Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-14-2004 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, Apri114, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners, Mohammad Garakani, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Jill Hunter Absent: Commissioner Zutshi Staff: Planners Oosterhous Est Vasudevan, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ELECTION OF A NEW PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR (GARAKANI CHAIR, NAGPALMCE-CHAIR) MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 2004. (APPROVED 5-0-1, RODGERS 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 staff 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 Apri18, 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 - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. ' 1. APPLICATION #03-140 (403-27-049) - Appellant DUVALL, Site Location - 18325 Swarthmore Drive; -Appeal of an Administrative Decision to DENY a Tree Removal Permit at 18325 Swarthmore Drive to remove a large Redwood tree. The tree in question is a 161-inch, mature Redwood and is located next to the driveway. (ToNt SULLIVAN) (CONTINUED TO NEXT MEETING 3-3) 2. APPLICATION #04-042 (386-41-040) Appellant CHIN, Applicant KENIGSBERG, 20067 Karn Circle; -Appeal of Administrative Design Review Application #04-001 which proposes to construct a 225 square feet ground floor addition and a 167 square feet second story addition to an existing 2,900 square feet two-story home at 20067 Karn Circle. The property is 13,120 square feet and is zoned R-1-12,500. Appellant Chin, owner of an adjacent property, has filed an appeal of this application pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.065(c) after receiving a "Notice of Intent to Approve." (LATA VASUDEVAN) (APPEAL DENIED 6-0) 3. APPLICATION #04-014 (397-13-047) MURRAY, 14330 Chester Avenue; -The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new steeper roof and one-story additions to an existing single story residence. Both the additions and the new roof will be greater than 18 feet in height; therefore the project requires Planning Commission approval. The maximum height of the proposed roof and additions is 22.5 ft. The proposed residence including garage will be 5,482 square feet. Materials and colors include, a beige stucco exterior and brown the roof. The gross lot size is 42,776 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. (CHRISTY OosTi=Rxous) (APPROVED 5-0, NAGPAL ABSTAINED) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS VERBAL - The City is advertising for volunteers to participate on a citizen advisory committee for the General Plan Land Use Element update. It is anticipated that the committee will meet over atwo- year period with monthly or bi-monthly meetings. Interested persons should contact the planning department for more information. WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on March 3, 2004 - Correspondence from Vini Sarup ADJOURNMENT TO AT 10:45 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, April 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 • SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 -12:00 noon PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2004 L~ ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #04-042 - CHIN / KENIGSBERG' Item 2 20067 Karn Circle 2. Application #04-140 - DUVALL Item 1 18325 Swarthmore Drive 3. Application #04-014 - MURRAY Item 3 14330 Chester Avenue SITE VISIT COMMITTEE The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions, which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, Apri114, 2004 - 7:00 p.m PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TrPE: Regular Mceting ROLL CAT.L' Commissioners, Mohammad Garakani, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Lrhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Jill Hunter PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ELECTION OF A NEW PIANNING COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Mceting of March 10, 2004. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Any mrntbcr of the Public will bt allo-ycd to addrus the Planning Commission for up to thra minutes on matta-s not on this agrnda The law gcnn-ally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such itans. Howcva; the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly rcgarding Oral Communications undo Planning Commission dircction to Staff: REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on Apri18, 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 compliancc with the Amcricans with Disabilitiu Act (ADA), if you nerd spccial assistancc to pamcipatc in this mating, plcasc contact the City Clcrk at (408) 868.1269 or ctclcrk@saratogaca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will rnable the City to makc reasonablc arranganrnts to ensurc accusibility to this mating (28 CFR 35102-35.104 ADA Title II). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appeaz and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commiccion pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in .written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #03-140 (403-27-049) - Appellant DUVALL, Site Location - 18325 Swarthmore Drive; -Appeal of an Administrative Decision to DENY a free Removal Permit at 18325 Swarthmore Drive to remove a large Redwood tree. The tree in question is a 161-inch, mature Redwood and is located next to the driveway. (TOM SULLTVAN) 2. APPLICATION #04-042 (386-41-040) Appellant CHIN, Applicant KENIGSBERG, 20067 Karn Circle; -Appeal of Administrative Design Review Application #04-001 which proposes to construct a 225 square feet ground floor addition and a 167 square feet second story addition to an existing 2,900 square feet two-story home at 20067 Karr Circle. The property is 13,120 square feet and is zoned R-1-12,500. Appellant Chin, owner of an adjacent property, has filed an appeal of this application pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.065(c) after receiving a "Notice of Intent to Approve." (IATA VASUDEVAN) 3. APPLICATION #04-014 (397-13-047) MURRAY, 14330 Chester Avenue; -The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new steeper roof and one-story additions to an existing single story residence. Both the additions and the new roof will be greater than 18 feet in height; therefore the project requires Planning Commission approval. The maximum height of the proposed roof and additions is 22.5 ft. The proposed residence including garage will be 5,482 square feet. Materials and colors include, a beige stucco exterior and brown file roof. The gross lot size is 42,776 square feet. The property is zoned R-140,000. (CxRISrY OOSrERxOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS VERBAL - The City is advertising for volunteers to participate on a citizen advisory committee for the General Plan Land Use Element update. It is anticipated that the committee will meet over atwo- year period with monthly or bi-monthly meetings. Interested persons should contact the planning department for more information. WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on March 3, 2004 - Correspondence from Vini Sarup ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, Apri128, 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 a-mail, please send your a-mail address to plannin sarato ag ca.us • 0 O 1viiNUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Hunter, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of January 28, 2004. • Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of January 28, 2004, were adopted as submitted with corrections to pages 3, 4 and 7. (4-0-0-3; Commissioners Garakani, Hunter and Uhl abstained) APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of February 25, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of February 25, 2004, were adopted as submitted with corrections to pages 7. (5-0-0-2; Commissioners Barry and Uhl abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Norm Koepernik, Member, Heritage Preservation Commission: • Applauded the height limitations set by Ordinance under Section 15.45.030 but asked the Commission to consider exceptions to these limits when applied to historic structures. • Explained that historic structures often have great halls with open beam ceilings with trusses. This space is not utilized for living space. • Asked if there is a possibility to not double count that space for historic structures. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Ordinance takes into consideration the waiver of this • requirement if it is required to achieve architectural purity. Mr. Norm Koepernik asked that if this matter could be agendized and discussed further at a later date. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 10, 2004 Page 2 Director Tom Sullivan said with Commission and/or Council direction, this item could be added to a future agenda for discussion. • Commissioner Barry asked if there could be a distinction made between historic structures and others. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal supported the idea of having this subject as a discussion item at a future meeting. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 4, 2004. 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). AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES Chair Hunter advised that anyone requiring special assistance to participate in City meetings should contact the City Clerk 48 hours prior to a meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements • to ensure accessibility to this meeting per the Americans with Disabilities Act. *** CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #03-278 (397-15-022, 397-13-030) Verizon Wireless, West Valle~ge, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue: Request for use permit approval to remove 16 Meticom panel antennas and related equipment and to install 12 Verizon panel antennas, two GPS antennas and an equipment enclosure at the Theater building on the West Valley College Campus. The theater building is currently utilized by AT&T, Nextel and Cingular wireless facilities. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Commissioner Barry and Commissioner Zutshi both recused themselves from Item No. 1 as they reside within noticing distance of this project site. They left the dais to sit in the audience. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to install 12 panel antennas and two GPS antennas on the roof of the West Valley College Theater building. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 10, 2004 Page 3 • Added that this equipment would be painted to match the building. • • Explained that the applicant would be removing 16 existing Metricom antennas and supporting cabinet from this location. Even with the addition of this new Verizon equipment, this application will result in a decrease from what is currently on site. • Said that this installation would be visually unobtrusive and have a less than significant impact. The PEU (permissible exposure units) levels would be 3.3 percent. This installation meets FCC requirements. • Pointed out that there aze currently four wireless facilities on site. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the PEU levels quoted include this additional installation. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked what the levels are prior to this installation and what increase results. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous deferred this question to the applicant. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Timothy Richazdson, Applicant and Representative of Verizon Wireless: • Thanked staff for their assistance. • Stated he was available to answer any questions of the Commission. • • Explained that this installation is intended to increase coverage. • Added that the college has the tallest building in the area and that there are other carriers there already. • Advised that the increase in PEU with this installation is 0.03 percent. Commissioner Gazakani asked what other providers aze at this location. Mr. Timothy Richardson replied AT&T, Sprint, Cingular and Nextel. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the college has limits on how many carriers can be accommodated on site. Mr. Timothy Richardson said that he was not sure but that this particulaz building is likely full now. Commissioner Schallop asked who bought AT&T. Mr. Timothy Richazdson replied Cingular. Mr. Milton Brodernick, Representative for West Valley College: • Advised that the college is getting pretty close to saturated with these cellular installations. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Brodernick how the college decides which carvers can locate on • campus. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 10, 2004 Page 4 Mr. Milton Brodernick replied that the requests are considered on a first come, first served basis. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there are any concerns about access to these installations. Mr. Milton Brodernick: • Responded that there are no access concerns. • Advised that their primary concern is being an educational facility. • Added that the large fiberglass building owned by Nextel is currently painted bright white. The college is currently negotiating with Nextel to allow the college to paint this structure green to better blend into the landscaping. Chair Hunter asked about vehicle access. Mr. Milton Brodernick said that he does not believe there will be any problems accessing these facilities. He advised that installations such as this are reviewed by the college's facilities committee prior to allowing the carrier to proceed and process a Use Permit with the City. Commissioner Nagpal asked if health and safety impacts are evaluated. Mr. Milton Brodernick said yes. He added that the providers must prove that their installations are within the limits set by the FCC. They are measured. Commissioner Nagpal asked if cumulative effect is considered. Mr. Milton Brodernick replied that there is no issue at all once outside of seven feet away from the . equipment. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Garakani said that this is a great place for this installation, on top of the building, and that this has no impacts. Commissioner Nagpal said that she appreciates the information on RF levels and expressed her support. Chair Hunter said that she likes the fact that unused equipment is being removed. Said that she is fine with this request. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution for Application #03-278 approving a Use Permit to allow the removal of 16 Metricom panel antennas and related equipment and the installation of 12 Verizon panel antennas, two GPS antennas and an equipment enclosure at the Theater building on the West Valley College Campus located at 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: None • ABSTAIN: Barry and Zutshi Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 10, 2004 Page 5 *** • Commissioners Banry and Zutshi rejoined the meeting following the conclusion of Agenda Item No. 1. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan: Reminded the Commissioners that the regular meeting of March 24, 2004, has been cancelled. Announce that the joint meeting with Council will occur on March 17`x, with dinner being provided. Asked the Commission to identify items for the Planning Commission's Work Program. Commissioner Garakani asked that a discussion be held on the issue of privacy impacts as a result of residential security cameras. Commissioner Nagpal asked for further guidance on the issue of General Plan and Zoning compliance. Commissioner Schallop asked for further input on issues raised by the Tree Ordinance. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Hunter announced that this is Commissioner Barry's final meeting on the Commission. Commissioner Barry extended her thanks to all, saying that it has been a real pleasure as well as . rewarding to work with this Planning Commission. Thanked Director Tom Sullivan and his staff. Encouraged any Saratoga residents consider volunteering to serve on the Planning Commission in the future. Commissioner Nagpal said that the privilege has been for Commissioner Barry's fellow members. Thanked Commissioner Barry for her mentoring of newer members to the Commission. Commissioner Uhl said that Commissioner Barry's departure will leave a big hole to fill. Chair Hunter said that such experience is wonderful to have and that it has been great working with Commissioner Barry over the years. COMMUNICATIONS Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous announced that the City is currently advertising for volunteers for a Citizen Advisory Commission for a General Plan Update. This commitment will last one year. Asked anyone who might be interested to contact the City. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 2004, at 7:00 • p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 10, 2004 Page 6 Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • • ITEM 1 ~~ • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I Application No.: #04-050 I Location: 18325 Swathmore Drive I APPlicant/Owner: DWALL Type of Application: Appeal of a Tree Removal Permit Denial Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP ~~ Community Development Directo~ Datc: April 14, 2004 I APN: 403-27-049 ~0~~1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The appellant is requesting the Planning Commission reverse a Staff denial of a Tree Removal Permit application. The Appellant submitted a request to remove a mature Coast Redwood (161 inch circumference) on February 11, 2004. This request was reviewed in conjunction with the criteria found in Section 15-50.080 and was subsequently denied on February 20, 2004. The property owner submitted the appeal on March 2, 2004. 15-50.080 Determination on permit. (a) Criteria. Each application for a tree removal pruning or encroachment permit shall be reviewed and determined on the basis of the following criteria: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services. The tree appears to be healthy. ~ ' (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. LVhile the tree roots buckle the driveway there are acceptable methods of.repairzng the driveway without removing the tree. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. The topographyis not an issue. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. This tree and its companion rn the front yard is a neighborhood landmark. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. There are other healthy and large trees on the property. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. There are alternative methods of repairing the driveway that do no require the removal. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. The provisions of IS-50.010 of the Tree Regulations do not support the removal of the tree. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010. No other relevant information has been provided at the time ofthepreparation ofthis Staf1`~Report. (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. Arguably this criterion can be met. The Planning Commission previously denied a tree removal permit for this very same tree. The City Attorney has determined that a sufficient number of changes had been made to the Tree Regulations to allow a new application to be accepted for processing. 000002. Staff denied the application for a Tree Removal Permit principally because there are alternative methods of repaving the driveway that do not require the removal of the tree. The attached City Arborist Report supports this position. Mr. Babby has provided two alternatives for the applicant to consider using. Within the report the City Arborist gives detailed instructions on how to implement either alternative. "(~ntinn ()nP (S~ndard Rate C:nnrse MaT_Prialsl This option involves using standard base material and would likely yield a 10- to 20-year compatibility with the tree's roots growing against and beneath surrounding hardscape. Overall, this option would require the least installation time and be the most cost- effective." "(~nti~n Two (Stnictural Steil Mix_l This option involves using CU-Structural Soil as a base material. It would likely provide a longer range of compatibility (estimated at 15- to 25-years) but is more time consuming, costly and labor-intensive. It involves extracting and replacing soil around existing roots to a minimum two-foot depth so roots could grow away from the driveway surface, minimize uplift of the hardscape and achieve the required proctor density." STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deny the Appeal with findings by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. City Arborist Report 3. Tree Removal Permit Application 4. Correspondence from neighbors t 000003 • Attachment 1 • 000004 • RESOLUTION NO.04- CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of a Staff Denial of a Tree Removal Permit at 18325 Swathmore Drive; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the appellant has not met the burden of proof required supporting said appeal, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The proposed removal of the mature Coast Redwood is not consistent with seven of the nine criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080 (Determination on Permit) of the Tree Regulations. Only criteria #5 and #9 could be met in the affirmative. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: The Appeal of Staff denial of a Tree Removal Permit for a mature Coast Redwood located at 18325 Swathmore is hereby DENIED. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, Apri114, 2004by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: r~ Secretary to the Planning Commission ~®~~~5 • Attachment 2 • o®®®o~s ..~: .t~~ '~~ .A.RBOR RESOURCES ... , , 1'rufcssional Arhuricrrlrt~ral (:onsultinR c1t 7'rce (:'txrC April 5, 2004 Mr. Tom Sullivan, Director Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratogga, CA 95070 RE: CU-STRUCTURAL. SOIL, at the Duvall Property 18325 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga Dear Mr. Sullivan: i have evaluated the damai;cd driveway at above-referenced site to determine feasible options for its reinstallation while preserving the adjacent Coast Redwood (,Se:qu~~iu a~c~m~rvirerts). ~ My observations reveal the existing driveway is substandard and highly vulnerable to shrink/swell and heavinb by roots. Beneath the surface, there appears to be a tour-inch root and several smaller ones causing an estimated 90-percent of the visible damage. I believe these few roots could be removed without resulting in tree mortality or instability, provided the lawn and street side roots remain viable. This letter presents two options that would achieve a reationahly high assurance of tree survival and stability, one usint; standard bast course materials and the other engineered structural soil mix. Recommendations are also provided for establishing a driveway setback, mitigating damage to the rolled curblgutter located against the trunk's base, raising the lawn grade between the large surface roots, and providing supplemental water. Ontion One (Standard Base Coarse Materialsl This option involves using standard base materials and would likely yield a 10- to 20-year compatibility with the tree's roots growing against and beneath surrounding hardscape. Overall, this option would require the Icast installation time and be the most cost-effective, General guidelines for this option are as follows: • Remove the existing driveway surface. Starting closest to the trunk, manually dig all soil to the required driveway grade, which should not exceed asix-inch depth beneath existing soil bradc (the approximate grade of the lawn). • At 8 to l0 inches from the trunk's base, cleanly severe all roots within the top six-inch soil layer. The freshly cut ends of roots > 1-inch in diameter should be immediately wrapped in a plastic bag secured by a rubber band. • Compact the subgrade if necessary. To help suppress future root growth for possibly a three- to four-scar period, a root deterrent, such as Biobarrier00, can be laid on the soil subgrade. A plastic barrier and/or Biobarrier can also be placed vertically against the cut roots. • install the subbase mateRals and compact to the required levels. • install a heavily reinforced driveway that is to code or stronger. P.O. Box 25295. San M:~tco. C::~IifOriiia 94ao2 Email: arborresourccsC~;carthlink.nci Phone: GSU.G54.335 t • tai: GSU.654.3352 • LiCCnsnd Ganlrt~clor i179C713 r~ ~~®~® Z00' d tiEO ~G0 b0/S0/b0 ZSEE bS9 0S9 sa~.-nossa .ioq.ty .~ ARBOR RESOi.~R.CES .. ... 1'rojessional Arboricullrrral C'unsul~ing c1'r 7'rcc Care April 5, 2004 18325 Swarthmore Drive page 2 Option 7~wo (Sttw~ctural Soil Mix) This option involves using C:IJ-Structural Soil" as a base course material. It would likely provide a longer range of compatibility (estimated at 15 to 25 years) but is more time consuming, costly and labor-intensive. It involves extracting and replacing soil around existing roots to a minimum two-foot depth so roots could grow away from the driveway surface, minimize uplift of the hardscape, and achieve the required proctor density. General guidelines for this option arc as follows: • Following driveway removal, prune visible roots located immediately beneath the surface using the same guidelines specified for Uption Une, • Extract soil beneath the entire driveway surface to a two-foot depth by manually digging or using a pneumatic air device. Roots ? 2 inches in diameter must be retained during the process (excludes those visible immediately beneath the driveway surface). • Immediately after the roots are exposed, moistened burlap sacks should be laid on the exposed roots and remain continually rttoist until the soil mix is installed. ~ The subgrade should not be compacted; however, the structural soil can be at t 40%. The structural soil should be installed the same day it is delivered and must remain continually moist. The mix should be used beneath the entire driveway surface and will require being manually installed around roots that are retained. Equipment and/or vehicles should not travel over or park on exposed roots. Gener9# Recommendations These recommendations would apply to both options and arc as follows: • The new driveway should be designed at (east 18 inches from the trunk's base. • The rolled curb and gutter should be modified to reflect a slight bow at (cast six inches from the trunk's base and should be reinforced within five feet of the trunk. Furthermore, the entire length of the curb along the property should contain a lip that is two inches higher than the existing lawn grade. • The "valleys" of the lawn can be filled in using non-compacted soil or sand. F..quipment and/or vehicles must not travel over or park on unpaved soil. • Provide water to this tree twv weeks before and two weeks after the project is performed, I suggest supplying approximately 3S0 gallons by deep-root injection: • The removal of alt hardscape should not damage the trunk or roots, All work should be performed under direction of an 1SA Certified Arborist. Sincerely, ~~~ David L. Babby, GA Consulting Arborist P,O. Box 25295. San Mateo, California 944(12 • Email: arborresourccs~il;carlltlink.rtct Pltonc: GSU.G54.:33~1 • Fax: GSU,G~4,3352 . l..iccnscd Contractor #79G7G3 0000®8 E00' d FiEO ~ L0 ~0/S0/ti0 ZSEE tiS9 0S9 zao,.-noaaly .aoq.ld .7 Attachment 3 0~~©09 .: ~p~ ~ ~~~ a~ b~~ `` K Date Received: !~ 1 C D~Tree RemovaUPruning Permit Application Permit N~~ ., , PPermit Cost : $25.00 Expiration Date: _~,- Property Owner: ,~ ~~~~ Phone:(hm)~'~0~~ ~1A - 4~ l~wk) 3~C~ - ~#-~. t 3 Mailing Address: I ~ 3 '7 ~ 5.«~c%~~~% .t~,e~ i ~5~ S.kc~t.~,iro~- ~.° ~ ~~ ~ 7 G~ , Address where tree(s) to be removed: 1.~3 'al 5~~~'~~iwl~=k,r~ Pfc.. ~~~~~'~ Nearest cross street: ,P~y-~hr~+~t.- Company to remove tree(s) .~,~~ ,Q,,,~;~c. ,Fn%u:~.~~t;01. I understand that the tree(s) maybe removed only if found to be with in the criteria as established by Articlel5-50.080 of the City code and that by signing this form, I am certifying that the tree(s) to be removed is/are solely on my property. Signature of Property Owner Tree Removal permits are required for the removal of the following trees: Native Trees with a DBH(diameter at breast height) of 6" or greater (19" in circumference measured 4 %: feet above the ground). Other Trees with a DBH of 10" or greater( 31" in circumference measured 4'~~ feet above the ground). Any street tree (tree within a public street or right of way) regardless of size. please 1;ct all trPP~ to hP rPmnveti in the table below. ~. r ~- SPECIES SIZE REASON FOR REMOVAL ~~~-s ~,~.. Location of Trees Prepare a small site plan the area below,showing all trees to be removed from the property; include dimensions from property lines and existing structures. J , L_ ~~1: r FEES PAID: ~~~~ RECEIPT NO: ~~1~ ~~ ' Tree Removal Permits will be held for a period often days after inspection approval pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code section 15-90.050(a) for any interested party to appeal the administrative decision to the Planning Commission. 0®01'0 • CITY OF SARATOGA • Tree Removal Permit # ~ ~' d 3 Applicant: / /~.t UQ Address Where Tree(s) Are To Be Removed ~ ~',3 Z ~ ~~ To Be Combleted By A Field Inspector This tree removal permit is APPROVED in accordance with Article 15-50 of the City Code based on the followin . g Meets Criteria Does Not Meet Criteria The tree is DEAD ^ The Condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to the structures and interference with utility services. ^ The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to im rovements or i i f p mperv ous sur aces on the property. The topography of the land and the effect of the removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. The number, species, size and location of the existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control and th l lf , e genera we are in the area. The age and number of healthy trees on the property is able to support according to good forest practices. ~ ^ Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on a protected tree Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose or intent of Article 15-50 ^ ~~/ ~f The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. ^ Conditions of Approval • Replacement tree(s) shall be planted within 3 months from the approval date. The City will re-inspect to ensure compliance with all conditions of approval. This tree removal permit is DENIED for the following reasons: ~e. U`~ ~~'e, ~ ~--~V~ P MIT EXVPRA7'ION DATE: Signature of Inspector Date of Inspection 2/ ~if~ ~ G~ 6 s Effective Date of Permit BABAI~ RAISSI or Current Owner 18353 MCCOY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -KEVIN J & BETTY HAYS or Current Owner 18395 MCCOY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL G OCCHIPINTI or Current Owner 18367 MCCOY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 GERARDO A & NILDA RETAMOSO or Current Owner 18409 MCCOY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 DEAN O & DONNA HORNER or Current Owner ' 18381 MCCOY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 RUDOLF & DIANA GUJER or Current Owner 18423 MCCOY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JON M & MELODY GARLIEPP BUFFY&SPARACINO BAIL GARY & CARLA GELLMAN or Current Owner BONDS INC or Current Owner 18437 MCCOY AVE or Current Owner 18396 SWARTHMORE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 18408 SWARTHMORE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 STEVE P & MICHELLE GULESSERIAN or Current Owner / 18348 S WARTHMORE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 KARL CLEMONS or Cun ent Owner 18349 SWARTHMORE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 MARY B & DANIEL MCGUIRE or Current Owner 18336 SWARTHMORE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 THOMAS W & THOMAS CORSON or Current Owner 18337 SWARTHMORE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ~. RYAN MARLINGHAUS or Current Owner 18385 SWARTHMORE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 • • 00©013 • Attachment 4 • ~~®014 F• April, 5, 2004 • To: Planning Commission City of Saratoga California Re: Redwood Tree at 18325 Swarthmore Dr. Dear Commissioners, My name is Karl Clemons, and with my wife Lynda Treat-Clemons, reside at 18349 Swarthmore Dr., two houses to the west of the redwood tree. We are unable to be present at the April 15 meeting because of previous business travel commitments. Thus, we are writing this letter to voice our opinion concerning the destruction of the above referenced redwood tree. As each of the Commissioners is aware, removal of this tree was denied last summer and only a change in the laws of Saratoga has allowed for the current appeal to be filed. We are not in favor of destroying this tree merely because of damage to a driveway. The tree provides a wonderful aesthetic value of an established neighborhood as well as ambiance. Removal of the tree downgrades both of these aspects in our neighborhood and moves our area one step closer to the appearance of an unestablished, poorly landscaped, tract development. Reasons to remove the tree have been presented as the damage to the driveway, exorbitant costs of driveway maintenance, and potential rupture of the natural gas utility running underneath the tree. We believe the owner should get additional estimates concerning driveway repair and maintenance, as well as seek the advice of professional arborists. With regard to the gas line, given the age of the line (ca. 40 years) and its placement, then all trees and hedges on the North side of Swarthmore Drive within 10 to 20 feet of the line should likely be removed as potential hazards or possible causes of a gas line rupture. For our own property this would include a 40 foot wide juniper hedge and a magnolia tree, neither of which would we like to see destroyed. We believe that a reversal of your previous ruling in this matter (denial of tree removal) to a vote allowing the tree to be removed sets a precedent of ignoring directives from the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, which the property owner has done in this instance from the previous appeal. Namely, fix the driveway without damaging the tree, which has not been done to date. We do not dispute the need for the repair of the driveway and view it as an eyesore in the neighborhood as well as a serious safety hazard. On February 19, 2004 we sent an email to Mr. Tom Sullivan with a suggestion for a course of action. We believe this to be a very reasonable and logical suggestion. The text of this suggestion is quoted below. We are sure that Mr. Sullivan could provide you the full text of the email if need be. C1Q~1015 ~. "In addition, I would like to make a suggestion that could obviate any need to destroy the tree and may in fact save the owner money. It is obvious to all of us that the concrete driveway is severely cracked and presents a serious hazard for tripping and such. Were this my own property I would approach the situation as follows. I would have the old broken driveway concrete removed in order to determine what actually caused it to break. The current presumption is the tree's roots, but that has yet to be proven by anyone. It may well be that it is a single root causing the problem or it could also be that a depression has developed in the soil underlying the driveway that also contributes to the problem. The old concrete driveway needs to be removed regardless and before a new driveway could be installed. Why not do the removal of the old driveway first? With luck there would be a simple fix, which allows the tree to remain and a new driveway to be installed, which should save some money for the owner and solve all of these problems." Once again, we ask that the appeal to remove the tree be denied and that the owner be directed to seek alternatives for repairs of the driveway without damage to the tree Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, /tea,../ +~ Karl V. Clemons, Ph.D. --- 17ynda Treat-Clemons, Ph.D. Homeowners at: 18349 Swarthmore Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 000016 Olegario Lara 18324 Swarthmore Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 April 2, 2004 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City of Saratoga: I have lived in Saratoga for 60 years. 40 of those years I have lived directly across the street from a roughly 110-foot majestic California Redwood tree that is in perfect health & beauty. I am 83 years old and do not understand why, for the second time in a year, the City of Saratoga is contemplating to even discuss the removal of this tree. • From our last hearing on this, Ms. Gundy, the owner of this house (who happens to not live at that address) never even bothered to make attempts to remedy the situation. The problem is that the TREE is NOT the problem; the problem is that Ms. Gundy would rather focus all her time & money on removing it then to work on continuing to allow this tree to be a vital enhancement to our neighborhood. I believe that Ms. Gundy is going for shock value by taping up her driveway with crime scene tape rather than looking for options that many of my neighbors have already presented. Any reasonable person would have already removed the broken slab in order to prevent the hazard that she showcases. I have had a wonderful certified arborist who came to my house to prune my Persimmon Tree make a suggestion. He said he has seen other Saratoga residents preserve these trees so close to their driveway and streets by removing the concrete driveway, removing the offending roots and then re-pouring the driveway in sections OR better yet, use pavers or bricks that have shown to be much more forgiving for the roots. Swarthmore Drive continues to lose many of its older trees due to careless homeowners who just do not want them. For example: Last year I lost six 45 foot trees on my property line due to a new homeowner who illegally removed these trees without any permits. This real estate agent, Mo Tajik, removed them so he could maximize the lot size to build his brand new house. Mo Tajik never suffered any 000017' consequence from his actions. It is obvious he does not like trees and only cares about maximizing his dollar worth rather than our Saratoga neighborhood. However, due to his adions, I lost my privacy and shade which no one but myself seems to care about. I hope that the City of Saratoga insists that Ms. Gundy focus her time and attention to beautifying all her rental properties including the house across the street from me. She had 20 years to care for the redwood trees at this house and now due to her negligence, she instead points fingers at the tree as though it is to blame. Olegario G. Lara of Swarthmore Drive r~ • 00®018 Thomas W. Corson 18337 Swarthmore Drive Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 370910 April 6, 2004 HAND DELIVERED Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Commissioners, This letter is in support of the Community Development Director's decision to deny a tree removal permit for the rental property located at 18325 Swarthmore Drive owned by Gundy Duvall. First, I would like to formally note our objection to re-hearing this matter at all. This matter was decided last year, there are no new facts, and it was clearly stated that this matter was resolved with finality when this Planning Commission decided to grant my appeal and preserve this tree. We were told (conectly) that that decision was final and relied on that. There are no new fads or circumstances here, only the owner's stubborn refusal to do anything other than destroy the tnae. Nothing in the new law speaks of its provisions being retroactive and there is nothing in the public hearing minutes to indicate that there was any intent to make the new law retroactive. Nevertheless, we find ourselves dealing with this again and so I shall. The criteria for removal are set out below. I will address each item in turn. (7) The condition of the tn~e with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and inte-fierence with utility services. The tree is completely healthy. It is in no danger of falling. It is not near an existing or proposed structure. There has been a claim by the landlord that it interferes with utility services, namely PG&E's gas line, but that claim is completely unsubstantiated and speculative. This criterion is not met, and even if it was with respect to PG&E, there is a readily available alternative, namely for PG&E to move the gas main. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. The only legitimate claim that can be made regarding this tree is that it has damaged the driveway. However, it is the owner's negligence and inattention to the problem for the better part of 10 years that has caused the problem to escalate to the degree that it has. The tn~e should not have to pay the ultimate penalty of her negligence. Furthermore, there are readily available alternatives for fixing the driveway without removing the tnre (two of which are found in the staff report). Therefore, it is not necessary to remove the tnae to fix the driveway and this criterion is not met. U~®019 ~ Page 2 April 6, 2004 (3) The topography of the land and the etiiect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. This criterion is non-applicable. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the eflFec:t the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. This is the largest remaining tree in Sunland Park. Its loss would be a tragedy. It shades several homes, including my own. It is a magnificent specimen and greatly enhances our property values. This criterion for removal is Dearly not met. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support aocording to good forestry practices. There seems to be some debate as to the meaning of this criterion and it is indeed poorly written and in need of clarification. I suggest to you that it can only mean that if there are too many trees on a property, then some can be removed. That is clearly not the case here. The existing two redwoods are doing just fine. I believe staffs interpretation is that if there are enough other trees on the property or in the neighborhood, then some can be removed. 1 believe this is incorrect. First, the criterion says °property" and nothing else. Even if one were to include the entire street, we are by no means well treed. I have lost three huge conifers adjacent to just my own home. The property can clearly support the two redwood trees currently there. Therefore, I suggest to you that this criterion for removal is not met. (6) Whether or not there are any altematives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. As described in the staff report, there are several viable altematives for repairing the driveway as well as dealing with other speculative issues such as the PG&E line (they can move it, after all, it is simply a 2" pipe). In addition, I refer you to the property at 14760 Farwell, with identical circumstances, namely a large redwood in potential conflict with an adjacent driveway. As you will see, the pavers are working just fine. Furthermore, the city has established correct precedent when it determined in July 2003 to deny a permit for the removal of that tree. Accordingly, this criterion for removal has not been met. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. The stated purpose of Article 15-50 Tree Regulations is as follows: 15-50.010 Findings; purposes of Article. The City Council finds that the City is primarily a residential community; that the economics of property values is inseparably connected with the rural attractiveness of the area, much of which is attributable to the wooded hillsides and the native and ornamental trees located throughout the City; that the preservation of such trees is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City in order to preserve scenic beauty, prevent erosion of topsoil, protect against flood hazards and the risk of landslides, counteract pollutants in the air, maintain the climatic balance and decrease wind velocities. 4~~D~0~0 ~ Page 3 April 6, 2004 To compliment and strengthen zoning, subdivision and other land use standards and regulations, while at the same time recognizing the privileges of private property ownership, the City Council adopts this ordinance to establish basic standards and measures for the maintenance, removal, and replacement of trees. Thus, this ordinance is designed to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest to preserve and protect significant historic heritage values, and to enhance the unique aesthetic character and environment of this City. This says everything in favor of preserving the tree and nothing in favor of removing it in favor of a certain style of driveway (slab) or speculative conflicts with pipes. The only possible property ownership privilege argument that could be made is "I have the right to neglect the problem with the driveway for 10 years. I then have the right to come to the city and point out what a huge risk that has caused. I further have the right to destroy the tree because I refuse to utilize (or even consider) pavers and insist on a slab driveway'. That is hardly the intent of the tnre ordinance. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010. The only safety issue presented by this tree is the danger posed by its removal. PG&E said themselves they will have to shut off service. A crane will have to be brought in. Public safety is best protected by leaving the tree just as it is. Everything else in 15-50.010 is Dearly in favor of preserving the tree. (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible a/temative to the removal. There is absolutely no necessity to remove this tree for the economic (or any other) enjoyment of the property. It is a rental property. Tenants are living there right now, despite the tree, or the driveway. These same tenants could easily have chosen one of the other rental properties that Gundy owns. She has four on Swarthmore Drive alone. Mostly, they sit vacant for months and sometimes in excess of a year at a time. The tenants picked this home despite the tree or driveway. It was in fact these same tenants who provided the original impetus for stopping the first permit and the resulting appeal. The wife approached me on the day before the tree was to be cut down, told me of its impending demise, and stated that she and her husband were appalled that Gundy was going to cut them down (she initially intended to cut down both redwoods). That was the triggering event that gave rise to my appeal to save the tree in the first place. Furthermore, this criterion clearly states that there must be no other feasible alternative for removal. Clearly, in this case there are alternatives, as amply described above and in the staff report. This criterion for removal is also not met. Therefore, I ask that you find that the criteria are not met for removal and deny the appeal. Finally, in the unfortunate event that you decide to remove this tree, 1 request that at the very least that it be replaced at full value and the performance thereof secured by the appropriate bond. Anything less than this would be unconscionable. 00002"1 . ~ • ~ Page 4 Respectfully, Thomas W. Corson 18337 Swarthmore Drive • t Aprii 6, 2004 000022 Mary McGuire Dan Mercado 18336 Swarthmore Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 April 5, 2004 i City of Saratoga Planning Commission Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Planning Commissioners: I am writing to support the decision of Tom Sullivan and request that you spare the life of the redwood at 18325 Swarthmore Drive. Ow home is located across the street .from the property in question. One of the unique and special things about living in Saratoga is the rural feeling with the mature trees, wide streets, and lack of sidewalks. We recently lost several trees on the block to chainsaws, and fear that we may be about to lose that which is special about ow neighborhood. We do not want to lose another, especially one so beautiful and majestic, when it is entirely preventable. We discussed this with you at length last spring/summer, and nothing has changed since than. The property owner, who has never lived in the home, has refused to take any remedial action, as she has been waiting for the tree ordinance to take effect so that she had another opportunity to appeal to you. You will hear a lot of smoke and mirrors about what the tree "might" do, but it is without substance and/or evidence. The PG& E person is a personal friend of Ms. Duvall, and does not speak as a PG&E employee as he purports to, but as her personal friend. There is no evidence whatsoever that this tree's roots have damaged anything except for the driveway....there is no evidence that they have impacted the gas line and/or represent a danger to the neighborhood. PG&E admitted this in a conversation with Neighbor Corson. I want to emphasize that this is not an attempt to vilify Ms. Duvall. She is not in the best of health, and she has many rental properties, including this one, to manage. However, the fact of the matter is that the damage to her driveway is so severe precisely because she let the problem go unchecked for at least 8 years. (I can only speak to that amount of time, as it has been cracking the driveway since we moved to the block in March of 1996.) If you find that you must vote to remove the tree, we ask that it be replaced with one of equal value. Thank you for helping to keep ow neighborhood beautiful. 000023 000024 ~ w Regards, e~c~;~~ McGuire Dan Mercado 18336 Swarthmore Drive • • • ITEM 2 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 04-042; 20067 Karn Circle Type of Application: Appeal of Admin. Design Review Application No. 04-001 Appellants: Paul and Elaine Chin Applicant/Owner: Will and Linda Kenigsberg ,p Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, AICP, Associate Planner '1 Date: April 14, 2004 APN: 386-41-040 Department Head: __ _._. , I \ ~, ., .^ ~•. Goleta --,~. i ~ `~~ 111 j \ ~` ~~ ~ i ~ ~~ ,1 Appellants' ~ j-! '~ r'" ~ property ~~_____+r-~ '~ ~-- ~ ~• 1-~.- Gull `~" I ~ •., \_ ~ J r ~~ __._,_- Sea , f { ~' f ~ ~ ~( ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ / / ~ ~~ ~4~~ ~~~---~~ ~ Puenfe ~~`" ,- J' -.-__ ~/ ~~ ~ i ~_ ~' G /r ~ v ~' \ ~ \ Kam ~ -'--~.~L_~_- o ~ •~~ ~! ;~~ ~~,Iv~, _~ I / 'mom / I~ ! O 20067 Karn Circle F _'~ --- within 500 feet of 20067 Karn Grcle ~ ~ -_._ 20067 Karn Circle ~~©~Oi Application No. 04-042(Appeal of Admin. Design Review Application No. 04-001); 20067 Karn Circle CASE HISTORY: Application filed: Application complete: Neighborhood Review Period: Appeal Filed: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: 01/05/04 02/19/04 02/20/04 - 03/05/04 03/02/04 03/31/04 04/02/04 03/26/04 ZONING: R-1-12,500 (Single-Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Medium Density (M 12.5) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 13,120 square feet (gross and net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Flat -Less than 1%. GRADING REQUIRED: None proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project, which proposes to construct an addition to asingle-family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 (e) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 1 exemption applies to additions and alterations not exceeding 10,000 sq. ft. The home is located in a developed area. • • ®~~~®2. C • • Application No. 04-042(Appeal of Admin. Design Review Application No. 04-001); 20067 Karn Circle PROJECT DATA: Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Building: Walkways, Patios, Driveways: TOTAL: (Impervious Surface) Existing House: Existing Lower Floor: Existing Upper Floor: Attached Garage: Proposed House: Lower Floor Addition: Upper Floor Addition: TOTAL PROPOSED: Proposed 34 2,170 sq. ft. 2,270 sq. ft. 4,440 sq. ft. Code Requirements Maximum Allowable: 55 Setbacks: Height: Front: (no change) Rear: (at addition) ls` story: 2nd Story: Side -North: (at addition) 15C story: 2nd SCOry: Side - SOUth: (no change) ls` story: 2nd SCOry: 1,489 sq. ft. 9ss sq. ft. 456 sq. ft. 225 sq. ft. 167 sq. ft. 3,292 sq. ft. 25 ft. -0 in 71 ft.-Oin. 74 ft. - 0 in. llft.-Oin. 15 ft.-Oin. 12 ft. - 0 in. 32 ft. - O in. Residence: 21 ft. - 0 in. (existing portion of structure is 23 feet in height ) 7,216 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: 3,880 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement: 25 ft. - 0 in. 25 ft. - 0 in. 35 ft.-Oin. 10 ft. - 0 in. 15 ft. - 0 in. loft. - 0 in. 15 ft.-Oin. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. ®~~~03 Application No. 04-042(Appeal of Admin. Design Review Application No. 04-001); 20067 Karn Circle PROJECT DISCUSSION: . The applicants request Administrative Design Review approval to construct a 225 square foot ground floor addition and a 167 square foot second story addition to an existing 2,900 square foot two-story home. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.065, Administrative Design Review approval is required when an addition of 100 square feet or more is proposed for the second story. The materials and colors of the proposed addition will match the existing home. Trees The City Arborist Report prepared for this application indicates two ordinance-sized trees in the vicinity of the proposed addition. One of these trees - a Hollywood Juniper -will be severely impacted since it is situated approximately 5 feet from the proposed addition. Replacement trees are required equivalent to its value. The other tree is a Chinese Pistache situated to the rear of the proposed addition. This tree is expected to survive if all of the City Arborist recommendations are followed. All of the Arborist Report recommendations have been made conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. Appeal On February 19, 2004, Staff sent a "Notice of Intent to Approve" to properties within 250 feet of the subject site, and approved the application on March 5, 2004. The appellants, Mr. and • Mrs. Chin, filed an appeal of this approval expressing concerns regarding visual pollution, environmental, property values and privacy issues. These concerns were expressed in writing by the appellants earlier in the application process, when the applicants contacted the appellants and other neighbors to obtain comments regarding the proposal. In response to any potential privacy issues, Staff added a condition of approval requiring that the new second floor bay window over the bathtub be obscure windows, with a fixed middle pane and the two side panes being casement windows hinged at the outer protruding part of the bay window. The appellants were not satisfied with this requirement and expressed to Staff that they did not want any building addition constructed on the north side of the applicants' property. Staff visited the appellants' property, which is situated on the neighboring corner lot to the north of the applicants' property. The appellants' backyard is adjacent to the north side yard of the applicants' property. Staff finds that the proposed addition is not only sufficiently situated from the shared property line, but is also buffered by a row of screening trees and the depth of approximately 30 feet of the backyard of the appellants' property. Therefore, Staff does not concur with the concerns raised by the appellants. Conclusion Staff finds that the proposed addition does not have unreasonable impacts on privacy or any negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood. The following is a discussion of how this project meets all of the Design Review findings stated in MCS 15-45.080. ®~®®~ Application No. 04-042(Appeal of Admin. Design Review Application No. 04-001); 20067 Karn Circle • Design Review Findings: A. Avoid unreasonable interference with views andprivacy. The height, elevations andplacement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The site is located in a relatively flat area of Saratoga in a neighborhood of many two-story ranch style homes. The proposed addition, situated at the side/rear portion of the home, is 2 feet lower than the maxunum height of the home and is a small addition in relation to the size of the existing home. Given these characteristics, Staff finds that the addition will not have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood. In terms of any potential impacts on privacy, Staff has required that the proposed second floor window above the bathtub be obscure glass. Existing screening trees along the north property line also contribute to mitigating privacy concerns regarding the proposed bay window. B. Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. Since the site is flat, no grading is proposed. The addition will result in the removal of a Hollywood Juniper valued at $860. Replacement trees are required. The applicant is, however, required to protect a Pistache tree on the property, valued at $3,180. • C. Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. There are no protected native or heritage trees that will be impacted by this proposal. D. Minimize perception of excessive bulb. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. The existing home is not bulky. Since the addition is not large in relation to the existing home, Staff finds that the proposal will not result in excessive bulk. E. Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. Since the addition is situated more than 30 feet from adjacent properties, there will not be any unreasonable impacts on light, air and shade to adjacent properties. F. Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. As the lot is mostly flat there is no grading or erosion issues related to the project. G. Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views. ~~~®®S' Application No. 04-042(Appeal of Admin. Design Review Application No. 04-001); 20067 Karn Circle STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution denying the appeal and approving application No. 04-001 with conditions. The decision on this appeal is final and not subject to further appeal to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution denying the appeal. 2. Appeal application and accompanying letter from Appellants Chin. 3. Affidavit of Mailing Notices and List of property owners who were sent notices regarding the public hearing for this application. 4. City Arborist Report 5. Reduced plan, Exhibit "A". • • • ®~~®®6 • Attachment 1 • ®~~©~ RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-042 Denial of Appeal of Administrative Design Review Application No. 04-001 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Will and Linda Kenigsberg; 20067 Karn Circle (Property Owners) Paul and Elaine Chin (Appellants) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of Administrative Design Review application No. 04-001 which proposes to construct a 225 square foot ground floor addition and a 167 square foot second story addition to an existing 2,900 square feet two-story home; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on April 14, 2004 at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to remodel and construct additions to a single-family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 (e) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 1 exemption applies to additions and alterations not exceeding 10,000 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS, the appellant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application No. 04-042 which appeals Administrative Design Review Application No. 04- 001 in that the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 have been determined: A. Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The site is located in a relatively flat area of Saratoga in a neighborhood of many two-story ranch style homes. The proposed addition, situated at the side/rear pomon of the home, is 2 feet lower than the maximum height of the home and is a small addition in relation to the size of the existing home. Given these characteristics, Staff finds that the addition will not have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood In terms of any potential impacts on privacy, Staff has required that the proposed second floor window above the bathtub be obscure glass. Existing screening trees along the north property line also contribute to mitigating privacy concerns regarding the proposed bay window. B. Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in beeping with thegeneral appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. Since the site is flat, no grading is proposed. The addition will result in the removal of a Hollywood Juniper valued at $860. Replacement trees are required The applicant is, however, required to protect a Pistache tree on the property, valued at $3,180. ®~~~®8 • C. Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. There are no protected native or heritage trees that will be impacted by this proposal. D. Minimize perception of excessive bulb. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. The existing home is not bulky. Since the addition is not large in relation to the existing home, Staff finds that the proposal will not result in excessive bulk. E. Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. Since the addition is situated more than 30 feet from adjacent properties, there will not be any unreasonable impacts on light, air and shade to adjacent properties. F. Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates currentgrading and erosion control standards used by the City. As the lot is mostly flat there is no grading or erosion issues related to the project. G. Designpolicies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views. . NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, Application No. 04-042 appealing Administrative Design Review application No. 04-001 has been denied, and approval of Administrative Design Review application No. 04-001 is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The project shall be constructed as shown on Exhibit A of the Administrative Design Review application. The new second floor bay window shall be obscure glass with a fixed middle pane and the two side panes being casement windows hinged at the outer protruding part of the bay window. 2. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Notice of Approval and the City Arborist's Report, prepared February 2, 2004, printed onto a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 3. A site plan stamped and signed by a licensed land surveyor shall be included in the complete construction plans submitted to the Building Division. • ~~~~~ 4. Prior to foundation inspection a licensed land surveyor or a registered civil engineer • qualified to do boundary surveys shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans. S. All Arborist recommendations contained in City Arborist's Report, submitted February 2, 2004, shall be followed. 6. Prior to issuance of City permits, tree protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff. 7. Prior to issuance of City permits, the applicant shall submit to the City a deposit in the amount of $3,180 to guarantee the maintenance and/or preservation of trees on the site. This deposit shall be released upon the planting of required replacement trees, final inspection by the Ciry Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. 8. Any changes to the approved plans shall require Planning Department approval. 9. Applicant shall comply with all Santa Clara Co. Fire Dept. requirements. CITY ATTORNEY 10. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection . with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. • 000®10 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 14th day of Apri12004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission • ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~~~®~1 • Attachment 2 000012 r~ This two-part application must be submitted to the Planning Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070, by 5:00 p.m. within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the decision (MCS 15.90.050(a)). A ellant Name: ~ l ~ ~'~ ~ ~"'`~ ~Q,u ~ C ~` l't' PP ,, ~~1 Y'; CITY OF SARATOGA APPEAL APPLICATION APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • Address: Telephone #: THIS BOX TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY DATE RECEIVED: F~(~~-Vz ~'~ 21 ~'~ HEARING DATE: ~ ~, .z~~ FEE: RECEIPT # C%~ ~ 2 ~- ~- V V Name of Applicant (If different than Appellant): ~ • cu,v~ ~~ ~. ~ ` ~ tom, i ~ s b e. v' Project file number and address: d ~ ~ U O ~ 2~ ~ ~ kaY~ C+ rc ~{ Decision being appealed: ~d ~,i ~~~~s~~-~~~y~ -~'Si~+ ~~-~~Gey ~~'~~ Grounds for appeal (letter maybe attached): C~~~--a.~s~ ~~. ~ . • , Appellant s Signature 2 O drj Z .~-~ ~c.q u, l ( ~cc 3/~~ s~ Date 0®00~,~ (Please do not sign this application and the attached authorization-until it is present at City offices) CITY OF SARATOGA APPEAL APPLICATION PART 2 ~. AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING I, ~L,9-r~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ J~ , as appellant on Project# G'~ ~ d0 ~ , Herby authorize to perform legal noticing for this appeal, application. ~'~"'"'`"5 s .}~~ ~ \ Signature Date 3~~~6 APPEAL FEES AS OF 7/99 (RESOLUTION 99-35) o Municipal Code Section 15-90.010 appeals (zoning related): o Appeals from administrative decisions to Planning Commission $150.00 o Request for continuance: o .For first request ......................:....................... No Charge • • O®®O14 • Mar. 2, 2004 Lata Vasudevan AICP, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. J Saratoga, CA 95070 ~ ~ U MqR // Re: Notice of Intent to Approve an Application fora C~Ty 3 204 ~/ Residential Addition at 20067 Karn Circle • • .~FSA~TOG~ APPEAL APPLICATION Thank you for our meeting today. After careful thought and review of the proposed addition, we still have grave concerns about the following issues, which we trust will be taken into due consideration. • VISUAL POLLUTION ISSUES -The compromise and visual pollution that would result from the visual imposition of an addition and additional footprint, let alone a 2 story addition, situated so narrowly close to our property line and with • such narrow setbacks. This massiveness is too imposing, so near to our home, and compromises and takes away open space and open air space. This additional density imposes a negative crowded feeling and ambiance. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES -Significant deviation from the original concept, scope, design, and environment of the original neighborhood environmental plan, which are the bases for the original purchase of our home and the maintenance of neighborhood property values in this our exclusive and prestigious neighborhood. The originally planned open space environment and separation between neighboring houses and property is a critical factor to our quite enjoyment, as well as that of the neighborhood. • PROPERTY VALUE ISSUES -The compromise in our property value from the imposition described herein. This has a direct negative economic impact on our home and property value, as well as on surrounding neighborhood. • PRIVACY ISSUES -The imposition of an addition and additional footprint, let alone a 2 story addition, situated so narrowly close to our property line and with such narrow setbacks, would overlook directly into our backyard and exposed rear of our home. This is unacceptable. We invite you to please come visit our backyard and home, and see for yourself this potential imposition from our points of view directly. Words sometimes have a hard time • conveying the actual feeling. Thank you for your kind consideration. ~~~®~J~ .7 Very truly yours, ~ ~~ Elaine and Paul Chin 20052 Seagull Way Saratoga, CA 95070 C7 (~Q~~16 r~ Attachment 3 • Q~'~~~~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, ~ ~~~_ ~-L~ ~-~~~ ,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 ~~:1. Planning Commission on the ~ day of ,~~~~~~~,<~` ~,~-• 2004, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, 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 Section 15-45.060(b) of 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; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ., z, r ~~ ~: ~~ Signed • ~~~~~8 CHEN T TING OR CURRENT OWNER 025 SEA GULL WAY '~RATOGA CA 95070 EDMUND K CHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 20037 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20063 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 JACKSON TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12613 LIDO WY SARATOGA CA 9507a TIM & GAIL EVJENTH OR CURRENT OWNER 20068 KARN CIR ARATOGA CA 95070 G-WEN & YU-HISU WU OR CURRENT OWNER 20040 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 WOLF OR CURRENT OWNER 20027 PUENTE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 JITENDRA & NEEPA MAHESHWARI OR CURRENT OWNER 20050 PUENTE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 BRONSHVATCH OR CURRENT OWNER 20017 KARN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 Z CURRENT OWNER 20043 KARN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 PAULINE S & ROBERT CARLSON OR CURRENT OWNER 20026 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 REDDY OR CURRENT OWNER 20049 SEAGULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 FEIGELSON OR CURRENT OWNER 20075 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 ELAINE JUHOLA OR CURRENT OWNER 12601 LIDO WY SARATOGA CA 95070 LINDA & WILL KENIGSBERG OR CURRENT OWNER 20067 KARN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 SUNIL & SHALINI WADWANI OR CURRENT OWNER 20038 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 VIOLA OR CURRENT OWNER 20039 PUENTE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 FARHAT & MEMUNA ALI OR CURRENT OWNER 20014 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 IRINA SYTY OR CURRENT OWNER 20051 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 ALAN I & LYNDA MAYBRUCK OR CURRENT OWNER 20087 SEA GULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES K & MIMI OKAMOTO OR CURRENT OWNER 20070 KARN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 PAUL CHIN OR CURRENT OWNER 20052 SEAGULL WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 VIJAY V & SEEMA MARATHE OR CURRENT OWNER 20015 PUENTE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 PRAKASH & AMITHA KAMATH OR CURRENT OWNER 20041 PUENTE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 DORIS A & KENNETH JOHNSON CHAI OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20048 PUENTE CT 20036 PUENTE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 TR HARRIS OR CURRENT OWNER 20029 KARN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN R & MARYLEE HOTNESS OR CURRENT OWNER 20031 KARN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 DEVIN H & CAROL UTTER OR CURRENT OWNER 20055 KARN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 LI-MEEI WU OR CURRENT OWNER 12625 LIDO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~~~19 CHI-RAY & PEI-HSUN WU OR CURRENT OWNER 20056 KARN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN LIEN, ARCHITECT 196 COLLEGE AVE. LOS GATOS, CA 95030 MICHAEL D & KAREN SALOMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 20042 KARN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 HARRIS OR CURRENT OWNER 12636 INDIO CT SARATOGA CA 95070 n u • C. ~~~020 C Attachment 4 • ~~®®~~ '~ ARBOR RESOURCES _ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care • A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION AT 20067 KARN CIRCLE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: KENIGSBERG APPLICATION #: 04-001 APN #: 386-41-102 Submitted to: Community Development Department J ~'~ City of Saratoga ~'D ~ • 13777 Fruitvale Avenue F~-e Saratoga, CA 95070 c~TY 1 ~ ZOOQ OFSq ^~ r~C 9 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A February 2, 2004 • P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ®~®~ r David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 2, 2004 • SUMMARY The proposed project will expose two trees regulated by City Ordinance to damage. These include one Chinese Pistache (# 1) and one Hollywood Juniper (#2). Tree # 1 will be adequately protected provided the recommendations presented in this report aze carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. In accordance with the City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of its appraised value of $3,180 is recommended for compliance to these recommendations. Tree #2 will be severely impacted and should be considered a loss. This tree has low growing branches and its trunk is situated approximately five feet from the addition's proposed footprint. As a result, a significant portion of the canopy will require removal to allow working space and a considerable amount of root damage will occur. Replacements are recommended equivalent to the tree's appraised value of $860. INTRODUCTION The City of Sazatoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with a proposed two-story addition to an existing single- family residence at 20067 Karn Circle, Sazatoga. • This report presents my findings; provides protection measures and mitigation; identifies each tree's condition, species, size and suitability for preservation; and presents tree appraisal values. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the table attached to this report. Information reviewed for this report includes the Site Plan, Floor Plans, Roof Plan, Elevations and Sections shown on Sheet 1 (dated 12/22/03 by John Lien Architect) as well as an untitled topographic map (dated 12/10/03 by Ward Surveying). A copy of the Site Plan is attached and shows each tree's location, number and canopy perimeter, as well as the location of protection fencing for tree #1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Tree protection fencing must be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, surface scraping, grading or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Please note the • fencing should be established at least 17 feet from tree # 1's trunk. Where shown along Kenigsberg Residence, 20067 Karn Circle, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 1 of 2 000®23 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 2, 2004 the existing pavement, it shall be established no further than one-foot from the . pavement edge. 2. All construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced area (even after fencing is removed) as well as outside from beneath the canopies of other Ordinance- sized trees not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading (both soil fill and excavation), surface scraping, trenching (including for irrigation, drainage and utility), storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 3. The pavement beneath tree #1's canopy shall remain in place throughout the construction process. 4. The disposal of hannful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides and pesticides used beneath hardscape must be labeled for safe use near trees. 5. The pruning of tree #1 or removal of #2 must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to standards established by the ISA. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http://www.isa- arbor. com/arborists/arbsearch. html. • 6. The removal of tree #2 should be mitigated with replacements equivalent to its appraised value of $860. Based on the `Replacement Tree Values' chart shown on the bottom of the attached table, two trees of 24-inch box size would fulfill this mitigation requirement. The trees can be installed anywhere on the property and shall be comprised of the following species: Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii), Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii), Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa), Big Leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), California Buckeye (Aesculus californica), Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). TREE PROTECTION BOND Tree #1 has an appraised value of $3,180. In accordance to the newly adopted Ordinance, a bond equivalent to 100% of its value is required to promote its protection. The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`" Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Copy of the Site Plan Kenigsberg Residence, 20067 Karn Circle, Saratoga Page 2 of 2 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~®O2~ - ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE ,. .. ~ ~ .. . .., .. ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b a ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ a -~~ ~ •~„ ¢ ~ ~ A .. ib ~ ~ ib c U ~ c ~'~ ~ ~ a~i ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o OE ~ •~ ~ 2~ 'v a ~ ~ a~ o ~ g a ~ ~ ~ ~ x .° ~ u ~ ~ $ Q TREE NAME o Chinese Pistache 1 (Pistacia chinensis) 11 - 27 33 100% l00% Good Moderate 3 - - 53,180 Hollywood Juniper 2 (Joni rus c. Torulosa') 9.5 5.5 22 18 100% 75% Good Moderate 1 - - 5860 • • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15- Ilon = 5150 24inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 53,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 513,000 lei: SI1676~w Cirde, ~ Hq~d jor. CYIy •Is~oa• Grwwurwi(y Devd•pwart Dsp•rawrwt Prgod 1r: D•rirL B~ily, RCA FeBr•ry 2,16BI QOOQ25 20067 KARN CIRCLE • i +a.~~ 22.gy. ~3 5- `i ,' ~ h TREE PROTECTION ,,,,,~ ,'~ r FENCING '`'~., ~;{~,i t~ ~'`~ ~ 1 ~~ SITE PLAN , I..ot Arna ~ 13,120~'f -,^"`~ -' `~- i% f~ '? ~ I C1 2C?' Prepared by: Arbor Resources Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Department Note: Map identifies two trees of Ordinance size. Canopy dimensions are approximate. Map is not necessarily to scale. Date: February 2, 2004 ®~~1®2G ~.. ~ d ~ • ~ s v~o e ~ ~Q¢dpZ p L` a C ~ ,.,r ,~ u ~"'" u~ ~ z 1~ ~, vx8~ . Er ~ „ "[.-... Zw~O>V p ~+' ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~~e ~ VI r~1~ pww U (~ O ~/ W (~ ® ~p ~ ~ '" v a ~ ~VVC+ , k+ W . n~ ~_: ~'= _ ~ ~' A. d /~/IT ~ F ~~~ ~ S'~ ~" z ~~ ~ o ~~~~~~~ ~ ~' ~g~~~ s~~~'a~~~~G~~=,g~~~ J z u r~ C z ~~ ~~ 'Ia ~I A7 >~V~ 53~w w a ~~o ~~~<~ ~~~~~~« '< ~_. ~_~. z a a, w O O /T~1 ~~ -~-. ~y .~ x O ~. ~~ F. W _~_~: -' /h~ i ~~ ~ i I IJ ~ i 1 i I ~ ~~ ~~ ~~/ i ' I i ~ ! z ~ ~ ~ -__ a ~ i ---;~ ( ~ o ~ ~ O 9 'S ~ ~ ~ p '< ~~ ~ a ~ r ~ - w ~ J , g~ -- I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ i 8 i v~ , J .. ~ _ -~ '~ 'r ~ ~ _ _ ~Y r ~ w o F' ~J ~ ~~ ~ ;~~ ~~ Q ~ ~ T m i ~~ I ~ .. .. p w , i npRSCFBp<K ~ _ - ~ - ~ ~___ . yh ~. pI FIRST F ~-„ t+ _ W ~.UI~.Y[ ~ I AI-.x~ , i III ~ ~~'' ,__ - / ~f z _~ o. '~=~ ny CG ~~~ O ~~~ p -ate ~ z '« w Q z 0 U ~ o w a `. Q _-~~~ ~ - -- \ ~~~ w x __ --~ zz°~a ~+~s '~'.z 3 ~ I • • • ITEM 3 • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 04-014;14330 Chester Avenue Type of Application: Design Review Applicant/Owner: Scott Cunningham, Scott Designs Randy and Charlotte Murray ~ Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner~'`~J" Date: Apri114, 2004 APN: 397-13-047 Department Head: 000001 14330 Chester Avenue Application No. 04-014; 14330 Chester Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 1/20/04 Application complete: 3/03/04 Public hearing conducted: 4/14/04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests design review approval to construct one-story additions and a new, steeper roof pitch. The new roof and additions are to be greater than 18 feet; therefore the project requires planning commission approval. At maximum height residence will be 22.5 ft. The additions total 1,103 square feet. The proposed residence including garage will be 5,312 square feet. Materials and colors include, a pale yellow stucco exterior and earth tone composite slate roofing material. The gross lot size is 41,356 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve design review application 04-014 by adopting the attached Resolution of Approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Documentation of neighbor notification. 3. Arborist Report, dated January 24, 2004. 4. Mailing labels for project notification. 5. Materials board. 6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A". • 000002 Application No. 04-014; 14430 Chester Avenue • • • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1 40,000 GENERAL PLAN: Residential Very Low Density Maximum Dwelling Unit Per Acre 1.09 MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 41,356 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 8.3% GRADING REQUIRED: None ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes construction of one story additions to an existing one story single-family residence is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to the construction and location of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: A pale yellow stucco exterior and earth tone composite slate roofing material are proposed. Carnage garage doors, stone accents, and window shutters are proposed. 000003 Application No. 04-014; 14430 Chester Avenue Proposed Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Setbacks: Height: Maximum Allowable 35% 35% (existing 39%)* Residence 5,312 sq. ft. Driveway, patios, & 10,228 sq. ft. walkways. (-1,269 sq. ft. to be removed) TOTAL (Impervious Surface) 14,271 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Residence 4,502 sq. ft. Garage 810 sq. ft. TOTAL 5,312 sq. ft. 6,040 sq. ft. Front 33 ft. Rear 66 ft. Minimum Requirement 30 ft. 50 ft. Side Right Side 43 ft. Left Side 55 ft. 22.5 ft. Lowest elevation pt. 420.33 Highest elevation pt. 423.66 Average 421.99 At the topmost point of 444.50 the structure 20 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. * The property currently exceeds the allowable impervious surface. As a condition of approval (see resolution condition #11) the applicant will be required to reduce the impervious area of an existing recreational court to bring the site into compliance with impervious coverage regulations. • 0000®4 Application No. 04-014; 14430 Chester Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct a new steeper roof and one-story additions to an existing single story residence. Both the additions and the new roof will be greater than 18 feet in height; therefore the project requires planning commission approval. The maximum height of the proposed roof and additions is 22.5 ft. The proposed residence including garage will be 5,312 square feet. Materials and colors include, a beige stucco exterior and brown the roof. The gross lot size is 41,356 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. Existing residences in the project vicinity are a variety of architectural styles. Lot sizes in area are typically one acre or more. There is a mixture of one and two story residences in the project vicinity. Both the one and two story residences in the project vicinity are large scale residences. The proposed project is very consistent with the existing residences. The large lot sizes in the project vicinity can support the large scale homes. Most of the existing exterior walls are to remain. The existing building footprint is expanded by approximately 1,000 square feet. The rooflines are varied through changes in height. The main and highest roofline is 22.5 feet tall over approximately 5 linear feet. The majority of the roofline is approximately 20 feet in height or less. Additionally, hipped rooflines reduce the mass and bulk of the residence. Decorative details such as shutters, flower boxes, knee braces, stone accents, and dormers add architectural interest to the proposed residence. Neighbor Notification The applicant has submitted neighbor notification templates from four adjacent property owners including, the two properties on either side of the project site on Chester Ave and the two properties immediately behind the project site on Via Tesoro Ct (see attachment 2). None of the neighbors submitted concerns or issues with the proposed project. Arborist Report The Arborist Report, dated January 24, 2004 details project impacts on the existing trees. All trees are planned for retention. The aborist has made several recommendations to reduce significant impacts to existing trees. The aborist recommendations have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. Design Review Findings Staff finds the proposed project as conditioned, supports the findings for design review; therefore, staff recommends the planning commission approve of the proposed project. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: • Decorative details such as shutters, flower boxes, knee braces, stone accents, and dormers add architectural interest to the proposed residence. ®~a00.5 Application No. 04-014; 14430 Chester Avenue • Hip rooflines reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • The rooflines are varied through changes in height. The main and highest roofline is 22.5 feet tall over approximately 5 linear feet. The majority of the roofline is approximately 20 feet in height or less. • The large lot sizes and generous proposed setbacks from the property lines greatly reduces the visibility, mass and bulk of the proposed structure. • Materials and colors are earth tone and will blend well with the surrounding environment. Materials and colors include a pale yellow stucco exterior and earth tone grey brown the roof material. • All trees are planned for retention. The arborist recommendations shall be conditions of approval (see attachment 4). • The applicant has provided evidence that the immediate neighbors support the project; therefore, to the best of staff's knowledge, view and privacy issues have been addressed (see attachment 2). Conclusion The proposed residence conforms to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook. The residence does not interfere with viewsheds or privacy, it preserves the natural landscape, and minimizes the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed project supports the findings required for design review approval as detailed in the staff report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve design review application 04-014 by adopting the attached resolution (see attachment 1). • o~o~~s ~~ Attachment 1 • ~00~~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. . Application No. 04-014 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Murray; 14330 Chester Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct additions and a new roof with a steeper roof pitch; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct additions to a single family residence, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said • application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: • Decorative details such as shutters, flower boxes, knee braces, stone accents, and dormers add architectural interest to the proposed residence. • Hip rooflines reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • The rooflines are varied through changes in height. The main and highest roofline is 22.5 feet tall over approximately 5 linear feet. The majority of the roofline is approximately 20 feet in height or less. • The large lot sizes and generous proposed setbacks from the property lines greatly reduces the visibility, mass and bulk of the proposed structure. • Materials and colors are earth tone and will blend well with the surrounding environment. Materials and colors include a pale yellow stucco exterior and earth tone grey brown the roof material. • ~~~o~s • All trees are planned for retention. The arborist recommendations shall be conditions of approval. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 04-014 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 2. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. 3. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report dated January 24, 2004 as a separate plan page shall be submitted • to the Building Division. 4. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 5. A grading and drainage plan combined with a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. 9. The applicant or his designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit if deemed necessary. 10. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Any exterior changes to approved plans may require filing an additional application and fees for review by the planning commission as a modification to approved plans. 11. The site shall be in compliance with impervious coverage regulations for the zone • district prior to granting final occupancy. 000009 CITY ARBORIST • 12. All recommendations contained m the Arbonst Report dated January 24, 2004 shall be followed. 13. Prior to Final Building Inspection, the Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after a favorable site inspection by the Arborist, the planting of any required replacement trees, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. CITY ATTORNEY 14. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. Construction must commence within 36 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga • City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen days from the date of adoption PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 14th day of April by the following roll call vote: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: • 000010 Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • r ~ LJ 000011 • Attachment 2 • 000012 Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications ~~ . Date: ~ '-` `. •. , PROJECT ADDRESS: 3 ~ rz ~' ~ - ~ aru. a C%f Applicant Name:_~ct f/ f` ~~y /a f j~e ~~trr~ ~ Application Number: ~ L~ ~ C> 1 G' The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion • with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns aze the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~f,~A~1~5 ~~ yE.~- Neighbor Address: ~~~~?i ~ ~50 /~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~ ~' 7~~ ~'77s Signature: Printed: ~~ ~ ~ C~A,~~s I~AL~ • City of Saratoga Planning Department 000013 Neighbor Notification Template for . Development Applications Date: i ~ ~ ~'~'~~ PROJECT ADDRESS: /~Ij3~.~ ~L,~~.: ~~~ ~r~:tfz'rx=~ Applicant Name: ,~~ // ~ ~ l~ .r-Ca1~~ n'IGc~'={~~ Application Number: ~ ~ C~ ~ y The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta, f,~'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns aze the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: f~"L'~~/~-~~ f~tl~~St`t'~. liu !~ }~ Neighbor Address: Signature: Neighbor Phone #: Printed: 'yU~ - ~i%%~ -~'f tl ` a~~, City of Saratoga Planning Department OOUOl~ • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ ~~..?. -- /~ ~ D PROJECT ADDRESS: / ~/:~ ~ ~ C, .''S'~Pr~ /-~rr.~i ~ rz: ~, ~ Applicant Name:.~C.~~cr /~ f' ~~1ctr /01F7` _ `~uYr-c.~ c.~ Application Number: G y ~ v ~ G"~ ./ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta, f~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion • with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns aze the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name. Neighbor Address: . %/~~ ~.~ ~~ `~'.~? G Cam= G'~~ J ~~ Neighbor Phone #: G~ -- Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department ~Da~~.S Neighbor Notification Template for . Development Applications Date: l~ -09- D3 PROJECT ADDRESS: f ~/ 33~'~ C~~S~r-~ '~r-~'far; c.~ Applicant Name: ~~~c f/ f ~' ~y ,,~ ~~,/~- /lilcd'~~/ Application Number: G y - ~ I The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. StajJ'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns aze the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: %~~..Il~ ~~/C~- ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ Neighbor Address: ~y3i~ ~~/~ sT~ ~. 9 4 ~'" ~~, Neighbor Phone #: Signature: City of Saratoga Printed: ~~/-a~~~ Planning Department ooo®~s ~~ Attachment 3 ~o®Og,~ ~~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION AND REMODEL AT 14330 CHESTER AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: MURRAY APPLICATION #: 04-014 APN #: 397-13-047 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered ConsultingArborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A January 24, 2004 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 Licensed Contractor #796763 • • • OOOOg8 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist January 24, 2004 • SUMMARY The proposed project exposes nine trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential damage. All trees are planned for retention and expected to survive provided the recommendations presented in this report are carefully followed and incorporated into the construction plans. Impacts to trees #3, 8 and 9 are anticipated. As such, a tree protection bond equivalent to 100% of their appraised values ($16,310) is suggested for compliance to the recommendations. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposed addition and remodel to an existing single-family residence at 14330 Chester Avenue, Saratoga. This report presents my findings; provides protection measures; identifies each tree's condition, species, size and suitability for preservation; and presents tree appraisal values. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the table attached to this report. . The trees' locations, numbers and canopy perimeters are shown on an attached copy of the Site Plan (Sheet A0.1 by Scott Design, dated 1/8/04). Trees #8 and 9 were not shown on the Site Plan. Their locations on the attached map were plotted based on their locations shown on the Topographic Map (Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated June 4, 2003). FINDINGS The proposed project exposes nine trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential impacts. They include four Valley Oaks (#1, 2, 3 and 7), two Mayten trees (#4 and 5), one Camphor (#6) and two Eucalyptus (#8 and 9). All trees are planned for retention. The most significant impacts will be to tree #3, a 20.5-inch diameter Valley Oak located nine feet northwest from the home's front. I believe the tree will survive construction provided the existing pavement beneath its canopy remains in place until construction is complete. Additionally, a root zone buffer and trunk wrap protection will be necessary. Please note the establishment of chain link fencing would not be feasible for this tree due to its close proximity to the home. Trees #8 and 9 will be impacted by the removal of the existing concrete patio and walkway beneath their canopies. Provided the concrete is removed in the manner described in the Murray Property, 14330 Chester Avenue, Saratoga Page 1 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ®~~®~,9 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist January 24, 2009 next section, I believe the impacts will be tolerable. Please note tree protection fencing does not appear necessary for the protecting these trees. All other trees will be impacted at no more than minor levels provided the tree protection fencing shown on the attached map and described in the next section is properly established. RECOMMENDATIONS Tree protection fencing must be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, surface scraping, grading or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undistwbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Where fencing is shown adjacent to hazdscape, it shall be established no further than one-foot from the hazdscape edge. 2. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced azeas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but aze not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipmentJvehicle operation and pazking. • 3. Trunk wrap protection is recommended for tree #3. This involves wrapping the trunk's lower 15 feet with atwo-inch thick layer of orange plastic fencing. Two-inch thick boazds should be placed around the outside and secwely bound together. 4. Prior to construction activities occurring, a root zone buffer shall be established within the entire planter area surrounding tree #3's trunk (see the attached map). It shall consist of a six-inch layer of %s- to 3/a-inch wood chips manually spread over the unpaved soil. One-inch thick plywood (comprised primarily of full sheets) shall be placed on top and secwely fastened to enable a stwdy walking surface. 5. All plant material within the planter area shall be cut to grade or gently pulled by hand. This should occw prior to establishing the root zone buffer. 6. The pavement beneath tree #3's canopy shall remain in place throughout the construction process. Upon its removal, a jackhammer should be used to break the concrete into pieces that can be manually lifted and placed on a loader. Within one how after removing the hazdscape, manually spread a fow- to six-inch layer of soil (less than 10-percent clay content) over the newly exposed soil surface. Please note the loader shall remain on pavement at all times and off exposed soil roots. 7. The same procedwes described above shall also be followed when removing the • concrete beneath the canopies of trees #8 and 9. Murray Property, 14330 Chester Avenue, Saratoga Page 2 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 000®20 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist January 24, 2004 • 8. Where beneath tree #3's canopy, grading or trenching shall not occur beyond two feet from the home's footprint. 9. All underground pipes and irrigation lines planned for removal beneath the trees' canopies should remain buried and cut off at existing soil grade. 10. All new hazdscape proposed beneath the trees' canopies shall be established on top of existing soil grade and require no excavation or root severance. Additionally, the soil subgrade must not be compacted. The subgrade materials can be compacted but not by more than 70- to 80-percent. 11. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides and pesticides used beneath hazdscape must be labeled for safe use neaz trees. 12. All pruning must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to standazds established by the ISA. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the azea can be obtained by referring to the following website: http://www.isa-arbor.com/arborists/arbsearch.html. 13. Irrigation trenches planned parallel to a trunk shall be no closer than 15 times the • diameter of the closest trunk. Irrigation trenches installed radial to a trunk can be placed no closer than 5 times the diameter of the closest trunk and at least 10 feet apart at the canopy's perimeter. Irrigation spray shall come no closer than five feet from a tree's trunk. TREE PROTECTION BOND Trees #3, 8 and 9 will be directly impacted by implementation of the proposed design. Their combined appraised value equals $16,310. In accordance to the newly adopted Ordinance, a bond equivalent to 100% of this value is required to promote their protection. A bond is not recommended for the other inventoried trees provided the tree protection fencing is properly established and maintained throughout the construction process. The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table aze calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`'' Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table . Copy of the Site Plan (Sheet A0.1) Murray Property, 14330 Chester Avenue, Saratoga Page 3 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 00®Q~~ • ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care , TREE INVENTORY TABLE " ~ ,. " . ~ 0 3 ~ 0 3 ~ ~ °' ~ ~ ~ ~ . .. ~ o~ .gib on o a ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ • > A v Q V ~ .~'tl ~~ ~ ti ~ C TREE :~ ~° ~ '°' c v ~ b ~ g b ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 4 NO. TREE NAME F, ~ ~-~ ~ Valley Oak 1 (Ouercus lobata 1 29.5 9 45 60 75% 75% Good High 5 - - $22,600 Valley Oak 2 (Quercus lobata 22.5 - SO 50 75% 75% Good High 5 - - $12,500 Valley Oak 3 (Quercus lobata) 20.5 - 35 45 75% 75% Good High 2 - - $9,200 Mayten Tree 4 (M enus boaria 11 - 15 20 50% 75% Fair Low 5 - - SI,900 Mayten Tree 5 (Maytenus boaria) 12 - 20 30 50% 75% Fair Low 5 - - S2,220 Camphor Tree 6 (Cinnamomum cam hom) 22 - 25 40 75% 50% Fair Moderate 5 - - $4, Valley Oak 7 ( emus lobata) 14.5 - 40 50 100% 75% Good High 5 - X $7,100 Eucalyptus 8 (Eucalyptus sp .) 23 17 50 70 100% 50% Good Low 3 - - $5,000 Red Ironbark 9 (Eucalyptus sideroxylon) 21 - 70 60 100% 50% Good Low 3 - - S2,1 l0 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15 allon = 5150 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 515,000 lob: 1I33o (~sstwAvuwt, Sav~oao Hep~ed joy: (Sty ojSmaroga Comm+rnay Devalopmewt Dep~dnart t3epaPed by: DovidL Bobby, RG4 • ~o~NO~ u, sosa O®®022 ~ ~ I _ __ _.__...-._._._. ~-~~ wan esrawu xr~ ii mees+lts wool p 1rtaar 'WJ hitllU\'1fYY 9hYA~ YJ •VbalYMCS 11~~ 44 s. I i esrk arw •uv w,v ~.sarr oam ~ 3 J ~ ~ `• i~ ~' ~-~~ 5 ~itlP.S~i88fi a'lara arwwra :au I ..~ ?~1~~i JLd.Kl;:4~ ~mcrowv v a~iwnmr rvi.t ~sw r-? ~i • • • 5 5iiy ;8 fxQ' ~aJS r 9! ~ r a' a ~ a a a a P ~ ..+~ ~~ ~P r~a. ~.e~ yE'Ij ~sl`.~ i ss~~il:~ x 5. :I;Ya ~'~ ilt +~ 'y'3i' g +fe "lY4~~~5~ ~ g ' ~o II i a~~~~~ 1 ~ ~iLi}~ r' 7~ i~ i~ a R ! S ~` g ~~ ,Ei i f } TF `~r~' 4. y~ I 5 s ~ ~ R i r ~ J y7 ~ rT1S~-~ ~+~ra lf' ~:~332Y4~ ' ~ ~ ~j~ i !v ~ i Y ~. ~y Q p i i ~ L ~ 1~ 7, ~ ~'l• r'~ X41 i r H 'f . tll~ Y '~;ytegib $ ~74F :P. R ~'i ~ R' 8 . r ,~' ~y_Lw `~i~~ :r i- CsF. S.~ 1 t \' ~ 'Y~, 1 u :,x% ,.,, Y ~... ' ~ fir,:=.~ ~ ' `~ w .;~ 1 ~ f. ~t. ; Kr1 1'1 i /~~ .r- ~ ~ ~j 1 :~ ,~{¢ J ~ i~ VI 1 ./ /~ 1 . .: .. i ~1 / // :., .f~r r i r ~! ~~/ V I - r~ I'i ~''•~ ~I ~ ~ I " 4 \~~ 1~ _ _ Z ' I} ~ . ~ J \<\\ \ . i I g~ R i ~ ~e'0 _~~~~~~ :_ _ ~ y~ ~ ~~~. ~~~ _ l~ _ ~, I ~ ,+. .ea ~=~~! ~ s) s ~~~~~ i ~~ r !~ ~.. I.,~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~ ; _~ ~~ K~K~ I U o b~ IU ~~ ~~ li I' ~~~,~ 1 1 ' S / r ~ `5 / '-= `1 +sp} L~ i a ~~ . .~ ~ ,Cn, / M ofT -~c~ r:?~' j. h `~.~ix.. ~e .^~` _. ; ;' • Attachment 4 00002 Current Owner Current Owner Current Owner 14437 Leland Circle 14453 Leland Circle 14436 Leland Circle Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Current Owner Current Owner Current Owner 14508 Chester Ave 19227 San Marcos Rd 14287 Chester Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Current Owner Current Owner Current Owner 14407 Chester Ave 14429 Chester Ave 19140 Via Tesoro Ct Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Current Owner Current Owner Current Owner 19160 Via Tesoro Ct 19180 Via Tesoro Ct 19163 Via Tesoro Ct Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Current Owner Current Owner Current Owner 19123 Via Tesoro Ct 19103 Via Tesoro Ct 19101 Via Tesoro Ct Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 ~ent Owner Via Tesoro Ct Saratoga, CA 95070 • 000®2~ or current owner or current owner or current owner • or current owner WEST VALLEY JT COMMUNITY COLLEGE or current owner FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BITTNER,GERALD L JR & PAULA or current owner 14309 CHESTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 LAING,JOHN C or current owner 14385 CHESTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ELLENIKIOTIS,ANTHONY or current owner 14451 CHESTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 CHELLAM,KRIS & EVELYN E TR or current owner 14506 CHESTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MURRAY,RANDALL W & CHARLOTTE V T or current owner 14330 CHESTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 or current owner PETTIT,DANNY E TR or current owner 19143 VIA TESORO CT SARATOGA CA 95070 or current owner SHANKAR,KAPIL & ASHIMA or current owner 14265 CHESTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BURICH,MISHA R & LISA M or current owner 14331 CHESTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 or current owner MIIZZA,IQBAL M & NAHEED I or current owner 14483 CHESTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 NGUYEN,JULIEN T & TU A TR or current owner 14484 CHESTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 TIRET,STEVEN E TR ETAL or current owner PO BOX 2043 SARATOGA CA 95070 or current owner or current owner SCHWARTZ,JEFFREY A & BARRY C or current owner 2898 JOSEPH AVE CAMPBELL CA 95008 or current owner SMITH,LONNIE M & CHERYL D or current owner 14363 CHESTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 or current owner HATHAWAY,ALLEN W & PATRICIA TR or current owner PO BOX 2436 EL GRANADA CA 94018 RUDASHEVSKY,YEVGENY & MARINA TR or current owner 14432 CHESTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 or current owner or current owner or current owner WEST VALLEY JT COMMUNITY or current owner COLLEGE or current owner or current owner FRUITDALE AVE . SARATOGA CA 95070 or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner or current owner ~urrent owner or current owner or current owner ~~~l42'7 Attachment 5 • ®®~~ ,~ ., ;~ =,~ i^ ~~~ ~ t rte.. ~~ o '~~ tt ~,~: ~,~ <; ,~ r :, hoofing House Body Color ue•o'•6N•Pab•~••aa••• etas-a°~e xv~ ii sme9-•ce rood oeo9~ '~~ '~ooav~aoa7s pans zo® 'o•~ 8 m ~~. ~~ ~ ~~I b~ ~ ~~~d-~~e ~e®s~t oc®~ ~a `a~®oAar~~s ~~~ ae~~~ ocsnd A~B~n9n~ Am~1~~0 ~Ib e Peootaav a~as ~-oa ~ ~ ~ `3 ~ a ~, ~ ~ a ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ Q ~ ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o (~ ~ a ~ ~ ra ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~s a ~ ~o ~ ~ LW1 ~ C~ Q Q ~ C~ri ~ chi ~ Q ~ ~ ° ~ ~n C~ ~ Q OO ~ C~7 a Q ~ ~ ~ c~n a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ a ~ ~ L, O ~ ~ ~ o c~ o a a a a Q a ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ o o ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ a c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ Q ~ ~ ~ 4= ~ S'r ~ ~° Q ~ r~ ~ rn ~ OV ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ c~nJ ~ C~ Q ~3 ~ `; ~ Q ~~ ~ ~ Q G~ CQ Q Q C~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~? c~ _ (~ ~f~ ~~~~~ ~L~ Q~~~~ ~~ C~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~a ~ ~ Q ~ O OO C~)lo) n~~7~~~ ~~ ~QQ~~ o U~ ~~ ~~~~~ ntUl ~ ~ MJ Q rte o ~~ ~~~~~ cu~~ BOO°OO~ OO LwJ~ £3 MJa~ ~~~3 LWJ@(~@~~s C ~_ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 83f~~0 OOC~~'~' ~ Q ~ ~~~Ca ~~~~~'~Q~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ rt(~oo f~~~~~~~~~~~aG=~° ~ Q~a000QQ~~~OOQ~c+~n ~~1 OQ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ Q ~ (Uj Q ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~c~ri ~~~I~~ 0~(~2~ o ~~~a~ ~d~~~~G ~~QQ~~C~~~ v~l~ a°o • o a o0 ~ ° ~~~ rr~ C~LwJ~'I~GQ~aC~ a~~~-tea off' °° Q(~~ oG~~~f~~ ~ QoU~ r~~~l~~a~~n o~ ~a~~~aQ 3 c~sNS~~~e~~ ~ o ° ° S° a a ~ ~' E; 8 g a " ~ y' "~ S$w$o a" ~fS t ~ J E` $~ 5~~ ~r $ ~ ~ Sr °~g' d ~$o $ <o ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~a ° ~>" o9 ° ~~ ga %E ~ 8 =~ ~ d9 ~~ €E o P ~ $ y dq g 8.g Sq ~ ~ o o~ ~~ ~° =~ ° ~ ~ m $ ~ s o ~~ ~ ~ c~~ ~ ;. ma; ~ i Ea «~ " s~ z~ a ~~ ~$ ~ ~o ^~~ ~~ ~" ~;= o `,,.,a b~ " ° y a ~ ~ y~V lea . ~~ ~ ~N r° ~' 8 ~~ e ~ ~'~ ° . ~ ~ ~Y a ~" o~~ - ~ ~ «~ 9~ w °"'3 ° ~ % ~ ~~°% . v 4 ~F '~ ° ~o " dE ° ~5 Z ~ A.. ~~ - a~ ~J ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ $S~9 aS~ . ~ 8~ xga9? ~ ~a o° E °~ at y a ~ a~ VSa ~ a ~ ;8$ E2< 3 8$ ~ a: - ° • Y ofi E« & ,aY~~w ~ P g ~EE $" S ~ E. ° ~8 « a < 9 ~Y, r E . zK gv « g .. "$ d S« ~So 'E ~ ~ ° " ,8 f _ ," $.` $~ „° "~~ ~" ae " C 8 € ~~ gam ~"tl < ? "E9 ~ 480. ~$ ° - 08 " « ; B X .. . ~ S °E. " iga ° ~ ~ 9 ._ - Y °Ei P °,'2 S ~ E" ff' ~ ~ a9 ° ~ ~ `,E a g Y w ~ o " ~~~- ~ 'B :5 8.~" ~F P G o A4 o u S :` _ ' :" .. ~ ~€ "S ~ g : a45V p a „ °~9 y "€ ~ ~ K y - % ~ .- o<~« ~ ~ 1r .. g F°`q ~ s~a "9: 8~ ~ °g io r$.;er ~2 °.~~ 7S °S 2 ~~x .~~ ~ t~~ 8Y ~> ~, ~ .. ,, ~> .. ~. ..h° ~~ ~.. W .~° "<,°° Ada a, ° ~.... ~"w .:xa . ~ r° ~A °° .. ..0 .. . t • ~~ 8 o e ~ ~s~ oas ~~~~ ~~~ ~ %~>~ 4 mEa ~~ N5' r r~ ~; ~ ~s~ ~4e ~ ~~^H "~ o~~ ., ` a- i a . '~, . ... 3 ,,~ •~ ~ M y= y~ Y„~, ,~ N~ ~ ' ~! ` a ' j 1;T ~ r~ ~ , ~ ,, ~ ~ ~~ s~~ ~a ~O ~ O z i, l~i~~ .. i~ '~ ~~ I~~~ ~fi~~ . ~ e ~ a ~~ ~ .9 O M1 ,. ~` F'' -~ I ° ~ ~ I . ~ \1 1 ~~ ~ 1 4M1 g 1 ~ ~ V .x~ti~ R ~ _ / .y /~~ .~ I~ . , ~ ~~ i 1 ° 1 ~ ~:. • , s '~ I' I s....... M ~ \ e 0 I I may ;o . I ! ~ \~ TJh,I~~J \~ o .p ~ I . l e l ~ N 1 ° ~ ~ :/ ~ r /% / '/. o I ~ `" / ~ W Ilti ° '° ~ \ :` . ~ _ ., N °' I l ~.~~' ~ , I o I1 Ih^' ^~i ! I . j~ ~ e R ~ III - _____ ~ - - _____ _ : ~~-~ N I / o e I e'~ ~ I I I 4_-_L __ 1 I ell ~ I I I Yl 4 _1 I i ~ 'l I Z _i II l ^J rv I I I I/b ~ ~~~$ \~_ I ~. 1 I ~ II I ~ ~ 1 \~ \ r ~ / l a ~ II ~ ~ I 1 ~~~' ~~ ~^I I Ir /~~$ SIB nl ' 1 ~ ~/ I~I I ~ ~.„ • l_ all 1I{ I m~ II NI ,19-7. /'~~ ~.II N'~ I o f .I N I I I ~ \ 1. /i /I I: ` ~ ~I hlm I f if _h ~ 3 1 °~ ~ ~ ~ ^_-ll ~-t 1 ~1R ~" I w I -o I .__1 ~e.~.I I I - R .H, ~ r I Y I o I_ ~-. i+ I I I i ~ -- -- b 9 I ~~ N r J ~.j ~~/ / _'I I~~l.p ml~l I I~ , S o ~. ~~ ~ 1 l I I y~~ j 1 ^. °h r91 G ~ ~ .~ $~/ .lf I I .I ~ W u1 nl / - 11 I ~I I / 1- __i a I~ I~ _ `771 ~, ,. ~ " ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~~ // $ / d ~ ~ N JjI(~~ I I / ~/ b1 I I 111/ V4 ~ I ~~_ e / ,Y (;J° ~ ,~ "~~hl "ap` ~ ~ X~ ~~ ~ I I .. .. ~ .00'05! ~ fl ~~~~r~.~__~~___,-.I~,.,C~J ~.lb.£O .Zb N'~. / II / ~II 71 ..... 1 I ~"~ W ~~ ~N ~~ ~~ o~ H~ U z VJ W W Z V ~1.~ Q ~"~ w 3 dim ~ ~~ v r~ c ~~ S _~ mo O W S> c • • • ~ ~ ueooveBOOPaa~ooBLooo 86144°268 (6®141 CL66-4L6 XQY~ // 66L6-BL6 [6041 g; QL®9a~ 'Q93 ~F9®®b~-IBQP~ ®Q®~® Q93 ~~~b~10~~ !@ 69146 d(®~ '~'~ '~6l~ AB68>Qis6d'J 066144 ~~ bbd A51D(~d~l Ab~fBDBVI/~ ~Ib ~ G~JP~ O~~Q ~1 b09~ ~o~~ ~ ~ooa~ar aar~ mays -~I ~,..~.a...= y., 4..~. .me.~... .~ r q ZZli ~4 ~ ~ ~ O~ O~Q r0 ~~o~" ~ ~ <~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~u~~~~ b ~ ~ a Q ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ Z n d J}ay~~]~l~y.yW~a ~ ~J~ ~ ~~].iLLoQ~ryW ~ ~ ~ ~ Q 0 Q m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ Cq~ ¢p~i yy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ Y a ~ aj Z G ~ y1 ~ ~ a 0 r ~ ~ Z m JJ ~ ~ A m ~~ Z ~([~A^f5f ~f{O J ~a ~~~ ~(~ ~~~ j ~ ~ j ~ O ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ', ~ {g 3Q~ Z ~ q~~qy Q3 pp ~ ~ yp~ 'S ~ J f { ( 4 4 F \ ~\ .,,{ `~~ o o I A N , ~ ~~. ~ ~, M ~ ~o ~ ~~ a r @~ Y1 ~~~ Q Ili ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~~( ~ o ~ iq~ r ~' !i p o ~ ~ ° y. O ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ d d 3 s yl N 6 ~ ~ ~ C Y~ ~~~ ~8 J ~~ d 5 '. o el i a a~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L $ i r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~i~~i ~ ~~~ ~~~~ r ~ r 0005 ~ d~ ~ a u ~~~ ~~ l~l i 1 0 ~ 2 J ' ~ i ~, JPo ~ ~ S~ ,1 '~ y~2 ~ ~ rl r v~ Q '/ Sri J~ 2; \ ~~ ~, ~ ~, ~ yz~" p ~~ j Q, e ~ O - ,~ ~ ~ a \~ ~ / / l J • /i Q,J~ ~\ /'~ O ~~ ~ ~ ~ ti I ~~ ti ~ ~ 11 CJ Q~~~ O,2 ,n~ ' / O Q k JV. ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ o ~ O z Q - ~ .fir -. 1:.- e,. i ) ~- r~ • ..2R.. ~ INI ~ 0 + >~ '.., Y4 1 1 l~yi~~~ . JG r ` ww N ~\ / 1.~.~ ~ 0 „ ~, ~ ~. i Vi • '~ '~ w • •,~ S ~ •` ?. ~ I N m ~ ~ ~ Q~ ~ Q~ e W w~D m ~/ p /~ 'I ~n Z,2. I ~ 1 ~_______ _ _ ~ i pR' _ _ I a ,~2 e) ' ' / '~ /^ m r J~ `` / W p U ~ / / \ /, GI l ~ Q~ q / ~ ~~ U ^~ ~ R , Ll 1 p -- ~ ~ % ~ 1 Q / j P <~ < .0 o- ~ o N O i ~ rL N 0 N 2~~~ I h v p ~ ~ ~ i~ /„ ' i 4/ fir„ ~' ~ N v 1 d'rj ~ s~ r I i a0 ~ 1 , am ~ ~j ~ ~ ~. I i e ~ 1 ,~ ~' V i~ a 'itl~'• ~ ; 4.2O'~ CFO ~` _ I _- ! c`7 M • ,_ _„ ~. ., ., 1 Y I ~ , P p N` ~ u> v~ •_. ~___ a ~ ~p . . I ~ /C` MI 1 q w~ r 1$' a ~ n ~`~ ~ i ~ 1 h tiQ" ~ i 1 L~ I ~ u ~. U I ' - .-w w ~ 'i _ ___________ _ ________ f _ I ati _ ~ ~ I i I I b / y m' ~~ ~I J U N ~ I', I' '~ ;'~ ~ i N Z i W ~ a' a ~ ~ N i1 w I Q ~ . O v ~ 1 ~. ~ ~' ® ~ cP ~ I I d' ~, 1 lP I. - ~ N' 1 - m I it m c ~ ~ a 11 ; .__.._ ________________ ______ N 11 \ v , Z I ~ ~ I \ N a O ~ ~ ~ M O ~~ 1 a ~, ~ ~ /n ~ ~~ ~ I -------- ~~ ~ ~ '~. ', ~ r ~` ~~ '~O I ~ c ~,` 'i 51.1 1 I 1 I 1~1 < < w ~ 1 1, 0~~~ °~ ~v~ 1 I N `_-_ __J l yli O e ~~ 1 ' ' N ' a ~ - ~'-- ~ I Q ~ ~ c ll I ~ \\ 1 O LL I r : ^ 1 , ~ 1 1 \ ~ ~ ~ \ 1 .n ~1 O ~ ~ Z , ~ Q 7 "__.___ _ II N I 1 e N N O 111 ,1. VP ~ D ~ ' . ~ I ~ ~ M yy~~ ' ~ I> ~ %: i'~ i ~ i ~ p' ~ ~ e i. i ~. D _~ ~ 11 F :I ~ I ' , i Or Sd / O : . i !! ,. O I ^ W P , ~~ ~ / ,~ ~ ' a 3 I ~ i1a/ i I \ i, .___._______..___ ____________ __ .~ r' _ ~ ~ ' N ~ 7 f ~ J , .0 O ! I G ` / 1 ce I , ~~1 ~. (P ~O 0 1 /i N ~ < .~ ; C / ~\ ~ ~ \ N __J _ ~~ r- r ~ ~ '2 o N ~I a E b .bib i O N I 11 f -~ ~ n C / 1 / 1 % i ' i ~ 1~4.' ~ l r I I o \ ~ / ~ - - J ~ V~ ~ . \ ' ~' ~ e - gyp •Z Z N \ ; Q _ _ j. _ - - M b , , .. - ~ _ OQ'OS • • • ~ y~ auoo~ae09a~88oay88ooa ~h CCU-bLS Xtl~ // ~~Z9a-9LC 19~b) ®t®9a~ •m~ 'n®®a~/~~ ~ ~®4es tt®® •~•~ ~~ ~~bd~~ a~0~~la b~®~~ ~'~. I. ~. 11 ~1 1~, i', 1 .+! __ /, I/ ~~ 11 ;1 ~I I 0 1 II + it J~>J i% ~ ~ ~r ~ , ~O~ I _9 ~~ I 1 `b i 1 1 it 1 ~~\\,` ~~ ~uJ~ ~ y1 ~ ~i 1 1', 1 ` Q' 1 ~ ~~ /i - ~ 11 ~ ~~ ~~/'~1 1 ~ I 1~ ~~ 1 ~ M \__ ~' 4, 1 ~ ~% =L ~~ / ~ y~~~; '1 ii r~ 1~ 1 4 '' ,'' ''~ / ~~ i ~ '1 r 1 ;~ II w ~ % 1 ~ ~ ~_ Z 1 1 1 1 1 ~~` 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~1 1 i, 1 '. 1 1 11~ 1 } a ~ ~_, 0 1 1 0 1\ 1~ '/ ~\\ `8n J O l ^, ~` <oOO 'V .„~-4 .i 1 ==~ 1 / 1 " 1 ~ ~ j ~ f 1 ~ ~I 1 ' 1 1~ O ~ \~ ~~ 3 ~ / J 1 1 ~___" ^` ~\ 1 1 __ ^\ - ~i 1 "____ ~\\+ l / ~1 i.Q \~ / . j % 11I i ~' gyp, ~, it y ~/ .. %.. _ - - _ ii a _. ~Bb~-29af 1®®bl me®s~ ego 'vr®®ae~~~s ~e~ ~~as;~ea~ mce4e. ~~a~m~ aan~~~ ~b 11i11~0~lG 4 ~0®Od10~@7 aea~~ ~r sattou-u;eatpw ,~..~.-c w. a..o=.. ~.e....~-.a 'in Tn ' FT i 7 a 7A `ui ~i 'F n '~i 7 Ti 't!f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ {j 47 N Qp ~ M ~ ~ N ~ ~ 0g `~'} ~ N pO t ~ ~ N V~ . ~ y ~ 7 2 W > ~ I I I ~ I ~ p YI ?~ ua ff ~ W 2 u ¢ oo Q Y J 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ Q ~y1 a~ Ll! ~ a ~~~ ~ ~ 3 ~~++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~' z ~ ~ , , , ir ~ j u p ~ i."..."n t ~ r~.0 0 "l00 ,OSZ _._ M 00 ~~ ~ ~~ s~' ~s ~~ ~ ~~ it i~ ~i i~ i~ i ~ `/~(J ~'^7V' u ~~ lug, Q ~'^'~' 1- ~ 0 • • ~ .uoownwea•a•.aivo• _ SSO6-tS818ob1 - - - - ets~r-~cc x~r~ ii sets-sts iso~ Dross -evo woodae~rs Dross ~~ 'a~ood~c~ews s6t4S XO® 'o'ff 'a~A~ 1DIDds~99 OCS~6 gQ9U ~/ dl'F9~ Ad~~(f9l~ ~ b~8~~~}® ~, ~~ '931®o6Ati M f>iGOfdltlml9 - ~..n~ htiH'Bd lDOO~ OFMds~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~3 ~\ ^ ~~ ~i z Q ~ ------ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ O ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ b ~~ Q L`~~ O 10 ~\ ~~ O 6 (~ cfJ nn nn nn Fl I~'ul QW - ~ ~Q • QW ~ ~ z Q~ ~~~ ~ Q \"J~ 0 C_ f .~._ b M woo~mdigDbboogbboa~ . CLt~-9Lt X~d // ddLt-tLt IB091 8Qd'4'188 (8®fil N ~ ®109d '@90 'Pi®ObQ9bGe78 ®BQ18d ~O '~41®b~'b0~8 ~e~s z®~ •®•~ •~~~ aeiaas~ews oec~a ~I~LdO~®~ b A~10~T9~1 Am~8d1PD~l ~IG~.B. Q ~~ ~ a~ 1 y~ ~o ~~ ~i Q -1,.01 -1 ~ .,, .o .-r,.9 V+ A .Mwa~, W+9 .m.. ,w, ~.,e -LL ~~ ~; ~~ ~- ~s NOILIOOV ~-.9i ~~ ~_~ ' rgILIOW .9-bl O ~ ci ~ o ~ ® ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ---- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ---------- ~~ __________, J ~ I ~ W ~ ~ ____ b = O ~ ---- nwi 3 ~ `j Q , ~ ~--- O m i ~ ~ i O i U i L_________ g rav.'ado J ~ ~ ~ I ~ ry I O I I I r I di i i ----- -- ,, lL 9.L r _ - ~v ~V - - - i ~~ i I ~ ___-.______. ______ -__ ~ ~ _~ 1n i ' V i V i _ i r ~} 1____________..__.____-i Z ~ i V :~ ~ a ~~ z ~ z ~8 ~ ~ ~------ °---------~ ; o Q W - 1 ' ~-'----------------- ~-' C~ w ~ ~~ Y O O ~Q ~° ~ Q . - -------------- W ,; ,,, ~ - '' ~ , rvoulmv ~,rl ~I __--__---~ ~.--------~~-----~ ~-- ~ I Q i I i ._, i i ~ i r ~ p b _ ~ O --- ., ~ ~ ~ ~v~d -az+l~ wv~ n!s b '_-_.- _____-.-_ ^ O a~ coon lal V Q O ~YNfIVS i b - ~ 13S0"1~ ~ i i i r i b ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ to ~ ~ ~ ~7 -ry o ;b r ~~ ~. O i ~ i w Q ~ ~ Q ~' ~ -' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~~ y NOILOQV .9,6 b t ueoo•~os~bboosyboos - se~~-gee x~~ ii ~®e~-oes ~eo~~ ®e®~~ '~~ `ego®.a~ao~s ~ ~~l~m~~ ~ a~o~~~ ~~~- „b N ~s~a~e~e i~®s~t ®a~~ eat `as~ob~e~e~~ ~W~ 98318531 ®656 A510~~/~t A~/~9i6~ ~b ~;~®m ~ ~losbo~~e ~_~ 0 a 00 ~~ .~ 4~ ~~ ~_~ ~~ ~ LL ~~~LL a N ~o n~ ~u u~ rO N~ SPA09A~N3I~ a~ ~ a~ a ° ~ "S ~^ ~~ a ~~ ~ a '~ - _~ ~1 i'~ ~j ~ O a 0 a 00 O ~~ 1 (~ ~~ Q ~° C ~, w nnn L~J ~l 0 n(~ In~~~n LJn n 9 a ~awG••oa~o0•.aa~+ ~ - 9t9b-LSaB 18091 -- BLYY-9LC XM~ // ds6LY-QLC 14087 ,. 0L08m '~'3 'S~®BPPIOQ-s 0L08m ®-3 `~~Od991ff9°6 8896 if0® 'O'ff '8A~6 l9II1188a9'J 0£696 ~Ibdd A`~B~9J An~B~U~I ~~ G~1~~ ~J© bd,®~ s~ s ~asaaav~ ~nouaass ssoma --,..~, ~ ..,~.a...~ ~ 4..,~„ „~..a,.,,,..,,~ , g~ I ~~ s~~ ~•~ \ ~~ ~~ ~~ z ~ l ~ _ ~~ o ~~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~~ --- I ~ ~~ ~~ i ~i51%31 .6ii 9-.Ci _.. _ i _.. .... -, ~ ~~ 0 ~ ~ o ,~ill;1_r ~. Il V 8~. - } F'1,11~ ~ ~~ ~~ ik, ~ I;°. _- , ra €a€~ ~o Q an 00 O D (~ n~ ~uJ//u~)~l~ L/ V v V I O .ric e~ac ~~ps Z _:. - _: - - - ~i ~i ~ ~F U WW U~ ~ ~ O _ ~ Q ~~ ~ F F- ~ O ~ P, ~ f I Q w ~: ~ ~ ~ ~,~~ 8 0 n I ~ ,_ _. I _. -- ~i! ~ I ~a ~ ~~ ,l_._.__ _.~- ~ __ -- \\ ~. ____ __ _ __ f ~~ ,, __ _ 111 i - ~I I ' ' I f u .- l.- ~ ~ ~ 171 n, ~ ~~ I ' 131= i J 1 ~ - .. j ____.._._..__....._... _ - -li ' I' , / ~I lil ... I~I I~, ~ ~ ~I' III I~ .-. _. -_-__ I I I I I .. .riE , eC I _. _ ~z < ~~ ~ ~ I z0 ~s ` ~ o ~o I ~~ ` J O' I I li ~I~ ~ I ~ fil~ ~ _ _ IIjU, ~ '~ ~~ '- llll ,r ~ II t ~~ ,~i~ Z I III. ~ ~ I ~- , J ~ ~II~ ~ I J1 J ~ y~ Y f <~' ~ i I u ~.\i' ~~i -ill i~ Q IF~ . -} -- ~h 1,fi P' 'I ~~ ~';~ L ° ~~ ~i1 ~' ~. ~ o ~, ~_ - r.~_~~CI -_- _i_- ~- J~~:~I , I ~ hi ;~nf;,a~ ~ i~11 ~1 ~ ~ ~~~1i~ ~t~~iy I ~~ --~ ~ m f.y 0 i \~~ I a II i i ~i b Q ao Q O O ~=/ V ~- ~ $~ ~ a~ ~F #~ ~~ ~ Q OO O IfO~ u n~'nf R/U(^) ~ v~V ~vnV `~Jn~U ~~' l u~ 2 .1 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 4, 2004 • The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a Joint Session with the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 5:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Patricia Bailey, Phylis Ballingall, Paul Conrado, Norman Koepernik, Tom Lowdermilk, Willys Peck, John Livingstone, Staff Liaison. Chair Bailey briefly highlighted the Commission's accomplishments from March 2003 - February 2004 including: • Heritage Orchard Oversight • Heritage Resource and Mills Act Criteria Review • Austin Way Heritage Lane -Design and Installation of Sign • McWilliams House and Book-Go-Round Restoration Recommendations • Historic Park Master Plan • Historic Park Grant Application & Preservation to County • Historic Calendar • 3rd Annul Mustard Walk Chair Bailey briefly highlighted the Commission's ongoing activities such as: • Heritage Resource Project Review • Heritage Resource List Management • Historic Park Restoration Project • Historic Home Plaques • Adopt- Tree-Program • Mustard Walk • Historic Calendar After considerable discussion the consensus of the City Council was to direct the HPC to add the following to their coming year's work plan: • Investigate SHL 435 • Focus on designating more lanes and landmarks • Landmark status of the Heritage Orchard • Status on heritage signs Mayor Waltonsmith thanked the HPC for attending tonight's Joint Session. The City Council met in Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 6:3 0 p.m. Conference With Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code 54957.6): Agency designated representatives: Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager & • John Cherbone, Public Works Director Employee organization: SEA Conference With Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code 54957.6): Agency designated representatives: Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager & Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director Employee organization: Non SEA Members Conference With Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code 54957.6): Agency designated representatives: Dave Anderson, City Manager Employee organization: SMO Conference with Legal Counsel -Threatened litigation (Gov't Code 54956.9(b): (1 potential case) Conference with Legal Counsel -Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case). Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation: (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Hinz (6`h District Court of Appeals No. H023549) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Waltonsmith reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Waltonsmith called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Norman Kline, Nick Streit, Vice Mayor Kathleen King, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Danielle Surdin, Administrative Analyst Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Christie Oosterhous, Associate Planner Ann Welsh, Assistant Planner John Cherbone, Public Works Director • Cay Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst 2 REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MARCH 3, 2004 . Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of March 3, 2004 was properly posted on February 26, 2004. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak: Bert Martell requested that the City Council address the current policy on the City Council agenda section called "Written Communications". COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS Patricia Bailey, Chair/HPC thanked the Council for the opportunity to meet with them prior to the meeting. Chair Bailey pointed out the direction the HPC received from the City Council as follows: • Investigate SHL 435 • Focus on designating more lanes and landmarks • Landmark status of the Heritage Orchard • Status on heritage signs • Chair Bailey stated that the City Council would like the Mustard Walk to continue, but suggested that the HPC look for another organization to take the lead. Marylyn White, Chair/ Saratoga Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC), announced that on March 16`" SASCC would be having their annual St. Patrick's Day Dinner. Ms. White noted that the entertainment would be by the "Uncalled Four" Quartet. Ms. White noted that the De Anza Kiwanis Club are the sponsor for this year's event. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Referring to Mr. Martell's comments, Mayor Waltonsmith stated that she would look into the matter. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Waltonsmith reported that on March 4, 2003 at 3:00 p.m. the City Council would be having a Joint Meeting with Supervisor Liz Kniss at the Historic Museum. r~ U 3 CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1. PROCLAMATION -DECLARING THE MONTH OF MARCH 2004 • COLORECTAL AWARENESS MONTH STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. Mayor Waltonsmith read the proclamation and presented it to Julie Shaver and Larry Sheahan. Ms. Chaver thanked the City Council for issuing the proclamation. Mr. Sheahan noted that he was a colon cancer survivor and thanked the American Cancer Society for everything they did for him and thanked the City Council for issuing the proclamation. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JANUARY 7, 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Approve minutes. STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM JANUARY 7, 2004. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JANUARY 21, 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM JANUARY 21, 2004. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 4, 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 4, 2004. MOTION PASSED 5-0. • 4 2D. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER _ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2E. STREET IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD & SEAGULL WAY TRAFFIC SIGNAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve an increase to existing contract with Republic Electric. STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE INCREASE OF $124,980 PLUS (10% CONTINGENCY) TO EXISTING CONTRACT WITH REPUBLIC ELECTRIC TO PERFORM STREET IMPROVEMENTS WORK IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD AND SEAGULL WAY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2F. REVIEW OF PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE THE PARK USE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME WITH VARIOUS GROUPS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2G. RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF SB 1346 RUBBERIZED ASPHALT CONCRETE GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION AND DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE FUNDING AGREEMENTS WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution; authorize City Manager to execute funding agreements. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-020 STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE SB 1346 RUBBERIZED ASPHALT GRANT PROGRAM, AND DELEGATING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2H. PARK USE AGREEMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Park Use Agreement; authorize the City Manager to execute the same with various user groups. 5 STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE THE PARK USE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME WITH VARIOUS USER GROUPS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. 2004/05 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; adopt resolutions. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-021 John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Planner Livingstone explained that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) makes annual disbursements of Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) funds for eligible projects and activities. Saratoga and seven other "non-entitlement" cities within Santa Clara County receive federal HCDA funds from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Non-entitlement cities receive funds through a cooperative agreement with the County of Santa Clara, the locally responsible grant recipient. Planner Livingstone explained that expenditures of these funds is restricted by federal and county regulations. Planner Livingstone explained that the total amount available for FY 2004/05 is $166,440. Of that amount, a maximum $37,716 maybe spent on public service activities. Planner Livingstone explained that the availability of CDBG funds for eligible projects and activities was publicized in the Saratoga News funding the month of January 2004. Planner Livingstone explained the following funding recommendations that have been recommended by Councilmember Bogosian and Betty Feldheym: 1. CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE ACTIVITIES SASCC -Adult Day Care Prog am Requests $36,288, which is 18% of estimated annual budget to operate the Adult Care Center. The maximum that can be allocated to public service is $37,716. Planner Livingstone stated that the recommendation was to fund the Saratoga Adult Day Care Program with the $36,288. 2. CDBG CAPITAL AND NON-PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS Project Match - is requesting $33,990 to cover full cost of lease payments to the landlord on its group home on Blauer Drive in Saratoga. 6 ADA Improvements Project at Hakone Gardens -per the lease agreement with . Hakone Foundation, the City will provide $50,000 per year for five years, to update ADA requirements at the park. FY 04-OS will be the fourth year that CDBG funds are allocated to ADA Improvements at Hakone Gardens. SASCC - is requesting $12,500 to purchase furnishings such as Storage cabinets, shelving and tables for the Adult Care Center and Modular Buildings. SHARP Revolvin Hg ousing Rehabilitation Loan Program - $9,162 is recommended to be allocated to this program. Planner Livingstone explained that yesterday a "for sale" sign was placed at the house on Blauer Avenue; staff is not recommending changing the recommendation in the staff report. Project Match currently receives funding on a month-to-month basis and is working to continue the lease, work with the new owner or find another location in Saratoga. If something changes staff would come back to the Council. Planner Livingstone stated that the recommendations were to fund Project Match at $33,990, $50,000 to Hakone Gardens, $2,000 Saratoga Adult Care Center, $9,162 to the SHARP Program and reallocate and $25,061.81 form the Sanitary Sewer Connection Ordinance project to the SHARP Program fund. 3. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION County Rehabilitation Assistance -The City's SHARP Revolving Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program is administrated by the Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development (HCD) staff. HCD charges $20,000 of CDBG funds per year to administer the SHARP program for the City. City Program Administration - $15,000 is set aside for the general program administration costs incurred by the City. 4. REALLOCATION OF PRIOR CDBG FUNDS A balance of $25,061.81 in CDBG funds remains in the Sanitary Sewer Connection Project to assist low-income homeowners who are required to abate their septic tanks and connect to the public sewer system. In Spring of 2003, Staff sent a letter to each homeowner currently using a septic system informing them of the availability of CDBG funds. One low income Saratoga resident received a CDBG grant to connect to the sewer system last summer. Given the extent of public outreach and lack of activity, it is recommended that the remaining balance be transferred to the SHARP Program. In regards to the $25,061.81 from the Sanitary Sewer Connection Program, Mayor Waltonsmith asked why the funds could not be used on ADA Improvements at the North Campus. City Manager Anderson responded that if those funds were combined with CDBG funds the rules for the entire project fall under the complex CDBG rules. Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public hearing and invited public comments. 7 Genie Dee, Executive Director/Senior Center, thanked the City Council for their continued support. Ms. Dee reported that she is expecting to have a saving of $1,400 on the automatic door project and would like to the Council to approve the use of the funds on the installation of a security door in the computer room. Secondly, Ms. Dee asked if the Council would apply $1,428 to furnishings for the Senior Center out of the funds available for Public Services. Chris Ray, Board President/Project Match, thanked the Council for their continued support. Mr. Ray stated that since the house is currently on the market, they are actively searching for a new house for their tenants. Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing. Referring to the required ADA improvements at Hakone Gardens, Councilmember Bogosian asked why no improvements have been made. Planner Livingstone responded that the project has started. Japanese Consultants have been working on the bid proposal, which should be going out soon. The project should start late May early June 2004. Consensus of the City Council to authorize staff to include any unspent funds in the Automatic Door contract for SASCC FY03/04 Project 04-54 to be used towards installation of a security door in the modular building and to reallocate the amount of $25,061.81 form the Sanitary Sewer Connection Ordinance project to the SHARP Revolving Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program fund. KING/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AS AMENDED AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSALS FOR FUNDS FROM SANTA CLARA COUNTY UNDER THE FEDERAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT FOR FY 04-05. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4. INITIATION OF ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR SHANKAR PROPERTY, 22461 MOUNT EDEN ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-022 Ann Welsh, Assistant Planner, presented staff report. Assistant Planner Welsh explained that the applicant for the property located at 22461 Mount Eden Road has submitted an annexation application. This application is submitted in concert with an application for approval to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on the 1.89-acres parcel. The subject parcel abuts the municipal boundary and is within the City's Sphere of Influence. 8 Due to the location of the parcel and proposed development, the City's policy is to evaluate the annexation. Assistant Planner Welsh briefly explained the Cortese-Know Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, the process of the initiation of annexation, waiver of protest proceedings and annexation approval. Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public hearing and invited public comments. Cheriel Jensen requested that before the City Council annexes Mt. Eden Road they should examine the expenses that the City has already incurred. Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing. In regards to the road. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the geotechnical report recommends that the road not be a part of the annexation. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he supports the annexation without the road. STREIT/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22461 MOUNT EDEN ROAD EXCLUDING MT. EDEN ROAD AND SETTING A DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACCEPT PROTESTS OF SAID ANNEXATION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 5. AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 14,15 AND 16 RELATED TO THE VARIOUS SECTIONS THAT DEAL WITH STORM WATER RUNOFF (NPDES); AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (ARTICLE 14) SECTIONS THAT DEAL WITH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS; AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 14 TO REMOVE REMAINING SECTIONS DEALING WITH BUILDING SITE APPROVALS (BSA) FROM THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; Adopt resolution granting Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; Waive first reading and direct staff to place the Ordinance on the March 17, 2004 Council Meeting Consent Calendar for Second Reading and Adoption. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 04-023 Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan reported that on January 14, 2004 the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and adopted a resolution recommending the City Council make the following amendments to the City Code. • 9 Director Sullivan explained the following amendments and each section of the _ City Code it effected: Storm Drain Amendments The current sections of the Subdivision, Zoning and Building sections of the City Code are not consistent with the provisions of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (NPDES). The proposed amendments would make the codes consistent with the program requirements. Lot Line Adjustments 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. Also the Assistant City Attorney has recommended some changes in order to establish consistency with Government Code Section 66412 (as amended by SB 497) and address other technical legal terms. Building Site Approval Last year the Planning Commission and City Council made many changes to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance of the City Code. One of the changes was to remove the entire Building Site Approval process. Somehow between the second reading and adoption of the ordinance its "codification" included all of the sections intended to be deleted. Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public hearing and invited public comments. Seeing none, Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing. KINGBOGOSIAN MOVED TO WAIVE FIRST READING AND DIRECT STAFF TO PLACE THE ORDINANCE ON THE MARCH 17, 2004 COUNCIL MEETING CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION GRANTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE SARATOGA CITY CODE RELATED TO STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS AND BUILDING SITE APPROVALS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 6. NORTON ROAD FIRE ACCESS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. 10 Director Cherbone explained that this report would provide the City Council with information on several options to develop an emergency access road to facilitate • the evacuation of residents out of Bohlman Road Area. A notice was mailed to approximately 160 Bohlman Road area residents, including some County residents, notifying them of tonight's meeting. Director Cherbone briefly explained that background of the issue. Director Cherbone stated that two main areas have been identified to facilitate the development of an emergency access road, Villa Montalvo and Tract 9330. Two routes have been identified through Villa Montalvo and three routes have been identified through Tract 9330. Director Cherbone explained each option and the estimated cost. Director Cherbone stated that Option lA was the first route identified as an emergency access road candidate and is the easiest to construct of the two routes through Villa Montalvo. However, because Villa Montalvo is adamantly against this route, mainly because it goes through their Artist in Residency project, it is not necessarily the more economical of the two. Director Cherbone explained that when you add the cost of the easement procurement, legal costs, and the antagonistic nature of condemnation proceedings, this option maybe more costly and take more time to implement. . Director Cherbone stated that Option 1B which follows an existing equestrian trail through Villa Montalvo, meets all the same levels of desirability as the Artist in Residency route, except that it is more difficult to construct. However, what makes this option desirable and most likely the easiest to implement is Villa Montalvo's willingness to dedicate an easement for the road at no cost. Director Cherbone explained that if Council determines that Option 1B is the preferable route; staff will work with Montalvo and the Saratoga Fire District to implement an easement arrangement. Director Cherbone noted that once the easement is established, via Villa Montalvo's offer, condemnation, or other arrangements, the funding mechanism for constructing the fire access road would need to be determined. In regards to Option 1 B, Councilmember Kline asked if it could physically be done with the narrow hillside and the slant in the hillside. Director Cherbone responded yes the road could be constructed and added that the Fire District has given the access road a construction width of 10 feet -used only for evacuation. Mayor Waltonsmith asked where the funding would come from for the access . road. 11 Once the easement is procured, Director Cherbone responded that there are a few _ options to investigate such as: • Assessment district • • Direct improvement fees • Grants David Dolloff stated that he feels Montalvo is "blackmailing" the City by giving us an easement that is more expensive and more dangerous. Mr. Dolloff stated that he feels Option 1 is still the best option. Robert LoPresto noted that he has lived in Saratoga for the past 34 years and has been on the Montalvo Board of Trustees for 14 years. Mr. LoPresto thanked the City Council for working with Montalvo on this issue. Mr. LoPresto stated that Montavlo recently had a successful neighborhood meeting. Tim Harris stated that he is a Montalvo resident and fully supports the Artist Colony and he is opposed to any access road that would disrupt the intent of the facility. Mr. Harris stated that he supports Option 1B. Beverly Phipps provided a brief background on why the access road is needed. Mr. Phipps provided and analysis of the areas of Option lA & Option 1B. Mr. Phipps stated that Option lA is three times shorter, less expensive, and less of an environmental impact on the area. Mr. Phipps stated that each of the options would greatly enhance the safety of the people who live on the hill in the Bohlman area by providing an emergency exit for cars so the Fire engines can get to the fire. • Mickie Anderson stated that she is on the Montalvo Board of Trustees. Ms. Anderson stated that Villa Montalvo is one of the jewels of the City and provides quality programs. David Stanley stated that although he is not a resident of Saratoga he has been affiliated with Montalvo for the past 7 years. Mr. Stanley stated that he supports Option 1B. Ed Ferrell thanked Montalvo for the recently held neighborhood meeting in which he was invited and attended. Mr. Ferrell stated that the fire access is needed and hopefully will never be used. Robert Mills stated that as a mountain biker he would love an additional road to ride on. Mr. Mills stated that he doesn't support Option lA because the Artist Colony needs its privacy. Greg Prow stated that he was the current President of the Montalvo Board of Trustees. Mr. Prow stated that they have met 17 times with different groups regarding this project. Mr. Prow stated that he supports Option 1B and noted that Montalvo is giving the City the easement for free. • 12 Gordon Knox stated that he has had 20 years of building artist colonies around the . world. Mr. Knox stated that this facility has the potential to bring in artist from around the world. Mr. Knox stated that Option lA would have profound effects on the artists. Elizabeth Challener stated that she is the Executive Director at Montalvo. Ms. Challener stated that Montalvo cares about the neighborhood, is proud to be a part of this community and would like to continue to work closely with the City. Ms Challener thanked the City Council for walking the site and thanked the neighbors for attending their neighborhood meeting. Kevin McLarnel stated that he is a resident and a Montalvo Board Trustee. Mr. McLarnel stated that the concerns regarding Wildcat Creek are not a big issue. Barry Fernald stated that he was a volunteer architect for the project. Option lA isn't safer nor is it cheaper. Mr. Fernald stated that adding the road after the project has been completed would cause problems. Cheriel Jensen stated that she was a County of Santa Clara planner for 15 years. Ms. Jensen stated that the land around Montalvo should have never been developed. Ms. Jensen stated that an EIR should be required for either option. Councilmember Kline asked if there would be a locked gate on the access road. Director Cherbone responded that both options would have a locked gate. Mayor Waltonsmith pointed out that Option 1B is already a hiking path. Director Cherbone stated that it is a trailhead and the road would require widening and a minimal surface covering to allow vehicles safely out. Referring to Ms. Jensen's request of an EIR, Councilmember Bogosian asked if there are any exemption options of doing an EIR. City Attorney Taylor responded that there would need to be an assessment on whether or not the project would have an impact. City Attorney Taylor noted that further investigation would have to take place including reviewing over 50 CEQA exemptions. Councilmember Bogosian thanked Montalvo for working with the neighbors and the City. Councilmember Bogosian stated that supported Option 1B. Councilmember Kline stated that Option lA is might be easier to build but it is extremely steep and the process would be time consuming and costly. Councilmember Kline stated that Option 1B may be safer and cheaper to maintain. • Councilmember Kline noted that he supported Option 1B. 13 Councilmember Streit stated that Option lA & 1B is not the issue -the issue is the _ safety of the residents. Councilmember Streit stated that he supports Option 1B. Vice Mayor King stated that she fully supports Option 1B. Mayor Waltonsmith noted that she supports Option 1B and appreciated Montalvo's willingness to provide the easement. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to work with Montalvo on Option 1B. Mayor Waltonsmith declared a 10-minute break at 9:00 p.m. Mayor Waltonsmith reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. 7. DEANZA/PG&E TRAIL PUBLIC PROCESS OPTIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Determine type and composition of body to conduct the public input process and project development; Provide direction to staff regarding the use of a professional facilitator to assist with the public input process. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist stated that on February 4, 2004 City Council provided feedback and directed staff to move forward with the process of developing a • pedestrian/cycling trail on PG&E right-of--way lands running parallel to the railroad tracks between Saratoga and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Avenues. Council specifically requested staff generate options for developing an active public process and project development, which will occur over an estimated eight month time frame, and to bring these options back for review by the City Council at a future meeting. Analyst Bloomquist explained that in addition Council expressed interest in retaining the services of a professional meeting facilitator to assist in the public process. If Council so directs, staff would generate a Request for Proposal to retain the services of a facilitator and bring a contract back to Council for approval at a future meeting. Analyst Bloomquist described the proposed options for the public input process as follows: 1) Public Hearings conducted by the City Council 2) Facilitated Council Adhoc/Task Force Meetings (membership consisting of two Councilmembers and key project stakeholders) 3) Community meetings conducted by the Park sand Recreation Commission Councilmember Kline asked who would pay for the facilitator. Analyst Bloomquist stated that the funds would come out of the Phase I grant from • the County. 14 Councilmember Bogosian asked when would the public find out how much the trail will cost over the life span of the trail. Director Cherbone noted that usually those costs are found in the feasibility study after the type of trail has been decided upon. Director Cherbone suggested that Council could direct staff to return to Council regularly with benchmarks. Councilmember Kline asked if there was a defined project plan that the AdHoc group will be working on. Director Cherbone stated that there isn't a defined plan yet; staff would like to use the professional facilitator to develop a feasibility plan in terms of the process. Councilmember Bogosian suggested a scoping meeting to open up the process initially to the public to receive everyone's comments. Mayor Waltonsmith stated that she supported hiring a consultant along with appointing two Councilmembers and PRC members. Councilmember Bogosian requested that staff provide Council with all of the resumes of the consultants who respond to the RFP. Consensus of the City Council: • • Direct staff to prepare a Request for Proposals for a professional facilitator to assist with the public input process • Mayor Waltonsmith and Councilmember Bogosian would represent Council on the AdHoc STATE BUDGET UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report. Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director, presented staff report. Director Baloca explained the current budget scenario as follows: • The City will lose approximately $576k of its current year VLF revenue stream, which is considered a backfill gap to be repaid in 2006 • $156k is permanently lost beginning in FY 2004-OS in property taxes as a result of Governor's proposed expansion of the ERAF shift of local property taxes to support school funding. Director Baloca briefly explained Proposition 57 & 58 and the State's budget process. . Mayor Waltonsmith thanked Director Baloca for the update. 15 NEW BUSINESS 9. CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to advertise for volunteers to participate on the committee. Christie Oosterhous, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Planner Oosterhous stated that public participation would play an important role in updating the Land Use Element of Saratoga's General Plan, which was last adopted in 1983. At the direction of the Council, staff would advertise for volunteers to participate on a citizen advisory committee for the Land Use Element Update. Staff would organize interviews to be conducted by the Council with interested persons. The Council would appoint approximately five citizens to work with staff on the advisory committee. Gary Smith volunteered to service on the citizen advisory committee. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to advertise for volunteers to participate on the task force. 10. QUITO ROAD HOUSING CONTRACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute contract. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that the City has received and application for development of a 60-unit condominium, from Barry Swenson Builders. Based on an Initial Study prepared in-house, staff has determined that an environmental impact report is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Request for Proposals (RFP) was sent to five consulting firms on December 11, 2003. Two firms, Placemakers ($109,402) and David J. Powers ($158,054), were the only two firms that submitted a proposal. Director Sullivan stated that staff conducted a thorough review of both proposals and contacted references provided by the two firms. Director Sullivan stated that staff recommends Powers because of their local experience and selection of subcontractors. In regards to the EIR, Councilmember Bogosian asked if there was a conflict of interest and items were left out of the EIR would the City be responsible to defend the EIR. 16 City Attorney Taylor responded that if there was a lawsuit the City would require . the developer to indemnify the City, the developer would be responsible for costs but the City is still accountable for the document. Councilmember Bogosian stated after searching the Internet he discovered of the principals with David J. Powers belongs to organizations in support of high- density projects. Councilmember Bogosian requested support from his colleagues to direct staff to send the RFP out again. Vice Mayor King stated that she would not support sending the RFP out again. Councilmember Kline stated that David J. Powers is a respectable firm and noted that any organization in this valley would most likely have someone on their staff who supports high-density. Cheriel Jensen stated that there is no General Plan designation that would allow this type of density. Ms. Jensen stated that to have a principal author of the EIR who is an advocate for high density isn't right -the City should get a neutral party. Ms. Jensen stated that she supports Councilmember Bogosian's request to send the RFP out to a broader audience. Mayor Waltonsmith noted that this project would eventually go to the vote of the people. The EIR is the first step in the process. Director Sullivan explained that once the EIR is done would go to the Planning Commission. Once scenario is that could happen is that the Planning Commission would deny the project based on the EIR and the developer could appeal to the Council. There is no guarantee that the Council has to let it go to an election. Councilmember Streit noted that he understands Councilmember Bogosian's concerns, but trust staff's recommendation. KING/KLINE MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT WITH DAVID J. POWERS. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN OPPOSED. 11. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR SARATOGA REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Danielle Surdin, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Surdin stated that many of Saratoga's commercial districts continue to struggle to retain and attract retail businesses. Aging infrastructure, few public monies available for faced beautification programs, and lack of business attraction • incentives have made the City's economic development efforts a challenge. 17 Analyst Surdin stated that the City has been working in partnership with local landlords, current business owners, and prospective business owners to improve the overall business climate and to keep a good mixture of goods and services within each district. At the City Council retreat, Analyst Surdin stated that staff was directed to explore the option of creating a Redevelopment Agency. The first step was to conduct a feasibility study. Staff has identified three commercial districts and the immediate surrounding residential areas for evaluation. Councilmember Kline suggested staff look at additional residential areas around the proposed RDA districts. Analyst Surdin responded that staff has kept the boundaries broad with the plan to allowing the consultant the opportunity to shape the feasibility of the RDA districts. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to move forward with the RFP for Saratoga Redevelopment Feasibility Study. 12. CITY'S 50TH ANNIVERSARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, presented staff report. Director Pisani stated that the City would be celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2006. In 1981, for the 25th anniversary, special events were held all year. A 25th Anniversary Committee was formed well in advance to schedule and plan activities all thru the year. In anticipation of the 50th year of incorporation, Director Pisani suggested that the Council might want to start thinking of ways to commemorate the occasion. Director Pisani briefly described program ideas and stated that if anyone was interested in helping to contact her. Consensus of the direct staff to start organizing groups to participate in the celebration. Mayor Waltonsmith thanked Director Pisani for her report. 13. FORMATION OF LIBRARY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND COMMITTEE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. 18 Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that last spring, Council designated two council members to meet with selected community leaders and library bond counsel to discuss use of the remaining library bond funds and the interest income. Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that discussions included whether to put the remaining funds towards paying the debt service or use the funds for additional future capital improvements. The consensus of the group was rather than use the remaining funds to pay debt services and thereby pass on a credit of about $111 per household; the funds should be programmed for high cost future improvements such as replacing the roof. Bond counsel said that the funds could be used for any improvement to the library building or site with a life of more than a year. Funds cannot be used for annual maintenance, administrative or staffing costs, or for furniture, fixtures and equipment. Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that Councilmembers Bogosian and Streit met with staff in February 2004 to determine the next step. Approximately $700,000 remains in total library funds. Staff was directed to prepare a spreadsheet that programs costs for improvements such as a new roof, replacement of HVAC equipment and remaining the exterior of the building. Funds for these expenses would then be set aside with the remainder available for other improvements. Assistant City Manager Tinfow described the compositions of the Committee. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that the LCIF Committee would be responsible for making recommendations to the City Council related to use of remaining funds. They would become a regular standing committee, subject to the Brown Act, and would meet as needed. Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that the Citizen's Oversight Committee would continue to exist for the life of the bond funds and be responsible for ensuring that funds are spent appropriately. Councilmember Kline asked if the bond funds could be used to cover the items on the punch list. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that the bond funds could be used for anything that has a life longer than a year or to finish construction. Councilmember Kline suggested that this task be given to the Library Commission. The Library Capital Improvement Fund Committee may have a conflict with the current Library Commission. Councilmember Bogosian and Councilmember Streit noted that they preferred the formation of the Library Capital Improvement Fund Committee. Vice Mayor King stated that she completely supported Councilmember Kline's suggestion. Vice Mayor King clearly stated that she doesn't support another commission that Council or staff would have to attend. 19 KLINE/KING MOVED TO DIRECT THE LIBRARY COMMISSION TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMAINING $700,000 IN LIBRARY BOND FUNDS. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH STREIT OPPOSED. 14. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SPEND ADDITIONAL LIBRARY BOND FUNDS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to use up to $10,000 from library bond funds to complete projects for the library. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that as the construction punch list nears completion, there remains a number of tasks that have not been completed by contractor Thompson Pacific as specified in the contract but either need additional work or fall short of what the library really needs. Assistant City Manager Tinfow sited a few examples. Assistant City Manager Tinfow reported that staff has collected price quotes for two of the items. The gate alarm will cost about $2,000 to connect to the interior alarm system and the art hanging system will cost about $2,200 plus the cost of installation. In addition, Assistant City Manager Tinfow reported that there are a number of safety related issues that staff would like to complete: • Signs for emergency exists and fire extinguishers • Controls for shade draw stings • Rounding corners of the circulation desk BOGOSIAN/KING MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO USE UP TO $10 000 FROM LIBRARY BOND FUNDS TO COMPLETE PROJECTS FOR THE LIBRARY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Waltonsmith had no reportable information. Vice Mayor King reported the following information: City/School Ad-Hoc Committee -recently met with the Saratoga Union School District. Superintendent was interested in discussing with the City the use of their flat grass in exchange for the maintenance of it by the City. Parks and Recreation Commission -currently working on a map of the City's parks. Councilmember Bogosian had no reportable information. ~J 20 Councilmember Kline had no reportable information. • Councilmember Streit stated that he would like to discuss his assignments with the Mayor due to scheduling conflicts. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian requested that flagpoles be installed in Blaney Plaza before Memorial Day. Councilmember Kline concurred with Councilmember Bogosian's request. Mayor Waltonsmith mentioned a letter received from NASA Ames Research Center inviting the City to rent their facility for up to 400 people to view their Mars exhibit and landing of the Rover at their IMAX Theater. Mayor Waltonsmith also stated that she provided Director Pisani a copy of the letter who was going to take it to Rotary. Vice Mayor King suggested inviting the schools. In regards to the LAFCO Fire Service Report, Councilmember Bogosian asked if the citizens' comments that were placed with the City's comments were placed elsewhere. City Manager Anderson responded that he contacted the Execute Director at LAFCO and requested that the citizen's comments be placed elsewhere. Referring to the Wildlife Center, Councilmember Kline stated that in the past the City has provided funding to them directly. Councilmember Kline stated that with the upcoming San Jose animal control services contract, the City should continue funding with the Wildlife Center. OTHER City Attorney Taylor noted that he has been working with the Mid Peninsula Open Space District with their San Mateo County Coastal Annexation. Unfortunately their final LAFCO hearing is scheduled for March 17, 2004. City Attorney Taylor noted that Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer would be attending the March 17`h City Council meeting. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None r-~ U 21 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. . Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • 22 VINI SARUP • P.O. BOX 2221 , SAF2ATOGA, CA 95070 408-395-1717/CELL 408-644-6008/FAX 395-1998 LAUR.4SARUP~YAH00. COM APR/L 2, 2004 TO.' C/TY OF SARA TOGA PLANNING COMMISS/ON DEAR SIRS, / HA VEA NEW HOUSEA T 12906 PIERCE ROAD. THE HOUSEACROSS FROM MINE, AT 129aP/ERCEROAD, RASA H/GHL YOFFENSIVE (BRIGHT P/N/~ COLORED FENCE. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TELLS ME, THA T THERE /S NOTHING THA TCAN BE DONEABOUT /T. HOW /S /T THA T INA BEA UT/FUL C/TYL/KE SARA TOGA WHERE THE COLOR OF STRUCTURE'S /S SO CAREFULLY CONTROLLED AND REGULATED BEFORE THE HOUSE/STRUCTURE' /S PUT UP THA T /T /S ALLOWABLE TO PA/NTANYOFFENSIVECOLOR AFTER FINAL INSPECT/ONE /F TH/S /S ALLOWED TO CONTINUE SUCH OFFENSIVE COLORS ON MA/N ROADS LIKFP/ERCEROAD CAN NOT ONL YBE'A DRIVING . DISTRACT/ON HAZARD BUT CANALSO CONTR/BUTS TO THE DETER/OR.4 TION OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS INTO EYESORE'S. / FEEL THAT THE POLICY OF REGULA T/NG COLORS DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND 7NENALLOW/NG OFFENSIVE CO ORS AFTER THE FACT /S NOT L OGICAL AND /S MOST INCONSISTENT TO SA Y THE LEAST. /AM REQUEST/NG THA T THE PLANNING COMM/SS/ON TAKE UP THIS MATTER URGENTL Y THA IN/SARUP p L~~~~~~ APR 0 2 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA -~*nnni1n11TY ~F..VELOPMF?'"~ • C7 •