Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-2004 Planning Commission PacketT' '~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 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 Absent: Commissioner Hunter Staff: Planners Livingstone ~ Welsh, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 10, 2003. (APPROVED 5-0-1, UHL ABSTAIN) 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 regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 8, 2004. 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). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerhC~saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION #03-266 (397-16-128) RAHIM,14350 Taos Drive: The applicant's request for modifications to a previously approved Design Review was approved at the meeting on December 10, 2003. The resolution for this project is back to the Planning Commission for review and approval of the conditions. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 6-0) 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. r' ~. 2. APPLICATION #03-201 (503-48-029 and 503-48-028), located at and adjacent to 21170 Big Basin Way; -Request the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to expand the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area Boundary to include two new parcels, APN 503-48-029 and APN 503-48-028. Recommend that the City Council Amend the City of Saratoga's General Plan to add the two new parcels to the General Plan with the designation of Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC). The area has already been Pre-zoned as a Residential Open Space District (ROS). Recommend that the City Council approve an Environmental Negative Declaration. UoxN LNINGSTON) (APPLICANT REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO JANUARY 28TH, APPROVED 6-0) 3. APPLICATION #03- 270, (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA; -Multiple Municipal Code Amendments are proposed to Chapter 14- Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 15 -Zoning Regulations and Chapter 16 -Building Code. The proposed amendments are intended to ensure that the City Code is consistent with the policies of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program advocating using site design and source control measures to minimize storm water pollutant discharges to the maximum extent possible. Additionally, Municipal Code Amendments are proposed to Chapter 14- Subdivision Regulations related to Lot Line Adjustments and Building Site Approvals. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 6-0) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 7:55 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, January 28, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 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@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 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 PT ET1C;E OF AT L EGTANC~F MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 10, 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 staf f 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 January 8, 2004. 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). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION #03-266 (397-16-128) RAHIM,14350 Taos Drive: The applicant's request for modifications to a previously approved Design Review was approved at the meeting on December 10, 2003. The resolution for this project is back to the Planning Commission for review and approval of the conditions. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) 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. 2. APPLICATION #03-201 1503-48-029 and 503-48-028), located at and adjacent to 21170 Big Basin Way; -Request the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to expand the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area Boundary to include two new parcels, APN 503-48-029 and APN 503-48-028. Recommend that the City Council Amend the City of Saratoga's General Plan to add the two :new parcels to the General Plan with the designation of Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC). The area has already been Pre-zoned as a Residential Open Space District (ROS). Recommend that the City Council approve an Environmental Negative Declaration. (JOHN LIVINGSTON) 3. APPLICA'T'ION #03- 270., (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA; -Multiple Municipal Code Amendments are proposed 'to Chapter 14- Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 15 -Zoning Regulations and Chapter 16 -Building Code. The proposed amendments are intended to ensure that the Ciry Code is consistent with the policies of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program advocating using site design and source control measures to minimize storm water pollutant discharges to the maximum extent possible. Additionally, Municipal Code Amendments are proposed to Chapter 14- Subdivision Regulations related. to Lot Line Adjustments and Building Site Approvals. (THOMAS S'ULLIVAN) , DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT ME:EYING - Wednesday, January 28, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • C If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to Manning@saratoga.ca.us • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, December 10, 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 G~ s Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, S,challop and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Uhl Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of November 12, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning, Commission minutes of the regular meeting of November 12, 2003, were adopted as submitted. (4-0-1-2; Commissioner Uhl was absent and Commissioners Nagpal and Schallop abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the. agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 4, 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). 0~~, • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 2 COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT _ Director Tom Sullivan advised that s ecial assistance is available to ensure accessibility to any of the P City's public meetings in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Interested persons should contact the City Clerk's office 48 hours in advance of a meeting to be accommodated. CONSENT CALENDAR -ITEM NO.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM & GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING: The Saratoga Planning Commission will review and determine if the proposed 2003-04 Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of Saratoga General Plan. Chair'riunter asked that this item be removed rotii Coiisciit to aiiuw t he Coiiuiussior, to discuss it fully. She pointed out that height limitations of 26 feet do not apply to schools and is important to note since a 50-foot high building is currently under construction at Saratoga High School. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that Austin Way is not included in the CIP. Mr. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, advised that the Austin Way project is a part of the operating budget. Additionally, a signal on Saratoga is listed on the CIP as an unfunded project. Commissioner Barry sought clarification that the CIP is before the Commission for comment on consistency with the General Plan. She asked how projects came to be included on -the CIP. Public Works Director John Cherbone: • Replied that many are maintenance projects. • Advised that he connected special projects in this CIP to the appropriate General Plan Sections to outline their consistency. • Added that some of the projects within the CIP would have environmental issues that would be dealt with on a project by project basis, at which time additional review will be done. Director Tom Sullivan advised that CIP projects were derived from three sources, the public, Council and staff recommendations. Public meetings and hearings were held before Council. The projects were ranked with some being funded and others being unfunded. Commissioner Zutshi questioned Policy 6 on page 9. Director Tom Sullivan advised that Bed and Breakfasts have already been implemented as a Conditional Use. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there are plans to change the speed limit on Allendale. Public Works Director John Cherbone replied no, not at this time. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission found the City's Capital Improvement Program to be consistent with the City's General Plan, by the following roll call vote: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 3 AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi. NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #03-078 (503-16-022) CHEN 13280 Pierce Road): The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence with a maximum height of 25 feet, 10 inches. The proposed residence, including garage, will be 4,032 square feet. A 1,969 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,597 square feet and the property is zoned R-1-40,000. The existing residence is to be demolished. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Pointed out a correction on page 4 of her staff report. • Explained that this proposed new home is compatible with the contemporary homes that can_ be found along Pierce Road. • Advised that the neighbors have seen the plans and that trees obscure view of this site. • Stated that the rear property owner has no objection to this new home. Their only concern is the continued cleanliness of their-pool during the construction period. Staff has added a Condition of Approval to require compliance with BAAQMD requirements. • Said that one neighbor raised privacy impacts. In response, the applicant flipped the footprint. The neighbor to the west was fine with the flipped design and the neighbor to the east is fine with the addition of screening trees. The requirement to add four 24-inch box evergreen trees was incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. • Stated that there are eight Ordinance-protected trees potentially impacted by construction of this home. Three are located on neighboring properties, two of which are Monterey pines and the third is a Sequoia. One tree, a London plane, is slated for removal as it will be impacted by the driveway construction. The tree will be replaced with a native species. • Said that this project implements features called for in the Residential Design Policies. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked about Tree #8 and asked whether the driveway impacts that tree. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied correct. Commissioner Zutshi asked about a carport feature. Planner Lata Vasudevan clarified that there are garage doors on both sides of the garage so that it is possible to drive straight through that garage. Commissioner Barry asked if it were not standard to require compliance with BAAQMD requirements. Director Tom Sullivan assured that compliance is mandatory but that it is not typically specifically listed in the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the size of bond is not specifically called out. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 4 Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that the Arborist specifies the bond amount. Commissioner Nagpal asked if Tree #8 would be removed. Planner Lata Vasudevan said it is proposed for removal. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Mazad, Project Representative: • Advised that he is available for questions on behalf of the architect. Commissioner Zutshi asked what material would compose the carport floor. Mr. Mazad replied that it would be pavement. Chair Hunter pointed out that the reason for the planting of the London Plane tree was probably to screen visibility of the poles and recommended the planting of something else there. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to allow the construction of anew two-story, single-family residence on property located at 13280 Pierce Road by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN:. None ~~* PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #03-167 (517-22-011) YANG 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane: The applicant requests design review approval to construct cone-story single-family residence greater than 18 feet in height with a gross floor area that exceeds six thousand square feet, therefore Planning Commission approval is required. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23 feet, 6 inches., The proposed residence, including garage, will be 6,493 square feet. A 2,813 square foot basement is proposed. Materials and colors include a beige stucco exterior with orange clay the roof. The gross lot size is 82,500 square feet. The property is zoned R-1-40,000. The existing residence is to be demolished. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for aone-story, single-family residence with a maximum height of 23 feet, 6 inches. The home will include a 2,813 square foot basement, beige stucco and orange clay the roof. The architectural style is Spanish eclectic. • Said that the property is 82,500 square feet and is zoned R-1-40,000. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 5 • Stated that the majority of the residences in the vicinity are single-story, large-scale stucco with typical lots of one acre or more. • Said that the plans have been revised to include the Arborist's recommendations and that no Ordinance size trees are proposed for removal. • Recommended approval. Chair Hunter asked for a color board. Planner Christy Oosterhous distributed the sample board to the Commissioners. Commissioner Barry asked for further details on the history of the previous removal of 75 trees from this property. Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that many trees were removed from the property without benefit of permits. The City levied a $150,000 penalty. Added that she believes this applicant was also the owner at that time. Commissioner Nagpal asked for clarification. that this proposal is before the Commission because it exceeds 6,000 square feet and because it is taller than 16 feet. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Mr. Chris Spaulding, Project Architect: • Said that when they revised the plans to save a large tree, they reduced the house by 350 square feet. Therefore the total square footage is now 6,150. • Assured that the roof the they are proposing is not orange but rather a blend of reds and browns. Mr. Dave Flint, Project Representative: • Said that the property owner received bad advice, while he was still living in Seattle, which resulted in the improper tree removals. • Assured that the site was not clear-cut. Commissioner Nagpal asked why the need for such height when the roof pitch is low. Mr. Chris Spaulding replied that the owner wanted tall ceilings. He added that the project must be measured to existing grade. In actuality, the perception of height will be about 19 feet. Commissioner Nagpal asked for comparisons between the height of the existing house with the new home. Mr. Dave Flint said that they felt strongly that the design would suffer if the home was too low. Chair Hunter asked if the home would be visible from Peach Hill. Mr. Dave Flint said that there are many trees and that behind the house is Piedmont. Chair Hunter opened the Public Heanng .for Agenda Item No. 3. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 6 Mr. Henry Chang, 15050 Bonnie Brae Lane, Saratoga: • Identified himself as the next door neighbor. • Asked that no new trees be planted along the shared fence. • Expressed doubts about adding a solid fence in this area. Planner Christy Oosterhous pointed out that the landscape plan notes that no new plantings will occur in that area. The applicant has proposed to replace the existing chain link fence between these two properties with a new solid fence. These details can be worked out.. Mr. Dave Flint said that they were under the impression that the Changs wanted a solid wood fence. He assured that they are okay either way. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that staff has required the wooden fence. Chair Hunter said that if in the Resolution, they don't have to do so, if they decide not to. Director Tom Sullivan said it would be better to change the Resolution. Commissioner Barry asked for clarification on the clay roof the color. Mr. Dave Flint .said that they are reddish brown and definitely not orange. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the actual brand be named. Mr. Dave Flint said that they are red clay Redlands tiles. Commissioner Garakani asked staff from where the notation came that the stucco not be pink. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that this issue has been brought up by several Commissioners. Mr. Henry Chang: • Stated that he and his wife have just consulted and both believe that a fence would offer more privacy and that they would like to keep that requirement in the proposal. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Nagpal stated that this project offers a good example of when height for a home is appropriate. Declared this to be a good architectural design. Commissioner Barry said that she is pleased with the color board. Chair Hunter stated that this is a very nice design and that she hopes that it blends into the hills. • • Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to allow the construction of anew one-story single-family residence on property located at 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane by the following roll call vote: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 7 AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi . NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #03-216 (393-37-029) LUN (Appellant) WANG (Applicant), 19932 Merribrook Drive: The City granted a Tree Removal Permit for five redwood trees located at 19932 Merribrook Drive (the Wang Property). A neighbor, Yong Lun, 19894 Merribrook Drive, has appealed the Tree Removal Permit. The trees are located in the applicant's rear yard. The City Inspector issued the Tree 1'temovai Permit based on information from the appiicant tnat previous limo oreaxagc nau occuicu, which damaged a neighboring residence, located to the rear (east). The appellant resides to the right side (south) of 19932 Merribrook Drive. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) . Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that an Administrative Tree Removal Permit to remove five Redwood trees was granted for five trees located at the rear of the applicant's property. • Said that following that approval, the adjacent neighbor appealed. • Stated that information provided by the applicant reported previous limb breakage has occurred that resulted in damage to the rear neighbor's property. • Reported that the Arborist's report states that there is no apparent reason for approval of this Tree Removal Permit. The report adds that the trees simply need proper pruning and points out that there are actually six Redwood trees in this location. Commissioner Barry questioned whether the Arborist considered the close proximity between these six Redwood trees to the large grove of Oak trees. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Ms. Yong Lun, Appellant, 19894 Merribrook Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that these are five beautiful Redwood Trees that provide great privacy and shade during the summer months. • Pointed out that per the Arborist's report these trees are healthy and simply need trimming. Therefore, it is safe to leave them in place. • Advised that two letters have been provided, one from her fourth grade daughter and the second from a sixth grade neighbor child. Commissioner Garakani questioned whether Ms. Yong Lun would take responsibility for damage that might occur should one of these trees fall onto her property. Ms. Yong Lun said that if the fall onto her property she would not blame the owners. The benefits from these trees outweigh any risk. However, she cannot speak for her neighbors. Mrs. Wang, Applicant, 19932 Merribrook Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she has resided in this home for 14 years and loves these trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 8 • Stated that these trees are located close to her backyard neighbors. • Said that a few years ago she had an Arborist look at the trees and that Arborist told her not to worry. Unfortunately, last winter about one-third of one tree fell onto the fence, into the neighbor's yard and landing partially upon their neighbor's roof. Luckily no one was hurt. • Pointed out that one cannot top a Redwood tree and that she was told that this location, at the bottom of a hill, was not a good one for Redwood trees. Chair Hunter assured Mrs. Wang that Redwoods are steady and strong trees. Mrs. Wang said that her only concern is that these trees are so close to her rear neighbor's home and that she is concerned for their safety. Commissioner Barry thanked Mrs. Wang for allowing her access on the property today to see these trees since she missed the regular site visit tour. Ms. Penny Carr, 19803 Merribrook Court, Saratoga: • Reported that on December 14"' of last year, the top half of one of the Redwoods came down, breaking a portion of the fence and coming to rest against their roof. • Said that these trees are beautiful and that she does not want them taken out. • Stated her preference for having them pruned as they are not diseased. • Advised that she had planted three Redwoods on her own property about 10 years ago and today her yard looks like a park. • Informed- that the removal of these trees would leave a big. hole in the vegetation whereby they would be able to see the road. Chair Hunter asked Ms. Carr how long she has lived in her home. Ms. Penny Carr replied 23 years. She added that she believes these trees are about 35 to 40 years old. Chair Hunter asked for clarification that the Carrs had not requested that these trees be removed out of concern for safety. Ms. Penny Carr replied no. She added that it would cost the Wangs less to just have these trees cleaned up through appropriate pruning. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that there were no concerns for eminent danger from these trees. She also asked if it was the top half of the tree or simply branches that fell last December. Ms. Penny Carr said that it was branches. She added that one does not often hear of Redwoods falling over in storms. She said that it appeared as if this tree may have been hit by lightning. Commissioner Nagpal stated that it appears that these trees are not feared by the Carrs and expressed appreciation to Ms. Penny Carr for coming this evening. Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Penny Carr if they would be willing to assume responsibility for any damage that might occur to their home and property in the event that branches and/or trees fall over in the future. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 9 Ms. Penny Carr replied yes. Mr. Don Carr, 19803 Merribrook Court, Saratoga: • Said that this is a tough question for which he does not have a good answer. • Stated that he likes these trees as they offer afternoon shade, cooling their patio. • Said that if there is a choice, they would like to keep these trees and clean them up. • Suggested that if the owner thinks it is best to remove them, they should have that right and he won't stop them by saying no. • Informed that last December about a 50-foot portion of the tree fell off and about six to eight feet of it was on his roof. • Added that he took care of the problem and asked no restitution. from the Wangs for the minor damage that occurred. • Declared that the Wangs are great neighbors. • Said that his choice would be to keep these trees but he would not stop the Wangs from taking them out. Chair Hunter asked if one tree offers more potential for damage than any other. Mr. Don Carr replied that all of the Redwoods are in a row. Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that he is here to offer continuing support for trees, urging that. these natural resources be kept when they can be kept. • Said that removal should only occur when there are significant reasons to justify the removal. • Pointed out that if the Luns had not appeal this decision, these trees would already be gone. • Suggested that the process for tree removals is not working right. • Declared that it is dangerous to discuss liability issues in relation to Tree Removal requests, adding that that is why God created insurance companies. Commissioner Garakani stated that while he too loves Redwood trees, he is also concerned that one not wait until a person, especially a child, dies before preventative action is taken. Said that if the Arborist certifies that these trees are okay, they should be kept if there is no good reason to remove them. However, at this time there are two differing reports and recommendations. Mr. Tom Corson pointed out that removal should not be done simply on an allegation of danger but rather only following substantiation of potential safety problems. Mr. Bill Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Stated his support of this appeal to preserve these trees. • Said he reviewed the application and drove by the property. • Said that this is a similar situation as occurred in his neighborhood. • Advised that this is a false and misleading application as the house behind the Wangs is shown without setbacks. • Said that the situation last winter was a great test case and that the fallen branch just brushed the neighbor's house. • Expressed surprise that a Tree Removal Permit was even issued as the Arborist has cleared the trees with a recommendation for appropriate pruning. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 10 • .Said that the responsibility for any liability-remains with the owner of the property and that asking neighbors to assume liability is outside of State law. • Pointed out that this area has six Redwood trees and that removal would result in tremendous damage to the neighborhood. • Stated that he did not want to establish this harmful precedence since these trees are safe per the City's Arborist. • Asked-that the Commission,uphold this appeal and require the trees be trimmed instead of removed. Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she is sorry to have to be here tonight as she thought the Tree Ordinance would take care of situations such as this. • Said that she drove by the neighborhood and saw lots of mature trees. • Said that it is unfounded to remove these trees and does not make sense. • Pointed out that the City's Arborist has stated these trees are healthy. • Said that she had the opportunity to live in the Santa Cruz Mountains with lots of Redwoods. While Redwoods drop debris and sway with the wind, she has never experienced one coming down. • Added that she can understand Mrs. Wang's concern when she sees these trees swaying. • Said that she just wanted to make her thoughts known and hopes to see these trees kept. Commissioner Garakani invited Ms. Elizabeth Lara to his property to see ten large Redwood trees in the creek behind that he is working with CalTrans to remove due to eminent damage. Mrs. Wang, Applicant: • Thanked the Commission and said that she loves trees too. • Pointed out that since two of .the six trees are missing their top portions, only four of them are still visible from her house. • Said that all are healthy but that she has concerns about liability and potential of injury or damage. Mrs. Lun, Appellant: • Stated her belief that it is too much to remove six trees simply because one portion of one tree fell down. • Suggested that there is more benefit to keeping them than removing them. • Expressed her hope that the trees be retained. Mr. Wang, 19932 Merribrook Drive, Saratoga: • Said that it is very scary to see a big tree fall over into a neighbor's yard. • Said that a tree service can do trimming but cannot guarantee anything. • Pointed out that they also have over 30 Oak trees in their backyard and that every winter some tree or other falls down. • Stated that Redwoods are so huge, estimating that they are about 100 feet tall and that they sway during storms. Chair Hunter agreed that the Wangs have a beautiful yard. Mr. Wang said that even with the removal of these six trees, they would still have a forest of trees in their yard. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 11 Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Wang whose home he is afraid for, his own or his neighbor's. Mr. Wang replied his neighbor's. Mrs. Lun, Appellant: • Reminded that the tree service is not an Arborist, they just remove trees. • Said that although the Wangs are concerned about liability, she chose to live in Saratoga because she loves trees. Everyone shares in the liability for trees. • Declared that she feels lucky to live here with the benefit of all these trees and that there is a package deal, good things come with some responsibility. Chair Hunter asked Mrs. Lun if she was aware that six trees were to be removed per the notice received. Mrs. Lun said that the first notice read one tree but that subsequent notice said tree(sj. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Chair Hunter stressed to staff the importance to have accurate notices as the proposed removal of six trees is more serious than one. Added that it is disturbing that the Building Inspector-looks at six trees for removal and gives permission to do so. Director Tom Sullivan assured that he won't do this again. Commissioner Barry suggested that this issue be discussed further by the Commission later in the meeting. Director Tom Sullivan said that the issue could be agendized for a future meeting. Chair Hunter asked how many Building Inspectors there are. Director Tom Sullivan replied two. Planner Christy Oosterhous added that the Building Inspectors are working differently today than-they did in September. Planning has been working with the Building Inspectors on Tree Ordinance update training. Chair Hunter: • Said that she is glad that this situation has come before the Planning Commission. • Said that one cannot have fear of our trees and that their beauty must be appreciated. • Added that removal would impact others. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated that he does not think that these trees should be removed but that he appreciates Mrs. Wang's sincerity in the concern that these trees are close to her neighbors and believes that she is concerned for their safety. • Agreed that these trees are not diseased and that they just get heavy in the rainy season. The mitigation is to tnm some branches so they are not as heavy. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 12 • .Said that instead of spending $8,000 to remove these trees, it will be better to spend less and trim them properly and go on enjoying their beauty. ~ Said it is clear the neighbors are not concerned about any risk from these trees. Commissioner Schallop expressed his agreement with the points made by Chair Hunter and Commissioner Garakani. Since the City Arborist's report states that pruning can mitigate these trees, he cannot uphold their removal., Commissioner Nagpal said that she too supports the previous comments and finds that pruning is the best option. Therefore, she supports the appeal. Commissioner Barry said she supports the previous comments and feels that the City Arborist's recommendations need to be relied upon. Asked for confirmation that the Commission's decision is final. Director Tom Sullivan said correct. Commissioner Barry stressed the important of relying on the Arborist's report since there is mitigation available. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that the trees look very healthy and supported compliance with the recommendations of the Arborist. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission upheld an appeal and overturned an Administrative Tree Removal Permit for six Redwood trees on property located at 19932 Merribrook Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal and Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *x:~ PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. S APPLICATION #03-266 (397-16-128) RAHIM, 14350 Taos Drive: The applicant requests approval of modifications to a previously approved Design Review. Design Review #O1-011 was approved on July 25, 2001. The dwelling has been completed at this time. The applicant desires to .eliminate architectural details such as stone veneer, window fenestration and other architectural details. (TOM SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of modifications to the Design Review Approval granted in July 2001. • Explained that this new home is now completed and a bond was posted to allow occupancy. • Described the eliminated architectural details as including stone veneer and other trim, some fenestration and a change in garage doors. • • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 13 • Added that staff found these changes to be significant and could not make the findings to support. • Recommended denial of this request to eliminate architectural details. • Stated that the streetside/front elevation was constructed according to plans. Commissioner Zutshi asked Director Tom Sullivan what the Commissioner's options might be. Director Tom Sullivan replied one is to say no to the modifications and require the home to be completed as originally approved. The other is to say yes, this home is okay as it is now. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 Mr. Rahim, Applicant, 14350 Taos Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that he is asking for support. • Assured that they followed the plan as best they could and were surprised when it did not pass final .occupancy. • .Said that they did not understand why the back of the house is so important to the City. • Explained that the cost of building this home escalated and they made these changes to help lower costs. • Added that the reduced stone veneer is at the rear and cannot be seen from the road. It-did not make sense to them to include it and it did not occur to them not to eliminate that detail when they obtained their original approval. • Stated that the house looks beautiful as it was proposed without these architectural details. • Explained that the garage is not visible except from the residence and that the garage doors they have installed have insulation that the originally proposed doors did not have. • Said that while the house was being built, they decided that it did not make sense to have , fenestration on the doors at the back and that the windows looked more beautiful without divisions at the back. , , • Asked that the Commission not penalize them for an honest mistake. • Said that their neighbors agree with them that the house looks beautiful as it is and that it makes no sense to add these details where they are not even visible to anyone. • Added that their neighbors agree and have provided letters of support. • Said that adding these details at this point would represent an undue financial hardship without any apparent architectural benefit. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Rahim if his architect did not advise him that changes had to be incorporated onto the approved plans as it would have been so easy if done at that time. Mr. Rahim replied that the architect was not there often and assured that they had no intention of hiding anything. Chair Hunter asked staff how it learned of this situation. Director Tom Sullivan: • Replied that Planning staff -are called to the site as part of the final inspection to ensure that the project constructed matches the approved plans and that all conditions have been met. • Said that staff had never received notification of or request for any changes prior to that inspection. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10,.2003 Page 14 Chair Hunter asked if planners go out to a site often. Director Tom Sullivan replied just at time of final inspection. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the final details such as these are installed at the end anyway. Director Tom Sullivan advised that any major changes to the conditions or details are subject to Planning Commission review and approval. Staff has the authority to approve minor changes. Commissioner Nagpal told Mr. Rahim that she appreciated his speaking with his neighbors and asked if he had received any negative comments. Mr. Rahim replied none. Ms. Salena Akhtar, Mr. Rahim's wife, pointed out that the neighbors cannot even see the areas under discussion. Commissioner Schallop asked staff what makes it necessary to bring this back to the Planning Commission. Director Tom Sullivan replied the extent of the change, which is a wholesale removal of a lot of detailing, is what brings this matter back before the Planning Commission. • Mr. Mark Thomas, General Contractor for the Project at 14350 Taos Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that a lot of time and money was spent on this project that resulted in this beautiful home. • Said that they used the best people to try to do the right thing. • Pointed out that one would have to be invited into the backyard to see the area under discussion. • -Said that he did not think these changes were significant. • Said that mobilizing this project again would be inconvenient for the neighbors. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that Mr. Thomas has worked in Saratoga for many years. Questioned why he is not aware of the need to go through the Planning Department for any changes. Mr. Mark Thomas said that the Planning Department has gone through many staffing changes and that in the past this would not be a big difference. Commissioner Zutshi said that the point is not the impact on neighbors but rather changing from an approved plan. Asked Mr. Thomas if he knows the procedure to change approved plans. Mr. Mark Thomas said that they did lots of material upgrades and that he apologizes if he made the mistake here. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that he looked at this project and agrees that it is a beautiful and magnificent home. • Agreed that the garage doors match the house. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 15 • Said that while there is a difference at the back of the house, it can be mitigated with appropriate Commissioner Barry asked her fellow Commissioners how many, in addition to her, had been on the Commission at the time of this original approval 'in 2001. landscaping. • Pointed out that bushes would obscure those areas anyway. • Said that he is more concerned with the violations in the outdoor lighting on this site. • Said he has no objection to what has been done to the back and considers these to be minor modifications. • Stated that it would have been nice if these changes had been brought forward prior to being implemented. Chair Hunter and Commissioner Garakani replied that they had been. Chair Hunter said that the Planning Commission had asked for the stone veneer and that this is actually not a minor change. Commissioner Barry said that this is a procedural issue that has to be addressed. Commissioner Nagpal: • Agreed that the failure is dialog that did not occur. • Said that all changes appear to be at the back and are not visible to neighbors. • Said that she is inclined to support this modification. S • Asked what the Commission was thinking about when it requested this stone veneer. Commissioner Garakani said that the Commission typically discusses what is visible from the neighborhood. Commissioner Schallop: • Stated that procedurally he wants the Planning Commission to see this as a material change. • Said that their role is to view this project now as if it were a new plan today and, if it were, would the stone veneer be required today. • Said that he senses that the focus would be on the front facade and those facades visible from the street and/or from neighboring properties. • Said that since these changes are not visible, he can agree to approve these modifications. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the top portion of the chimney is visible. Commissioner Zutshi: • Said that the responsibility lies with the architect and contractor. In this case, it did not happen properly in advance. • Said that she does not see a problem with the back of this home and that the front of this home looks good. Commissioner Barry: • Said that she did not have the opportunity to see this house and that she would rely on the impressions of those Commissioners who did. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 16 • Said that the change to the' chimney does not bother her and that the front elevation is more of a concern usually. • Stated that it was right for staff to bring this project back to the Commission in this case. • Said that requesting architectural detailing only on a front elevation would set precedent. Director Tom Sullivan assured that staff will continue to insist on architectural details that are consistent on all elevations. Commissioner Nagpal stated that she is comfortable with this house as it is. Chair Hunter: • Expressed appreciation to staff and stated that approved plans should be followed through. • Said. that she agrees with the points made by the other Commissioners and that these changes are not a problem for this particular house as they are located at the back of the house. • Assured that she would not feel the same way every time. • Said that she hopes this situation is not precedent setting and wants staff to kelp as vigilant as they have this time. Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that since the prepared resolution was- for denial of these modifications, staff would bring a new resolution to the next meeting on January 14`h for adoption under the Consent Calendar. ~~~ DIRECTOR S ITEMS Cancellation of December 24`h Planning Commission Meeting: Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the next meeting has been cancelled as it falls on Christmas Eve. , , Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting: Advised that the date for this joint session has been moved from January 7`'' to March 17`'' COMMISSION ITEMS Study Session on Tree Removal Process: Commissioner Barry suggested that a Study Session be held with the participation of the Arborist and staff, open to the public, at which time education and dialog can occur about the process of approving Tree Removal Permits. Director Tom Sullivan recommended that this occur at the next retreat. He could ask the Arborist to attend at that time. The retreat will occur before spring. Commissioner Barry asked when the second reading for the Tree Ordinance would occur. Director Tom Sullivan replied at the next Council meeting, to be effective following 30 days. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 17 Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of January 14, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • ITEM 1 City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP DATE: January 14, 2004 RE: Rahim RPSnlutinn Attached please find the Resolution for Application 03-266, RAHIM,14350 Taos Drive in which the applicant requested a modification to a previously approved Design Review. This request was approved at the meeting held on December 10, 2003. The resolution is back before the Planning Commission for review and approval of the conditions. • 0~~~.~®1 RESOLUTION NO. ~~ CITY OAF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA RAHIM;14350 TAOS DRIVE WHEREAS, the City old Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application from RAHIM requf~sting a Modification to an Approved Plan for the Design Review that was approved for 14350 Taos; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given aruii opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; Gild WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required supporting said application, and the following finding has been determined: That even with the e:lunination of the stone veneer, window fenestration and other architectural details on the rear and side elevations the project still meets the criteria listed in the Residential Design Handbook consequently Design Review Finding 15-45.080(f) Design policies and techniques can be made in the affirmative. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the proposal to allow a Modification to the Approved Design Review No. Ol-Oll is granted. PASSED AND ADOP7~D by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, January 14, 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • ~~~~~~ ti` ITEM 2 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Application No./Location: App # 03-201/ 21170 Big Basin Way Applicant/Owner: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner ~~ Tvpe of Application: Request to rr4FCn to Expand rhP i_lrhan $Pryire Area Boundary Date: January 14, 2004 APN: 503-48-029, 503-48-028 Department Hea ;C Q Buffer zones around Big Basin Way USA Big Basin Way USA ,__,.~; Big Basin Way USA parcels w ithin 500 ft 21170 Big BasinWay ooo®o~. CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N/A N/A 12/22/03 12/16/03 12/23/03 Request that the Piamimg Conuiussion recommend approval to the City Council a request to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to .expand the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area Boundary to include two new parcels, APN 503-48-029 and APN 503- 48-028. The area has already been Prezoried as a Residential Open Space District (ROS) and has the General Plan Designation of Hillside Open Space. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached Resolution recommending to the City Council that they request the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) expand the City of Saratog;a's Urban Service Area Boundary to v~clude two new parcels. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution for the Categorical Exemption 2. Resolution to Expand the Urban Service Area 3. Articles on Hal:one Gardens 4. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels • • • ~100002~ File No. 03-201; Expand Urban Service Area STAFF ANALYSIS CITY PREZONING: ROS (Residential Open Space) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: OSH (Hillside Open Space) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Britton Parcel APN 503-48-028 is 7.53 Acres English Parcel APN 503-48-029 is 1.261 Acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Unknown GRADING REQUIRED: Not applicable ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Urban Service Area Boundary- changes are r..i__ r-_i_r__._:_ r___..__W_~.._i projects subject to the environmental review Tei~uireiiiel7tS of uie ~.aufuliua L~~vllU1ll11C111Q1 Quality Act (CEQA). In this case the boundary change would be exempt from. CEQA review pursuant to section 15319 of the CEQA Guidelines. That section provides that boundary changes are categorically exempt from CEQA review if they include only existing structures developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or pre-zoning of either the gaining or losing governmental agency whichever is more restrictive. In addition to the Categorical Exemption staff had prepared a Negative Declaration for the project. This Negative .Declaration is no longer required due to the project- no longer needing a .General Plan Amendment. Although no longer needed, an environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and determined that the project would have less than significant impact on the environment. Based on the environmental impact assessment, a Negative Declaration was prepared and made available for public review from December 23, 2003 to January 12, 2004. No comments have been received by .staff concerning the Negative Declaration at the time of the writing of this staff report. PROJECT DISCUSSION At the August 6, 2003 City Council meeting the Council directed-staff to proceed with the proposed expansion of the City's Urban Service Boundary and General Plan Amendment to the area near Hakone Gardens that includes the Britton and English properties. The reason for the expansion of the Urban Service Area is to give the City of Saratoga greater influence over any future development to the properties near Hakone Gardens. If a major project. such as a new home were proposed on one of the properties the City would have the option of annexing the property if it is in the City's Urban Service Area Boundary. The area is currently designated by the General Plan as Hillside Open Space as described on page- 3-4 of -the City of Saratoga's General Plan. This designation was taken from. the County General Plan and covers all area within Saratoga's Sphere of Influence that are not designated as parks. This designation allows uses that support and enhance a rural character. Density development allows for one dwelling unit per 20 acres to one dwelling unit per 160 acres based on slope density formula subject to stringent criteria. The C:\1GIyDocuments\General Plan Ammed\Expand Urban Service and Ammed GP Staff Repo.doc R.IO V ~O~ File No. 03-201; Expand Urban Service Area prezoning of ROS (Residential Open Space) allows for a minimum of 20-acre sites with a required thirty percent of the lot as dedicated open space. The existing County zoning is HS-dl: This. allows for a minimum lot size of 160 acres with an exception that the density may be reduced to one lot per 20-160 acres depending on lot slope for one-time two-lot splits. The City's Urban Service Area Expansion will have little influence or impact to County projects unless it is annexed. If the properties where eventually annexed the density would probably not change due to the City's slope density requirements. The major differences would be the design review process, floor area allowed and height requirements. The Local Agency Formation Commission only allows one Urban Service Area Boundary change a vPar Hakone Gardens Hakone Garden is an 18-acre site owned by the Ciry of Saratoga and leased to the Hakone Foundation. The site is on the City and County's Historic Resource Lists. The site was created in 1915 as a Japanese style garden. The garden is the oldest Japanese residential garden in the Western Hemisphere and has been recognized as a historic place by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Correspondence No negative correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Land Lase Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. Land LIse Element Policy 1.2 The Ciry shall evaluate its designated unincorporated Urban Service Areas to determine if the areas are compatible with the County's Local Agenry Formation Commission (LAFCCO) Policies .and are appropriate for annexation and urban development. The proposed Urban Service Area Expansion is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that the expansion of the Urban Service Area may assist in preserving the area. around Hakone Gardens and protect the rural atmosphere of Saratoga by allowing the City increased influence over any major projects in the area. The proposed Urban Service Area f • • C:\MyDocuments\General Plan Ammed\Expand Urban Service and Ammed GP Staff Repo.doc ~~[ +(j(~~ File No. 03-201; Expand Urban Service Area Expansion will also allow the City the option of annexing future major projects into the City and have the project go through the Ciry Design Review Process to insure the projects compatibility with the site and adjacent surroundings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached Resolution recommending approval to the City Council the Categorical Exemption for the proposed project. 2. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council the request to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to expand the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area to add the two new parcels. • C\MyDocuments\Genera] Plan Ammed\Expand Urban Service and Ammed GP Seaff Repo.doc O ~ V ~~ ~. • Attachment 1 • 0~(~0~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION TO EXPAND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY FOR PARCELS 503-48-029 and 503-48-028 LOCATED AT AND NEARBY 21170 BIG BASIN WAY WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has initiated the Expansion of the Urban Service Area Boundary and the Planning Commission is recommending approval to the City Council a L. T 1 A ~ r;.-.+. !-'..,+,m;~.~;r.r. it e ~rn~ r~ ovr~nn~ t~o ~~tc~ of Saratn, r7a'c l el.tLlCJt to file Lol.ai Agelil.~' i'ori11a L1V11 VVi111111JJ1V12 `.., ~L ~.vJ ~v ..«l~µ~~~+ 4,.~.. y ~ Urban Service Area Boundary to include two new parcels, APN 503-48-029 and APN 503-48- 028 and approval of the Categorical Exemption for the proposed project. The area has already been Prezoned as a Residential Open Space District (ROS) and has a General Plan Designation of Hillside Open Space; 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, Urban Service Area Boundary .changes are projects subject to the • environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this case the boundary change would be exempt from CEQA review pursuant to section 15319 of the CEQA Guidelines. That section provides that boundary changes are categorically exempt from CEQA review if they include only existing structures developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or pre-zoning of either the gaining or losing governmental agency whichever is more restrictive. In addition to the Categorical Exemption staff had prepared a Negative Declaration for the project. This Negative Declaration is no longer required due to the project no longer needing a General Plan Amendment. Although no longer needed, an environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and determined that the project would have less than significant impact on the environment. Based on the environmental impact assessment, a Negative Declaration was prepared and made available for public review from December 23, 2003 to January 12, 2004. No comments have been received by staff concerning the Negative Declaration at the time of the writing of this staff report; and Now, THEREFORE, the Planning. Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: • ~®~©~~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 14th day of January 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission 0®~~~8. • Attachment 2 • ®®~~~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO EXPAND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY FOR PARCELS 503-48-029 and 503-48-028 LOCATED AT AND NEARBY 21170 BIG BASIN WAY WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has initiated the Expansion of the Urban Service Area Boundary and the Planning Commission is recommending approval to the City Council a ,- ~,. tl.,., T......,1 A ~n~-mntinn (~'nmmiecinn ~r eFrnl tn, PYr~and t1~P,("it~~ of Caratnaa'.c r~.gi:ieS~ ~v ~u~ LV1.0.1 iYgeilcy i Vllllul.lvtl ..vii.,_,~i.~.~i..ri ~ - ~ Y - ~ ...by. Urban Service Area Boundary to include two new parcels, APN 503-48-029 and APN 503-48- 028 and approval of a Categorical Exemption for the proposed project. The area has already been Prezoned as a Residential Open Space District (ROS) and has a General'Plan Designation of Hillside Open Space; 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, Urban Service Area Boundary changes are projects subject to the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this case the boundary change would be exempt from CEQA review pursuant to section 15319 of the CEQA Guidelines. That section provides that boundary changes are categorically exempt from CEQA review if they include only existing structures developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or pre-zoning of either the gaining or losing governmental agency whichever is more restrictive. In addition to the Categorical Exemption staff had prepared a Negative Declaration for the project. This Negative Declaration is no longer required due to the project no longer needing a General Plan Amendment. Although no longer needed, an environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and determined that the project would have less than significant impact on the environment. Based on the environmental impact assessment, a Negative Declaration was prepared and made available for public review from December 23, 2003 to January 12, 2004. No comments have been received by staff concerning the Negative Declaration at the time of the writing of this staff report; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application for Expansion of the Urban Service Area Boundary and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Polio Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. • ~Q®®~~ Land LTse Element Policy 5.0 The Ciry shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. Land Llse Element Policy 1.2 The City .shall evaluate its designated unincorporated Idrban Service Areas to determine if the areas are compatible with the County's Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCCO) Policies and are appropriate for annexation and urban development. The proposed Urban Service Area Expansion is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that the expansion of the Urban Service Area may assist in preserving the area around Hakone Gardens and protect the rural atmosphere of Saratoga by allowing the Ciry increased influence over any major projects in the area. The proposed Urban Service Area Expansion will also allow the City the option of annexing future major projects into the City and have the project go through the City Design Review Process to insure the projects compatibility with the site and adjacent surroundings. -Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 14th day of January 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: . ABSTAIN: _ Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • • Attachment 3 • ~~~~~~r Hakone Gardens • ~idi~iilr~~i~ ~~g~~Pii~tii~ Location: 21000 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 408-741-4994 Page 1 of 2 The Hakone Gardens were created in 19].6 by the San Francisco Art Patrons Oliver and Isabel Stine as a summer retreat for their friends and. family. The Gardens were modeled after the Fuji Hakone National Park with the help of research by Mrs. Stine, as well as the_.c~pc~-ienced_~~ c~z-k__~i [.apanese ~rch~t.ects and landscape artists. The Hakone Gardens were eventually purchased by the City.of Saratoga to protect it from development in 1966. There are a number. of different parts of the Hakone Gardens including two houses, a cultural exchange center and four major gardens. Constructed without nails, the Upper House sits on the .Moon. Viewing Hill. which is a place where both the gardens and the moon can be seen.. Inside the floors are covered with traditional. tatami mats and. there is both a Japanese scroll and flower arrangement. The Lower House, which was built in 1922 as a Western-style summer retreat, has since then been converted to a community facility with a large reception room and two tea ceremony rooms. Completed in 1991, the Cultural Exchange Center was modeled after a 19th- century Kyoto tea merchant's house and. shop. Constricted in Japan, the building was shipped and permanently raised in the Gardens. A number of events and programs are held here including a variety of classes, lectures and demonstrations, as well as aartists-in-residence program. There are also tea ceremony rooms, a tea museum and space for workshops. The four gardens in Hakone Gardens include the Hill and Pc~~<_Cr~~_rde,n.: the Tea Garden., the Zen Garden. and the Kizuna-en. The Hill and. Pond Garden is the heart of Hakone Gardens and was primarily created for strolling. When in bloom, ~~::ist~ra and c17~rr~ __hlc~ssc~~~~s line the walk for a beautiful scene. The Tea Garden path. is a quiet and soothing walk, enclosed for privacy. It includes a traditional Japanese .water basin which is used to purify the hands and mouth which, along with the calming quiet, is meant to prepare visitors to enter the tea ceremony rooms. A primarily dry .garden, the Zen Garden is made up of raked patterns of gravel interspersed with large stone representative of islands. This garden is for meditation viewing only and is never entered. The Kizuna-en is a bamboo garden, that represents the close friendship that Saratoga and their Sister City, Muko- shi, Japan have shared. Large groups of white ~~4~~~3 httn://www.scu.edu/SCU/Pro~rams/Diversity/hakone.html 12/18/2003 Hakone Gardens Page 2 of 2 stones represent the City Councils of both cities while the smaller white gravel represents the Pacific Ocean. that lies between them. Muko-shi donated, not only their expertise, but also many of the bamboo specimens to this project. The Japan Bamboo Society of Saratoga is responsible for maintaining this garden. It is closed in the spring to protect new growth. The Hakone Foundation was formed in 1984 to maintain, enhance and develop the Hakone Gardens. This non-profit foundation strives to decrease the public financing of these Gardens by encouraging contributions, managing the rentals of buildings and sponsoring programs that promote cultural awareness and appreciation of Japanese cultw-al. Anyone is welcome to join this organization. The membership fee for the Hakone Foundation is $25 yearly. Benefits include fi-ee parking, the Hakone Views Newsletter and notice of special events. Volunteers provide tours, act as staff in the gift shop, as well as assistance in the garden and office. Anyone is welcome to participate. Further Reading: Michael Cronk, "Tiles and Timbers From Japan Create Center in Saratoga: 19th Century Merchant's Home Opens in Hakone Gardens", San Jose Mercury News, Wednesday, 19 June 1991, Morning Final Edition, Extra 2 Sec., p. 2 Charles Lindsey, "Raising Canes: Hakone Gardens' Lovingly Cared For Bamboo Grove Symbolizes Harmony with Nature and Respect for Things Aged", San Jose Mercury News, Thursday, 29 October 1992, Morning Final Edition, Garden Sec., p. iB San Jose Mercury Staff, "History Group Looks at Hakone Gardens", San Jose Mercury News, Wednesday, 11 January 1995, Morning Final Edition, Extra 2 Sec., p. 8 ~ ~ ` ~ BACK one page • ~~~~~~ http://www.scu.edu/SCU/programs/Diversity/hakone.html 12/18/2003 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~1 ~ ~ ~ fCs~rt;~9i ~~~+~~~:~tia',a~9: ~~_ . ~ , '', Historic Sites 2004 - 2005: Hakone Gardens • 5;7~'W Fi '~'~'IidP F f"s P`CT:~.tPdl'.1~~1lii h' 'ic;~n~ fn~~q; II ~;ri iii =; fd.uf.fq~~t it Tru~~: .iti..n,:.~:..r:.:n.l:v:~tiv:. lG! I:Ym:.:a: 9~i f~lti~t ~ri:~~~~~p'~d Pll~ ~ e i~ Ft A> ~It i~t~ri ~l R~~t~re wli .. 2t)~43 I'G-vE1 Ei:P' a1f"lil' i:Yl:lIEI~~T i7€'^5 barn Again ~aYe AfirterlGa'S Treasures Site Resources • Join the Nationat Trust Contact the National Trust Help from the National Trust The National Trust in Yaur State National Trust Horne Paye Organization: Hakone Foundation Project: Hakone Gardens i_ocation:Saratega, C%; Description: Hakone Gardens and Retreat Center is composed of 18-acres of magnificent Hakone Gardens in Saratoga, CA beauty nestled in the rolling hills which (Courtesy of Hakone Gardens) overlook Silicon Valley. This cultural jewel includes the oldest Japanese residential gardens in the Western Hemisphere. Founded before America's entry into World War I, Hakone is considered one of the premier Japanese-style Gardens, of the Edo Period (circa 1603-1867), internationally. The result is one of the finest water and botanical gardens outside of Japan, complete with waterfalls; koi ponds and verdant groves of bamboo forest, manicured Japanese Black Pines, Irises, and Laceleaf Maples, wisteria arbors and cherry blossoms. Named after the mountainous hot springs resort near Mount Fuji, San Francisco arts patron Isabel Stine sought to reproduce the peaceful simplicity she found in Japan when she created Hakone Gardens in 1915. Hakone has been called the only true Japanese gardens in the United States--a re-creation of a typical 17th century estate garden, where the characteristic Japanese organic architecture does not interrupt the tranquility of nature. Japanese architects, artisans, and gardeners (including a gardener descended from a family of imperial gardeners) were hired to achieve and maintain this authenticity of design. Situated at the edge of Silicon Valley, Hakone is a community treasure of both national and international significance, offering a tranquil environment for solace and meditation as well as authentic tea rituals, festivals, classes, and historic events. In 2001, Hakone was selected by the Japanese Government to serve as one of the official sites to host the 50th Anniversary of the historic Peace Treaty between Japan, the United States and 46 other nations, which officially ended the Second World War. Several Japanese Ambassadors to the United States were present along with. dancers, artists and performers from throughout China, Korea and Japan. Hakone also hosted the 35th Prime Minister of Japan, the honorable Morihito Hosokawa, who is also Lord of Mushashi Province, in a cultural celebration which featured the bonding ties of the Japanese and American cultures. This coming spring of 2004, the Hakone Foundation, along with the Consul General of Japan in San Francisco, will host a weekend of cultural programs and seminars to mark the 150th Anniversary of the Treaty of Peace and Amity between the United States and Japan; negotiated by Commodore Perry. httj,•//www natinnaltnict nru/rPCtnrP amPrira/citPC/~(1f14 haknnPOarrlPnc html ~sTC>~~ ~ s F~3iEt+!AT t~'IE ry€ >~ake #~E`qt~: t3~f R^ft 1~~~~i,~1,5 Restore America Partnership: Hakone Gardens, CA Page 2 of 2 The Hakone Foundation has launched a broad multi-million project to enhance and renovate these historic gardens. There are a number of renowned structures on Hakone's 18-acre site. The Cultural Exchange Center (CEC), one of the only buildings of its kind, was designed and built by Kiyoshi Yasui, a 14th generation architect to the Imperial Dynasty. The CEC was assembled in Kyoto, using traditional Japanese building materials and methods, shipped to Saratoga, and reassembled at Hakone. It includes both a museum and a replica of an 18th Century tea merchant's residence and shop. Most importantly, Hakone hopes to continue to serve as a hemispheric bridge, across the Pacific, between the civilizations of Asia and the Americas. Located in one of the most culturally diverse communities in the world, Silicon Valley, Hakone is a cultural gem which will continue to serve as an international venue for our emerging global culture. "Restore America: A Salute to Preservation" is amillion-dollar public affairs initiative by Home & Garden Television to generate support for the National Trust and Save America's Treasures. Inspired by the popular HGTV series Restore America, this national campaign to raise awareness of preservation will recognize restoration efforts at twelve National Trust/Save America's Treasures sites. Each site will be featured for one month on Restore America and will be saluted with one-minute celebrity vignettes broadcast on HGTV. In addition, HGTV will air two Restore America specials, one in July 2003 and another in 2004. Why Preserve I Get Involved I Historic Places I Community Building I Historic Travel I Books and Gifts I Search I Site Index I Home . ® 2003 National Trust for Historic Preservation. All rights reserved. Terms of Use I Privacy Statement ofD~JO16 http://www.nationaltrust.org/restore_america/sites/2004_hakonegardens.html 12/ 18/2003 A Visit to the Hakone Gardens Page 1 of 2 A Visit to the Hakone Gardens For our FRC ro'ect we decided to look at the history and P J culture of the Japanese Hakone Gardens. The Hakone Gardens are traditional Japanese Gardens of uneven terrain located in Saratgoga. We all enjoyed exploring the serene landscape of a different culture. In 1916, San Francisco art s. patrons, Oliver and Isabel Stine purchased 16 acres of Saratoga hillside to build a summer retreat for family. and friends. The couple was interested in the Japanese culture, so Mrs. Stine traveled to Japan to get ideas. She visited the Hakone Park in Japan and was impressed with its beauty and spirituality. Mrs. Stine decided to construct her own Hakone Gardens in Saratoga. In 1918, she hired a Japanese architect to design a moon viewing house and a Japanese landscaper to create the gardens. IN 1932, a bay area financier Major C.L. Tilden, became the owner of the gardens. He added the main gate to the Gardens. In 1966, the city of Saratoga purchased Hakone Gardens to protect it from subdivision and development. The city hired Tanso Ishihara, Kyoto-trained landscape gardener, to begin the arduous task of restoring the Gardens. Upon his death, his student took a three month apprenticeship in Kyoto. when he returned, he was appointed Japanese Garden Specialist. With Mrs. Ishihara, he has worked to maintain the beauty and authenticity of Hakone Gardens. Completed in 1991, the center is a reproduction of a .19th century Kyoto tea merchants house and shop. Timbers were cut and first assembled in Japan with the use of traditional tools and methods. Once shipped to Saratoga, a team of Japanese carpenters raised the building on the prepared sight. The center hosts artists in residence programs as well as a variety of classes, lectures, and demonstrations presented by the Hakone Foundation. The Center also offers expanded tea ceremony faci}.ities and a tea museum. The building provides space for a variety of workshops. Established in 1984, the Hakone Foundation is dedicated to preserving; enhancing, and developing Hakone Gardens in the most authentic ways possible. The non-profit Foundation seeks to .manage the Gardens toward independence from public financing by encouraging membership contributions, managing rentals of the buildings and Gardens and by sponsoring programs that promote cultural awareness and appreciation of the Japanese culture. The Hakone Gardens say a lot about Santa Clara county's appreciation for other cultures. Because Saratoga has supported the up keeping of the Hakone Gardens, everyone in the area can also enjoy the cultural experience of the Japanese gardens. ~~~~~ O http://www.scu.edu/SCU/Programs/Diversity/hakonfr.html 12/18/2003 A Visit to the Hakone Gardens WRITTEN BY; Mike Cain Katie Guiterrez Brodie Thomas Kim Helsel Page 2 of 2 • • • http://www.scu.edu/SCU/programs/Diversity/hakonfr.html 12/18/2003 • . Attachment 4 • Q~~~~,~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 14`h day of January 2004; at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details ~,-o ~.»;1~1-.10 or rha co,-arnRa ('nmmim;rv T1PVP1nr~mPnt T1Pr~artmPnt Tvinnrlav thrrn~uh Fridav ~,~_~ ~..u.,~.~,~~ ti....~... ,..~~~...,~~ ,-~_-----~---~. ~_. ------ --------, - -------- ----- --~r- --r--- i --o - 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. App. N0.03-201(503-48-029 and 503-48-028), located at and adjacent to 21170 Big Basin Way; -Request the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to expand the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area Boundary to include two new parcels, APN 503-48-029 and APN 503-48-028. Recommend that the city Council Amend the City of Saratoga's General Plan to add the two new parcels to the General Plan with the designation of Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC). The area has already been Prezoned as a Residential Open Space District (ROS). Recommend that the City Council approve an Environmental Negative Declaration. 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. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or befcre the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. John F. Livingstone, AICP Associate Planner 408.868.1231 • (~~~~20 • • 21170 Big Basin Way and adjacent property Q~~~21 r M AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, John F. Livingstone, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 16th day of December, 2003, that I deposited in the mail room at the City of Saratoga, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to- wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application at and adjacent to 21170 Big Basin Way; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. • ©~~~2~ " Associate Planner .: SANTA CLARA COUNTY Or Current Owner, APN 50348014 BIG BASIN WAY TOGA CA 95070 KENNETH L & SHELLEY LUSKEY Or Current Owner, APN 50355002 21185 TOLL GATE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ALLEN R & LEYDA ADAMS Or Current Owner, APN 50355019 2155 VENTURA PL SANTA CLARA CA 95051 JONAS & JENNIFER PERSSON Or Current Owner, APN 50355053 21194 HAYMEADOW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 FRANCISCO & NANCY CALDERON Or Current Owner, APN 50355059 21196 TOLL GATE RD TOGA CA 95070 W SAN Or Current Owner, APN 50355069 374 W SANTA CLARA ST SAN JOSE CA 95113 SARATOGA CITY OF Or Current Owner, APN 50355076 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 RAYMOND L & TINA MCMAINS Or Current Owner, APN 51713010 15015 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA CA 95070 MARTIN & SAKAMOTO HERBACH Or Current Owner; APN 51714089 15389 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ~L D & BETTY MCMULLIN urrent Owner, APN 51736006 20915 HIDDEN VIEW LN SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID L & SARA BRITTON Or Current Owner, APN 50348028 PO BOX 558 SARATOGA CA 95071 HERVE & BIRUTA LE POULLOUIN Or Current Owner, APN 50355003 21278 BANK MILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 JOSE W SAN Or Current Owner, APN 50355020 374 W SANTA CLARA ST SAN JOSE CA 95113 RICHARD A & ABBY WEISER Or Current Owner, APN 50355054 21216 HAYMEADOW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 JOSE W SAN Or Current Owner, APN 50355061 374 W SANTA CLARA ST SAN JOSE CA 95113 RICHARD J DEVILBISS Or Current Owner, APN 50355070 21164 TOLL GATE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 COX Or Current Owner, APN 51707030 550 HAiviILTON AVE 220 PALO ALTO CA 94301 RAYMOND L & TINA MCMAINS Or Current Owner, APN 51713011 15015 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA CA 95070 CAROL & MICHAEL MAULDIN Or Current Owner, APN 51714090 15345 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA CA 95070 KEITH J & JUDITH CRAIK Or Current Owner, APN 51736007 20959 HIDDEN VIEW LN SARATOGA CA 95070 THOMAS G & GERALDINE ENGLISH Or Current Owner, APN 50348029 21170 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 GEMMA HWANG Or Current Owner, APN 50355005 25313 LA LOMA DR LOS ALTOS CA 94022 VAUGHN R & DOROTHY MARIAN Or Current Owner, APN 50355052 21182 HAYMEADOW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID A & SUSAN ROGAN Or Current Owner, APN 50355058 21282 TOLL GATE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 KI Y KIM Or Current Owner, APN 50355064 21175 BANK MILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 JUDI W & R HARTMAN Or Current Owner, APN 50355071 21244 BANK MILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SAMPLE STEPHEN P & PHI CH1NH T Or Current Owner, APN 51713009 15027 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner, APN 51713012 SANTA CLARA COUNTY Or Current Owner, APN 51732001 ARCHIBALD DR SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner, APN 51736008 ~~ ~~23 SARATOGA CITY OF Or Current Owner, APN 51736009 BIG BASIN WAY SAR.ATOGA CA 95070 MORROW INVESTMENT LTD Or Current Owner, APN 51736010 14170 BLOSSOM HILL RD LOS GATOS CA 95032 SARATOGA CITY OF Or Current Owner, APN 5173601 ] BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 • • ~~~~~~ ITEM 3 } ` REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: #04-002 Type of Application: ZONING, SUBDIVISION ~ BUILDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Location: CITYWIDE Applicant/Owner: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Ann Welsh, AICP Date: January 14, 2004 APN: N/A Department H • i~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purpose of this is to revise various sections of the Saratoga City Code, Article 14, Subdivision Ordinance and Article 15, Zoning Ordinance and Article 16 Building Regulations in the following areas: 1. Update the various sections that deal with storm water runoff. 2. Amend the Subdivision Ordinance sections that deal with Lot Line Adjustments. 3. Remove remaining sections dealing with Building Site Approvals (BSA) from the Subdivision Ordinance. DISCUSSION PART ONE -STORM DRAIN AMENDMENTS The Subdivision, Zoning and Building sections of the Saratoga Municipal Code contain sections dealing with storm water. The current sections are not consistent with the provisions of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program requirements. The following proposed amendments would make the codes consistent with the program requirements. Article 14-20 PR(~('FT)iTRFS FOR TFNTATTVF APPR(~VAT_ 14-20.040 Contents of application. (n) All provisions for sewage disposal, storm drainage and flood control, which are proposed by the applicant. Disposition of on-site storm water shall be consistent with the provisions of the Santa Clara Valley Urban RunoffPollution Prevention Program requirements. 14-30.030 Storm water and sewage. (a) General requirements. Subterranean storm drains shall be designed and installed by the subdivider or owner to adequately and safely drain all storm waters of the subdivision or site, and all surface waters reaching or reasonably calculated to reach the subdivision or site from areas outside of its boundaries. All drainage plans shall be consistent with the policies of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. In order to ensure compliance with program guidelines, grading plans shall incorporate appropriate source control and site design measures that minimize storm water pollutant discharges to the maximum extent possible. , adJacerrt- Existing storm drains already discharging into a watercourse shall be aricl of a capacity sufficient, in the opinion of the City Engineer, to adequately and safely carry all of such additional drainage generated by the development. The storm drain system shall consist of mains of not less than twelve inches in diameter, together with such manholes, catch basins, laterals and other structures, and at such grades, as required by the City Engineer to conform to good drainage requirements for the area and topography of the subdivision or site to prevent standing or flooding waters within and outside of its boundaries: In addition, the subdivider or owner shall comply with all conditions of the water district as may be imposed by any permit required to be obtained from such district in order to discharge said waters into a watercourse. 15-21.140 Final development plan. (7) All provisions for sewage disposal, storm drainage and flood coritrol which are proposed by the applicant, including the approximate distance to and location of the nearest storm drainage anc~ sanit.arv sewer main lines. Disnosltlon of on-site storm water shall be consistent with the provisions of the Santa Clara [alley Urban Runoff Pollution- Prevention Program requirements. 15-46.030 Application requirements. (a) Application for design review approval shall be filed with the Planning Director on such forms as shall be prescribed. The application shall include the following exhibits: (5) Engineered grading and drainage plans, including cross sections if the structure is to be constructed on a hillside lot. Disposition of on-site storm water shall be consistent with the provisions of the, Santa Clara [alley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program requirements. 15-80.035 Requirements for basements and lightwells. The following requirements shall apply to basements in any A, R-i, riR, R-OS or R-M district, with the exception of requirements (d) and (e) below, which shall apply to all districts: (e) Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a grading and drainage plan stamped and signed by a registered civil engineer. Water collected from a basement shall either be transported to a nearby city storm drain inlet or to another drainage facility. The method of drainage shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the, Public Works Department. Disposition of on-site storm water shall be consistent with the provisions of the Santa Clara [alley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program requirements. The size of a proposed basement may be limited based on drainage issues or issues raised in the geologic and geotechnical reports. (Ord. 209 ~ 2 (part), 2002) Arri 1P 16-15 RT JTT 1~TNG C'(~T~F~ 16-15.180 Section 3315 of Appendix Chapter 33 is amended concerning drainage and terracing. Subsections (f) and (g) are -added to Section 3315 of Appendix Chapter 33 to read as follows: (f) Each lot and building site shall be graded to drain all storm and other surface waters to the nearest storm drain or other drainage outlet approved by the building official. All runoff from roofs, decking, paving and other surface water collectors, whether natural or artificial, maybe ' required by the building official to be centrally collected and drained through enclosed pipe or other conduit to onsite or off-site drainage outlets or storm drains. Disposition ofon-site storm water shall be consistent with the provisions of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program requirements. , PART TWO -LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS Staff is proposing amendments to the Lot Line Adjustment section of the Subdivision Ordinance to further strengthen the provisions of the ordinance so that the Lot Line Adjustment process is not used to create additional buildable subdividable sites. The proposed language is fashionecT after a recently adopted County of Santa Clara ordinance aimed at providing some greater measure of hillside protection. 14-50.010 Purpose Lot line adjustments are Intended to provide practical flexibility for minor alterations of existing parcels and/or improved lot design. The lot line adjustment procedure authorizes property line(s) between 4 or fewer existing adjoining legal parcels to be altered so long as no additional parcels are created and all other state and local requirements are met: fi~9:8~@ 14-SO.OISApplication. Application for a lot line adjustment shall be filed with the Community Development Director on such form, as he or she shall prescribe. The application shall be signed by the owners of all properties, which are the subject of the proposed lot line adjustment. The Community Development Director shall examine the application and shall not accept the same until all of the requirements of this Article with respect to the form ar~d content of the application and the documents to be submitted therewith have been fully satisfied and all fees and costs due and payable at the time of filing the application have been paid in full. The time of filing the application shall be the date on which the application is accepted by the Community Development Director as being complete. (Amended by Ord. 221 ~ 2 (part), 2003) 14-50.020 Contents of application. The applicant shall submit eighteen copies of a scale drawing showing the proposed lot line adjustment, prepared by a registered civil engineer or land surveyor. Such drawing shall have a dimension of not less than eighteen inches by twenty-six inches, and the scale thereof, based upon the combined area of all properties which are the subject of the lot line adjustment, shall be as follows: one inch shall be equal to twenty feet for two acres or less; one inch shall be equal to fifty feet for two acres through twenty acres; and one inch shall be equal to one hundred feet for over twenty acres in area. The .drawing shall contain, or shall be accompanied by, the following information: (a) The existing lot lines of all properties which are the subject of the lot line adjustment and the name of any existing recorded maps applicable to such properties, the date of recording such maps, and the book and page of the official records where such maps are recorded. (b) The proposed lot lines and the dimensions of the lots. as reconfigured by the lot line adjustment, including frontage, width, depth and area in square feet. (c) Date of preparation, north point and scale. (d) A key map showing adjacent contiguous property on all sides, giving location, names and widths of adjacent rights-of-way. (e) Name and address of record owners of all properties which are the subject of the lot line adjustment and the name and address of the civil engineer or land surveyor who prepared the drawing. (f) Locations, names, widths, centerline radii and centerline slopes of all streets within or acz~aceiit to tiie 5uu~c~~ YLUYclu~a. (g) Existing contours of the subject properties, expressed in intervals of five feet, together with a calculation of the average slope of each property, as determined in accordance with Section 14- 10.280 of this Chapter. (h) Location and description of all existing buildings and structures upon the subject properties. (i) Location and character of all existing easements. (j) Existing use or uses and zoning classification of each property having a lot line to be adjusted. (k) Location of all creeks, streams and other watercourses, showing top of existing banks and creek depth. (1) A preliminary title report issued within ten days from date of filing the application by a reputable title company doing business in the County issued to or for the benefit of the City and showing all parties having any interest in the subject properties. (m) In addition to the foregoing, the Community Development Director may require the applicant to submit such additional documents, information and materials as the Director deems necessary for the review, processing and evaluation of the proposed lot line adjustment. If any , . such additional documents, information or materials are required, the Director shall so advise the applicant in writing within thirty days from the filing of the application..(Amended by Ord. 221 ~ 2 (part), 2003) 14-50.030 Investigation and. report by C~it~munity Development Director.. (a) The Community Development Director may transmit a copy of the application to such persons and agencies as he or she may deem appropriate for review and recommendations thereon, including, but not limited to, the Health Officer, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the sanitation and fire districts having jurisdiction, and any utility companies. (b) Upon receipt of any recommendations from the persons and agencies referred to in subsection (a) of this Section and completion of his own review and analysis of the application, the Community Development Director shall cause a written staff report to be prepared and submitted to the advisory agency and shall furnish the applicant with a copy of such report not later than three days prior to the date on which the application is first considered by the advisory agency. (Amended by Ord. 221 ~ 2 (part), 2003) 14-50.035 General Plan and Zoning Requirements and Criteria The requirements and. criteria in this section apply to the determination of whether a proposed lot line adjustment complies with the minimum lot size and development density requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This section does not contain a complete list of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements that may apply to lot line adjustments. (a) Alllots resulting from a lot line adjustment must comply with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The General Plan will prevail if there is any need to harmonize General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designations for the subject lots. (b) A "substandard lot"is defined for the purposes of this chapter as a lot that does not meet the minimum lot size requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designations applicable to the property. (c) If any lot resulting from the proposed lot line adjustment would be substandard, the lot line adjustment may only be approved if the lot line adjustment would not cause or contribute to an increase in aiiowaAle ueiisity beyoliu' L1Lat autllorizeU -by th e General Plan designation or that which existed when .the lot line adjustment application was deemed complete. Lot line adjustments involving substandard lots that fall into one or more of the following categories are presumed not to cause or contribute to an increase in allowable density and may be approved if the approving authority makes all of the required findings under at least one of the following categories. Category 1- No increase in number ofDevelopable Parcels 1. No substandard parcel may be reduced in area. 2. Each adjusted lot must retain at least 90% of the real property included in the parcel prior to the proposed lot line adjustment. 3. The lot. line adjustment would not result in any additional developable parcels or a greater allowable density than prior to the lot line adjustment. In determining if a parcels is developable, the parcel must meet at least one of the following criteria. (a) Contain a legal dwelling constructed pursuant to and in compliance with a validly issued Design Review and subsequent Building Permit. (b) Be subject to an unexpired Design Review approval and or Building Permit. (c) Be a whole lot on a numbered tract map or parcel map issued pursuant to a legal subdivision. Category2 -Accommodation for existinglegal structures. 1. The approving authority finds that the proposed lot line adjustment involves only two parcels. and its sole purpose is to accommodate the following types of improvements that were legally constructed by or on behalf of a property owner on an adjoining parcel. 2. A dwelling, building or structure that was constructed before any permits were required by the City of Saratoga for such improvements. 3. A d welling, building or structure for which all legally required permits were issued prior to construction and the improvements were constructed in compliance with all approved plans.and permits. Category3-Environmental lmpactAvoidance The sole purpose of the lot line adjustment is to reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts sUCh as geological hazards or disturbance of important viewshed, riparian or habitat areas. Where criterion is the basis for approval, the Planning Commission must hold a public .hearing on the application and make all of the following findings ,before approving the proposed lot line adjustment. 1. The lot line adjustment would not result in .any additional developable parcel or a greater allowable density that existed prior to the lot line adjustment. In determining ifa parcels is developable, the parcel must meet at least one of the following criteria. (a) Contain a legal dwelling constructed pursuant to and in compliance with a validly issued Design Review and subsequent Building Permit. (b) Be subject to an:unexpired Design Review approval and or Building Permit. (Cf 13e a WI1UlelUC Un a IIUIIIUClCU Ll':1CL 11l~ijl Vl'~JcilC.'Cl.~' 111~L1J 1JJUCU 1.JU1DUdtIC cv a legal subdivision. i. The lot line adjustment would result in parcels that would be environmentally superior and better implement the general plan policies as compared to the current lot configuration. ii. The proposed lot design and configuration would optimize general plan conformance and. environmental protection and best mitigate environmental impacts in conformance with thegeneral plan. 14-50.040 A.ct:ion by Community Development Director; findings. (a) Within fifty days after the application is accepted as complete, unless such time is extended by mutual agreement of the advisory agency and the' applicant, the Community Development Director shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the application and shall report such action to the applicant. A copy of said report shall be kept on file in the City offices for a period of not less than five years, and in all events, until the recordation of a record of survey or deed, as required under Section 14-50.060, and final acceptance by the City of any public improvements to be constructed by the applicant and termination of the applicant's responsibility to maintain such improvements. (b) The Community Development Director shall not approve a lot line adjustment unless it makes all of the following findings: (1) That the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. (2) That the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance and this Chapter. For the purpose of this finding, the lot line adjustment shall be deemed consistent if no new violation of such regulations is created by the lot line adjustment, or if the nonconformity created by the lot line adjustment is .specifically approved by the advisory agency through the appropriate process, such as the granting of a variance or use permit under Chapter 15 of this Code or the granting of an exception under this Chapter. (3) That the proposed lot line adjustment will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the subject properties. In this connection, the Community Development Director may grant tentative approval if he finds that alternate easements for access or use will be provided, and that these will be . substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a-court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is granted to the Community Development Director or to the Planning Commission to determine that the public at large .has acquired easements for access through or use of any portion of the subject properties. ' (c) The Community Development Director shall not impose conditions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except for those conditions which the Community Development Director deems , necessary or appropriate for implementation of, and conformity with, any zoning regulations set , forth in Chapter 15 of this Code or building regulations set forth in Chapter 16 of this Code, or to facilitate the relocation of existing streets, utilities, easements or other rights-of-way. (d) In each of the following cases, no lot line adjustment approval shall be granted until such application has received approval by the Planning Commission: ll~ tiny lot line aQ~UStiIletll WIIllal UVC5 11UL l.Ulll~)ly W1L11 SULJJCl.L1Ul1 lL)~ VL 1111) JCl.livll. (2) Any lot line adjustment affecting a parcel of land which is determined through the Certificate of Compliance process to have been improperly recorded. (e) A public hearing shall be conducted for any lot line adjustment application requiring Planning Commission approval pursuant to subsection (d) of this Section. Notice of the hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place of the hearing to the applicant and to all persons whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County as owning property within five hundred feet of the boundaries of -the subdivision or site which is the subject of the application. Notice of the public hearing shall also be .published once in the newspaper having general circulation in the City not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing. (Amended by Ord. 71-154 ~ 1,1995) 14-50.050 Expiration. of. tentative approval.; extensions. (a) The tentative approval of a lot line adjustment shall expire twenty-four months from the date , , on which the advisory agency, or the City Council on appeal, granted its approval or conditional approval. (b) An extension of the expiration date may be granted by the advisory agency for a period or periods of time not exceeding thirty-six months. The application for extension shall be filed prior to the expiration date, and shall be accompanied by the payment of a fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. Extension of tentative approval , is not a matter of right and the advisory agency may deny the application. 14-50.060 Approval anal recordation of survey or deed. (a) Prior to the expiration of the tentative approval or extension thereof pursuant to Section 14- 50.050, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a proposed record of survey and such other documents as listed in Section 14-40.020 as may be required under the conditions of the tentative approval. The City Engineer may accept a deed in lieu of a survey where the lot line adjustment involves only the movement of .property lines without relocation of any streets, utilities, easements or other rights-of-way. (b) The City Engineer shall examine the survey or deed and accompanying data and shall determine: (1) Whether the proposed survey or deed substantially complies with the tentative approval of the lot line adjustment by the advisory agency; (2) Whether all conditions of tentative approval have been completed, or if incomplete, > , 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached Resolution recommending the City Council make such amendments to the Saratoga City Code. iz • Attachment 1 • RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA 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 burden of proof required to support said amendments has been made, and the following findings have been determined: The current sections of the Subdivision, Zoning and Building chapters of the Saratoga City Code are not consistent with the provisions of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program requirements, and The need to provide additional regulation regarding lot line adjustments is needed to further implement the Hillside protection policies of the City of Saratoga. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: • Section 1. After careful consideration of the proposed amendments the following is hereby recommended to the City Council: That the below Saratoga City Code sections are amended to read: Ar icle 14-20 PR(~C'Fi~ITRFS F(~R TzTLTTATTVF APPR(~VAT. 14-20.040 (n) Contents of application. (n) A11 provisions for sewage disposal, storm drainage and flood control, which are proposed by the applicant. Disposition of on-site storm water shall be consistent with the provisions of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program requirements. 14-.30.030 Storm water and sewage. Is amended to read: (a) General requirements. Subterranean storm drains shall be designed and installed by the subdivider or owner. to adequately and safely drain all storm waters of the subdivision or site, and all surface water"s reaching or reasonably calculated to reach the subdivision or site from areas outside of its boundaries. All drainage plans shall be consistent with the policies of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. In order to ensure compliance with program guidelines, grading plans shall incorporate appropriate source control and site 14 maps, and the book and page of the official records where such maps are recorded. (b) The proposed lot lines and the dimensions of the lots as reconfigured by the lot line adjustment, including frontage, width, depth and area iri square feet. (c) Date of preparation, north point and scale. (d) A key map. showing adjacent contiguous property on all sides, giving location, names and widths of adjacent rights-of-way. (e) Name and address of record owners of all properties which are the subject of the lot line adjustment and the name and address of the civil engineer or land surveyor who prepared the drawing. (f) Locations, names, widths, centerline radii and centerline slopes of all streets within or adjacent to the subject properties. (g) Existing contours of the subject properties, expressed in intervals of five feet, together with a Call:UlaLlUll of L11C averagC s1U1JC VL Cacll prVpcrl}~, as uc[c11uu1cu iii al.cl/1uQ11LL VVllll JLLL1V11 i - 10.280 of this Chapter. (h) Location and description of all existing buildings and structures upon the subject properties. (i) Location and character of all existing easements. (j) Existing use or uses and zoning classification of each property having a lot line to be adjusted. (k) Location of all creeks, streams and other watercourses, showing top of existing banks and creek depth. (1) A preliminary title report issued within ten days from date of filing the application by a reputable title company doing business in the County issued to or for the benefit of the City and showing all parties having any interest in the subject properties. (m) In addition to the foregoing, the Community Development Director may require the applicant to submit such additional documents, information and materials as the Director deems necessary for the review, processing and evaluation of the proposed lot line adjustment. If any such additional documents, information or materials are required, the Director shall so advise the applicant in writing within thirty days from the filing of the application. (Amended by. Ord. 221 ~ 2 (part), 2003) 14-50.030 Investigation and report by Community Development Director. (a) The Community Development Director may transmit a copy of the application to such persons and agencies as he or she may deem appropriate for review and recommendations thereon, including, but not limited to, the Health Officer, the Santa Clara Valley Water District; the sanitation and fire districts having jurisdiction, and any utility companies. (b) Upon receipt of any recommendations from the persons and agencies. referred to in subsection (a) of this Section and completion of his own review and analysis of the application, the Community Development Director shall cause a written staff report to be prepared and submitted to the advisory agency -and shall furnish the applicant with a copy of such report not later than three days prior to the date on which the application is first considered by the advisory agency. (Amended by Ord. 221 ~ 2 (part), 2003) 14-50.035 General Plan and Zoning Requirements and Criteria The requirements and criteria in this section apply to the determination of whether a proposed lot line adjustment complies with the minimum lot size and development density requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This section does not contain a complete list of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements that may apply to lot line adjustments. 1~ (a) All lots resulting from a lot line adjustment must comply with the General Plan and i Zoning Ordinance. The General Plan will prevail if there is any need to harmonize General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designations for the subject lots. (b) A "substandard lot" is defined for the purposes of this chapter as a lot that does not meet the ' minimum lot size requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designations applicable to the property. ' (c) If any lot resulting from the proposed lot line adjustment would be substandard, the lot line adjustment may only be approved if the lot line adjustment would not cause or contribute to an increase in allowable density .beyond that authorized by the General Plan designation or that which existed when the lot line adjustment application was deemed complete. Lot line adjustments involving substandard lots that fall into one or more of the following categories are presUmea I1UC CU caUSe Ur lU11L111JUte tU all 1r11:1Cdse lrl iC11UWable derlslty arld litay be approved of the approving authority- makes all of the required findings under at least one of the following categories. Category 1- No increase in number of Developable Parcels 1. `No substandard parcel maybe reduced in area. 2. Each adjusted lot must retain at least 90% of the real property included in the parcel prior to the proposed lot line adjustment. 3. The lot line adjustment would not result in any additional developable parcels or a greater allowable density than prior to the lot line adjustment. In determining if a parcels is developable, the parcel must meet at least on of the following criteria. a. Contain a legal dwelling constructed pursuant to and in compliance with a validly issued Design Review and subsequent Building Permit. b. Be subject to an unexpired Design Review approval and or Building Permit. ' ' c. Be a whole lot on a numbered tract map or parcels map issued pursuant to a legal subdivision. Category 2 -Accommodation for existing legal structures. 1. The approving authority finds that the proposed lot line adjustment involves only two parcels and its sole purpose is to accommodate the following types of improvements that were legally constructed by or on behalf of a property owner on an adjoining parcel. 2. A dwelling, building or structure that was constructed before any permits were required by the City of Saratoga for such improvements. 3. A dwelling, building or structure for which all legally required permits were issued prior to construction and the improvements were constructed in compliance with all approved plans and permits. Category 3 -Environmental Impact Avoidance The sole purpose of the lot line adjustment is to reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts such as geological hazards or disturbance of important viewshed, riparian or habitat areas. Where criterion is the basis for- approval, the Planning Commission must hold a public hearing on the application and make all of the following findings before approving the proposed lot hne adjustment. is 1. The lot .line adjustment would not result in any additional developable parcels or a greater allowable density that existing prior to the lot line adjustment. In determining if a parcels is developable, the parcel must meet at least on of the following criteria. 2. Contain a legal dwelling constructed pursuant to and in compliance with a validly issued Design Review and subsequent Building Permit. (a) Be subject to an unexpired Design Review approval and or Building Permit. (b) Be a whole lot on a numbered tract map or parcel map issued pursuant to a legal subdivision. iii. The lot line adjustment would result in parcels that would be environmentally superior and better implement the general plan policies as compared to the current lot configuration. ^r-.1. ~ J 1..~ J___,~... a ~:.r,,,,., ~.a rimi-,o rtor~c~^n] r~~nn 1V. lne p11JpUSCU lUl UCJl~'ll al1U l.VrillbUlQL'1V11 VVVUlU vp~uiuc~ ~~~,..~u, l~~u~~ conformance. and environmental protection and best mitigate environmental impacts in conformance with the general plan. 14-50.040 Action by Community Development Director; findings. (a) Within fifty days after the application is accepted as complete, unless such time is extended by mutual agreement of the advisory agency and the applicant, the Community Development Director shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the application and shall report such action to the applicant. A copy of said report shall be kept on file in the City offices for a period of not less than five years, and in all events, until the recordation of a record of survey or deed, as required under Section 14-50.060, and final acceptance by the City of any public improvements to be constructed by the applicant and termination of the applicant's responsibility to maintain such improvements: (b) The Community Development Director shall not approve a lot line adjustment unless it makes all of the following findings: (1) That the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. (2) That the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance and this Chapter. For the purpose of this finding, the lot line adjustment shall be deemed consistent if no new violation of such regulations is created by the lot line adjustment, or if the nonconformity created by the lot line adjustment is specifically approved by the advisory agency through the appropriate process, such as the granting of a variance or use permit under Chapter 15 of this. Code or the granting of an exception under this Chapter. (3) That the proposed lot line adjustment will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the subject properties. In this connection, the Community Development Director may grant tentative approval if he finds that alternate easements for access. or use will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is granted to the Community Development Director or to the Planning Commission to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of any portion of the subject properties. 19 (c) The Community Development Director shall not impose conditions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except for those conditions which the Community Development Director deems necessary or appropriate for implementation of, and conformity with, any zoning regulations set forth in Chapter 15 of this Code or building regulations set forth in Chapter 16 of this Code, or to facilitate the relocation of existing streets, utilities, easements or other rights-of-way. ' (d) In .each of the following cases, no lot line adjustment approval shall be granted until such application has received approval by the Planning Commission: (1) Any lot line adjustment, which does not comply with subsection (b) of this Section. (2) Any lot line adjustment affecting a parcel of land, which is determined through the Certificate of Compliance process to have been improperly recorded. (e) A public hearing shall be conducted -for any lot line adjustment application requiring Planning Commission approval pursuant to subsection (d) of this Section. Notice of the hearing Shall be g1VeII nUt 1CSS Lllail fell dclyJ itor tilorc uian tjiirl`y dad%S prior tv tiic dates of tii~ h~ari;:~g bj' mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place of the hearing to the applicant and to all persons whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County as owning property within five hundred feet of the boundaries of .the subdivision or bite which is the. subject of the application. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once in the newspaper having general circulation in the Ciry not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing. (Amended by Ord. 71-154 ~ 1,1995) 14-50.050 Expiration of tentative approval; extensions. (a) The tentative approval of a lot line adjustment shall expire twenty-four months from the date on which the advisory agency, or the City Council on appeal, granted its approval or conditional approval. (b) An extension of the expiration date may be granted by the advisory agency for a period or periods of time not exceeding thirty-six months. The application for extension shall be filed prior to the expiration date, and shall be accompanied by the payment of a fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. Extension of tentative approval is not a matter of right and the advisory agency may deny the application. 14-50.060 Approval and recordation oI survey or deed. (a) Prior to the expiration of the tentative approval or extension thereof pursuant to Section 14- 50.050, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a proposed record of survey and such other documents as listed in Section 14-40.020 as may be required under the conditions of the tentative approval. The City Engineer may accept a deed in lieu of a survey where the lot line adjustment involves only the movement of property lines without relocation of any streets, utilities, easements or other rights-of-way. (b) The City Engineer shall examine the survey or deed and accompanying data and -shall determine: (1) Whether the proposed survey or deed substantially complies with the tentative approval of the lot line adjustment by the advisory agency; (2) Whether all conditions of tentative approval have been completed, or if incomplete, are matters, which are includable in a regular or deferred improvement agreement with the City; (3) Whether all provisions of this Chapter and all other applicable provisions of law have been complied with; and (4) Whether the survey or deed is technically correct. ao A (c) Upon the City Engineer's determination that all requirements of this Section have been satisfied, he shall notify the applicant that the survey or deed has-been approved as to form and content. The City Engineer shall thereupon cause -the- survey or deed to be filed for record in the office of the County Recorder when all of the following conditions as may be applicable have been satisfied: (1) The applicant has executed the City's standard or deferred form of improvement agreement and furnished to the City the security required thereunder. (2) The applicant has furnished to the City the monument bond guaranteeing payment of the cost of setting monuments and such other agreements and bonds as-maybe required bylaw. (3) The applicant has furnished to .the City the indemnity agreement and insurance policy required by Section 14-05.055 of this Chapter. i ~ ~ -rt_ _ t:...._ t....,, .-tea a F, •~ho.~ r(, the rite fpr rP~nrdatinn anv offers of l`YJ 111C alJplll.'t111L 11QJ Ci1Cl.ia L~.u aitu turiiioii~.u 4v J ~ dedication to be made by separate instrument, deeds, or other documents affecting title and relating to the lot line adjustment, together with the applicable recording fees, if any. (5) All required fees and costs have been paid in full to the City. (d) Where an offer of dedication is made in connection with a lot line adjustment, the provisions of Section 14-40.070 shall be applicable to such offer. 14-15.020 -Deleted 14-45.010 -Deleted 14-45.020 -Deleted 14-45.030 -Deleted 14-45.040 -Deleted PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California; January 14, 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Coirunission ai