CA 95108 DOLPHIN 18809 COX AVE 200 SARATOGA CA 95070 WILLEM A & SANDRA KOHLER 21842 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 SHARMA 21860 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 BRUNO 21970 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 TILL M & DONNA GULDIMANN 21891 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 CURRY -LAWRENCE 21823 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 MEHDI & MAHBOUBEH MOAZENI 21781 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~~ d MARY A BORER 1`2177 COUNTRY SQUIRE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 • MERDAD & GENEVA. SANJIDEH 21700 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 €~~~~23 ~_• ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION #03-183 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Create Mixed Use Standards ALL COMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES CITYWIDE City of Saratoga Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director October 8, 2003 N/A Department Head: Application No.: Type of Application: Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: T~ISCUSSION The City's Housing Element contains several housing programs; one of the programs is Program 1.2: Amend Zoning Code to Implement aMixed-Use Overlay Zone. The action that is proposed would start the formal preparation of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to implement the Program 1.2. The areas that are suggested to be studied relate to the development standards. The City Council directed the Planning Commission to study and report on amendments to the City of Saratoga Zoning Code, which will establish a conditionally permitted use in each of the Commercial, and Administrative and Professional Office zoned areas. The mixed use (CommereiaUOffice and Residential) needs development standards to be applied to ensure that the City's sales tax base is protected, that existing residential development is protected and to provide for the orderly (re) development of the City's Commercial and Office areas. The Planning Commission was directed by the Ciry Council to study and report on Mixed-Use standards that include, but are not limited to, the following: The maximum density is twenty (20) dwellings per net acre. The dwelling unit(s) shall be located either on the second floor or at the rear of the parcel. The dwelling unit(s) shall not comprise more than fifty (50%) percent of the total floor area of all buildings on the site. The maximum floor area allowed may be increased. by 10% for projects providing below market rate rental housing Parking for both the commercial and the dwelling unit(s) shall be as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, provided that the Planning Commission may consider shared parking in some cases. OU0001 • Perimeter fencing shall be required to the maximum height allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. • Each dwelling shall have private, usable outdoor space, i.e. decks, balconies, yards or patios. The maximum height of a mixed-use structure shall be 26-feet. Structures that are solely commercial on a site that has mixed use, the maximum height is as is in the underlying zoning. • The design of mixed-use projects will be required to conform to the policies and techniques of the Residential Design Handbook and any other design standards in place for the area of application. • Overall site coverage maybe increased up to 10% for projects containing "deed restricted" below market rate housing units. • Mixed-use projects shall have sound walls and landscape screening in order to protect the privacy and quality of life of abutting single-family residential lands uses. The residential component of a mixed-use project shall be rental. The individual dwelling units shall range in size from 850 sq. ft. for 1-bedrooms units to 1,250 sq. ft. for 3-bedroom units in a mixed-use development. That the "Multi-Family" use be deleted from the various Commercial- Zoned Districts when "Mixed-Use" is amended into the same Zoned Districts. • That multiple stories, setback requirements, window placement and privacy issues be included in the Mixed-Use standards. Commercial properties created or developed through a previous mixed. use or multi- family development are disallowed from further or subsequent mixed use projects ~- • Dedicate an in-lieu fee for park construction for smaller mixed use projects • Require common, useable open space in larger mixed use projects In order to accomplish the foregoing, several individual amendments to the Zoning Code must be made. The attached Resolution lists all of the required Zoning Code amendments. In the text of the Commercial and Office Zoning Districts "multi-family units" are allowed as a conditional use. This is proposed to be deleted and replaced with "mixed use" projects, which are allowed subject to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. In the CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts (the Village) housing is allowed as a permitted use if on the second floor or not fronting a street. The proposal before you would delete that from the code. The same Zoning Districts allow housing to front the street on the ground floor with a Conditional Use Permit. It is proposed to replace that language with language that makes reference to Mixed Use Developments conforming to the Design Standards found in Article 15-21 and subject to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. The Zoning Code Amendments would also delete the existing Article 15-21 MU-PD: MULTIPLE USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT and replace it with the new Mixed Use Development Standards. Staff has used the trough to show what is to be eliminated and the Bold Italics to highlight what is to be added the various zoning code sections. 15-18.030 Conditional uses is amended to read: The following conditional uses may be allowed in a P-A district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (a) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a conditional use. ~. 00~~~~ (b) Community facilities. . (c) Institutional facilities. (d) Police and fire stations and other public buildings, structures and facilities. (e) Religious and charitable institutions. (f) Nursing homes and day care facilities. (g) Public utility and public service pumping stations, power stations, drainage ways and structures, storage tanks and transmission fines. (h) Mixed-Use developments pursuant. to the development standards found in Article 15- 58 of this code. (i) Bed and breakfast establishments. (j) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications. (Amended by Ord. 71.91 ~ 2,1991; Ord. 71-163 ~ 1 (part), 1996) 15-19.030 C-N district regulations is amended to read: (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-N district: (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4) Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. . (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in a C-N district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this chapter. (1) ~ > saxrre-srt~ (1) Mixed-Use developments pursuant to the development standards found in Article 15- 58 of this code. (2) Medical offices and clinics. 15-19.040 C-V district regulations is amended to read: (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-V district: (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in a C-V district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Religious and charitable institutions. same-sites (2) Mixed-Use developments pursuant to the development standards found in Article IS- S8 of this code. (3) Medical offices and clinics. ~O~D®03 (4) Mortuaries. (5) Theaters. (6) Automobile- upholstering shops provided all operations are conducted within an enclosed structure. 15-19.050 C-H district regulations is amended to read: (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail or service establishment. ( , (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located at street level and having street frontage. (2) Theaters. (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4 , streetfracitage. (4) Mixed-Use developments pursuant to the development standards found in Article 15- 58 of this code IS-SS MIXED-USEDF'VFLOPMFNT STANDARDS ISADDED TO RFAD: 15-58.10 Purposes ofArticle The purpose of the mixed-use development standards is to further accommodate the City's fair share of the regional housing need and to implement the policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan in a consistent manner through out the various commercial and office zoned districts of the City. It is further the goal of these standards to protect existing and future commercial development by establishing standards to ensure compatibility ofadjoining commercial and residential uses. IS-58.20 Development Standards All mixed-use developments shall comply with the following standards. (a) The maximum density shall not exceed twenty (20) dwellings per acre of net site area. (b) Any dwelling unit(s) shall be located on the second floor or, par~cef at the rear one-half of the parcel in a manner that does not unreasonably interfere with streetlevel commercial uses at the front of the parcel. ooooo~ (c) Dwelling unit(s) shall not comprise more than SO percent of the total allowable floor area of all buildings on the site. The total allowable floor area may be increased by 10% for projects subject to deed restrictions requiring 20 percent of the housing to be affordable to low and very low-income families. (d) Parking for all types of uses (eg., commercial, residential, office, public) shall be as specified in Article 15-35 of this Code, provided that the Planning Commission may reduce the total parking required .where it determines that the reduction will not increase the amount of street parking in the vicinity and that during business hours the site will have at least one parking space for each dwelling unit on the site in addition to the amount ofparkingrequired for the non-residential uses on the site. (e) All perimeter fencing shall be at the maximum height allowed in Article IS-29 of this Code. (f) Each dwelling unit shall have private, usable outdoor space, i.e. decks, balconies, yards orpatios. (g) With the exception of the CH District, the maximum height of a .mixed-use. structure shall be 26-feet. Structures that are solely commercial on a site that has mixed use, the maximum height is as is it is stated in the underlyingzoning. (h) The design of projects including residential uses shall minimize potential conflicts among different uses and shall conform to the policies and techniques. of the Residential Design. Handbook and any other adopted design standards applicable to the site. (i) The permissible site coverage may be increased up to 10% for projects subject to deed restrictions requiring 20 percent or more of the housing to be affordable to lowand verylow-incomefamilles. (j) Sound walls and landscape screening shall be required and designed in a manner that protects the privacy and quality oflife of any abutting single-family residential lands uses. The height of the sound walls and the width of the landscape buffer will be determined on a case-by-case basis consistent with the provisions of IS- 19.020(d)(4) of this Code. (k) Any residential component of a mixed-use project shall be rental. Individual dwelling units shall range in size from 850 sq. ft. for 1-bedroom units to 1,250 sq. ft. for 3-bedroom units. (1) The height, elevations, and placement on the site of the proposed structures; the locations of windows and balconies; and the location and design of various uses, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; (ii) community viewsheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (m) Any mixed-use project on the site of a previously approved mixed-use or multi- . family development shall include at least the same amount of square footage devoted to commercial use as the previously approved project. (n) Mixed-Use projects including residential uses shall dedicate land or pay fees in lieu of dedication for recreational uses in accordance with the standards set forth in subsections (b) -and (c) of Section 14-25.080 of this Code. (o) Fxcept as specifically provided otherwise in this section, mimed-use projects;shall comply with all other requirements of this Code applicable within the zoning district in which the project is located. ~~a0(~5 (p) Lighting. Lighting for the commercial uses shall be appropriately shielded to not negati vely impact the residential units. (c~ Noise.. All residential units shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts-from non.-residential project noise, in compliance with the County's noise regulations. (r) After Hours Commercial Use. A mixed-use project proposing a commercial component that w111 operate outside of the hours from 8.•00 a.m. to 6.•00 p.m. shall require Planning Commission approval to ensure that the commercial use will not negativelyimpacttheresidential uses within the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend the Zoning Code Amendments to the City Council by adopting the attached Resolution ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 03-_ 2. Housing Element Program 1.2 r~ • ODUOOU • Attachment 1 • ~0~~®~ RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SAR.ATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION - STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, .the City Council directed the Planning Commission to study and' report on amendments to the City of Saratoga Zoning Code, which will establish a conditionally permitted use in each of the Commercial, and Administrative and Professional Office zoned areas City Council of the City of Saratoga to study the Mixed-Use; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the City's Housing Element contains several housing programs; one of the programs is Program 1.2: Amend Zoning Code to Implement aMixed-Use Overlay Zone, and WHEREAS, the burden of proof required supporting said amendments- has been presented, and the following findings have been determined: • The proposed amendment is in accord with Program 1.2 of the Saratoga Housing Element, which states, "That the City will adopt a Zoning Code amendment to implement a residential mixed-use overlay zone that applies to all commercial zones within the City of Saratoga." ^ That the proposed Zoning Code amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the City of Saratoga in that the Development Standards have been crafted to avoid such injuries. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: 15-18.030 Conditional Uses Be Amended to read: The following conditional uses maybe allowed in a P-A district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (a) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a conditional use. (b) Community facilities. (c) Institutional facilities. (d) Police and fire stations and other public buildings, structures and facilities. (e) Religious and charitable institutions. (f) Nursing homes and day care facilities. (g) Public utility and public service pumping stations, power stations, drainage ways and structures, storage tanks and transmission lines. (h) Mixed Use Developments conforming to the Mixed Use Design Standards found in Article 15-58 ®~®Q~ (i) Bed and breakfast establishments. (j) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications. (Amended by Ord. 71.91 ~ 2,1991; Ord. -71- 163 ~ 1(part),1996) 15-19.030 C-N district regulations is Amended to Read: (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-N district: (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4) Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in a C-N district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this chapter. (1) Mixed-Use Development conforming to the Design Standards found in Article 15-58 (2) Medical offices and clinics. (c) Site area. The minimum net site area of any lot in a C-N district shall be ten thousand square feet. (d) Site frontage, width and depth. The minimum site frontage, width and depth of any lot in a C-N district shall be as follows: ,_~___ _.____.. _____~_.._~____at___.____._________ _ ~_-_________.~.___. EFrontage...... . - ~ Wi _ . ... P ~ h De th 60 feet ~... ~~~60 feet _ ;100 feet (e) Coverage. The maximum net site area covered by structures on any lot in a C-N district shall be sixty percent. (f) Front yard. The minimum front yard of any lot in a C-N district shall be ten feet; except that on a site adjacent to and fronting on the same street as, or directly across the street from, an A, R-l, HR, R-M or P-A district, the minimum front yard shall be fifteen feet. (g) Side and rear yards. No side or rear yard shall be required for any lot in a C-N district, subject to the following exceptions: (1) On a reversed corner lot abutting a lot in an A, R-1, or HR district, the minimum exterior side yard shall be not less than one-half of the required front yard of the abutting lot. (2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (g)(1) of this Section, on a lot abutting an A, R-1, or HR district, the minimum side yard or rear yard abutting such other district shall be thirty feet. (3) On a lot directly across a street or alley from an A, R-1, or HR district, the minimum side yard or rear yard adjacent to such street or alley shall be ten feet. Where a side or rear yard is required under any of the foregoing provisions, one foot shall . be added to the required yard for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a structure within thirty feet of the lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. 000009 (h) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure in a C-N district shall be twenty feet. (i) Enclosure of uses. All permitted and conditional uses shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, except for off-street parking and loading, gasoline service stations, outdoor dining, nurseries, garden shops and Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (j) Screening, landscaping and fencing. An area not less than five feet in depth along all property lines that abut a street shall be landscaped with plant materials and/or improved with sidewalks or pathways as required by the Planning Commission. All planting materials shall permanently be maintained by the owner or occupant of the site. (k) Alternative standards for multi-family dwellings. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, where multifamily dwellings will be located upon a site, the Planning Commission shall apply for such dwellings the development standards set forth in Article 15-17 of this Chapter. The. density of development shall be as determined in each case by the Planning Commission, based upon its finding that: (1) The project will not constitute overbuilding of the site; and (2) The project is compatible with the structures and density of development on adjacent properties; and (3) The project will preserve a sufficient amount of open space on the site; and (4) The project will provide sufficient light and air for the residents of the site and the occupants of adjacent properties. (Amended by Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992) 15-19.040 C-V district regulations is Amended to Read: (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-V district: (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in a C-V district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Religious and charitable institutions. (2) Mixed Use Developments conforming to the Design Standards found in Article 15-58. (3) Medical offices and clinics. (4) Mortuaries. (5) Theaters. (6) Automobile upholstering shops, provided all operations are conducted within an enclosed structure. (c) Site area. The minimum net site area of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten thousand square feet. (d) Site frontage, width and depth. The minimum site frontage, width and depth of any lot in a C-V district shall be as follows: _.____...___.____._._.._..__..__..,__~._.._~__.._n.__ _~_._____.r_..___...____..__.__.~ ;Frontage Width ;Depth ._,_ ._..._ __ _._._ ._..~~ ~... ~ _-____W..__~ _ _ _..__r _....~._, ~~ ~ t ~®~~1® _._.._......._......._.._.~..~..__...._..._._.._.._..,.._...~.~.__.m_~._.___.~_._. ~.._.._..._ __._..~._......Ri 60 feet 60 feet ;100 feet (e) Coverage. The maximum net site area covered by structures on any lot in a C-V district shall be sixty percent. (f) Front yard. The minimum front yard of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten feet; except that on a site adjacent to and fronting on the same street as, or directly across the street from, an A, R-1, HR, R-M or P-A district, the minimum front yard shall be fifteen feet. (g) Side and rear yard. The minimum side yards of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten feet and the minimum rear yard of any lot in a C-V district shall be thirty feet, subject to the following exceptions: (1) One foot shall be added to the minimum side yard for each one-foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within thirty feet of the side lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (2) One foot shall be added to the minimum rear yard for each one-foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within sixty feet of the rear lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (3) On a corner lot, the minimum exterior side yard shall be twenty feet. (h) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure in a C-V district shall be twenty feet. (i) Screening, landscaping and fencing. (1) An area not less than ten feet in depth along all property lines that abut a street shall be landscaped with plant materials and/or improved with sidewalks or pathways as required i by the Planning Commission. All planting materials shall permanently be maintained by the owner or occupant of the site. (2) A use not conducted within a completely enclosed structure shall be screened by a solid wall or fence, vine-covered fence or compact evergreen hedge (with solid gates where necessary) not less than six feet in height. This requirement shall not apply to off-street parking and loading areas, gasoline service stations, outdoor dining areas, nurseries, garden shops, and Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (j) Alternative standards for multi-family dwellings. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, where multi-family dwellings will be located upon a site, the Planning Commission shall apply for such dwellings the development standards set forth in Article 15-17 of this Chapter. The density of development shall be as determined in each case by the Planning Commission, based upon its finding that: (1) The project will not constitute overbuilding of the site; and (2) The project is compatible with the structures and density of development on adjacent properties; and (3) The project will preserve a sufficient amount of open space on the site; and (4) The project will provide sufficient light and air for the residents of the site and the occupants of adjacent properties. (Amended by Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992) 15-19.050 C-H district regulations is Amended to Read: (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in the CH-i and CH-2 districts: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street ®®~Q~~. frontage by a retail or service establishment. (2) DELETED (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, .the following conditional uses may also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located at street level and having street frontage. (2) Theaters. (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4) Mixed Use Developments conforming to the Design Standards found in Article 15-58. (c) Site area. The minimum net site area in each C-H district shall be as follows: ?District iNet Site Area NCH-1 ~~ ~ j5,000 sq. ft. _____ NCH-2 X7,500 sq. ft. (d) Site frontage, width and depth. Th C_-H district shall be as follows: !District ~ ontage ;Width ~_______...~__~._-__E ..__ ~__...~. _ . 'CH-1 ~SO ft. 150 ft. CH-2 SO ft. 50 ft. e minimum site frontage, width and depth in each _.______._'Depth _._ ~ ~__________ ~ ____ --.v_ X100 ft. X100 ft. (e) Coverage; pedestrian open space. . (1) In the CH-1 district, the maximum net site area covered by structures shall be eighty percent, except that up to one hundred percent of the site maybe covered by structures if, for any structure coverage in excess of eighty percent, an equivalent area on the site is devoted to pedestrian open space. (2) In the CH-2 district, the maximum net site area covered by structures shall be sixty percent. In addition, an area equivalent to not less than twenty percent of the net site area shall be devoted to pedestrian open space. All or any portion of the required front yard may be used for pedestrian open space. (3) The term "pedestrian open space," as used in subsections (e)(1) and (2) of this Section, means common areas open to the public where pedestrians may walk or gather, such as plazas and arcades, which are designed to be visible and accessible to pedestrians on streets, sidewalks and parking facilities adjacent to the site. (f) Front yard. No front yard shall be required in the CH-1 district. The minimum front yard of any lot in the CH-2 district shall be fifteen feet. (g) Side yards. No side yards shall be required in either the CH-1 or CH-2 district. . (h) Rear yard. No rear yard shall be required in the CH-1 district. No rear yard shall be required for any lot in the CH-2 district having a rear lot line that abuts a public right-of- way, public parking district, Saratoga Creek, or the CH-1 district. Where the rear lot line ~~~Q~2 • of any lot in the CH-2 district abuts an A, R-l, HR, or R-M district, the minimum rear yard shall be thirty feet, plus one foot for each two feet of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within sixty feet of the rear lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (i) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure in each C-H district shall be as follows: 'District ____._._ HHeight __....._..m ~ ___._ .__.._......_ ~._. _._. _... _ . ____ __ ________. ~___.~_ ~ _________~__.a._____.__. ____._....._.._.._ _______ f ._~~____..._. _~._....._,...._.._..__.._......~-~--..,_,,...._.....~~_...._..._.._._..,,~v,....__.____...._.........._.._,._ _..._...___.._.~...._~..,._..~......,. CH-1 E35 feet. No portion of a structure facing ',Big Basin Way shall exceed two stories, sand no portion of a structure facing Saratoga Creek shall exceed three ;stories. ._..__.__._.___._._;____ ___ __~______ _._..__.~.___ _ W._._.__ CH-2 '26 feet. No structure shall exceed two jstories. (j) Enclosure of uses. All permitted and conditional uses shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, except for off-street parking and loading, gasoline service stations, garden shops and outdoor dining. (1) Modification of standards for historic structures.. The Planning Commission shall have . authority to modify any of the development standards contained in this Section, without the granting of a variance, if the subject of the application is a structure, which has been designated as a historic landmark pursuant to Article 13-15 of this Code, and the Planning Commission finds and determines that: (1) The modification will facilitate preservation of the historic structure; and (2) The application and the proposed modification have been reviewed and approved by the City's Heritage Commission; and (3) The modification will not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the vicinity; and (4) The modification .will not adversely affect the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, or the availability of on-street parking, and will not create a hazard to the public safety. (Amended by Ord. 71-108 41,1992; Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992) Article 15-21 MU-PD: MULTIPLE USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT is Amended by Deletion. Article 15-58 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Added to the Saratoga Code to Read: 15-58 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS ADDED TO READ: 15-58.11 Purposes of Article The purpose of the mixed-use development standards is to further accommodate the City's fair share of the regional housing need and to implement the policies of the Housing Element of the C~~~~13 General Plan in a consistent manner through out the various commercial and office zoned districts of the City. It is further the goal of these standards to protect existing and future commercial development by establishing standards to ensure compatibility of adjoining commercial and residential uses. 15-58.21 Development Standards All mixed-use developments shall comply with the following standards. (a) The maximum density shall not exceed twenty (20) dwellings per acre of net site area. (b) -Any dwelling unit(s) shall be located on the second floor or, where the design does not unreasonably interfere with street level commercial uses at the front of the parcel, at the rear of the parcel. (c) Dwelling unit(s) shall not comprise more than fifty (50%) percent of the total allowable floor area of all buildings on the site. The total allowable floor area may be increased by 10% for projects subject to deed restrictions requiring 20 percent of the housing to be affordable to low and very low-income families. (d) Parking for all types of uses (e.g., commercial, residential, office, public) shall be as specified in Article 15-35 of this Code, provided that the Planning Commission may reduce the total parking required where it determines that the reduction will not increase the amount of street parking in the vicinity and that during business hours the site will have at least one parking space for each dwelling unit on the site in addition to the amount of parking required for the non-residential uses on the site. (e) All perimeter fencing shall be at the maximum height allowed in Article 15-29 of this Code. (f) Each dwelling unit shall have private, usable outdoor space, i.e. decks, balconies, yards or patios. (g) With the exception of the C-H Zone, the maximum height of a mixed-use structure shall be 26-feet. Structures that are solely commercial on a site that has mixed use, the maximum height is as is it is stated in the underlying zoning. (h) The design of projects including residential uses shall minimize potential conflicts among different uses and shall conform to the policies and techniques of the Residential Design Handbook and any other adopted design standards applicable to the site. (i) The permissible site coverage maybe increased up to 10% for projects subject to deed restrictions requiring 20 percent or more of the housing to be affordable to low and very low-income families. (j) Sound walls and landscape screening shall be required and designed in a manner that protects the privacy and quality of life of any abutting single-family residential lands uses. The height of the sound walls and the width of the landscape buffer will be determined on acase-by-case basis. (k) Any residential component of a mixed-use project. shall be rental. Individual dwelling units shall range in size from 850 sq. ft. for 1-bedroom units to 1,250 sq. ft. for 3-bedroom units. • • • ~O~®1 ~, (1) The height, elevations, and placement on the .site of the proposed structures; the locations of windows and balconies; and the location and design of various uses, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; (ii) community viewsheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (m) Any mixed-use project on the site of a previously approved mixed-use or multi-family development shall include at least the same amount of square footage devoted to commercial use as the previously approved project. (n) Mixed-Use projects including residential uses shall dedicate land or pay fees in lieu of dedication for recreational uses in accordance with the standards set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of Section 14-25.080 of this Code. (o) Except as specifically provided otherwise in this section, mixed-use projects shall comply with all other requirements of this Code applicable within the zoning district in which the project is located. (p) Lighting for the commercial uses shall be appropriately shielded to not negatively impact the residential units. (q) All residential units shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts from non- residentialproject noise, in compliance with the County's noise regulations. (r) A mixed-use project proposing a commercial component that will operate outside of the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. shall require Planning Commission approval to ensure that the commercial use will not negatively impact the residential uses within the project. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City- of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, , _ 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • ®~'~~~~ i % s Attachment 2 ~0~~~1~ l Program 1.2: Amend Zoning Code to Implement aMixed-Use Overlay Zone The City will adopt a Zoning Code amendment to implement a residential mixed-use overlay zone that will be applied to all commercial zones within the City of Saratoga, including sites with the greatest immediate potential for residential-mixed use shown in Figure 1 and listed in Appendix B. The new mixed-use overlay zone will contain appropriate development standards, including residential density and parking standards, suitable for the development of low- and moderate-income housing. Projects that include residential-commercial mixed-uses will be subjected to the City's density bonus-affordability requirement (see program 2.1). The City will apply the following standards for implementation of a mixed-use overlay zone: Maximum net base density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre, excluding density bonuses for very low- income, low-income, or senior housing (calculated as the equivalent net density for that portion of the site developed for residential use.). Dwelling units shall be located in mixed-use structures above first-floor or to the rear of non-residential uses. The City will permit residential-only structures of two stories to the rear of commercial uses fronting on a street. This provision will ensure that the 26-foot height limit does not impose . an impediment to achieving a maximum net residential density on mixed-use site of 25 units per acre with a density bonus for affordable or senior housing. The residential portion of a mixed-use building shall not exceed 50% of the total floor area, with an increase of 10°Io of floor area permitted for projects providing below-market-rate housing. Site coverage may also increase by 10 % for project containing below market-rate housing. The allowance for additional coverage should provide ample opportunities for the construction of residential units in mixed- use projects, even with the 50 percent limitation on the proportion of total floor area that may be residential Depending on the number of mixed use projects that contain below market-rate housing units, between 60 percent and 70 percent of the 33 acres of commercial sites identified in Figure 1 and Appendix B may be covered by structures, which can be two stories. Up to half of the total floor area for structures may be residential, as. noted in #2 above. Allowing for 25 to 30 percent of the permitted residential floor area as accessory structures to dwelling units, the City estimates that between 600,000 and 750,000 square feet of residential floor area could be constructed on the parcels identified in Figure 1 and listed in Appendix B. Parking standards for both commercial and residential portions of the project shall be the same as otherwise required by the Zoning Ordinance, except that the Planning Commission will allow shared parking for mixed-use projects, except in areas where parking is already impacted, such in the Village. Each dwelling unit shall have private, usable outdoor space, which may provided through decks, balconies, patios, or private yards. • The maximum building height shall be 26 feet. • Design requirements for the residential portion of a project shall conform to the City's Residential Design Handbook. • Mixed-use projects shall contain sound walls and landscape screening to protect abutting single- family residences. • Housing units in a mixed-use project shall be rental,- with dwelling units ranging from 850 square feet for cone-bedroom unit to 1,250 square feet for atwo-bedroom unit. • Small mixed-use projects may pay a park in-lieu fee rather than .providing land for park construction. ~JQO®~ .~, i • Larger mixed-use projects shall contain common open space. • To provide incentives for the construction of affordable housing in mixed-use projects, the City will offer one or more regulatory and/or financial incentives as listed in Program 2.1 The City will promote the mixed-use overlay zone by preparing an information package to be distributed to each commercial property owner in Saratoga, local real estate firms, and developers who are active in the area. The information package sent to real estate firms and developers will include a list of sites the City has determined have the greatest immediate potential for mixed-use residential development (as listed in Appendix B). The City will post information about mixed-used development opportunities on its web site. The City will annually update and redistribute its information package on mixed-use development opportunities and update web site information as the status of mixed-use sites changes. The City will monitor the production of housing produced through the mixed-use overlay through an annual report to the City Council on the units constructed each year and their affordability by income level. If the number and affordability of second units falls short of the assumptions contained in "Discussion of New Construction Objectives" (approximately 8 units per year), the City will adopt additional revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and additional incentives to increase the likelihood that the new construction objectives contained in the Housing Element can be achieved. Timeframe: Adopt Zoning Code amendment by July 1, 2002. Prepare information package and distribute by December 2002. Update and distribute annually thereafter. Report annually to the City Council, 2002 - 2006. Adopt revisions to zoning requirements or incentives, if needed, by December 2003 to achieve new construction objectives. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division (conduct site analysis and draft Zoning Code amendments); Planning Commission (review and recommend amendments to City Council); City Council (accept recommendations and adopt Zoning Code amendments). Funding: General Fund. GOAL 2: ENCOURAGE THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING AFFORDABLE TO LOWER- AND MODERATE- INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS Objective: To increase the supply of affordable housing and housing options in Saratoga to house additional households and families earning less than 80% of the Sanfa Clara County median income. • ~~~~~5 • C7 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Conference with Leal Counsel -Consideration of Liability Claims (Gov't Code 54956.95): Claimant: Mary Feinstein Agency claimed against: City of Saratoga Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code 54957) Title: City Manager Conference with Leal Counsel -Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code section 54956.9): (1 potential case). Conference with Leal Counsel -Threatened litigation (Gov't Code section 54956.9): (1 potential case). Conference With Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation Name of case: Parker Ranch Homeowners Association, et al. v. Tsung-Ching Wu, et al. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number CV797015) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Kathleen King, Norman Kline, Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager • Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Danielle Surdin, Administrative Analyst Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director 1 Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director Morgan Kessler, Assistant Engineer Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst MBER 3 REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR SEPTE , 2003 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of September 3, 2003 was properly posted on August 28, 2003. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Marvin Becker, explained that he has been trying to reach the City's Community Service Office for several days. Mr. Becker stated that there has been a car sitting on blocks on Brookglen Drive for several weeks. Mr. Becker noted that he feels it is a public nuisance. Mr. Becker stated on 8/26 the Community Service Officer finally returned his call only to say that there was nothing he could do about the car. Bill Breck, stated that this was his fifteenth time before the City Council requesting that tree protection fences be placed around all of the protected trees around the property located at 14480 Oak Place. Mr. Breck also requested that the "Stop Work" notice be reinstated at that property: COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Vice Mayor Waltonsmith requested that staff follow up with Mr. Becker's comments. City Manager Anderson responded that he would follow up and report back to Council. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith requested that Mr. Breck's comments be followed up on. City Manager Anderson responded that he would follow up and report back to Council: ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS None • 2 SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS lA. INTRODUCTION OF SARATOGA SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT, LANE WEISS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Dave Anderson, City Manager, introduced the new Saratoga Union School District Superintendent, Lane Weiss. Mr. Weiss thanked the Council for inviting him this evening and stated that he was looking forward to building a strong partnership with the City. Mr. Weiss announced that on September 18, 2003 the Saratoga Union School District and the City would be having a reception welcoming him to the community in the Civic Center courtyard. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -AUGUST 6, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2003. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. 2002/03 YEAR END APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-052 RESOLUTION MAKING APPROPRIATIONS ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2002/03 BUDGET 3 WAI,TONSMITH/BOGOSIANMQVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION MAHING APPROPRIATIONS ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2002/03 BUDGET. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2D. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRACT TO INCLUDE MILITARY SERVICE CREDIT AS PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: 222 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM WAI,TONSMITII/BOGOSIANMQVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2E. ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE RELATING TO R-1 DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION CODE RELATING TO THE ELIMINATION OF THE BUILDING SITE APPROVAL PROCESS OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: 221 ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE RELATING TO R-1 DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION CODE RELATING TO THE ELIMINATION OF THE BUILDING SITE APPROVAL PROCESS OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO RE-ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE RELATING TO R-1 DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION CODE RELATING TO THE ELIMINATION OF THE BUILDING SITE APPROVAL PROCESS OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4 2F. AZULE PARK PROJECT -NOTICE OF COMPLETION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept Notice of Completion. WALTONSMITHlBOGOSIAN MOVED TO ACCEPT NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR AZULE PARK PROJECT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2G. 2003 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM -AWARD OF CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Declare Valley Slurry Seal Company to be the lowest bidder; award contract; approve additional work in the amount of $50,000; authorize change order up to $10,000. WAL,TONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO DECLARE VALLEY SLURRY SEAL COMPANY TO BE THE LOWEST BIDDER; AWARD CONTRACT; APPROVE ADDITIONAL WORK IN-THE AMOUNT OF $50,000;_ AUTHORIZE CHANGE ORDER UP TO $10,000. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2H. SECOND RESTATED AND AMENDED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING THE SILICON VALLEY ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. Councilmember Bogosian requested that item 2H be removed from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the agreement had two specific amendments. First every city would that is part of the JPA would get one vote except for Santa Clara who would get two votes. The second specific amendment allows the JPA to retain 20% of funds paid into the JPA and reimburse the rest of the money if a City decides to withdraw from the JPA. Councilmember Bogosian stated that this amended agreement would make the JPA stronger. BOGOSIAN/KIl~tG MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AMENDED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING THE SILICON VALLEY ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ~ 1 5 2I. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (BAAQMD) - SPARE THE AIR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Support the Clean Air Consortium and authorize the City Manager to sign the Clean Air Consortium Voluntary Agreement on behalf of the City. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO SUPPORT THE CLEAN AIR CONSORTIUM AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE CLEAN AIR CONSORTIUM VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2J. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE USA PATRIOT ACT AND THE PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF SARATOGANS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-53 RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE USA PATRIOT ACT AND THE PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF SARATOGANS Councilmember Bo osian requested that item 2J be removed from the Consent g Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he fully supported the resolution and was grateful to the League of Women Voters for bringing this issue forward. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated that she concurred with Councilmember Bogosian and requested the Mayor read the last four paragraphs of the resolution. Mayor Streit proceeded to read the requested paragraphs. WALTONSMITH/KIl~tG MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE USA PATRIOT ACT AND THE PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF SARATOGANS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2K. AMENDMENT TO THE CITY MANAGER'S CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve contract. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE CITY MANAGER'S CONTRACT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 6 • 2L. CLAIM OF MARY FEINSTEIN; CLAIM NO. GL-054729 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Reject claim. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO REJECT CLAIM OF MARY FEINSTEIN. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2M. STATEMENT OF CITY SUPPORT FOR THE RETENTION OF THE CALIFORNIA SPECIALIZED TRAINING INSTITUTE IN THE STATE BUDGET STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Mayor to sign letter of support. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIANMQVED TO AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO SIGN LETTER OF SUPPORT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. • PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. MAJOR UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 15-50, TREE REGULATIONS AND ADOPTION OF A ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; adopt resolution granting the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; introduce ordinance; and place on consent calendar at the September 17, 2003 meeting for adoption. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director; presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that last year the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending the City update and amend the City's Tree Ordinance. The City Council appointed an ad hoc committee comprised of Mayor Streit and Councilmember King to work with staff to review the proposed amendments to the Tree Regulations. Director Sullivan noted that the Planning Commission supported the recommended changes. Director Sullivan reviewed the proposed changes. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith requested clarification in regards to the section on prumng. 7 Director Sullivan explained that a property owner can prune their tree not more than 20% of the crown without a City permit. Director Sullivan stated that a permit is required for the pruning of a protected tree located on a neighboring . property. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing. Bill Breck, noted that he supported that proposed ordinance. Mr. Breclc stated that he had some concerns in regards to the a few sections: 15-50.180 -the section is still ambiguous 15-50.180 -bonds should posted for more than five years 15-50.070 - "crown" is not clearly defined 15-50.190 -contractors should be required to have a "state" license Tom Corson, commended Director Sullivan and the ad hoc committee for the proposed ordinance.. Mr. Corson suggested that the City hire a full time Arborist and redwood trees be added to the list of protected trees. City Attorney Taylor explained that technical issues have been found in he proposed ordinance which should be corrected. -City Attorney Taylor stated that the Council should go forward with discussion and continue the first reading until September 17, 2003.. STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE FIRST READING TO • SEPTEMBER 17, 2003. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Director Sullivan noted that he would clearly define "canopy" and "crown". In regards to Mr. Corson's statement, Director Sullivan explained that in Section 15.45.060 redwood trees are listed under native trees. Referring to the section on pruning, Councilmember Bogosian noted that he doesn't support a property owner receiving a misdemeanor if a tree is pruned more than 20%. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he supports a property owner receiving a misdemeanor if a tree is illegally removed. Councilmember Bogosian stated that if the ordinance cannot quantify pruning than it should not be addressed. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated that she concurred with Councilmember Bogosian. Director Sullivan stated that the penalty could remain an infraction instead of a misdemeanor except for an illegal removal of a tree. A discussion took place in regards to permits and bonds when moving a tree Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to make the suggested changes and • clarifications and return on September 17, 2003 to continue the public hearing. 8 OLD BUSINESS 4. EXPANDING DECORATIVE AND SAFETY LIGHTING IN THE VILLAGE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. . Danielle Surdin, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Surdin explained that at the June 18, 2003 City Council meeting, Council approved year-round decorative lighting in the Village commercial district 7-days a week. Council directed staff to look at the option expanding the lighting program to include Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, 3ra & 4th streets, and. the lighting of Blaney Plaza's main entrance for this year's holiday tree lighting ceremony: Analyst Surdin stated that staff also included cost estimates for two related Village lighting issues that were previously raised as a public safety concerns -the addition of light to the stairs on 4th street that connect the Village with Oak Street, and the installation of an additional street light on 3`a street: Analyst Surdin explained the five projects including cost estimates. Analyst Surdin stated that the maintenance, purchasing, and energy costs for Projects 1, 2, 4, & 5 would be allocated from the Landscaping and Lighting District Fund -Zone 7. Mayor Streit asked if Blaney Plaza was included in Zone 7. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, responded that Blaney Plaza was not part of Zone 7. Councilmember Kline suggested "up lighting" the trees in Blaney Plaza instead of tree lights. In regards to the holiday tree lighting ceremony, Councilmember King asked if there would be a permanent tree in Blaney Plaza. In response to Councilmember King's question, Mayor Streit responded that there was a proposed tree in the Master Plan for Blaney Plaza. KLINE/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE PROJECTS 1, 2, 4, & 5. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 5. WILDWOOD PARK SAFETY REVIEW OF KOMPAN MULTI SEE SAW M146 . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve placement of equipment. 9 Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist explained that at the August 6, 2003 City Council meeting, Council approved the Design Plan for the Playground Improvements at Brookglen and Wildwood Parks and authorized the purchase of play equipment for the approved vendors. As a condition of this approval, Council requested the City perform a detailed safety analysis of the Multi Seesaw (M 146) component from play equipment manufacturer Kompan in an effort to determine the products safety features, safety record and to determine if this type of play equipment is inherently more dangerous that other types of play equipment. Analyst Bloomquist stated that Kompan is a highly reputable company with over 30 years of experience in designing and building high quality play equipment. All Kompan play equipment meets the American Society of Testing Material and U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Specifications and they are in good standing with the International Play Equipment Manufacturers Association. Analyst Bloomquist noted that the Multi Seesaw is one of the most popular items sold by Kompan, and is constructed from the highest quality material. The springs used in the product are not ordinary springs but sophisticated -coil springs designed by Kompan to provide durable, long lasting wear. The Kompan springs have a patented clamp that effectively protects against inadvertently pinching of fingers. The structure, per Kompan, Analyst Bloomquist explained is tested with its full design load and through a full range of motion. To pass the test, a rod, designed to imitate a child's finger; must not be entrapped by the springs at any time during the test. Analyst Bloomquist stated that the safety record of the Multi Seesaw is excellent and per a telephone conversation with Kompan's Safety Compliance Coordinator there have only been three documented safety related claims received by Kompan regarding the Multi Seesaw. It was noted each of the three were related to improper usage of the equipment, and not from equipment design or material failure. Analyst Bloomquist noted that Kompan maintains a liability insurance policy in excess of one million dollars and offers a 10-year warranty against material failure and a 5-year warranty against failure of springs. Councilmember Bogosian thanked Analyst Bloomquist for the report and noted that he supported the purchase of the Multi Seesaw. Referring to a picture in the staff report of the Multi Seesaw with back supports, Councilmember King suggested that staff purchase the equipment with this feature. Councilmember Kline stated that he was glad Councilmember Bogosian requested that this piece of equipment be brought back to Council for further discussion. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO APPROVE PLACEMENT OF THE 10 MULTI SEESAW AT WILDWOOD PARK WITH THE BACK SUPPORT FEATURE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. NEW BUSINESS 6. STATUS OF THE SARATOGA BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that during the 1990s the Mayor established the Saratoga Business Development Council (SBDC). Over the years, the group has had varying levels of City support. At times the group was granted a budget to accomplish objectives and has had staff support in terms of preparing agendas, taking minutes and organizing meeting. In these ways the group-has operated as a formal advisory body to City Council. However, in other ways the group operates as an informal roundtable. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained what delineates the distinctions between formal and informal groups. Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that this issue was brought to the attention of SBDC who agreed to continue to operate informally and signed a letter to the City Council expressing their preference. Brain Berg, noted that he was present this evening representing SBDC. Mr. Berg stated that the SBDC supports retaining the status as an informal roundtable group. Mr. Berg urged the City Council to form a formal commission to work with SBDC. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO SUPPORT THE STATUS OF SBDC AS AN INFORMAL ROUNDTABLE GROUP; SUPPORT A SEPRATE INFORMAL BUSINESS ADVISORY COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Attorney Taylor suggested that staff return on September 17, 2003. with. a formal resolution declaring Council's decision this evening. 7. RECREATION PROGRAM COORDINATOR POSITION VACANCY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that as part of the. budget reductions for 2003-04, a staff hiring freeze was enacted with exception for department directors and essential employees. The Recreation Program Director has given notice that she will be leaving the City for another opportunity. At-this time staff requests direction on whether or not Council considers this position "essential" and wishes to authorize the City Manager to release the hiring freeze in order to fill this position. 11 Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained some of the Recreation Program Coordinator's responsibilities and noted that 70% of time is spent on teen activities and 30% on other recreation activities. Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that if this position is not filled, other Recreation Department staff could absorb some classes and summer contract sports camps, but all other program would be eliminated unless major restructuring of the Recreation Department was to occur. Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that the, services offered at the Warner Hutton House are provided at no charge to parents. With the current economic climate, Council could reconsider this arrangement. Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, urged the City Council to fill this position. Director Pisani noted that this position provides quality programs to residents -and the youth of Saratoga. Director Pisani noted that this position also provides support to the Youth Commission. Consensus of the City Council that this position provides a great services to the community and provides a safe place for the youth after school at the Warner Hutton House. Consensus of the City Council to authorize the City Manager to move forward with filling the vacant position. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Streit reported the following information: Chamber of Commerce -announced that Celebrate Saratoga is on September 13, 2003. Hakone Foundation Liaison -continuing to work on the Master Plan and reviewing their financial statements. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith reported the following information: SASCC Liaison -looking for a larger space. Valley Transportation Authority - in an acrimonious state due to recent budget cuts. Councilmember King noted that she had no reportable information. Councilmember Kline reported the following information: Saratoga Business Development Council - in light of tonight's discussion in regards to the status of SBDC, Councilmember Kline asked if he could still attend their meetings. City Attorney Taylor responded yes. Councilmember Stan Bogosian reported the following information: Emergency Planning Council -discussed the report on soft story buildings. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he passed the report along to Director Sullivan. Councilmember Bogosian noted that Saratoga has the highest percentage of soft stories in Santa Clara County. 12 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian stated that in the September 23 issue of the Saratoga News, an article suggested that the City was going to create a Historic District. Councilmember Bogosian stated that if this was correct all the neighbors should be noticed and if it was a false statement then the City Manager should contact the Saratoga News. Mayor Streit responded that there was no item scheduled to discuss creating a Historic District. City Manager Anderson stated that he would contact the Saratoga News and correct the article. In regards to tonight's discussion on the status of SBDC, Vice Mayor Waltonsmith suggested that all nonprofit groups involving the City be addressed. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the Council Policy Committee would be addressing that issue. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Streit declared the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • 13