Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-27-2004 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani Absent: Commissioner Schallop &z Commissioner Uhl Staff: Planners Livingstone &r Welsh, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 13, 2004. (APPROVED 5-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly 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 October 21, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL R[GHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within Fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION #04-112 (397-24-032) WOOD, 14161 Douglas Lane -The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence is 5,907.5 square feet. The floor area of the first floor and garage is 4,575.5 square feet and the second floor is 1,332 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet 6 inches. The lot size is approximately 20,080 square feet and the site is zoned R-120,000. (Continued from the meetingheld on October 13, 2004) (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) (APPLICATION WAS REDESIGNED AND DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING) 2. APPLICATION #04-265 (503-24-034) WORDEN, "Union 76" 14395 Big Basin Way; - Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to expand the existing retail food market 70 square feet. The site is located in a Commercial Zoning District. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 5-0) 3. APPLICATION #03-218 (503-13-067) WILLIAM WAI YAN HO, Mount Eden Road south of Villa Oaks Lane: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 29.28-acre property into five clustered lots with an average lot size of 1.73 acres. The remaining 19.49-acre portion of the property is to remain in open space with a pedestrian, equestrian trail winding through the open space. Access to the property is to be via a cul-de-sac, which egresses onto Mount Eden Road. An emergency access road is proposed from Vista Regina Road to the cul- de-sac. The property has a general plan designation of RHC, Hillside Conservation and is zoned HR -Hillside Residential District. (ANN WELSH) (APPROVED 5-0) 4. APPLICATION #04-052 (386-14-011) CINGULAR WIRELESS/PRINCE OF PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH, 12770 Saratoga Avenue: The applicant is requesting a Use Permit to construct an antenna site on the rear of the grounds of Prince of Peace Church. The proposal is to install a 60-foot high artificial conifer tree in a stand of existing conifers. The artificial tree limbs would camouflage 6 panel antennas, which are 51 inches high by 13 inches wide. At the base of the artificial tree four equipment cabinets are proposed which would be five feet high and painted dark green in color in order to blend into the existing vegetation. (ANN WELSH) (APPROVED 5- 0) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Council Minutes from Special Meetings on September 30, 2004. ADJOURNMENT TO AT 8:40 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@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). Certi f icate o f Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on October 21, 2004 at the of Tice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION . SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, October 26, 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, OCTOBER 27, 2004 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #04-052 - CINGULAR WIRELESS Item 4 12770 Saratoga Avenue 2. Application #04-265 - WORDEN Item 2 14395 Big Basin Way 3. Application #03-218 - HO Item 3 Mt. Eden Road south of Villa Oaks Lane 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 encouraged for the applicant and/or owner to be present 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, October 27, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fnaitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 13, 2004. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 21, 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). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. APPLICATION #04-112 (397-24-032) WOOD, 14161 Douglas Lane -The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence is 5,907.5 square feet. The floor area of the first floor and garage is 4,575.5 square feet and the second floor is 1,332 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet 6 inches. The lot size is approximately 20,080 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 20,000. (Continued from the meetingheld on October 13, 2004 (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 2. APPLICATION #04-265 (503-24-034) WORDEN, "Union 76" 14395 Big Basin Way; - Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to expand the existing retail food market 70 square feet. The site 1s located in a Commercial Zoning District. (]OHN LIVINGSTONE) 3. APPLICATION #03-218 (503-13-067) WILLIAM WAI YAN HO, Mount Eden Road south of Villa Oaks Lane: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 29.28-acre property into five clustered lots with an average lot size of 1.73 acres. The remaining 19.49-acre portion of the property is to remain in open space with a pedestrian, equestrian trail winding through the open space. Access to the property is to be via a cul-de-sac, which egresses onto Mount Eden Road. An emergency access road is proposed from Vista Regina Road to the cul- de-sac. The property has a general plan designation of RHC, Hillside Conservation and is zoned HR -Hillside Residential District. (ANN WELSH) 4. APPLICATION #04-052 (386-14-011) CINGULAR WIRELESS/PRINCE OF PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH, 12770 Saratoga Avenue: The applicant is requesting a Use Permit to construct an antenna site on the rear of the grounds of Prince of Peace Church. The proposal is to install a 60-foot high artificial conifer tree in a stand of existing conifers. The artificial tree limbs would camouflage 6 panel antennas, which are Sl inches high by 13 inches wide. At the base of the artificial tree four equipment cabinets are proposed which would be five feet high and painted dark green in color in order to blend into the existing vegetation. (ANN WELSH) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Special Meetings on September 30, 2004. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance 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 ctclerh@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). Certif icate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on October 2l, 2004 at the office of the City of Saratoga,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato aQ ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@sarato a.ca.us • o~ MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Garakani called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Associate Planner Ann Welsh and Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of September 22, 2004. Motion: Upon .motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeti g of September 22, 2004, were adopted with corrections to pages 6, 8, 9 and 11. (5 0-0-2; Commissioners Schallop and Uhl abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 7, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #04-112 (397-24-032) WOOD, 14161 Douglas Lane: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence is 5,907.5 square feet. The floor area of the first floor and the garage is 4,575.5 square feet and the second floor is 1,332 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet 6 inches. The lot size is approximately 20,080 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-20,000. (CHRISTY OOSTRHOUS) (The applicant has requested that this item be continued to the meeting on October 27, 2004). Motion: The Planning Commission continued consideration of Application #04-112 to the Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 2004. (7-0) *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #02-281 (503-31-067) - SHENG, 21794 Heber Way: Request Design Review Approval and Variances for the setbacks to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 6,483 square feet, which includes the 726 square foot three-car garage. The gross lot size is 6.06 acres and zoned Hillside Residential. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) (The applicant has requested that this item be continued to the meeting on November 10, 2004). Motion: The Planning Commission continued consideration of Application #02-281 to the Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 2004. (7-0) *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #04-208 (386-10-049) AT&T Wireless (applicant) YASUTO (nronertv owner), 1777 Saratoga Avenue: The applicant requests Use Permit approval to install six cellular panel antennas on an existing monopole. The proposed antennas will be attached to the monopole at a level below the existing antennas operated by another wireless carrier, Verizon. Related equipment will be situated on the property adjacent to Verizon's existing equipment. This will be a co-location site with not only Verizon but also Sprint PCS, which has a pending application with the City for proposed antennas and equipment. Sprint's application has been scheduled for a duly noticed public hearing on September 22, 2004. The site is located in the P-A (Professional and Administrative Office) zoning district. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that AT&T Wireless is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of six cellular panel antennas on an existing monopole, below antennas owned by Verizon Wireless. Corresponding ground equipment would be located on a concrete slab in a 12 x 24 foot area that will be enclosed with new fencing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 3 • Explained that this installation will represent a co-location with two other providers, Verizon and SprintPCS. SprintPCS obtained an approval on September 22°d for this location. • Reported that Crown Castle owns the leasehold for this site. • Advised that the paint store containers would be relocated and that the property owner was contacted regarding proper storage of paint. • Informed that this application complies with Code and is not found to be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public. • Recommended approval and reported that the applicant is available to answer any questions. Commissioner Zutshi asked staff if there are any additional cellular applications pending for this location. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied not now, although there is a pending application for installation of a generator for this location. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is a limitation on the number of years this approval would run or if it would be an on-going approval. Director Tom Sullivan explained that there are no time limitations but that if the site were found to be not compliant with the conditions of approval, it would be brought back to the Commission for reconsideration. He added that the Planning Commission could elect to attach a time limitation when an approval does not involve structures. Chair Garakani asked staff if the Commission could say "enough" at some point. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Dana Geary, Applicant's Representative: • Explained that this installation is intended to provide more complete coverage by filling in current gaps. • Added that this proposal for a co-location is one that the City prefers to reduce the total number of cellular antenna sites within the community. • Called this awin-win situation. • Stated she was available for any questions. Chair Garakani asked if there is potential for these antennas to interfere with one another. Ms. Dana Geary replied that this is the reason for the separation between each provider's antennas. If antennas were to be placed too close together, there would be interference. At least afive-foot separation is required to prevent such interference. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Hunter said that this is just fine and that she is pleased to see better coverage provided to the community. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 4 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (Application #04-208) to allow the installation of six cellular panel antennas on an existing monopole on property located at 17777 Saratoga Avenue by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #04-034 (397-08-091) -OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT INC., 15145 Sobev Road: Request Design Review Approval to construct a 25.5-foot high single-story structure on a vacant lot with an average slope of 16%. The size of the home is 5,677 square feet with an 845 square foot basement. The lot size is 46,082 square feet and the parcel is zoned R-1-40,000. (ANN WELSH) Associate Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this item was continued from June 23, 2004, when the Planning Commission directed the applicant to revise plans to address neighbor concerns regarding the garage and right of access. • Explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a 23 foot, 9 inch high single-story residence on a 46, 082 square foot lot that is accessed from Sobey Road through an access easement. • Described the proposed home as consisting of 5,677 square feet, with an 845 square foot basement on an R-1-40,000 zoned parcel. • Pointed out the changes from the original submittal as including a reduction to the 23 foot, 9 inch height; the reorientation of the garage to face Sobey Road rathe than the neighboring property to the east; the increase of one of the side yard setbacks to 30 feet; he retention of an additional tree; the relocation of the house further to the west so that it is more centered on the lot; a reduction in the FAR and coverage and revised landscaping to include low-growing flowering Plums and an additional Coast Redwood to the east. • Stated that the City Attorney was consulted regarding the issue of access and a legal analysis was prepared that concludes that Council with its actions of 1983 decided the issue. That decision must stand. • Recommended approval with conditions of approval as outlined. Chair Garakani asked about the letter from the neighbors, the Coes, in which they raise issues of concern. Commissioner Rodgers questioned whether this letter should be discussed here or during the public hearing. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this is the public hearing. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that when the staff report is done, the public hearing would be opened. Commissioner Rodgers thanked staff for including the requirement for a change of address as a condition of approval as this site is currently hard to find. It is important that a property be addressed so it is easy to locate. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 5 Commissioner Zutshi asked staff who is responsible for installing the fire hydrant. Planner Ann Welsh replied the applicant. Commissioner Hunter asked whether the Commission must find it agrees with the actions of Council in 1983 or overturn them. Planner Ann Welsh said that the Commission would have to find that circumstances have substantially changed to disregard the actions of Council from 1983 regarding the access to this site. Commissioner Hunter asked if the Commission has any purview over the issue of trash collection. Chair Garakani replied no. Commissioner Nagpal opined that nothing appears to have changed since 1983 as regards to the driveways and access for this parcel. Planner Ann Welsh agreed, saying not as far as she can see. Commissioner Hunter asked staff if Fire is satisfied with the access road width. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes, it meets Fire's requirements. F're is satisfied as long as proper turnaround is available. The plans have been revised to show Fire ac ess. Commissioner Hunter asked about the other claimed access from Mo to Vista. Planner Ann Welsh replied that in 1983 three parcels were subdivided, two with frontage access from Monte Vista and the third from Sobey Road. At that time, Mr. Coe objected. All decisions have been made as it stands now and per the City Attorney it cannot be changed now. There must be something very specific to support a change, not something general. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the trash truck comes all the way in. Planner Ann Welsh said that she has heard from one neighbor that the truck does go up the road. This is simply hearsay from that neighbor. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that a fire gate proposed in 1983 was never installed. Planner Ann Welsh said that she spoke with Dr. Johnson about that. There is a barrier at Monte Vista now but the neighbors did not want a major change at that time and kept it as it currently is. Unless a property owner is a successor in interest, a new property owner is not held responsible for that requirement. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Michael Davis, Applicant: • Thanked the neighbors for working with them. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 6 • Explained some of the design changes including the reorientation of the garage by 90 degrees so that it is facing Sobey and thereby removing visible parking from the sight of the neighboring property. • Added that a bare spot in screening landscaping would be filled with an additional Redwood tree. • Reported that the Johnsons, who live to the west, were concerned about tree heights impairing their view. The originally proposed Oak trees were felt to be too tall. The Johnsons suggested flowering Plum trees instead. • Added that by spinning the garage, they also straightened the house from an angle into an L-shaped structure and lowered the height. • Pointed out that they also were able to save an additional tree. • Thanked Planner Ann Welsh for her thorough report. • Said that they have 4,000 square feet less impervious surface than is allowed. • Reported that there is no record of an access easement from Monte Vista Drive for this parcel. • Advised that their Real Estate Attorney is present and available for any questions. Commissioner Uhl asked about the issue of tractor access. Mr. Michael Davis: • Said that Mr. Coe raised this issue but that there is no legal access to the easement for tractor access. • Explained that the fire truck turnaround would be a hammerhead and that Mr. Coe would be responsible for half of this turnaround. • Added that an option to installing a hydrant is to sprinkler the house as they are proposing to do. Chair Garakani asked if the inclusion of two Redwood trees has been discussed with the neighbor. Mr. Michael Davis said that the neighbors are open to another. Commissioner Hunter asked the Applicant's Attorney if he has any disagreement with the opinion reached by the City Attorney on the issue of the easement. Mr. Sam Chuck, Attorney for the Applicant: • Replied that he agreed with the City Attorney's letter. • Said that he looked at the documentation from 19983 and that significant changes would be required in order to revisit the access issue. Commissioner Hunter commended the applicant on the changes made to the project, particularly the height reduction, saying that this is a very nice looking house. Mr. Michael Davis said that they worked closely with the neighbors and appreciated their time and input. Commissioner Nagpal commended them for saving an additional tree. Commissioner Rodgers: • Noted for the record the letter of October 12, 2004, from Thomas and Norma Coe in which they raise concerns regarding this application. The letter should be accepted into testimony. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 7 Director Tom Sullivan added that the City Attorney's response should also be accepted. Chair Garakani said that both could be entered into the record, including the City Attorney's response as prepared by Ann Welsh following their conversation on the subject. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Rodgers: • Distributed her written comments in response to the issues raised by the Coe letter. • Asked staff if there is any reason for her to read this into the record. Director Tom Sullivan replied not. If there are issues, they should be raised in the discussion. Commissioner Rodgers: • Stated that regarding Issue #1, which the Coes are against the planting of Redwoods, the City's policy is to favor native trees. • Stated that regarding Issue #2, ingress/egress from Sobey Road and space for trash cans, this issue can be discussed amongst the neighbors on Sobey as there appears to be sufficient access for trash collection. Additionally, a Traffic Safety Review is required under the conditions of approval whereby this issue can be evaluated further. • Said that regarding Issue #3, status of a fire gate on Monte Vista Drive, according to the Assistant City Attorney this is not an issue. Fire does not require it. Perhaps this issue could more appropriately be referred to the Public Safety Commission. • Concerning Issue #4, widening of easement to 18 feet, Fire finds the existing access at 14 feet to be in compliance. No reason was mentioned for widening this road and two vehicles can comfortably pass each other as the driveway currently exists. There is little space for extra road shoulder to be located. The maintenance issues (tree trimming) raised must be solved by the easement holders. The concerns regarding potential damage to driveway pavers on the Cce property during construction is handled through a condition of approval. • Regarding Issue #5, applicant's right of ingress/egress over the easement to Sobey Road, while the Coes believe there is a change in circumstances, the City's Attorney says the Commission is precluded from denying use of the access easement. If the Commission finds as a matter of fact that there is a change of circumstances, it may address this issue. • Added that the Coes charge that in 1983 three parcels took access to Sobey. One has been changed to be off the private road and the applicant would be the fifth home to use the private road. Additionally, that two parcels on the east of the private road have rights of way, that traffic has increased since 1983 and that an alternate access point from Monte Vista Drive exists for this particular parcel • Countered those points by saying that in her opinion the first driveway appears to be off the public road and not the private road. That the two parcels are oriented in the opposite direct and have access to Sobey in that direction, that a Traffic Study would be conducted as a condition of this approval and that the validity of the claimed easement from Monte Vista Drive is not documented, and that this specific parcel was created with covenants that run with the land to provide access. Therefore, no change in circumstances can be found. Therefore, the Commission is precluded from considering the issue of the applicant's use of the private road. Commissioner Hunter told Mr. Johnson that she wished the ongmally proposed native Oak trees would be planted, although flowering Plum trees are also nice. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 8 Commissioner Zutshi reported that she and Chair Garakani had driven all the way up to the Coe property and felt that two more Redwood trees would not be detrimental to their views. Commissioner Nagpal expressed her appreciation for the revised design. She agreed that it is tough to make the finding here that there is a change of circumstances regarding access rights. Suggested leaving the issue of trees to staff in conjunction with input from the neighbors. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new residence on property located at 15145 Sobey Road with the direction that staff work out the issue of tree selection in consultation with the arborist and upon consultation with the neighbors, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. S APPLICATION #04-227 (503-10-049) - DOUGHERTY, 20125 Orchard Meadow Drive: Request Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house on an a fisting vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 7,960 squaze feet, which includes a 498 squaze foot garage. The gross lot size is 9.15 acres. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct a new single-family residence on an existing vacant lot. The new structure would be 7,960 square feet with a 498 squaze foot garage and a maximum FAR of 8,000 square feet. • Described the property as consisting of 9 gross acres. The maximum height of the structure would be less than 26 feet. • Explained that this pazcel is in County jurisdiction but within the City of Sazatoga's sphere of influence and Urban Service Area. Most of the City's Codes do not apply with this application. The City is asked to sign a form stating that this project is consistent with its General Plan. Such a form was signed several years ago in error. The applicant litigated and a settlement agreement was reached. The project will meet the City's Design Review Standazds for height and FAR. Grading, landscaping and lot coverage are not under City review. • Stated that the project will incorporate stucco siding and stone veneer. A material sample boazd has been provided. • Announced that the project meets Design Review findings and recommended approval. • Said that the applicant is unavailable this evening due to a family emergency but that her architect is present on her behalf. Commissioner Zutshi asked staff what is the maximum square footage for this structure. Planner John Livingstone replied 8,000 squaze feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 9 Commissioner Uhl asked if neighbor feedback was solicited. Planner John Livingstone reported that this property owner also owns the adjacent property. There is just one neighbor close by. Commissioner Nagpal asked if a public notice was sent. Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the space behind was considered open or green space. Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Hunter mentioned the very tall fences in the area with spikes and asked if the County permits such fencing due to their potential danger to deer. Chair Garakani questioned whether deer would jump over afive-foot high fence. Commissioner Hunter replied yes. Planner John Livingstone said that he was not aware of the County's,requirements for fencing. Commissioner Rodgers sought clarification that this issue of f ncing does not fall within this Commission's purview. Planner John Livingstone replied correct. The information provided on the landscape plan is simply a courtesy. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. S. Ms. Martha Matson, Project Architect: • Said that this is a County property. • Said that the area consists of mostly two-story homes with between 7,500 and 8,500 square feet of living space. • Assured that this project is in keeping with the neighborhood and that they felt it was important to keep the massing down, accomplishing that by nestling the home into the hillside near a grove of Oak trees. From the street, the garage doors are not visible as the house is tucked back to the rear of the lot, way back from the street, thus providing privacy for the inhabitants and neighbors. • Described the architectural style as being Tuscan with European finish stucco and stone details. • Said that they feel happy with the design and that she is available for any questions. Commissioner Rodgers questioned the color of the proposed roof tiles, expressing concern that they may be somewhat orange. Commissioner Hunter said that they appear fine. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 10 Ms. Martha Matson assured that she herself does not like orange tile. They are more of a cool hue and work well with the building and stone colors. Planner John Livingstone said that when shown an array of sample tiles, he found that to look all right. Mr. Brent Bellm, 2350 Mt. Eden Road: • Questioned the City's review and hearing process. • Asked how the neighbors should be involved. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Bellm if he had seen the plans. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Bellm when he received the public hearing notice. Mr. Brent Bellm replied that the notice arrived about three weeks ago. Chair Garakani told Mr. Bellm that if he had concerns he should have stopped by the City offices. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Bellm if he had concerns. Mr. Brent Bellm replied no but that he felt the letter sent did not tell him what to do. Reported that he took time off to attend this evening and felt that he has wasted his time. He questioned why he is even involved. Commissioner Zutshi explained that property owners within 500 feet of a project site are noticed of public hearings. Planner John Livingstone added that the notice of public hearing explains the process. He added that staff would take Mr. Bellm's comments into consideration and pointed out that another hearing notice would soon be sent by the County. Mr. Bellm can contact the applicant, architect or the County Office with any questions about the next process. Mr. Brent Bellm stated that he is frustrated by the process. Commissioner Uhl said that the purpose of a public hearing is to raise issues. He assured Mr. Bellm that steps would be taken to make the notice more clear in the future. Chair Garakani reminded that this evening's hearing does not conclude the processing of this application. While Saratoga's review may be done, the County's process is not. Ms. Martha Matson said that she would be happy to go over the plans with this neighbor. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Commissioner Hunter said that this is a nice design and fits well into the hillside. Said that she liked the color board and finds this to be a lovely home. Commissioner Rodgers said that she likes that the house is tucked back high on the site within a grove of Oak trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 11 Commissioner Uhl said that there appears to be no neighbor concerns. Commissioner Nagpal said that the size appears consistent with the area and she can support this application. Chair Garakani suggested that the architect work with neighbors regarding landscaping, an issue not under the consideration of this Commission. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new residence on property located at 20125 Orchard Meadow Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.6 APPLICATION #04-268 503-24-051 - PHAN 14435 Bi Basin a :The appellant (Nancy Duyen Le Phan) requests the Planning Commission overturn an Admin strative Decision to disallow an expansion of an existing Personal Services Business (Daisy Beauty tudio) in the CH-1 Zoned District to include massage. (TOM SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this applicant is appealing an Administrative Decision that disallowed an expansion of an existing Personal Services Business, the Daisy Beauty Studio. • Explained that the Commission has the final authority. • Reported that in September 2003, Council discussed an urgency ordinance that had been adopted by the Town of Los Gatos so as not to allow additional personal services businesses to begin operations. Saratoga adopted a similar interim ordinance and in September 2004, that Ordinance was extended to October 2005. • Stated that in December 2002, the Daisy Beauty Studio was established, without massage services. Massage services require an additional process by the City. • Reported that in January 2003, a warning notice was issued against this business for providing massage services without necessary permits. In March 2003, the applicant assured that no massages were being provided at this location. • Said that in August 2004, an Administrative interpretation was reached as to whether the addition of massage services at this location would result in an expansion of personal services. Staff reviewed this request with the City Attorney, who agreed that expansion at this location should not be allowed under Ordinance 225. In September 2004, Council amended the interim ordinance so that the only places it applies to are for ground floor locations along Big Basin street frontage, which includes this site. • Stated that the applicant subsequently appealed the Administrative denial of her request. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 12 Explained that the Commission is charged with affirming, reversing or modifying the Administrative decision and decide whether this expansion violates the intent of Ordinance 225 or not. While the original Ordinance prohibited expansion of personal services throughout the City, the revised ordinance only applies to Big Basin Way on the ground floor. Commissioner Zutshi asked if a business plan was originally submitted. Director Tom Sullivan replied that only a business license was necessary for the salon use. Commissioner Schallop asked if there is a copy of the current revised Ordinance. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the City Attorney has not yet signed it. Commissioner Schallop read from the draft that states ..."unless a lease is signed prior to the ordinance date." Director Tom Sullivan clarified that if the lease is signed and the proper licenses obtained prior to the date of the Ordinance. Commissioner Schallop asked Director Sullivan how this was interpreted. Director Tom Sullivan said that existing businesses at the time of the moratorium are frozen. This site had an approval for a salon but not for massage services prior to the moratorium. Adding massage equals a change, a different kind of personal service and therefore an expansion. Commissioner Nagpal asked why this massage use was not included in the original business license. Commissioner Zutshi questioned whether facials are counted as massage services. Director Tom Sullivan read the description for massage into the record. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Los Altos was faced with 23 nail salons and recently enacted a similar ordinance. Asked why such a restriction is required. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that with the poor economy there were many vacancies. Personal service businesses do not result in sales tax revenue nor foot traffic for a downtown area. Having too many such businesses means it is less likely to bring necessary retail back to the area. Planner John Livingstone added that each city wants to provide a variety of services and businesses to serve the residents of its city. This goal is not achieved with all the same type of businesses in one small area. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that Council made findings A through N to support this action. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that personal care services already exist at this site. Questioned the need to prohibit an existing personal services business from only incremental expansion. Why does this add to the problem. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 13 Director Tom Sullivan replied that this is simply an expansion. He added that the onus is on the Planning Commission to confirm or overturn that interpretation. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this is considered legal non-conforming. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that massage was never licensed for this location. Commissioner Schallop said that the prohibition should only apply if a lease was not executed prior to the adoption of this Ordinance 225. Commissioner Uhl asked staff how many personal services businesses are currently downtown. Director Tom Sullivan replied approximately 10. Commissioner Rodgers asked why this is treated as a different business if it already exists. Director Tom Sullivan responded that both the City Attorney and he found that under the moratorium this request results in an expansion of the use. Commissioner Uhl agreed that this is a different personal service. Commissioner Nagpal asked if expansion means new or additional services. Commissioner Uhl said that he understands the intent of the moratorium and that the question is whether this interpretation is what the rules were established to prevent. Commissioner Rodgers asked the difference between a masseuse and an independent contractor. Director Tom Sullivan advised that each masseuse must have his or her own operating license. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan, Appellant and Business Owner, Daisy Beauty Studio: • Thanked the Commission for its site visit. • Said that there are only two spas downtown. • Said that the cost of leasing space is expensive. • Stated that people have been asking her for massage services at her business. Many of the customers asking are older clients. • Asked that the Commission approve her request to add massage services to her business. Chair Garakani asked Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan if many of her customers are from Saratoga. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan replied that some are also from San Jose, Cupertino, Campbell and Palo Alto. Chair Garakani asked how many masseuses have their own licenses from her location. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 14 Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan replied that she has two masseuses lined up, who have worked for chiropractic offices. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan when she signed her lease for this space. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan replied on December 2, 2002. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan if she had indicated a plan for massage services at the time she entered into her lease. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan replied that she opened as a beauty spa. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan if she had talked about massage services. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan replied yes, she had planned on massage services right from that date. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the back rooms aze currently being used for facials and questioned if there is a back door entrance. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan said not at this time. She reminded that her space is large and expansive to rent. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan if she is awaze of the sepazate licensing requirements. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan said that she obtained a business license hen she opened her business and has the necessary professional licensing. Commissioner Nagpal cautioned Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan that separate licensing is also required for facials. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan replied of course. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan what sort of business relationship she would have with the masseuses. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan replied that they would be paid on commission. Commissioner Hunter asked if they would pay rent for their stations. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan replied no, she paid the rent and would pay a commission to the masseuse. Commissioner Rodgers asked if payment for massage would be payable to Daisy Beauty Studio or to the therapists. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan replied to Daisy Beauty Studio. She reiterated that the therapists would be paid on commission. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 15 Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan if she had tried to apply for a business license for massage services. Commissioner Hunter said it appears that Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan may have thought that her license for the spa implied massage services. Chair Garakani pointed out that a letter has been submitted on Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan's behalf outlining that costs prevented Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan from pursing a massage permit. Commissioner Rodgers asked when Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan applied for such a permit. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan replied May 2004. The fees were too high for her at that time. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan received a Notice of Violation in January 2003 and she only applied more than a year later in May 2004. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan said that she didn't know originally that a massage permit was required in addition to her spa permit. She didn't know the rules. Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan if she would have to close her business if she is unable to add massage services. Commissioner Hunter said that perhaps Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan 'ght find a smaller location. Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan if business is ad without massage. Commissioner Hunter suggested that some other use be incorporated' in that area of the shop, perhaps retail oriented. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan advised that other types of services she could consider are also not allowed, such as body wrap and facials, without additional permits. Commissioner Uhl reminded that the City does not want any additional personal service business in its downtown. Commissioner Hunter said that more retail is possible. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan if she has a copy of the lease. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan said that the City has a copy. Commissioner Uhl asked Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan if the lease mentions massage. Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan said that the lease only says she can do hair. Commissioner Schallop asked what the previous use of this location was. Commissioner Hunter replied natural products. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 16 Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6. Director Tom Sullivan said that people who work at this business must either be employees or independent contractors with their own operator licenses. Currently, there is only one license for this location, which is for the Daisy Beauty Studio. Commissioner Schallop: • Pointed out that these types of moratoriums sometimes result in litigation for other communities. • Stated that the City must be careful to solve the problem the moratorium is trying to solve. • Reminded that personal services were a prior use on this site. • Cautioned that it is not the intent to disallow the expansion of service within an existing personal service business. It is not the intent to drive these types of businesses out. • Stated that the Ordinance prohibits new personal service businesses from establishing but that this is an existing personal services business. Language in the Ordinance states that this prohibition is in effect "...unless a lease was executed prior to the adoption of the Ordinance." This business owner signed her lease in December 2002. • Suggested that the Ordinance be rewritten to be more clear on its intent but that this lease was signed prior to the moratorium. Chair Garakani: • Expressed his agreement. • Said that the intent is to not create more of these personal service businesses. • Pointed out that a spa typically includes elements such as beauty salon, massage, steam rooms and saunas. • Said that he does not see a problem with this request but suggested that a condition requiring the remodel of the space be incorporated. Commissioner Uhl: • Disagreed, saying that the intent of the ordinance is to maximize the types of business in the City. • Said that this owner is looking to expand an existing service business with additional personal services. • Stated that there are other possible uses for this space. If other uses were not possible, he might feel differently. • Said that supporting this Administrative Decision is not driving out this business but rather helping to create a broader cross mix of businesses. • Said that Council gave pretty clear direction on this matter with the adoption of the Ordinance. • Reminded that services do not generate sales tax revenue. • Said that this is a tough rule but that the intent of the Ordinance is clear. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan had the intent to include massage prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Commissioner Uhl said that it is not known when this business plan was prepared. Commissioner Nagpal said that it would be helpful to see the lease. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 17 Commissioner Uhl said that the business plan includes sales of beauty supplies and goods. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that the intent of the Ordinance can be found in its findings. • Read from Finding D that mentions the total number of personal business services and conversion of vacant retail space into personal services. This is a personal services business with additional personal services proposed. Every provider is a separate business. Finding G mentions the existing 10 personal services businesses in the downtown. • Suggested that this is one location already dedicated to personal services and doesn't meet the purpose of the Ordinance. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that she does not look at this as an intensification. The lease was signed prior to the date of the Ordinance, although she would like to see the lease itself. • Said that a strict interpretation would allow this expansion. • Expressed concern that permits were not properly obtained and that notification of violations was ignored. This is not acceptable. If immediate action had been taken in January 2003, this business owner would not be caught in this situation at this time. • Stressed that she cannot condone this business not having the appropriate permits for its operations. If the lease documents that this site can permit personal services, this expansion should be allowed. Chair Garakani said that waiting to see a copy of the lease would result in a need for a continuance. Director Tom Sullivan said he has never seen the lease but that this applicant needs a decision. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the Commission is bound by the City Attorney's decision. Director Tom Sullivan replied that this interpretation is what is being appealed this evening. Commissioner Schallop said that a prohibition of any expansion of existing personal services businesses should be clearly written into the Ordinance. This business moved into this space in December 2002 and the previous business to hers was also a personal services business. Director Tom Sullivan said that this does not matter. Commissioner Uhl said that it is the City that controls what uses can go in a specific location and not the landlord. Commissioner Nagpal said that the issue is whether the Ordinance addresses new versus expanded personal services. Commissioner Uhl said that land use is controlled through licensing. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that existing beds are used now for facials. S Commissioner Uhl said that the intent is that downtown space be used for retail uses not personal service uses. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 18 Commissioner Hunter suggested a call for the question. Chair Garakani said that the s ace would need to be converted. P Commissioner Nagpal said that the back area is currently vacant retail space. Chair Garakani asked if conditions would be drafted. Commissioner Nagpal said that there is no ability to impose conditions as this is simply an appeal. Director Tom Sullivan said that Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan must process a Use Permit at which time appropriate conditions would be drafted. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission voted to deny an appeal and uphold the Administrative Decision to disallow an expansion of an existing Personal Services Business (Daisy Beauty Studio) on property located at 14435 Big Basin Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter and Uhl NOES: Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion failed. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Schallop, seconde by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission upheld an appeal and verturned the Administrative Decision to disallow an expansion of an existing Personal Services Business (Daisy Beauty Studio) on property located at 14435 Big Basin Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: Hunter and Uhl ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Director Tom Sullivan explained to Ms. Nancy Duyen Le Phan that she has been granted an appeal and must now apply for massage permits. *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Schallo su ested that information re ardin this a eal decision be fed back to • P gg g g PP Council. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2004 Page 19 Director Tom Sullivan reported that he would discuss this issue with the Mayor and City Manager. COMMUNICATIONS Written • City Council Minutes from Special Meeting on September 1, 2004, and Regular Meeting on September 15, 2004. • E-Mail from Ivan Burgos Commissioner Rodgers thanked Dr. Bergos for his email. Commissioner Schallop advised that he would be out of town and miss the October 27, 2004, meeting. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • • • Item 1 r~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Christy Oosterhous, AICP, Associate Planner DATE: October 13, 2004 RE: 14161 Douglas Lane, APPLICATION # 04-112 (397-24-032) -Wood Application #04-112 to build a new two-story has been modified. The modification includes eliminating the proposed second story. Abasement is now proposed along with a remodel of the existing single-story residence. The modified project will not require planning commission review. r~ • • ~~ L _J • Item 2 • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 04-265;14395 Big Basin Way Applicant: Ron Warden, "UIONN 76" Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner Date: October 27, 2004 APN: 503-24-034 Department Head: w, E~Jd,s `t ~Lr,P ~1-~w~W7r-eY' ~ ~ ~ ii: i A~ / 1 / / r~ _ ` ~ i ,.pRw~r4R}s ~ nee bol ~ ~ ~~ _ /~ J~~dl ~._ ~ i ~ ( - ~ 500 foot radus Bg Basin Way 14395 ~~~ ~ ( I r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-- ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~'• ~ ~ '~ Condominlunc ~ ;~-~ ... ~ = ~ ~~- ~- ~ ~ ~ ~~~. i ~ ~ ~,A 3 M~av~ ® Bg Basin Way 14395 .. µwi6wrgi i i I i / ~ ;/ \ / y ,,. ,. Parcels w akin 500 teat or Bg Basn way _ ~ i ! , I / ,, ~ \ ~~~~ ~ ~~ Street_Labels `"~ ~':~ I '-annnr ',s i ~~, - i wam'h.w ~' ~` 1 .~-. ;i 1~"~ AN ~ A _ i r y `.-•= { ~ ~ i~ ,' ,;, ~~'. Ml~ v i enwrGFa / ~ i .~ .. a ~'o ;v ~~ -._ ~, _ _.~ _.. _ - ~~~~ / . _ ~ VIII S ~ ~ /~ ~~ /±~/^ ///Y ~ ~~~,j~ yatadc w,+! ~~ r i ~ / ~R uduktK v ./ ~ Y. scx!i+5ea ~v ,~ ~ asp - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ N / .- A ~ ~ ~j~ ~~; ~ , " 9°^~ yY\ITV ,' ~}f J}" \ J ~__. _.._. ...__ j~a' ~ 5,~ ~ ~~~~~ ~.~~~' 's4 ~.. ,. ._~ / I .I ~ ~~~ ~3 ~ ~~~,(~~ `ed'ee~+ ~ ~w~ 2 ;~G6 X450 '~~600~~ 750~~u.o¢%,a~d~fps no i i ~ ~. Y /~ ~~~-- t ~~~~ gt. h ` ~.. . ~ ~ ~~AA ~-.. ~ 1 ~ ~- 14395 Big Basin Way • o®c~~,®. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 08/20/04 09/21/04 10/13/04 10/07/04 10/21/04 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to expand the existing retail food market 70 square feet. The site is located in a Commercial Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels 3. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" • ®~u~~®r File No. 04-265;14395 Big Basin Way Conditional Use Permit STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: CH-1, Historic Commercial GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR, Retail-Commercial MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 26,689 Square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Less than 10% GRADING REQUIRED: None proposed MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Match existing. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing a 70 square foot expansion to the 'sting service station food market. The proposed addition will provide yogurt, special coffees, ice tea and other assorted food items. The addition is located under the existing roofline of the building and will match the colors and exterior materials of the existing building. The existing food market was approved with a Conditional Use Permit in 1997. The permit did not include the sale of alcoholic beverages consistent with the current application. A condition of approval has been added to not allow the sale of alcoholic beverages without approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Requirements for a ConditionallyPermitted Use All gasoline service station establishments require the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. This process allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions on a project to ensure its compatibility with adjacent land uses. In this case, the minor expansion of the existing food market is an appropriate use for this site and is consistent with the Retail Commercial General Plan designation and Historic Commercial Zoning designation. Parking The proposed project is not located in a parking district. The City Code requires one parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area. The existing structure including ~~d~3 File No. 04-265;14395 Big Basin Way Conditional Use Permit the proposed addition totals 1,705 square feet, which requires 8.5 or 9 parking spaces. The site currently provides 10 parking spaces, exceeding the minimum-parking requirement. Staff has also surveyed the parking area during the business day and found there to be adequate parking available. Hours of Operation The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing hours of operation for both the service station and food market as follows: Monday through Friday: 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Signage The proposed signage meets the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines and the Zoning Code. Staff has included as a condition of approval that all proposed signage obtain a building permit. Design Review The proposed addition is not over 500 square feet or considered to be a substantial exterior alteration as determined by the Community Development Director; therefore it does not require design review. As part of the proposed project the applicant will be providing new landscaping in the planter area adjacent to the addition with new plants and flowers. Correspondence No negative correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. The applicant has shown the proposed plans to the adjacent neighbors as documented by the applicant. The applicant has turned in approximately 28 signed City Neighborhood Notification forms. All of the forms have the box checked indicating that the neighbor has no concerns or issues with the project. Conclusion All of the required Conditional Use Permit findings within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative in that: • The proposed store meets the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, in that the proposed establishment is appropriately located to provide a service for the residents of Saratoga and it promotes a stable, attractive environment; and • The proposed store will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the ~~~~-D4 File No. 04-265;14395 Big Basin Way Conditional Use Permit proposed addition is minor and appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential impacts; and • The proposed establishment will comply with all applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • • 0~~® • Attachment 1 ~~~~®~ RESOLUTION NO.04- Application No. 04-265 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Union 76 14395 Big Basin Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit to expand the existing retail food market 70 square feet. The site is located in a Commercial Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted 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 Planning Commission finds the proposed project consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the irmative in that: • The proposed store meets the objectives of the Z Wing Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, in that the proposed establishment is appropriately located to provide a service for the residents of Saratoga and it promotes a stable, attractive environment; and • The proposed store will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposed addition is minor and appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential impacts; and • The proposed establishment will comply with all applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the floor plan and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for a Conditional Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PLANNING 1. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. ~; 06~~~; ~+`~~ 2. This Use Permit supersedes all previous Use Permit Approvals. 3. The store shall operate as represented on the plans marked Exhibit "A". 4. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 5. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for any internal tenant improvements, detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for Zoning Clearance to verify consistency with the approved Exhibit "A" plans. The construction drawings shall incorporate a copy of this Resolution as a separate plan page. 6. If required, prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the proposed tenant improvements, the owner/applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department verification from the Santa Clara County Health Department showing proof of compliance of the proposed facility with the Health Department's requirements. 7. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City andlor other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. 8. Deliveries shall take place only during normal business hours. 9. Any signage shall obtain a building permit and conform to the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines and City Code Article 15-30. 10. The hours of operation for the food market and service station shall not exceed the following: Monday through Friday 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. 11. No alcoholic beverages will be sold on the premises without an approved Conditional Use Permit. 12. The final landscape plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director. CITY ATTORNEY 13. 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 or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit or Business License must be issued and construction or business operations commenced within 24 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. ~~~~~ Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-55.080 and 15-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 27th day of October 2004 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 onditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in wri g, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned ereby 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 • ~~o~®`~ • Attachment 2 • ~~oQ~O City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 27`~ day of October 2004, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. City Hall is closed every other Friday. Please check the City web site at www.sazatoga.ca.ustorthe City's work schedule. APPLICATION # 04-265 (503-24-034) Worden, "Union 76" 14395 Big Basin Way; -Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to expand the existing retail food market 70 square feet. The site is located in a Commercial Zoning District. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above ' ' e and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearin in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Baring. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, 'tten communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. Pl ase provide any comments or concerns in writing to the Planning Department to the attention of the staff planner indicated below. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. John F. Livingstone, AICP Associate Planner 408.868.1231 C~` 04f~~g~ • • 4395 Big Basin Way • ~~O®1~2 . AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, John F. Livingstone, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 7th day of October, 2004, that I deposited in the mail room at the City of Saratoga, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to- wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addre ses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of S nta Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application 14395 Big Basin Way; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to • ®~(~®~.3 the addresses shown above. COX FLORA M TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39722q'l l 20465 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-5909 FITZSIMMONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 51709044 14611 BIG BASIN WY E SARATOGA, CA 95070 JAMES KENNEDY Or Current Owner, APN 51709025 540 SANTA CRUZ 215 LOS GATOS, CA 95030 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH Or Current Owner, APN 39722023 20390 PARK PL SARATOGA, CA 95070 OSTROWSKI JOHN L & M. CLAIRE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39722045 12750 IONE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3804 3D PROPERTIES Or Current Owner, APN 39727028 P O BOX 234 SARATOGA, OR 95071-0234 GUNN SONJA A ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39731008 PO BOX 2095 SARATOGA, CA 95070 ENGINEERING INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC Or Current Owner, APN 39731020 P.O. BOX 25 SARATOGA, CA 95071-0025 SEAGRAVES MARGARET TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50323017 13371 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4535 TSAO CHICH-HSING & HSIAO- JEN Or Current Owner, APN 50323020 20567 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5868 SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DIST Or Current Owner, APN 39722012 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 FITZIMMONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 51709043 14611 BIG BASIN WY E SARATOGA, CA 95070 SORENSEN DAVID L Or Current Owner, APN 51709024 14493 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-6025 FITZSIMMONS MICHAEL D TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 51709021 165 SUMMERFIELD ST DANVILLE, CA 94506 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Or Current Owner, APN 39722046 14376 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5953 JAVANMARD GHOLAMREZA & EZAT Or Current Owner, APN 39727029 20440 ARBELECHE LN SA.RATOGA, CA 95070-5439 G & G MCCANDLESS PROPS LLC Or Current Owner, APN 39731011 545 MIDDLEFIELD RD 130 MENLO PARK, CA 95025 CUNNINGHAM SUSAN K Or Current Owner, APN 50324078 P O BOX 2230 CUPERTINO, CA 95015-2230 SEAGRAVES MARGARET TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50323018 13371 SARATOGA AV SA.R.ATOGA, CA 95070-4535 LAVELLE THOMAS R & GAYLE S Or Current Owner, APN 50323021 20571 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5868 FRANK L BURELL III Or Current Owner, APN 51709046 470 VANDELL WY STE A CAMPBELL, CA 95008 KIM JOUNG S & YOUNG H TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 51709042 7221 SILVER LODE LN SAN JOSE, CA 95120-3356 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH INC Or Current Owner, APN 39722021 14370 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5953 FRANK L BURELL III Or Current Owner, APN 51709047 470 VANDELL WY STE A CAMPBELL, CA 95008 ELLENIKIOTIS ANTHONY J & GEORGIA TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 51709020 14451 CHESTER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5624 MORRISON DAVID J & TERR~ TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39727030 4100 MOORPARK AV 201 SAN JOSE, CA 95117-1708 MASEK JOSEPH C & MICHELLE Or Current Owner, APN 50324066 14467 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-6093 CIJNNINGHAM DENNIS M Or Current Owner, APN 50324079 14407 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-6080 DUNCAN GORDON A & HELEN J Or Current Owner, APN 50323019 20531 BROOKWOOD LN SA.R.ATOGA, CA 95070-5868 KAHLE JOHN R & HELEN P TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 5032302 20601 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5831 z LONG, JOSEPH P JR & SUSAN D Or Current Owner, APN 39733001 P O BOX 2095 TOGA, CA 95070-0095 KENT, MARGARET E Or Current Owner, APN 39733002 261 HARTZ AV DANVILLE, CA 94526-3309 HSU, GRACE S Or Current Owner, APN 39733003 14347 SARATOGA AV B SARATOGA, CA 95070-5945 HUYNH, MINH Q & PHUONGKHANH VAN Or Current Owner, APN 39733004 14349 SARATOGA AV A SARATOGA, CA 95070-5949 CUSTODIO, JAMES Or Current Owner, APN 39733007 14351 SARATOGA AV A SARATOGA, CA 95070-5950 PENNELL, AYLENE TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39733010 14353 SARATOGA AV A SARATOGA, CA 95070-5964 PONTIER, LENA N TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39733013 14353 SARATOGA AV C SARATOGA, CA 95070-5965 ~~~IZZARO, ANTHONY J & MARGARET Or Current Owner, APN 39733016 19540 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS, CA 95030-2931 WARRINER, HARWOOD TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39733019 PO BOX 217 SARATOGA, CA 95071-0217 DICKERSON, LAUREL Or Current Owner, APN 39733022 14359 SARATOGA AV A SARATOGA, CA 95070-5947 OSTERMAN, JAMES W TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39739002 268 APTOS BEACH DR APTOS, CA 95003-3027 EIRA, LUCILLE M ~STEE Or Current Owner, APN 39739005 14345 SARATOGA AV 15 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5942 MATSUMOTO, KAZUYO ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39733005 14349 SARATOGA AV B SARATOGA, CA 95070-5949 KING, DENNIS W & SHIULIEN KUO Or Current Owner, APN 39733008 14351 SARATOGA AV B SARATOGA, CA 95070-5950 KATHARY, WANDA G TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39733011 14353 SARATOGA AV D SARATOGA, CA 95070-5965 MANN, MORTON S & GERALDINE E TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39733014 19986 MALLORY CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4437 BURGNER, KAREN E Or Current Owner, APN 39733017 14355 SARATOGA AV C SARATOGA, CA 95070-5951 LEY, GERALD M & DOLLIE S TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39733020 1944 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 BUENROSTRO, MARJORIE M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39733023 14359 SARATOGA AV B SARATOGA, CA 95070-5947 CHASE, GERALDINE I Or Current Owner, APN 39739003 14345 SARATOGA AV 13 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5942 CHUNG, JOO H & WON J Or Current Owner, APN 39739006 14345 SARATOGA AV 16 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5942 LINDSAY, NOEL P JR ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39733006 1270 S WINCHESTER BL SAN JOSE, CA 95128-3911 BURGNER, ROBERT T & KAREN E Or Current Owner, APN 39733009 14351 SARATOGA AV C SARATOGA, CA 95070-5950 PIERCE, ROBERT B TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39733012 23500 CRISTO REY DR SO1G CUPERTINO, CA 95014-6534 BONNET,GWENDOLYN TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39733015 14355 SARATOGA AV D SARATOGA, CA 95070-5951 PERSICO, JOSEPHINE J Or Current Owner, APN 39733018 14357 SARATOGA AV A SARATOGA, CA 95070-5952 HENRY, RUTH M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39733021 P O BOX 798 SARATOGA, CA 95070 BILLINGTON, JULIE R TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39739001 14345 SARATOGA AV 11 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5942 HUBER, KARL & SHIRLEY J TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39739004 14345 SARATOGA AV 14 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5942 KRAMER, ALYCE M TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39739007 14345 SARATOGA AV 17 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5942 0~~~~. 3 CRAMER, ADELE Or Current Owner, APN 39739008 14345 SARATOGA AV 18 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5942 PALAIMA, MARK & SHARON Or Current Owner, APN 39739011 14345 SARATOGA AV 23 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5943 SEIPEL, ROBERT S & JOAN V TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39739014 14127 SQUIRREL HOLLOW SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 NATER, CHARLES & LEONORA Or Current Owner, APN 39739017 14345 SARATOGA AV 31 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5944 REED, GLENN C Or Current Owner, APN 39739020 14345 SARATOGA AV 34 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5944 NADIMI, BAHRAM R Or Current Owner, APN 39739023 14345 SARATOGA AV 37 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5944 MICHELI STEVEN L AND FRANCIS CYNTHIA R Or Current Owner, APN 51709064 14465 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-6025 LAGERSTROM, DONALD F TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39739009 14345 SARATOGA AV 21 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5943 SMITH, LANI R TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39739012 14345 SARATOGA AV 24 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5943 VON HELLENS, C R Or Current Owner, APN 39739015 2141 E HIGHLAND AV 155 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 REES, LEANNE Or Current Owner, APN 39739018 8701 BELLWOOD RD BETHESDA, MD 20817-3032 TAFARELLA, PETER A ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39739021 14345 SARATOGA AV 35 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5944 YOUNG, PHIL Z & JEAN L Or Current Owner, APN 39739024 14345 SARATOGA AV 38 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5944 MC KIBBEN TED JR AND PEGGY L Or Current Owner, APN 51709065 14463 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-6025 VICK, GARY J & PATRICIA A Or Current Owner, APN 39739010 14137 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 CRITCHFIELD, RUTHANN TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39739013 14345 SARATOGA AV 25 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5943 LEVY, RITA TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39739016 14345 SARATOGA AV 28 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5943 ABINGTON, ROBERT B & MARY R TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39739019 14345 SARATOGA AV 33 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5944 BRUCE, KEVIN R & PAULINE A Or Current Owner, APN 39739022 14345 SARATOGA AV 36 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5944 DALTON PETER J TRUSTEE ET AL Or Current Owner, APN 51709063 14467 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-6025 BUSSE ROBERT K AND LISA C Or Current Owner, APN 51709066 14461 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-6025 • ®Q®~,~ 4 JOHNSTON MICHAEL R ETAL 'Or Current Owner, APN 50323023 20611 BROOKWOOD LN TOGA, CA 95070-5831 JACOBS HUGH A & GLORIA M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50323029 20510 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5800 FRANK L BURELL III Or Current Owner, APN 51709015 470 VANDELL WY STE A CAMPBELL, CA 95008 CANCELLIERI ROBERT & SHIIZLEY TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50324008 14860 CODY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-6018 BLOXHAM FAMILY LP Or Current Owner, APN 50324061 14610 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 ~ABONNE YVES G & ANNETTE E TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50324051 P O BOX 247 EL VERANO, CA 95433-0247 BLOXHAM FAMILY LP Or Current Owner, APN 50324058 14610 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 HIGGINS WILLIAM L & VIRGINIA B TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50323027 20550 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5800 BROCKETT PATRICK J Or Current Owner, APN 50323052 20620 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5831 KLEAR ELIZABETH P TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 51709017 20387 THELMA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4946 CANCELLIERI ROBERT & SHIlZLEY TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50324009 14860 CODY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-6018 PAYNE GEORGE M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50324049 15940 ROCHIN TR LOS GATOS, CA 95032-0000 CRAWFORD OTTO M & BETTE , R TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50324054 12471 GREENMEADOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-3032 SULLIVAN L M & LOUELLA M TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 50324059 20570 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5876 HIGGINS WILLIAM L & VIRGINIA B TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50323028 20550 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5800 JOHNSTON DAVID S Or Current Owner, APN 50323053 20616 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5831 FITZSIMMONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 51709018 14611 BIG BASIN WY E SARATOGA, CA 95070 TOSCO MARKETING CO DC17 Or Current Owner, APN 50324034 P.O. BOX 52085 PHOENIX, AZ 85072 PAYNE GEORGE M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50324050 15940 ROCHIN TR LOS GATOS, CA 95032-0000 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Or Current Owner, APN 50324057 PO BOX 6000 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658- 6000 BLOXHAM FAMILY LP Or Current Owner, APN 50324060 14610 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 ~~~~~.:' • 14395 Big Basin Way, Saratoga Station and pump island /canopy viewed from the intersection of Big Basin Way and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. • 14395 Big Basin Way, Saratoga Existing Front-side Sig~age (reading Food Mart with logo); and existing Left-side Signage (to be relocated to new south facade enclosing the existing alcove) • • ~.. X W F a o Q a w w Z H O Q~ Q ~~ X Qd w ¢O ~ \ z ~~ ~ ~~ ~,~ ~ ~- ~~ ~~~ ~ NP ~~~ .. ox w~ m~ ~ gz ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~ } ~~o. ''SS'' O LL FN F N g g gg 1mS [i~di_dd ~ '~ ~$ ~~~2~ .. J • W Q r w U~ ~< ~ s Q m d F- ~, w~ m ~ J W a S~ 3' 8 Q 8 Z; \J~' ~~ ti~~~ ~~ ~~ ,.. ti o n ~o ~z w~ ~ a cn w> r UwF- o w ~~ u~ Ow~Z ~ ~ ww~ mN0 >~n~ ~¢n~ Z¢Z p O U~dw .. .. LQwj v m aoac~ \ \ ~mc~o nt_~n 4~ ~ ~~ ~< _. ~? ._. __ ~~ ~, 8 Qp ~ Y ~1 > ;` '; h •: ~~',•: •:•?: ii :' ~ ;:.:e`E: :~F ., ' u ~~ ~ \~~~. ~P P~~ ~0 ~~ w F-- O ui ~-- 0 Q O w Q z Q 0 Q Q wv oti ~s trooai b/ot ,, ., ~. ~~4`Y04001\ti~O~~JU~3f'0?Jd~\ ~ • w Q~ w U~ ~~ Q W? S J ~ w __ ____ ___ J 7 / / 7 7 ~ ~ ~ ~\ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j i ~ ~ ~-~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ //~ ) ~ ) ~ ) y )`----\3 s R~° o~~ Utri ~ ~[f O w j mN0 4 J ~ ~QOF--\ ~ ~Z ~¢w\ 7' W ¢O¢U\ \ ~ n~cnOn ~J I .b/I L ~~ ~~~~ W ~V Vl ? WV Ob ~6 b00L/b/Ot SOCJ'b04001 \b4'0000\103!'Oad~\ J ,, ,. , ~.. ' ~ • t _ ~ y~ F 4 ~I m~pp Tx ^! N N ti U~ YS I ~~ I 4 a ~ w O ~ 8~ w w ~~++ F- p wg fn Q ~ aQ ~ w ¢O rl. n h .Q 0 T i m i I h O 1 ry pF~ J J ]~ S O Y ~' o {y~ E ul ry 7 Q Y n v O h _~ w Q ~ w U= ~~ ~ F- ~ w Q ~ w ~ J N W L ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ t u Q a a~ a I II 4 p ~ ~ i~ ~z wrc U ~ cn w >- T U~~ pW~~ `n O w>? '- ¢ cn ww~ ENO } V7 F- ~Qnl p O Law .. .. ~ w j \ \ a°Q~ n~~~ wv on s noon/~/c~ soa nonoo~~nsoooo~io3road~~ o • Q ~ W ~ ~ O ~ O ¢ w w H p w `L O Q~ ~ Hw ~w ¢ O W Q WU F Q Q W J W O n ~ °w oZ ~~ Ua~ U~~ ~ °> L ~~ ~ ww~ mNO y~F ~aoi 0 0 ~~aw .. ._ ?~wj ~ ~ a~a~> \ \ n~~O ~~ ~~ . _ n _ n ~~ ~~ r ~ o ~~ ~ 3° ~ ~ F O < <~ ~ki O~ I~ 0~ ~ f- O ~~ u JI M~ ~~ ~ M1 < ~l~ ~~ 04o ~1 ~ ~ ~~ 7 d~ O ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ 0.< pp~~ ~88 ~~~ ~` ~ ' ~ ~ ~~ O ~e Vii` ~~~ N 0. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ y~~ ~~~~~ N ~ ~ ~ tl Iry TYI ~ ;~ n n ~ ~ M h h qNq X X X .o-,fi ~ ul r v c ~ ~ .. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~o~~ ; ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ~ „~ . ~: ~~ ~ - - ~ ~~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ : - ,. $~ ~< ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ X~ ~~ s~ W~ 04 6 b00Z/4/Ol S0C1 404001 \Y4'0000\L03f ONd~\ ;) r CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani ABSENT: None STAFF: Planners Livingstone, Vasudevan &r Welsh, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 22, 2004. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 7, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL R[GHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION #04-112 (397-24-032) WOOD, 14161 Douglas Lane -The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence is 5,907.5 square feet. The floor area of the first floor and garage is 4,575.5 square feet and the second floor is 1,332 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet 6 inches. The lot size is approximately 20,080 square feet and the site is zoned R-120,000. (CI-IRISTY OosTi:RHOUS) (The Applicant has requested that this Item be continued to the meeting on October 27, 2004) (APPROVED TO CONTINUE 7-0) 2. APPLICATION # 02-281 (503-31-067) - SHENG, 21794 Heber Way; -Request Design Review Approval and Variances for the setbacks to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 6,483 square feet, which includes the 726 square foot three car garage. The gross lot size is 6.06 acres and zoned Hillside Residential. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) (The Applicant has requested that this Item be continued to the meeting on November 10, 2004) (APPROVED TO CONTINUE 7-0) APPLICATION #04-208 (386-10-049) ATEstT Wireless (applicant), YASUTO (property owner), 17777 Saratoga Avenue; -The applicant requests Use Permit approval to install six cellular panel antennas on an existing monopole. The proposed antennas will be attached to the monopole at a level below the existing antennas operated by another wireless carrier, Verizon. Related equipment will be situated on the property adjacent to Verizon's existing equipment. This will be a co-location site with not only Verizon, but also Sprint PCS, which has a pending application with the City for proposed antennas and equipment. Sprint's application has been scheduled for a duly noticed public hearing on September 22, 2004. The site is located in the P-A (Professional and Administrative Office) zoning district. (LATA VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 7-0) 4. APPLICATION # 04-034 (397-08-091) OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT INC., 15145 Sobey Road; -Request Design Review approval to construct a 25.5 foot high single story structure on a vacant lot with an average slope of 16%. The size of the home is 5,677 square feet with an 845 square foot basement. The lot size is 46,082 square feet and the parcel is zoned R-1, 40,000. (ANN WELSH) (APPROVED 7-0) 5. APPLICATION # 04-227 (503-10-049) - DOUGHERTY, 20125 Orchard Meadow Drive; - Request Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 7,960 square feet, which includes the 498 square foot garage. The gross lot size is 9.15 acres. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 7-0) 6. APPLICATION #04-268 (503-24-051) PHAN, 14435 Big Basin Way; The appellant (Nancy Duyen Le Phan) requests the Planning Commission overturn an Administrative Decision to disallow an expansion of an existing Personal Services Business (Daisy Beauty Studio) in the CH-1 Zoned District to include massage. (TOM SULLIVAN) (APPEAL APPROVED 5-2, HUNTER ist UHL OPPOSED) COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Special Meeting on September 1, 2004 and Regular meeting on September 15, 2004 - E-mail from Ivan Burgos ADJOURNMENT AT 9:20 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, October 27, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@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). Certificate of Postingof Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on October 7, 2004 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, October 12, 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, OCTOBER 13, 2004 • ROLL CAU. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #04-034 - OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT Item 4 15145 Sobey Road 2. Application #04-208 - AT Est T WIRELESS Item 3 17777 Saratoga Avenue 3. Application #04-268 - PHAN Item 6 14435 Big Basin Way 4. Application #04-227 - DOUGHERTY Item 5 200125 Orchard Meadow Drive 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 encouraged for the applicant and/or owner to be present 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, October 13, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 22, 2004. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 7, 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). • CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. APPLICATION #04-112 (397-24-032) WOOD, 14161 Douglas Lane -The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence is 5,907.5 square feet. The floor area of the first floor and garage is 4,575.5 square feet and the second floor is 1,332 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet 6 inches. The lot size is approximately 20,080 square feet and the site is zoned R-120,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) (The Applicant has requested that this Item be continued to the meeting on October 27, 2004) 2. APPLICATION # 02-281 (503-31-067) - SHENG, 21794 Heber Way; -Request Design Review Approval and Variances for the setbacks to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 6,483 square feet, which includes the 726 square foot three car garage. The gross lot size is 6.06 acres and zoned Hillside Residential. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. (]oxN LIVINGSTONE) (The Applicant has requested that this Item be continued to the meeting on November 10, 2004) 3. APPLICATION #04-208 (386-10-049) ATBzT Wireless (applicant), YASUTO (property owner), 17777 Saratoga Avenue; -The applicant requests Use Permit approval to install six cellular panel antennas on an existing monopole. The proposed antennas will be attached to the monopole at a level below the existing antennas operated by another wireless carrier, Verizon. Related equipment will be situated on the property adjacent to Verizon's existing equipment. This will be a co-location site with not only Verizon, but also Sprint PCS, which has a pending application with the City for proposed antennas and equipment. Sprint's application has been scheduled for a duly noticed public hearing on September 22, 2004. The site is located in the P-A (Professional and Administrative Office) zoning district. (LATH VASUDEVAN) 4. APPLICATION # 04-034 (397-08-091) OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT INC., 15145 Sobey Road; -Request Design Review approval to construct a 25.5 foot high single story structure on a vacant lot with an average slope of 16%. The size of the home is 5,677 square feet with an 845 square foot basement. The lot size is 46,082 square feet and the parcel is zoned R-1, 40,000. (ANN WELSH) 5. APPLICATION # 04-227 (503-10-049) - DOUGHERTY, 20125 Orchard Meadow Drive; - Request Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 7,960 square feet, which includes the 498 square foot garage. The gross lot size is 9.15 acres. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) 6. APPLICATION #04-268 (503-24-051) PHAN, 14435 Big Basin Way; The appellant (Nancy Duyen Le Phan) requests the Planning Commission overturn an Administrative Decision to disallow an expansion of an existing Personal Services Business (Daisy Beauty Studio) in the CH-1 Zoned District to include massage. (TOM SULLIVAN) COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Special Meeting on September 1, 2004 and Regular meeting on September 15, 2004 - E-mail from Ivan Burgos ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, October 27, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance 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 ctclerh@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). Certificateof Postingof Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on October 7, 2004 at the of fice of the City of Saratoga,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning,@saratoga.ca.us • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting I~ Chair Garakani called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zutshi Absent: Schallop and Uhl Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous, Assistant Planner Ann Welsh, Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan and Public Safety Officer Steve Prosser PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of September 8, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of September 8, 2004, were adopted with a correction to page 6. (5-0-2; Commissioners Schallop and Uhl were absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 16, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR o~~ There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 2 *** PUBLIC BEARING -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #04-178 (510-09-018, 044, 043) HEIKALI, 14410 & 14416 Big Basin Way and 20506 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to renovate the facades of the above noted contiguous commercial structures. The facade changes include raising the parapet, painting and resurfacing, removal of existing ornamentation on the structures and replacement and opening up of windows and doors. The property is located in the CH-1 zoning district and is designated CR-Commercial Retail in the General Plan. Continued from meeting on August 25, 2005. (ANN WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for facade renovations for three commercial properties located on the southeast corner of Big Basin Way and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. • Described the parcels as consisting of 16,180 square feet with a 9,227 square foot first floor and a 3,172 square foot second floor. • Explained that the applicant proposes to reduce the second floor to 2,608 square feet. • Reminded that this item was before the Commission at its meeting of August 25, 2004, and was continued to allow the applicant to address a number of concerns raised by the Commission. • Reported that a Commission site visit was held with the applicant and project architect on September 7`h and that the current proposal reflects the input received at that time by the Commission. The revised proposal retains much of the characte~ of the original structure while the flower shop building will create a focal point at the corner. The facades on Big Basin Way and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road have been refreshed but still retain the'~i Corinthian Corners flavor with a mixture of open glass and divided lights. There are two options as far as landscaping proposals. One keeps the original proposal while the second requires the elimination of one parking place to help in the creation of a plaza feature. • Stated that staff is recommending approval of this application with the addition of a drinking fountain, the screening of mechanical equipment, the lowering of skylights so they are not visible and the merging of the three parcels. Commissioner Hunter asked if it would be possible to match the City's benches used throughout the Village. Director Tom Sullivan replied sure. Commissioner Hunter questioned the proposed plant for the planters, expressing disappointment that there were no flowers. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that it is a pretty shrub, while it does not have flowers, and seemed appropriate. Commissioner Zutshi asked staff if the applicant is agreeable to the Conditions and questioned the loss of one parking spot. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 3 Assistant Planner Ann Welsh explained that it was felt that the addition of a plaza equals a real amenity. With the removal of approximately 500 square feet from the second story, staff can support the elimination of one space to achieve that plaza. Commissioner Hunter asked about the parking behind the center. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that there are four to five spaces there but that access in and out can be a problem, as cars would block others. Shop owners and employees would best utilize this parking. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the proposed color board remains as it was at the last hearing. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied no. They applicant plans to keep the same colors as are cunrently on the buildings. Commissioner Nagpal asked about tree protection during construction. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that the trees are street trees. It could be conditioned that these trees be wrapped or fenced. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Steve Borlick, Project Architect: ~ • Thanked the Commission for its site visit. ~ • Said that the buildings will retain a lot of redeeming architectural character. • Assured that they are in agreement with the report and conditions. • Said that it is their intent to go with the same benches as are used in the Village Design Guidelines. • Explained that the plant they have proposed is study and drought tolerant. • Said that there are four parking spaces in the rear but they have no real access as cars must be blocked when using all four, with no in and out opportunities. These spaces are likely best used by employees or store owners. • Informed that the idea for a plaza feature came late. They believe that the inclusion of street furniture and plantings will help enhance the street appearance. Commissioner Hunter reported that she is thrilled with the project. It is lovely and will be very nice. Commissioner Nagpal thanked the applicants for their site visit, expressing appreciation for their time. Chair Garakani pointed out that the addition of a fountain was Commissioner Nagpal's idea. Commissioner Rodgers thanked the applicants for taking time to come out and stated that this is a project that the community will be proud of. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that this project no longer has a strip mall appearance. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Zutshi said that the applicants have done a good job. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 4 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #04-178) to allow the renovation of the facades of commercial structures located at 14410 & 14416 Big Basin Way and 20506 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road with the added conditions to wrap the street trees, the change the benches to iron and wood and to require that employees park in the rear spaces, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #04-233 (397-29-012) California Farmers' Mazkets Association, 20300 Herriman Avenue: Request approval for a Conditional Use Permit allowing the California Farmers' Markets Association to continue holding a Farmers' Mazket on the pazking lot area of Sazatoga High School on Saturdays yeaz round. The previous Temporary Use Permit (#98-005) expired on April 3, 2004. (STEVE PROSSER) • Public Safety Officer Steve Prosser presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicants aze seeking approval of a Use Permit to allow the California Farmers' Mazkets Association to continue to operate every Saturday at Sazatoga High School throughout the yeaz with a maximum of 40 farmers. • Reminded that the original Use Permit (#98-005) expired in April 2004. • Said that the previous hours of operation were from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. The proposed hours aze from 8 a.m. (for set up) through 2 p.m. (when clean up is completed). Originally, the applicants had requested a set up time beginning at 7 a.m. but operator Doug Hayden has agreed to the 8 a.m. set up start time. • Stated that a Condition of Approval has been included that restricts this use to 40 agricultural vendors. • Reported that Mr. Hayden is requesting approval for 56 vendors total, 40 agricultural and 16 non- food vendors. • Said that when Mr. Hayden met with School District representatives, they requested a maximum of 50 (40 agricultural and 10 non-agricultural). The applicant is required to contract with the Sheriff's Office to have one deputy on site between the hours of 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. With these conditions, Saratoga High School will support this continued operation and enter into a lease agreement for the use of the parking lot. • Explained that Mr. Doug Hayden is present and wishes to address the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hunter expressed confusion as to why the City has any involvement with the uses on school site that normally falls under the jurisdiction of the School District. Director Tom Sullivan explained that State Law is regarding education uses of school sites. This is not an educational aspect of the school site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 5 Commissioner Zutshi asked if there is any compliance history or citations issued for this use. Mr. Steve Prosser re lied that there was no ability to enforce time limits with the original Use Permit. P Commissioner Hunter asked if there is any indication of problems from this use. Stated that this Farmers' Market is an incredible asset to the community and that having a police presence at the Farmers' Market issuing tickets would be a problem for her. Mr. Steve Prosser said that there are parking limitations on this site. People tend to park in the residential neighborhood and create noise impacts on the residents there. Reminded that additional uses of the high school on Saturdays include swim meets and PAL football games. Commissioner Hunter asked if there have been complaints from just one person or more. Mr. Steve Prosser replied that he received one written complaint but that a number of residents had addressed issues directly with the school principal. Commissioner Nagpal questioned whether the market could be moved to Sunday when there are fewer conflicting activities. Mr. Steve Prosser said that the school has no problems continuing with the market on Saturdays as long as emergency vehicles can park on the easement. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Doug Hayden, Representative, California Farmers' Markets Association: • Said that he has been with California Farmers' Markets Association since 1991, which operates 30 markets in the Bay Area. • Stated that the Saratoga Farmers' Market is one of the best in California with a great variety, well balanced and well attended. There are 40 farmers and 16 non-agricultural vendors. Some drive 150 miles to get here. They bring a lot of fabulous food to the community. • Stated that this is a jewel and that it is important to extend open arms to these farmers. • Assured that they want to be good neighbors and that they react fast to any problems. • Agreed that they are now located closer to residential uses than they used to be before the construction began on the performance center. • Stated that the 8 a.m. start time is a great idea. • Said that 56 total is a good number and it goes down in winter to about 40 during the off-season. • Informed that if one farmer leaves the market, they would replace that farmer with a like vendor to assure the same variety of product. • Said that there is no problem with site access for emergency vehicles and that an on-site officer is not necessary. This is a very safe environment. • Pointed out that the new principal of Saratoga High School has yet to see the market in operation. • Explained that their San Francisco market does not require an officer and nothing bad happens there. • Said that they have entered into an agreement with the church across the street to use their parking and they would display A-frame signs to direct patrons to that option. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 6 • Suggested that it might be possible to also coordinate with the swim teams to have them drop off their athletes and park vehicles in this church lot. • Said that there are many options before it becomes necessary to incur the $250 to $300 weekly expense to have an officer on site. • Reminded that they have a professional manager on site, Mr. Frank Nichols, who is adept at handling problems. • Informed that many fundraising activities occur during the market, including football supporters and that the school receives $75 per market day for an annual total of approximately $3,500. • Assured that they leave the site cleaner than when they arrived. • Pointed out that the parking problems are temporary during construction when much of regular parking space is being utilized to stage construction materials. Lots of the parking problems would go away once construction is complete. • Said that they have eliminated the practice of having farmers making early drop offs and previously would not allow anyone on site until 7 a.m. The site manager will be on site at 6:15 a.m. to stop anyone from entering the school site before 8 a.m. now under the new conditions of operation. • Stated that they will do everything possible to make this work. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Doug Hayden when the vendors reached 56. Mr. Doug Hayden replied about 18 months ago. Chair Garakani asked if the on-duty officer is required just for traffic control. Mr. Steve Possner said that the need is both for traffic control and pudic safety. Commissioner Zutshi asked whether musicians are a part of the market. Mr. Doug Hayden replied no. Commissioner Zutshi said that parking is bad when attending swim meets. Commissioner Hunter questioned whether it might not make sense to open up the back of the site for parking for swim meets. Mr. Doug Hayden: • Replied that he was not sure how much parking was available there. • Advised that he is upset with some of the restrictions imposed. • Opined that this is one of the best things to happen to Saratoga and that complaints are coming from one person only. • Pointed out that this is a community-wide function. • Said that there is always music at the Cabrillo Farmers' Market, which is fun. • Stated that he is sorry not to see music at this market. • Assured that they care about this community. • Suggested that a police presence at the market would be a real downer for attendees. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Doug Hayden what is the peak season for the markets. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 7 Mr. Doug Hayden replied it is generally ending about now. it runs from mid May to the end of September. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Doug Hayden if he could support a maximum of 56 vendors during peak season with a reduction to 40 during non-peak season. Mr. Doug Hayden said that the market runs at about 75 percent capacity during the winter months. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Doug Hayden if he is comfortable with a maximum of 40 vendors in the off-season. Mr. Doug Hayden replied that he would hate to have to kick someone out. Forty-five would be a more comfortable number during off-peak season. Mr. Hugh Leo, 13785 Lexington Court, Saratoga: • Advised that he lives across the street from the high school and submitted a letter opposing the Farmers' Market. • Pointed out that the church that is being proposed for alternate parking has a driveway that is directly behind their houses. • Said that there are a variety of conflicting facts. • Pointed out that Mr. Hayden refused an 8 a.m. start time in May. • Stated his belief that Mr. Hayden has no intention to comply with the conditions of approval as evidenced by recent events and the fact that the current size of a market is larger than approved. Mr. Hayden signed an agreement with the high school with a li ~t of 45 vendors, while the original Conditional Use Permit permitted a maximum of 40. Mr. Hayden has ignored that standard and cannot be relied upon to comply. • Declared that there must be an enforceable standard set for this use. • Suggested the denial of this application. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Leo why flexibility could not be allowed. Mr. Hugh Leo said that he is not adverse to the Farmers' Market in concept but just wanted to point out the pattern of behavior in ignoring agreements for operations. Non-compliance has been the pattern. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Leo what he would like the Commission to do. Mr. Hugh Leo replied deny this request or compel compliance with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Leo how he felt about the idea of having law enforcement on site during the market hours. Mr. Hugh Leo replied that tonight is the first he has heard of that idea. Stressed the importance of compliance with any established conditions. Ms. Mercedes De Luca, 13785 Lexington Court, Saratoga: • Reported that she has resided in the community for 20 years and that this is the first time she did not feel happy to live in Saratoga. • Said that she used to love attending the Farmers' Market when it was held downtown. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 8 • Advised that she has resided in this home since 1993 and that now there is more and more noise. • Said that she feels like she is like a "frog in the pot." • Informed that trucks pull into the lot in the middle of the night. • Reminded that for working people, Saturdays are the only morning to sleep in. • Added that it is difficult to have friends over on Saturday since there is no street parking available as a result of the activities at the school. • Suggested that it may be time for another part of the community to take over hosting the Farmers' Market. • Reiterated that she too enjoys a good Farmers' Market but that having it across the street is an unfair burden to this part of the community. Commissioner Hunter asked if Lexington Court is closer to the church. Ms. Mercedes De Luca said that theirs is the first street. Commissioner Hunter asked if issues have improved since the market was moved to the other side of the school. Ms. Mercedes De Luca said maybe for them but not for others. Commissioner Hunter asked about the impacts of the PAL football activities. Ms. Mercedes De Luca said that this too is a problem She added that she loves living here. De Luca if she has a roblem as lon as unloadin does not Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Mercedes p g g begin until 8 a.m. Ms. Mercedes De Luca said that this time limitation only matters if it is actually enforced. Some vendors arrive earlier. Said that her family likes to sleep in later on Saturdays. She added that there are already impacts from the church on Sundays but that they knew that when the purchased next to a church. However, they never anticipated a Farmers' Market in the neighborhood when they moved in. Mr. Michael Herne, 14043 Oak Hollow Lane, Saratoga: • Said that his issues are noise and traffic impacts. • Said that the operation of a school is generally out of the City's control and that the high school is pushing the envelope of the use of this facility for uses such as a Farmers' Market. • Suggested that the school must be a good neighbor and balance the rights of the neighborhood. • Stated that he would love a start time of 10 a.m. • Assured that he is not against the Farmers' Market but that a lively dialog must occur about the impacts of the market on this local neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that by issuing a Conditional Use Permit the City has the opportunity to establish an envelope for operations. Asked what conditions Mr. Herne might propose to help alleviate problems. Mr. Michael Herne: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 9 • Replied that a later start time after 9 a.m. as it would be nice not to have operations in the early morning hours. • Pointed out that on Sundays there are games on this campus all day. • Suggested that there is no reason to have any vendors except for those selling vegetables. • Said that he is not personally affected by traffic but rather just noise impacts. • Said that having a dialog about impacts is important and that noise is a problem. Commissioner Hunter reported that she lives near a cemetery that has multiple blowers in operation each Thursday. Ms. Pamela Chang, 20325 Herriman Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she is a pazent of children at this school and supports having a Farmers' Market in the community. • Suggested that there are too many activities on campus on Saturday. • Said that one expects educational events on a school campus while a Farmers' Mazket is not an educational activity. • Said that as there are lots of high schools in the azea, it may be time to have other schools host the Farmers' Market. Mr. Doug Hayden: • Reported that Mr. Leal was never a part of the discussion with Principal Scully and that the agreement entered into was for farmers, limiting the allowable number to 40. • Explained the difference between non-egg and egg section of a farmers' Mazket. Non-agricultural vendors are allowed to participate in a Farmers' Mazket per State,law if they are directly marketing to consumers. ', • Assured that they want this to be a Farmers' Market and that the number of non-egg vendors would not get any bigger than it is now. Chair Gazakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 and asked staff if the Use Permit is enforceable. Mr. Steve Prosser said that noise standazds are enforceable. The Use Permit can be brought back before the Commission for revocation if necessary. Chair Garakani asked what if the number of vendors was to exceed that allowed by the Use Permit. Mr. Steve Prosser said that that too is an issue that could be considered for revocation. Chair Garakani asked whether any complaints received would automatically be referred to the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the City's standard is to achieve compliance rather than imposing punishment. Staff generally would let the applicant and school district know if there are problems with their operation and give them a chance to correct those issues. Commissioner Hunter: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 10 • Stated that she feels strongly that a Farmers' Market is a fantastic advantage to the community and helps to build a sense of community. • Suggested that perhaps permitted parking might be a solution for the street parking problem for the neighborhood. • Added that the school can be asked to open up more parking on site. • Said that she felt it is a shame to limit the size of the market and that she personally would like to add live music to the mix. • Informed that she is not in support of the suggestion to have an officer on site as there is no demonstrated need for such a step and having the officer there simply confuses the matter and takes away from the fun of the event. Commissioner Zutshi: • Stated that she too likes the Farmers' Market but that she also agrees with the neighbors' right to be able to sleep in one day a week. • Suggested that it would be important to limit the number of vendors and stick to the agreed upon timing for the market. • Agreed that there is no need for a police presence and that having an officer would take away the fun. • Stressed the importance of maintaining the necessary emergency access and having the market manager ensuring that blocking of the fire lane does not occur. Chair Garakani asked where this fire lane is located. Mr. Steve Prosser replied that it is the area closest to the Farmers' Market. Chair Garakani pointed out that they are using cones now to block that area off. Commissioner Rodgers: • Advised that she has always lived near a Farmers' Market and that having a Farmers' Market available is important to her and to the community. • Added that she loves getting fresh vegetables as well as the opportunity to see her neighbors, which she likes to be a part of. • Stated that she understands the neighborhood issues. • Said that the market benefits the community so much but that she hates to ask this neighborhood to accommodate the community but that she is asking these neighbors to try and live with this Farmers' Market. • Said that parking issues must be addressed and that perhaps signs reading "Neighborhood Parking" could be posted. • Said that she is not sure about the 8 a.m. start time but she knows she does not like the idea of having an officer on site, a requirement that she is not yet prepared to burden the applicant with. • Said that she is not happy restricting the number of vendors as a variety and balance of vendors are needed for this market to succeed. • Reminded the neighbors that if problems arise, they can contact the Code Enforcement staff that will have the power to enforce the conditions of operation. • Stated her support for this application. Commissioner Nagpal: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 11 • Stated that she is supportive of having a Farmers' Market in the community. • Expressed her understanding for the difficulties it might bring to those who live nearby. • Suggested that the market be considered for Sundays instead of Saturdays. • Said that she supports the 8 to 9 a.m. set up time. • Agreed that a Sheriff's presence is not required. • Proposed that a total vendor number of 56 be approved from May through September and a reduced number be approved for non-peak season. Chair Garakani pointed out that the applicant has already said that the market automatically becomes smaller outside of peak season. Commissioner Nagpal said that if the issues are not called out in the conditions of approval, they are not enforceable. Commissioner Hunter said that while she agrees that no amplified music should be allowed, she is not against having live music such as a fiddler playing in the corner somewhere. Commissioner Nagpal pointed to conditions 2, 4 and 7 on page 9. Commissioner Hunter said that she advocates for allowing music from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. as long as it is not amplified nor microphones be used. Said that music helps make things joyous. Commissioner Nagpal: • Agreed with suggested text that states that amplified music is inconsistent with a Farmers' Market. • Expressed support for allowing music between 10 a.m. and closing of the market. • Supported the 8 a.m. setup time and the requirement that clean up be completed by 2:30 p.m. • Questioned whether the school must agree with the City's conditions. Commissioner Hunter stated her surprise that the City is issuing a Use Permit for a school site at all. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the original Use Permit was processed by former Director James Walgren in the 1990s. Commissioner Hunter said that the school has the option to deny the use of its site. Commissioner Nagpal restated her suggestions for music between 10 a.m. and closing, vendors on site limited to 40 maximum agricultural and 16 maximum non-agricultural. Chair Garakani said that he could support these numbers because the market has operated with that number of vendors for the last 18 months. He stressed that these numbers must not be increased. Commissioner Nagpal said that it must be clear to this applicant that non-compliance with the conditions set are grounds for termination of this Use Permit. Commissioner Rodgers said that this use could be considered at any time if problems occur. Commissioner Nagpal encouraged neighbors to report any problems to the City. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 12 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (Application #04-233) to allow the year round operation of a Farmers' Market to be held each Saturday at Saratoga High School. 20300 Herriman Avenue with the following additions: • A limitation of 40 agricultural vendors and 16 non-agricultural vendors • Clean up to be concluded no later than 2:30 p.m., • Any music will be limited to the hours between 10 a.m. and closing with the prohibition of amplified music as being inconsistent with the Farmers' Market, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop, Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #04-140 (386-10-049) Sprint PCS (applicant), Kato Yasuto (Property Owner), 17777 Saratoga Avenue: The applicant requests Use Permit Approval to extend the height of the existing monopole and install antennas. The applicant proposes to co-locate with another wireless carrier, Verizon, which has existing antennas on the monopole. Related equipment will be situated on the property adjacent to Verizon's existing equipment. The site is located in the P-A (Professional and Administrative Office) zoning district. (LATA VASUDEVAN) ~ Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow SprintPCS to extend the height of an existing 61.5-foot tall monopole to 67 feet, four inches in height including the addition of panel antennas. • Explained that this would be a co-location with Verizon Wireless. Related equipment would be located adjacent to Verizon's existing equipment. • Reported that this site is a triangular lot off Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue that borders San Jose. Access is from Sazatoga Avenue. The site includes a cellulaz pole, billboazd sign and six-foot high chain link fence. The site is also used for commercial parking. • Advised that Sprint has another cell site about a quarter of a mile away on a church site. This location will replace that site and the old site will be removed. • Informed that the purpose for the added height is to achieve a substantially increased coverage area. • Added that another pending AT&T application will be considered by the Commission at its October 13`h public hearing to be located below the Verizon antennas. • Stated that trenching through County and San Jose jurisdictions would need to occur and that the applicant is required to obtain the necessary encroachment permits for that work. • Said that the ground equipment would consist of four cabinets that will not exceed the fence height. A backup generator will be installed that would only be used in the event of a major disaster. No generator is required for this generator as it exempt from noise standards when used only for emergencies. . • Reported that the monopole is 10 years old. Three panel antennas would be added to the extension that aze 54 inches tall. The maximum height is 67 feet, four inches tall. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 13 • Stated that staff finds that there is no substantial impact on the site but also required the addition of oleanders for additional screening. A two-year landscape management agreement must be entered into. Additionally, the applicant is to remove existing barbed wire from the fencing that is prohibited per Code. • Said that one letter against this request was received on grounds of its appeazance. Said that if this were an entirely new installation, such an issue would be investigated more fully. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that there appeazs to be lots of hazardous materials (cans of paint) on site and questioned whether this material would be cleaned up. Planner Lata Vasudevan explained that she has spoken with the owner. He advised that a paint company rents space on site and periodically arranges proper disposal of waste paint off site. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Kristina Woerner, Representative for SprintPCS: • Said that this is a small extension and that there aze not a lot of visual impacts. • Reported that they would be decommissioning another site neazby once this one is installed to allow for one site to serve a larger area. Chair Gazakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use ,Permit (Application #04-140) to extend the height of an existing monopole and install new antennas for SprintPCS, co-locating with the existing Verizon Wireless antennas on this site, on property located at 17777 Saratoga Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop, Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** Commissioner Zutshi recused herself as she lives within noticing distance to this site and left the dais to sit in the audience during the hearing of Agenda Item No. 4. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #04-075 (397-15-018, 397-14-022, 397-13-030) Sprint PCS, West Valley College, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue: The applicant requests Use Permit Approval to install antennas and related equipment at the theatre building located on the West Valley College Campus. The college campus is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Several wireless carriers aze located at this site. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) • Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 14 • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the addition of three panel antennas and related equipment at the Theatre building at West Valley College. • Said that the equipment would be located within a screened enclosure and landscaped. • Described the zoning as R-1-40,000. • Reminded that there are already several carriers on this property. • Recommended approval. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Ryan Crowley, Alaris Group for SprintPCS: • Stated that this installation will be screened. • Advised that the Dean of West Valley College is available for any questions. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (Application #04-075) to install antennas and related equipment at the theatre building located at West Valley College, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, on property located at 17777 Saratoga Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal and Rodgers NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop and Uhl ABSTAIN: Zutshi Commissioner Zutshi returned to the dais following the conclusion of Agenda Item No. 4. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. S APPLICATION #04-149 (397-07-002) YEN, 15040 El Quito Way: Request Design Review Approval to add approximately 1,028 square feet to the first floor of the existing 4,232 square foot single story house for a total floor area of 5,260 square feet. The gross lot size is 57,115 square feet and zoned R-1- 40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval fora 1,028 square foot addition to the first floor of an existing residence for a total square footage of 5,260. • Explained that this is typically considered a minor addition that can be handled over the counter except for the fact that the applicant is raising the existing roofline slightly so that it is above the 18- foot height that requires Planning Commission approval. • Said that the roofing is brown slate the with a tan color. • Stated that the proposal meets Design Review findings. • Added that this is a nice design that updates this house. It includes gables and bay windows. The • maximum height is 22 feet, three inches, which is below the maximum allowed of 26 feet. • Recommended approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 15 Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the exterior color appears to be gold. Commissioner Hunter expressed concern over the details of the case history in the report. Planner John Livingstone said that the incorrect date sequence in question simply reflects a typographical error. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. Tim Yen, Applicant and Property Owner, 15040 El Quito Way, Saratoga: • Advised that they are updating a ranch style home. • Agreed that the color appears to be yellow on his color board but that is simply due to the distortion from his color printer. • Assured that his wife has a distinct taste for color. Commissioner Nagpal asked what the color actually looks like. Mr. Tim Yen replied that it is toned down. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the applicant could simply bring a color chip to staff for a final judgment call. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Commissioner Hunter stated that this is a very nice design and a beautiful property. She wished the Yens good luck. Chair Garakani stated that this is a nice secluded property. Commissioner Nagpal concurred and said that this project has been tastefully done. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #04-149) to allow an addition to an existing single-family residence on property located at 15040 El Quito Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop, Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS • There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 16 Staff response to oral communication ivy Ms. Muriel Mahrer at the August 25, 2004, Planning Commission meeting re ag rding her neighbor's house addition at 13571 Myren Drive. Director Tom Sullivan reminded the Commission that on August 25, 2004, Ms. Muriel Mahrer appeared under Oral Communications and also provided written materials. Staff was directed to prepare a written response and bring it back to the Commission. Ms. Mahrer has also provided additional written materials. Ms. Muriel Mahrer, 13571 Myren Drive, Saratoga: • Advised the Commission that she emailed comments but apologized as Chair Garakani's email was returned to her as undeliverable as she has likely mistype his email address. • Said that she wants to respond to staff's memorandum. • Said that she is concerned about the process and Codes and that what happened to her should not happen to anyone else. • Reported that she is a resident of many years and that she does not feel that she was treated in a proper manner. • Admitted that she is not an expert on dealing with planning issues but that she expects the City's staff to help her through their process. That did not happen. • Stated her belief that throughout the entire approval process misinformation was provided regarding side yard setbacks. • Said that she was unaware and found it difficult to keep up with the issues and needed more help from staff. • Reported that she now has 35 feet of her neighbor's house right outside of several of her newly remodeled house windows. • Said that citizens need more guidance when their neighbors' site i~ under expansion. • Suggested that when new construction results in a less than 20-foot setback from an existing unit that project should go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. • Informed that she had asked staff for a row of trees on the neighbor's side of the fence and said that the onus should be on that person who is constructing an addition to provide the screening. • Said that she had proposed a number of possible trees to serve as this screening, upon consultation with former Commissioner Lisa Kurasch who is a landscape professional. She invited her neighbor to come look at some trees on her property. He liked them. However, the Director had recommended Italian Cypress, which she did not feel was appropriate for this seven-foot wide side yard as they grow wide and tall and would impact her light. Therefore, staff removed the requirement for this screening landscaping. • Pointed out a different experience with another neighbor behind her. When that neighbor did an addition, she asked for screening and worked out a mutually agreeable solution. The City in that case had imposed the requirement for this landscaping. • Asked that the former policy that called for screening landscaping be reinstated. • Stated that the neighbors should have been required to put in screening landscaping to protect her privacy. Now she has four windows looking into her house. • Reported that the trees she had proposed are all very appropriate for the space available. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Muriel Mahrer if there is a reason why she did not appeal the • administrative approval for this addition. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 17 Ms. Muriel Mahrer replied that staff had told her that it would be useless to appeal as the law allows what was proposed. She said that she feels she has been damaged and does not want others to be damaged. She added that she wants something other than Italian Cypress and pointed out that a letter from Lisa Kurasch has also been provided. Ms. Lisa Kurasch: • Expressed her agreement with the comments of Ms. Muriel Mahrer. • Said that Ms. Muriel Mahrer had been very magnanimous in what she is asking for. • Suggested that the City look at what triggers there are when determining between an administrative process versus a public hearing process. • Stressed the importance of listening to the public. • Said that it can be intimidating to approach a neighbor and that a full public hearing takes that away and creates a more neutral process. • Stated that sensitivity to adjacent neighbors is important. Ms. Muriel Mahrer said that when citizens come to the Planning Department they are depending on staff expertise. She felt that way when she worked in government. This expertise should not just be provided to the applicant but also to anyone who has questions. Ms. Marjorie Attenberg, Foothill Lane, Saratoga: • Said that she has lived in Saratoga for 45 years and known Ms. Muriel Mahrer for many years. • Reported that Ms. Muriel Mahrer is a mediator and that her needs have been trampled upon by the Planning Department. • Stated that aseven-foot side yard setback is incredible to her and'ithat she cannot see the fairness in that. Commissioner Hunter asked staff whether someone who comes to the counter is given the message that an appeal is not a good idea. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Commissioner Hunter asked why more of the addition was placed on Ms. Muriel Mahrer's side than on the other side of the neighbor's house. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that this was the applicant's choice based upon the existing configuration of the house and the placement of their kitchen. She added that the right to appeal was clearly explained to Ms. Muriel Mahrer. She added that this is not a tall house. Commissioner Hunter compared this process to the project that was reviewed at a Study Session prior to this meeting. Director Tom Sullivan reminded the Commission that just two years ago the trigger points for the handling of Design Review Approvals was reviewed. A home that expands 49 percent or less is handled over the counter. A house that is enlarged by 50 percent or more is done through an administrative approval. Chair Garakani said that those approvals can be finalized if there are no complaints. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 18 Director Tom Sullivan replied that this is not what the Code says. Either the Community Development Director can elect to send it to the Planning Commission or someone can appeal the Administrative decision. Commissioner Nagpal said that the public needs to be educated on their options, both neighbors and applicants. Commissioner Zutshi reminded that noticing does occur. Chair Garakani suggested that if any complaints occur, items should come to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nagpal said that she disagreed. If they want to they can appeal to the Planning Commission. She asked what stopped Ms. Muriel Mahrer from appealing. Ms. Muriel Mahrer replied that she was told that there was not much good to appealing to the Planning Commission as what was approved was law. She added that she was unable to get a hold of the plan and that she had been unaware of how much room was available on the other side of her neighbor's property. She added that when she asked for a copy of the plot plan she was denied access and told that it was against the law to provide a copy. Commissioner Hunter asked if things have changed regarding requirements for screening landscaping. Director Tom Sullivan said that he had suggested Italian Cypress, which is commonly used in tight areas. He added that he thought the trees proposed by Ms. Muriel Mahrer were inappropriate fora narrow side yard. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there is anything that can be done at this point. Director Tom Sullivan said that the two neighbors must come to some sort of an agreement. Commissioner Zutshi said that it appears the neighbor is not willing. Chair Garakani said that he wants to be sure that a good system is in place. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there is some sort of mediation process available. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is what the appeal process is for. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Muriel Mahrer if she felt intimidated. Ms. Muriel Mahrer replied that she was counting on the expertise of staff to property direct her. Commissioner Nagpal said that the Commission does not always agree with everything that staff decides much like the Council does not always agree with everything that the Commission decides. Ms. Muriel Mahrer said that she disagrees with the staff opinion on the trees she proposed. She added that she could not get her neighbor to agree on screening. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 19 Commissioner Hunter said that the staff is very nice. She added that the process might be intimidating for a senior citizen and that consideration should be taken to explain processes slowly and completely. Chair Garakani added that if staff sees that there is a concern, they should help that person initiate the appeal process. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Muriel Mahrer about when the original notification of this project came to her. Ms. Muriel Mahrer advised that her neighbor came to her with his plans that the other neighbors had signed off on. She refused to sign and the neighbor refused to leave a set of plans with her for her review. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Muriel Mahrer if she had felt intimidated. Ms. Muriel Mahrer replied yes, very, absolutely, as she has to live next door to them. She said that she needed staff's backing to deal with them. She added that she had worked with these neighbors over the years. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that the language in the notification document be changed so that neighbors understand their right to refuse to sign off on proposed plans. Ms. Muriel Mahrer said that she wrote letters to express her concerns Commissioner Nagpal said that staff knew that there was disagreement and the information provided on appeal rights need to be strengthened. Chair Garakani said that anyone one wishing to appeal can request an application and pay the filing fee. Commissioner Hunter said that perhaps Ms. Muriel Mahrer was unwilling to pay the fee. Ms. Muriel Mahrer said that she was told there was no point in appealing. Commissioner Hunter said that this appears to be a live and learn experience. Ms. Muriel Mahrer said that she agrees but that she does not want this to happen to anyone else. She reiterated that she had expected staff to back her in dealing with the screening issue. She was intimidated as she has to live next door to these neighbors. Chair Garakani stated that everyone is the customer, not just the applicant. Ms. Muriel Mahrer said that staff was polite but just did not provide the necessary expertise. Chair Garakani asked Ms. Lisa Kurasch how she would deal with this situation if she were still on the Commission. Ms. Lisa Kurasch: Stated that the complaint must be objectified. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 20 • Said that the triggers must be looked at in the process itself and evaluate if it is enough. • Suggested an exit poll and additional training. • Added that she herself had received the same interpretation regarding the appeal process. • Advised that if Ms. Muriel Mahrer had known that there was another configuration for her neighbor's addition available, she would have appealed the decision. Director Tom Sullivan advised that hundreds of administrative design review approvals are granted each year. This is just one complaint. It is not warranted to indict the entire process. Chair Garakani said that it is okay to revisit the subject and see what can be done to help. If improvement is possible, why not. Director Tom Sullivan said that the canopy of the proposed trees would have resulted in a canopy that would be between 35 and 45 feet and therefore grow over both homes. Commissioner Nagpal said that she is hesitant to look at Code issues because of this one complaint. It may be a bit premature. Chair Garakani said that each Commissioner can review and discuss the process. Commissioner Hunter said that Ms. Muriel Mahrer is the only one to come before the Commission on this issue and the Commission should see how things go. Chair Garakani said that he would look into how to improve the system. Commissioner Nagpal said that the system is as friendly as possible and everyone has the right to appeal. That is the message that needs to be sent out. Commissioner Zutshi reminded that the notification letter mentions the 15-day appeal rights after a decision is made. Director Tom Sullivan added that the Notice of Intent also explains the process and rights. Commissioner Nagpal said that it is hard for staff to hear some of this and that this is just one case. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that the letter sent to neighbors seeking sign offs on plans be reviewed. Director Tom Sullivan said that the applicant sends out that particular letter. COMMUNICATIONS Letter from Nancy and Robb Kundtz regarding 21974 Heber Way. Director Tom Sullivan advised that a letter from the applicant for 21974 Heber Way has submitted a request for a continuance. This project pre-dates any existing staff. The applicant is requesting that their neighbors put down their requests and/or concerns in writing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2004 Page 21 Mr. Robb Kundtz, 21974 Heber Way, Saratoga: • Said that he is a 13-year resident of the City and that this applicant did not follow the City's procedures. Planner John Livingstone advised that the procedures in question were not in place when this application began its way through the system. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that the Commission's action this evening is for a continuance. The applicant has agreed to it. Planner John Livingstone said that the applicant is asking for continuance to November 10`t'. Mr. Robb Kundtz asked why the requirements for submitted applications do not apply in this case as far as requiring contact with neighbors. Director Tom Sullivan replied because those requirements had not been imposed in 1999. He added that this project would be advertised in the newspaper again and the neighborhood notification would be redone. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 2004, at N 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk C7 • • • ITEM 1 r] City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission ., FROM: Christy Oosterhous, AICP, Associate Planner DATE: October 13, 2004 RE: 14161 Douglas Lane, APPLICATION # 04-112 (397-24-032) -Wood Staff recommends that the Chairperson of the Planning Commission continue the item to the October 27, 2004 planning commission meeting to allow the applicant time to revise the project to meet the floor area regulations. • Q~®Ql. • • • ITEM 2 • • • City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission /J~~ FROM: John F. Livingstone, AICP, Associate Planner/nL. DATE: October 13, 2004 RE: 21794 Heber Way, APPLICATION # 02-281 (503-31-067) - Sheng At the September 22, 2004 Planning Commission meeting Mr. and Mrs. Kundtz requested that the proposed project on Heber Way be continued due to a conflict with their vacation that had already been scheduled. The applicant agreed to postpone the project to the November meeting. Staff recommends that the Chairperson of the Planning Commission open the item and continue it to a date uncertain. This will allow staff to renotice the project in the newspaper and send notices to the neighborhood prior to the meeting date. The item has been tentatively scheduled for November 10, 2004. Attachments 1. Letter from the neighbor 2. Letter from the applicant ~~®`~~~ 21790 Heber Way Saratoga, CA 95070 September 17, 2004 Mr. Thomas Sullivan City of Saratoga Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Sullivan: I wanted to thank you for your honesty in advising us that it was possible to request a change in date for a vaziance request meeting. We would hate to have had to cancel our Hawaiian vacation unnecessarily. During our meeting, scheduled for 9:OOAM, Thursday, September 23, we would like you to explain the changes that have occurred in your department that have allowed the Sheng's to go forwazd and get their variance request meeting scheduled before they had the required conversation with us, their closest neighbor, regarding their plans. To provide you with some background, in December 2002, the Sheng's went forward with their first request for their many variances. When John Livingstone, the planner on the job, discovered that the Sheng's and then architect had misrepresented the fact that conversations had occurred with us (it never occurred), he immediately canceled the vaziance request. He vigorously assured us that the Sheng's could not ever go forward for another request for vaziances without talking with us first. Again, this has not occurred and John's only response was that he had no response. At this point, we aze confused about the "neighbor's rights" policy that John described to us in 2002/2003 and why it was so easy for John to get the variance request canceled last time, but establish it again under exactly the same fact situation. What has changed? Our concerns about the Sheng property have not changed. The plans that Mr. Sheng's architect dropped in our mailbox last Monday show no changes to our original concerns. We recognize that as a city employee you represent both parties, we merely want to understand and get clarification on our rights. We look forwazd to meeting with you. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, ~~ ~'~ ~-: Nancy alnd Robb Kundtz :i QQ®~®~ • • ,-rw~ wv ~ cv r - RE: _ 2794 Heber War ..Application: DFt=88-047 and V-00-004 Dear Piartrlin® Commissiore It'has come to my attention that Robert and Nancy Kundtz have requested a continuance cor-ceming ourscheduled Planning Commission Meeting at 7:00 P.M. on October '13; x004.' We Have been. informed that the reason for this request is due to a t sc~eduiing'cortiflict with their vacation. plans;. i This letter is.to inform you thaf we will support this continuance. We do ask that we be placed upon the following Planning Commission Meeting in November. We hope iliac this wilf'also give Rober# -and Nancy Kurxitz the time and opportunity to provide both the. Saratoga Planning Department and myself with a list of concrete and specific items of concern with the proposed residential design as soon as possible. Mr_ and Ms. Sheng have attempted;to comply with every. possible suggestion and concern that both the City and the neighbors liave:a~oiced and will continue to consider additional reVtsior-s. In oondusiori; we support the request from Robert and Nancy Kundtz to postpone the scheduled Planning Commission Meeting review until the month of November and ask the City of Saratoga to request a written list of concerns and/or suggested revisions from Robert and Nancy Kundtz to be submitted a minimum of three {3) weeks prior to the our final .design drawing .package submittal date, so that we may have trine to review their requests and possibly revise the designs. Sincerely, ~y.~~i'j, ,~ . StewJe~N'el~son , j~ wl' $ ' "1 Nt J ~ CA. %006 r , ,~ r r ~ ~r"~t ~ Y" .e ~' ~r~ r~ • a~ r ~ ~ `~ ~ ;~ j~~-q~ ,,, •Soc (496 3713?79 dear3w~ihmcam ~ k r i '1._ct~J.l T~~°'es~~i:'~.. ,r. ,YY~.r_f ~a. .F.. ~.,a A'\ ~•.~_ r ~~' Id Wd9G:Zi bBOZ az 'daS 6LZ~-IZ~ Beb: 'ON Xt1d ~IuI I1e~aQ: WOa~ ITEM 3 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: 04-208; 17777 Saratoga Avenue Type of Application: Use Permit Applicant/Owner: AT&T Wireless Services/Kato Yasuto (property owner) Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan AICP, Associate PlanneroZ'(/~ Date: October 13, 2004 APN: 386-10-049 Department Head: _. ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _- ~ SAg. ~ ~ - ti ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~AWREACE EX ~_ ~~ ~ ~1, ~ .~ ~~D~ ~~ ~ i~ ~~ ~ i t • './~DOtiI(A D -~~~ ~ Buffer zones around kato ~ ~ 17777 Saratoga Avenue i ~ „j w khin 500 ft of 17777 Sarato0a Ave. ~S~C~LQR _ ~ t~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ 17777 Saratoga Avenue 4QU401 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 06/29/04 09/15/04 09/29/04 09/15/04 09/24/04 The applicant requests Use Permit approval to attach six cellular panel antennas on an existing monopole. The proposed antennas will be attached to the monopole 4' - 9" below Verizon's existing antennas. Related equipment will be situated on the property on a 12' by 24' lease area immediately adjacent to the billboard and monopole. This property will be a co-location site with not only Verizon, but also Sprint PCS, which submitted an application for a Use Permit for proposed antennas. The Planning Commission approved Sprint's Use Permit application on September 22, 2004. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Use Permit application with conditions by adoptin~ the attached Resolution. i ATTACHMENTS ~ 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Photo simulations 3. RF exposure report 4. Affidavit of mailing notices, public notice, and mailing labels 5. Coverage Map of Existing Sites 6. Coverage Map of Future Sites including the subject site 7. Alternate Sites Analysis prepared for AT&T Wireless Services 8. Plans, Exhibit "A." • • • ~~~~~~ . Application No. 04-208 (AT&T Wireless Services); 17777 Saratoga Avenue • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: P-A (Professional Administrative Office) GENERAL PLAN: P-A MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 10,800 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: level GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The antennas will match the color of the existing pole as shown on the submitted photo simulations. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, which includes installation of equipment cabinets and antennas on an existing monopole, 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 new construction of limited small new facilities; installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures. r~ ~J 000®03 Application No. 04-208 (AT&T Wireless Services); 17777 Saratoga Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION Site Characteristics The project site is located on a triangular lot on Lawrence Expressway and is on the edge of the city limits with two sides bordering San Jose. Access to the property is off Saratoga Avenue, over an adjacent parcel (in San Jose) also owned by the same property owner. Presently on the site are a cellular transmission pole, a billboard sign, and paint storage containers, all of which are enclosed by a six feet high chain link fence with red plastic slats and barbed wire. The remainder of the site is used for commercial parking. AT&T requests Use Permit approval for the installation of antennas and associated equipment in order to provide seamless coverage within their network of antennas. An existing and proposed Coverage Maps are attached for your reference. As shown in Exhibit A, AT&T has labeled the project site as `Bucknall and Quito Road' according to its coverage area. The subject application proposes utility trenching within a small extent of the right-of--way of the City of San Jose and County of Santa Clara (Lawrence Expressway). A condition of approval has been included in the attached resolution stating the inevitable requirement to obtain necessary permits from the other jurisdictions. • Crown Castle, an independent owner and operator of shared 'reless communications and broadcast infrastructures, owns the monopole and controls t e lease space for wireless carriers. The existing lease area is proposed for expansion to in Jude the 12' by 24' area for AT&T Wireless. According to the applicant, any paint storage containers currently placed in the proposed AT&T lease area will be moved aside on the property. As a separate matter from this application, the City's Public Safety Officer has been requested to contact the property owner of the site to ensure proper storage of paints according to applicable regulations. Proposed Equipment AT&T proposes to insta112 initial growth cabinets and four growth equipment cabinets on a concrete slab. New 6 foot high fencing will be installed to encompass the new lease area. As the elevation drawings show in attached Exhibit A, most of the equipment will not exceed the height of the existing 6-foot high fence. The proposed equipment cabinets are shown to not exceed the 6-foot height of the existing fence. Also, the applicant has indicated to Staff that the utility rack with the telco and utility cabinets can be reduced to 6 feet in height, as opposed to the slightly over 6 feet height shown on the last sheet of Exhibit A. A condition of approval regarding the height of the utility rack has been included in the attached Resolution. As such, only the GPS antenna and a short extent of the cable bridge, at the center of the entire property, will be above the fence level in order to connect to an existing port at the monopole. This is shown on the elevation drawings in Exhibit A. ~~'~004 , Application No. 04-208 (AT&T Wireless Services); 17777 Saratoga Avenue • Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over RF emissions from wireless antenna facilities. Pursuant to its authority under federal law, the FCC has established rules to regulate the safety of emissions from these facilities. The applicant has provided a cumulative RF exposure report (attached), which evaluates both the proposed and existing wireless facilities, which includes Verizon's and the yet-to be- installed Sprint PCS equipment. The report concludes that the cumulative RF energy for all three carriers, at .86% of the public exposure limit, is well below the Maximum Permissible Exposure limit established by the FCC. Proposed Antennas on Existing Monopole Three sectors of antennas - 2 antennas per sector -will be installed 4' - 9" below Verizon's antennas. As the plan, elevations and the photo simulations show, each sector extension will protrude approximately 3' - 6" from the face of the monopole. Each antenna will be approximately 51.8" tall, 10.3 inches wide and 5.5" in depth. Staff finds that the addition of the antennas will not have a substantial impact on the appearance of the site. Use Permit Findings The proposed project supports the findings for Use Permit approval; therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on the following findings: • That the ro osed location of the conditional use is in accord with the ob'ectives of P P J the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use in a location which already has another wireless carrier and will have less visually obtrusive equipment than what exists. • That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the facility will be operated under the restrictions imposed by the FCC to ensure safety with respect to limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy. • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. The site already accommodates another antenna facility and the proposal would not be a substantial visual impairment over what currently exists. Conclusion The project satisfies all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code. The antennas and associated equipment are not expected to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor are they expected to be materially injurious to properties or ~~V~~S Application No. 04-208 (AT&T Wireless Services); 17777 Saratoga Avenue improvements in the vicinity. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations • applicable to antenna facilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve use permit application number 04-208 by adopting the attached Resolution. • ., ~~~~~ • Attachment 1 C7 Q ~~o~~ Application No. 04-208 (AT&T Wireless Services); 17777 Saratoga Avenue RESOLUTION NO. . Application No. 04-208 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA AT&T Wireless Services; 17777 Saratoga Avenue (Kato Yasuto) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval to attach six cellular panel antennas on an existing monopole. Associated equipment including 2 initial equipment cabinets and 4 additional growth cabinets will be situated on the property; 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 includes the installation of equipment and panel antennas on an existing monopole 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 installation of small new equipment and facilities; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of pr of required to support said application for use permit approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-55.070: • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use in a location which already has another wireless carrier and will have less visually obtrusive equipment than what exists. • That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the facility will be operated under the restrictions imposed by the FCC to ensure safety with respect to limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy. • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. The site already accommodates another antenna facility and the proposal would not be a substantial visual impairment over what currently exists. • ~~.~~~8 Application No. 04-208 (AT&T Wireless Services); 17777 Saratoga Avenue • 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 04-208 for Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed antennas and related equipment shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", which includes plans and photo simulations, incorporated by reference. 2. The 2 initial and 4 growth cabinets shall not exceed the 6 feet height of the existing fence. 3. The top of the rack (excluding GPS unit) with the telco and electrical panels, shall not exceed 6 feet in height. 4. Applicant shall obtain necessary permits for work within the public right of way within the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara jurisdictions. 5. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, all antennas and related equipment shall be removed within 30 days of cessation of operation. S 6. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Department for Building permits. 7. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Use Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. 8. 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 be commenced within 24 months from the date on which this Use Permit became effective 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 ten (10) days from the date of adoption. Qa~~~~ Application No. 04-208 (AT&T Wireless Services); 17777 Saratoga Avenue PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of October 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission I 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 • 0010 Attachment 2 ~~~®~.1. • t ' ~ a '.._ ~ i; '?'~ ~:~ `i - - - - fit.,. x.,`' ~~f ~ -x."e e,.,..., a ~1~ ~ ~. ~ t~ { i . ~ .i T . _. _~.,c ~Ct'li?C~~E"~ tiF~ll ['a~lf IaS7~3:- ,. ~ Y t f • ~~ ~ G. 7 ~ ~~..~~~'~^''v rev. .r..~,~.•,.. ~. _ ! .' ~.:a. ~ c, ..;_-~ xi "~~ - - __ ~ acs ,~y„i ~ ... - - ,. .~ f ea_ ) C. ~ j r - <. .F. - ° ~s ~~ ~ i - ~ ~~~ _ S ~ _ ~ _{ w.: Cror+n Castle X816226 ~~ ~~ f - 5ni~toa_ a. C~ Tra ~,. ~ , ~~ ,. ~ lsAh. 386-1~9 ATRT G,tiz~~. ~~~1®~2 • • i3 AT&T ~~~®~~ ~~ Attachment 3 • ~~~~~~ AT8~T Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SNFCCA2128D) 17777 Saratoga Avenue • Saratoga, California Statement of Hammett 8~ Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of AT&T Wireless, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SNFCCA2128D) proposed to be located at 17777 Saratoga Avenue in Saratoga, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human • Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimi several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless Service Approx. Frequenc~ Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz Cellular Telephone 870 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 ted duration to radio / Occupational Limit 5.00 mW/cm2 2.90 2.85 1.00 frequency energy for Public Limit 1.00 mW/cm2 0.58 0.57 0.20 General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for . wireless services, the antennas require line-of--sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AT2128596.1 ..Il~>" SAN FRANCISCO Page 1 of 3 ~3~V®y~ AT8~T Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SNFCCA2128D) 17777 Saratoga Avenue • Saratoga, California installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon information provided by AT&T, it is proposed to mount three dualband Kathrein Scala Model AP14/17-880-1940-065D directional panel antennas on an existing 60-foot steel pole located near 17777 Saratoga Avenue in Saratoga. The antennas would b mounted at an effective height of about 49 feet above ground and would be oriented with up to 4° downtilt toward 0°T, 140°T, and 250°T. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 1,330 watts, representing simultaneous operation at 830 watts for PCS service and 500 watts for cellular service. Presently located or proposed to be located on the same pole are similar antennas for use by Sprint PCS and by Verizon Wireless, other wireless telecommunications carriers. Sprint reports that it will use three Andrew Model UMWD-06516-XDM panel antennas mounted at an effective height of about 651/2 feet above ground; those antennas would operate with a maximum effective radiated power in any direction of 1,000 watts. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that Verizon has installed Andrew Model DB844H65 directional panel antennas and operates with a maximum effective radiated power in any direction of 1,500 watts. Study Results The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground due to proposed AT&T operation by itself is calculated to be 0.0057 mW/cm2, which is 0.80% of the applicable public limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level at ground for the simultaneous operation of all three carriers is 0.86% of the public exposure limit; the maximum calculated level at the second floor elevation of any nearby • HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS AT2128596.1 - SAN FRANCISCO Page 2 of 3 V~V®~~ • Recommended Mitigation Measures Conclusion • AT&T Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SNFCCA2128D) 17777 Saratoga Avenue • Saratoga, California home' is 0.95% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. Since they are to be mounted on a tall pole, the AT&T antennas are not accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. It is presumed that AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon will, as FCC licensees, take adequate steps to ensure that their employees or contractors comply with FCC occupational exposure guidelines whenever work is required near the antennas themselves. Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station proposed by AT&T Wireless at 17777 Saratoga Avenue in Saratoga, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Authorship ~? , The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2005. This work has been carried out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. June 29, 2004 "' Located at least 160 feet away, based on aerial photographs from Maps a la carte, Inc. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO AT2128596.1 Page 3 of 3 ~~~©~ FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz) Applicable Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cmZ) 0.3 - 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 1.34 - 3.0 614 823.8/f 1.63 2.19/f 100 180/>~ 3.0 - 30 1842/ f 823.8/f 4.89/ f 2.19/f 900/ f2 180/ 30 - 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 300- 1,500 3.54~f 1.59ff ~f/106 'fj'238 f/300 f/1500 1,500 - 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 1000 ~ Occupational Exposure 100 PCS ~ ~ N~ 10 ~~ Cell o ~ 3 ~ FM ~~~~~ a °' Ca ~ 1 • ~ ~ - 0.1 Public Exposure 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105 Frequency (MHz) Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. t CONSULTING ENGINEERS FCC Guidelines SAN FRANCISCO Figure 1 ~~~®~S RFR.CALCT"" Calculation Methodology Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is defined by the distance, D, from an antenna beyond which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterns will be fully formed; the near field may exist for increasing D until some or all of three conditions have been met: 2 1) D>~ 2) D>Sh 3) D> 1.6~, where h =aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and ~, =wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: 0.1 x P power density S = 1~ X n x D xnh ~ in mW/cm2, where 6B~,~, =half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and Pnet =net power input to the antenna, in watts. The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits. Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP power density S = in mW/cm2, 4xnxD2 where ERP =total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF =relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D =distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. +~e~,, CONSULTING ENGINEERS Methodology ~' li+. SAN FRANCISCO Figure 2 ®~~®~~ • Attachment 4 • ~Q~~~~ • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, ~~, ~~ C(.,~-G:,;~~ ~ /L,u,',,~ ,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 Ciry of Saratoga -~ Planning Commission on the ~ `~ day of ~!' ~2^wi~-l/l_ 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. _~' v-; ~ ~~ i Signed • O®O®2~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 13th day of October 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday from 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. APPLICATION #04-208 (386-10-049) AT&T Wireless (applicant), YASUTO (property owner), 17777 Saratoga Avenue; -The applicant requests Use Permit approval to install six cellular panel antennas on an existing monopole. The proposed antennas will be attached to the monopole at a level below the existing antennas operated by another wi Bless carrier, Verizon. Related equipment will be situated on the property adjac nt to Verizon's existing equipment. This will be a co-location site with not only erizon, but also Sprint PCS, which has a pending application with the City for roposed antennas and equipment. SprinPs application has been scheduled for a duly noticed public hearing on September 22, 2004. The site is located in the P-A (Professional and Administrative Office) zoning district. 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 maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-o€date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Lata Vasudevan Associate Planner 408-868-1235 lvasudevan@saratoga.ca.us ~~~®2~ VELLA LEONARD J TRUSTEE ET AL O CURRENT OWNER PROSPECT RD S TOGA, CA 95070 KATO YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 1745 SARATOGA AV C SAN JOSE, CA 95129 CAMPBELL UNIONS D OR CURRENT OWNER 18900 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 PORTFOLIO REALTY MNGMT INC OR CURRENT OWNER 20380 TOWN CENTER LN 170 CUPERTINO, CA 95014 KATO YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 1745 SARATOGA AV C SAN JOSE, CA 95129 D~VIICO TIRE SERVICE INC OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 969 SAN JOSE, CA 95108-0969 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 7788 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 AGEE JOHN T & DORIS F TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12348 LOLLY DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3515 CROSS ROGER L & JEAN C OR CURRENT OWNER 18670 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3531 ~AE CHON & JOONG SIM CURRENT OWNER 18651 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3531 AL'S AUTO SUPPLY OR CURRENT OWNER 645 E MISSOURI AV PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1369 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 7788 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF QUITO PARK OR CURRENT OWNER 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE, CA 95129-5203 KATO YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 1745 SARATOGA AV C SAN JOSE, CA 95129 KATO YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 6601 OWENS DR. SUITE 250 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 SARATOGA AV BAPTIST CHURCH OR CURRENT OWNER 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE, CA 95129-5203 GEOFFREY A FARRAR TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER P O BOX 1701 CHICO, CA 95927-1701 CHO TIK-FAI & TERESA M OR CURRENT OWNER 12336 LOLLY DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3515 MATISON ROBERT C & MARY L TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 18668 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3531 RASTEGAR-PANAH MOHSSEN ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 18663 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3531 SEGALL JOHN B & REVA A TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 456 CORNELL AV SAN MATED, CA 94402-2204 KATO YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 1745 SARATOGA AV C SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SARATOGA AVE BAPTIST CHURCH OR CURRENT OWNER 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE, CA 95129-5203 KATO YASUTO TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 1745 SARATOGA AV C SAN JOSE, CA 95129 GAZZERA STEPHEN III OR CURRENT OWNER 1134 W EL CAMINO REAL MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94040 EARL JOHN A TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 9 FORRESTER LN YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 RUSSO RAY A SR TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 41057 SAN JOSE, CA 95160-1057 DESAI GITA & ANIL OR CURRENT OWNER 12324 LOLLY DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3515 PHILLIPS STEVEN M & JYH- HUA S OR CURRENT OWNER 18656 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3531 KAY IDOTA OR CURRENT OWNER 1500 EL OSO DR SAN JOSE, CA 95129 ®~~®~~ YEE ALBAN & ANGELA OR CURRENT OWNER 19746 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-4467 RUSSO RAY A SR TRUSTEE ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 41057 SAN JOSE, CA 95160-1057 GARY FILIPIC OR CURRENT OWNER 200 W MADISON ST 37TH FLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60606 BECKER DARYL V OR CURRENT OWNER 18699 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3531 UELMEN MARTHA A & GERALD F TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 18727 CABERNET DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3562 CROWN CASTLE, INT. 6620 OWENS DRIVE PLEASANTON, CA 94588 LOOS DUANE E & LISA A OR CURRENT OWNER ' 18711 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-353 DENNIS DAVID E & SHARLENE E OR CURRENT OWNER 18735 CABERNET DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3562 AT&T WIRELESS C/o Dayna Aguirre, Velocitel, Inc 4160-B Hacienda Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 • ~~~®24 • P - ..... _ ~!! . _. __ ~~ ~- ~ ~. ji~r ~:~r~, 4 prt~~acct 5pnnt ~nt~mrw, - 3 prUCx~-t'~ENf ATR7 ~r'dr?~yrh'i~; "'~°~ _ . ., ~: - - __..~, _:~.. .. ._ ~~. ,.,_ _ _ r ., _ e..~ ~ ~._ 4 `_. AT&T b~1~~~1t-a /,~ „_ _- i • M n • • ~lra qJ~ r.,.~t! `~~mut ,utf~!ntLJ ~(,~ , „ i~ i ~. i .in: •i 111 i' • • . _._ : P~ _- _ _..~. .1. ~, -..,.: . -, ` ~ ~~ - 1~• i~ ..v.. Fi Ili ..~'. .. 1 propose~ct Sprmt ent~nnas t~ro~icx~xl AT$T ~r3terrnas ~.-" ~~ Jam. ~~ ..-: J-I.J- ~~w.+'W +1.r!: ~ rwr.~ ~'~.ArV4.• ~-~-~F ~ _ arxmeP•:agwaaww AT&T tin?~~R-a ~~ ' ~ ~~ 11' •' r ~{Y I~~~Ii•. 11111111~f1 ~.~'~ .I'll' • ~~rr~~rtr.~.,•~~+, `~~nu~t ,err!<~lur:r.; I ~~! if ~~ ~'-~~~.'~ i .'~ J ~ I .i11'~ •1111 1ti `VA;t. ~" S° t n~~` ~~' ~'.t'"~ ; z ~I ~ w'^_A '~ .~.I~ "Lf~RHIL . y p, ~ I ; ,3//. Ply V PV E O ".~~ ~ T I" p ,.p v CT ~ - ~ ~ ~(p ~' 1 ~ ~ y4, J R~ ~{ 0 Cp1.10Y .~oeCi ° a~ , 0 ~ OLO ~, ~ _' ~ dg N3 E TN 'm ~II ~ ~ ~° & CASTEI-LO ~ `~y ~ a 2 F'` a i~y Loop -' ~ ~ ~ ° >w,~ $ " `~, j ~ o, N ~ g ~ ~ < L P~ ARE` pry '3 .,l ~ ~nr~~ J ~6 O~ ° ~ m v L~ > cl '!;, b 'Cn Q ~ nv aareo~ e`- "~ P`IE ~ YQ~ ~sri ~ ~`' v`` .sue ~~~ ~ _ ~ _ V ~ w o~~'~_{~(,ryfy~.L,$- ~ _.f~.°run.v p,V gE~• ~ g 1~ ~ ~ m C ~ y za a a ~" 1....' 77~ O EPRY OMEN V~ ~ T p AVE ~'~b~J( a O ~ _ Z `'h~ ~ ~ ` ~°~L v P ALT CT ~° y 4~S ~ ~~C~ O~ I'QL CT°~ ° oAIE ~~~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ "" ~ YS~ 0211 " ° ~ ° W o r ~b b z cQir ~f+' Z ~ c~~ J ._}•. O a V O `~, •1 ~ J - 0 1 w H ~ > ° o ~ iiCl }T ' f ~ `^-Y f ~ ~`''~• ( ~ .• '' A Il WAV o w 3 ~ ~ M ; ~ `' wR~ . ` yJ ~~ 1(; ~ f T EKA AVE V v '~ z ~i,~~ a .,.,.., w a KU HN16 OR ~ > k O ~ ~ j ~`~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S ~' ~ O m ST O rc y o 10 y C+ ~,Y /~~ r ELLEROS~I7R j F ~ ARN0~1 K ° ^a ~° ua '° 3l3 ` - v V per ~~//~~ V -- PRO n O ry. i vI L H C ~w a T i'~NF~• AUR RA i~ i'~= }- W N CIRO AV m a ~ S ~ DILLARA A LN DR v ~ ~ ~ . ~ tl CT ° ° r. _. - ^ ~, ~ r Q . ~i ~ d a ~` F r- n ~ O ~~, IR WA ~ ~. U ~ U j w U ~ PDR ~ ~ O ~ NRFDW DP.V~.. _- \ W ~'pEMONT AV '~. y caws < ~ o ~ ~. Q,- 7Q K ~ B~ $$ J s~~' ;J ~ ~ C r f °~Yr ~ t RY DR IF ~ 4 ~ ~ P ~ m ~~ ~ .. ~. ~Ilt m ~ W a ~ nw ° 1jb ~~. I c yo-' v~ ~ ~` ° ~ ~ '~ ° ao a °~° ~o 'n~~ m m ao ~ ~ ~ ~ Sao ~, ° 0..° ' •rgly~ i ~~ Tp CT .~ ~ { tN > 5~ ~y. d' i1i°T" TTI ,A/ PSI . R. ?•- a w '•N S4 I~~- v~'' > BEVANS DR E ~ ti ~ > . _ .._ o , ,~ • e ~; o Q ~, .gyn. _ ,~ ~~ 1 ~ LEOLA,ca ~ ~ ° ` '~~ ~ ~ ~I O RK LN 'U o ~ ABE E \G~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~R ~d~ G °~ ~7Y• 777___ ENWi D~'`~~ ~° ~'~d' W •, •aw AVF ~ ~C DV ~...-,w° RITTA}WOP~ iCi!(O~,BIIIEW Y _~,N i °~ALDEIt~T,° ~ ° ~ ~~ t~ •~ ~J VD N 6(1NV0 °~ f.)I~~Ltl ~,°° ~'~ '" LL8, ~1• D 1~~~//`~_\ ~` E ° ~,_ ~ O B NE C7 ° ° x Y/ O pia-~S'r ;~ WAV A 9 VE -. __ t~ rc ~° ,wn ^, o,a W S D ~ 13015AdFP.~j. o _ _ ^ EAU°: 1L~ ..~ a o 3g~~~°~° Y4 ~ 1,OS O PLOP P p ~ o i F~ ~1 Ri 8 ~ U m ~.7 w ~ ~' _, ~1 ~ a ~{ 1 ~ ~~ ~ - - r1. ~ O -q71 `~ ~ ~ ~ 0P5 .n ~ ~ ~~ . .~ rya x ~ 0 w .}~ • . ~- J ~ D a~< _ w ' 7 l O ~ h y o 3 ~ ~. r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _., 3r. J IIOyyJtg ?~ o m ? o ~ ~ c 6 p2 J on in o ~ o • ~ ~ - _ - -_ C a w LL ~ c?LLa° ~ ~ _ ~ ~2 a N ~ l,~ o ~! - +e,. 5 r y. 0 ~~ ~ :. ,`~ ... ,}T' zW K ~ ~ TM~ :' RHIL ^ 4, ~+ ~ ,. ~+~• jfj~~ W c AVE ~~ m ^~ II ~ Illy( 4 MOUTH cL ~~Y ~ ~ ~PC ~~ ~ ~~d~U t ~ "~" .. b J ~ ~ J 0 YP '~. ~ "~ J g Ol0 RD dO ~ ~ ~ 1 v . '~• .~ ~ ~ ~ d _. N3 E B ~ .m da O ~ ~~ CASTfl-LO ~~ ~ g ~R 7 2 i ~ Loop ~ E ~( -.. P~ AV„ \ - '~ ~ dp ~i. °~1 ~ ?7 ~" ~~\ ~ ° rv'~ s`~ r ~r~ s '~~~ R ~ ~ ° , I~ w ,> G P~ 76 0 ~ J °W Dy -0.0~~ `N a+ A`>E a r ~ > _ °--T~,.. a ~b ~ Cf- L 6T ~ ~ nb Dare ~ ~ P`k ~ K~ \S~' VE J'A O¢,c`` ~ , .ArS~' rw ~~ s _~ rL PL `sCT o "•~, ~ ~_ a da ., w ~ ~ V ~ 3 1~ E > .. < < \ ~ dp ERRY OLEH `E --_.-- tA~ -'~ a ~ -"c& • c~L OALT CT ~o ~ ~~j c ~ ALE f R y g 6SE~ EN CT ,y . t ¢ O ~, I o L, ~ y~y ~1 /- U ~ H l ~ > z 3 o ao tl21 • ., ~~ ~`' 4 "j "' L.~ ~~ rw A Il WAY p ~ w add@f~~~~ 3 RIAR W~ i ~ ~ „~ < KU NIS DR N Q k d0 Q b~ W ° `~6'°( T EKA AVE -nbb z ~ ° tld ~ ,~ i] ~/ ELIEROSE DR w ~ m ~ARNO<¢~1J~Y~ St - _ O rc < "~~pqc~ ff i lOb ~ ~if N ~CIROAV a Um DILLAR DIC7J,~ f~E' a O ~ °-41• YLN. ~~y S~ .~ i 6313 - ~~^~'h L ~ r I- N r ~ w µ ///WRiii~~MMM DR a < '~ w ~ f Y1 °Jii I CT ^8~b AUR RA \ t • N ~ ~ k a a ~7 F a ~ p ~ f. IR WA Iprl -~ }~ ~ ~p ~ ALN U U j W U~ V N REDVK D A~ .' ( """TTT AAA "n _ ~\tl " 1 ~ r CASREMONT A y < > - 1 i ~ ~ ~ 7 °L °4 w - CJ" o ~9 < Ci u~i I ~~;^ 8 ~ ti CN Pl ~ "~ < ~ ~ ~ X164 p ,.J° ~ C ~ : KE Rr DR ~ ~ < 4 < LN U ~ v ° ° F < ~ u _ .. ~ Iw m . ~ ~ ~ rc a w a- - o SL ~- ~ ` ~fl+y`Irj ~J~ ~ L~'~S p ~ ° (N 1 J,.,. ~EPp ~iy ~' 3 .J~ °~ aO M3~ ~ p~ Z "' to (~ > "~L..n :~~ o 3nb ~, ~ ~ X ~ ~ a 3 0 - I b yyb ' ° ~ ~ ~ ~ tr "a o ~ , o ADRE ° ~,y ~ 3~' ~ "1 W ~Q/~~ ` ~ $' aD ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ff RINCE sT Z ~ ~ ~~ O O , - o m /V ~ /~ i Ng p~TA CT q .~ ~ N ~ ` ~ " ~N jvRn ~s ,,yg _ ° ° } J ~ O } ~ BEVANS DR GULL a"1Y ~O rc ~ NI,Wp~ ~~r^, ~ < Nl tlO1N3B > !N' ~'~ T~ 1 ~ ~ B ~ ° (, p r," ~ p bG~ ~ ~ o pj~ ~~ o~~ c, ' ~~s .~~-~~9~eM~~ ``~b'y ~ ~ lttin '- p ~ ~ '4{~ j S ~Cb a F H "w UYN/JN ~F• ~gg~ ^° / L • ~ b lEOURT° ~ ~ ~ ' -•Np~~ Y 3 _ ~~9~~ ~ ~ S' 'M ~ ~5 ~ ^° ~1b~lo ~~~~ ~ !!! ^^,, ,/~ J ! IA W N RK ~N 2 °° - p. ~ _ R EEN CT i,'~ < o° ~~ r ~ ~~ ° ~ J w , ~ Gi 1y ELKA AV ~d G ~~ ~2 r Y ~•, u:' QO ~~ ~ N N ~ k ~ ~ ~Vr -5 1 ~ ARDEN D DR 1 dy z ~ U c;_ ~ I' ' rt AVE " ~7/ ~ DY t!-•. ,tu, RITTANr( _ BUCKTHORNE W V ~ JO~O DER C ~$dw~~,.l ~~ Hp •~1 J VD ~ ~~ ud ~ a Bf1NtlD ~ ° _ I~tlw B NL Cl ~ 5" ~ n ALBATR D ~ 04~ ., ~n ~(f`/~. ~E AN !1. > O SUNN E .: lfyy BS '~ti 114 f ' N • , 3 ^ w gQ ~ WA °°~ ~ $ ~ ~ ASNLE CT z ~CEY AVE 9 ~`~+ 4i • ~ ~ ~ a ^,~ ~~;~N Q c7 rn Bpi d, ~1c~i C~ ~ O rJ _ . 10 j~~ yy~'~ cwi ~6 e"~ r ~r ~ ^ r ~ r ~ ~ ~ z S STELLI RD < S~ ~ ° LL X00 > ~ RgR ~ - > oC1'., ~ ~1,i30iSAtlaO ~~ v O ~ ,~'I"6 °~ ° f~ ON Oc.1°,7 yj t) ,^n ¢ 133a1 3 ddtl Cs / F ~,~r ~,~+ - ~li F`~ ..Q o S z v ~ oo;at('~V.,,..IM1 J1 °f'~~r~ [ '(P' 9g;^"° ~b0 ,P ~y ,° moo. d~ I ry rc w a ;fi,GS Mj ~. c iJ ~2~ y~ c E pe~.n ~.. ~, , "^ 1 A1a3811 p `~ ~~ " ~ („/ o p~ ~,P ~ .v rl 9- O ~ " ~~ CT B FF PR .PTV PJE ~ ~ Y' M _ I~ ^~~ R n~ ° ~ __f~.z ,, .._. ~j w .S O ~~`" ,: BAxLErcTf ~°"~1'~~-v• ~~-~.~ ~ 0 2. .~ s7e ~ ~ r ~ t w._ K~y ~ ,,~ 1HGPoFi wnv dp~ ~ v . > } ~ , ~_'qC' ,~„~~~5-~.-~ 3 1• ~ N -N ~ w O Ud_'. J <~, m _ 55 l ~ n .'~ ~~~ " p ~ , S r7 ~ r --~ ~ ~ ,.~`~ ~ ~1,'~ ~ ~ ~l " r ,.- ,~ "' t '1 ~ '` ~ ~ mP R va R "~G~ ~, a i I ~ ~~~ r ~ I ~ ~ v E 1 ~ I > v ~ ~ o ti I ~` ., `f ~ r, I I 3Q ,~} -" ~..,, ~jyU 2~ a O1 ? _ D JJ m o - o Q~ ~": ^~ ~ a No N C a 'w LL' ~ ~ a Veloci el T "A Communication Solutions Provider" • J • Alternate Wireless Telecommunication Site Candidate Identification In accordance with the City of Saratoga's Special Submittal Requirements for Wireless Communications Facilities, applicant hereby submits the following information in satisfaction of requirement number 5, by identifying three alternate site locations for the proposed unmanned telecommunications facility, and identifying why these alternate sites were rejected. Please note that in each of the maps below, the red p~~shpin identifies the monopole tower site for which the Use Permit application is submitted. Alternate Site #1: Baker Elementary School, 4845 Bucknall Road, San Jose, CA 95130 This candidate offered the best location for applicant's wireless telecommunications and subscriber service requirements, however school officials declined to enter into lease negotiations. m h D CO~Ee ~ C°~6 ~ ~ Doyle Rtl Barrymoro Dr ° G Dgvons oe r ~ y,i A~ Freed Ave P Ave ~ ~ Rainbow Dr ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ anne W i~ow 4 ~ ' ~ Wicterie Wey ~ a a' ~€ ~ San Jose m ~ o e ~ Compte0~ ~, ~ ~~ c ` ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ Q L en q,~ „ g Carola Ava o am i 1212E-0 ~ Gown Monopole ~/B 'o ~ O y ~ Ivy Ln '~ ~ ro 37.2904-121 9952 inn 5eretoge Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 is Oeaitgs Blsmerck Dr '4b W Hamilton Ave HamiNon Aw G4 s Dr ° ' l E ric Dr < ApN.3E6-010-049 ~ e O Bo cf ~ westgete ~ Gala Dr ` ~ tyr 4 W Latimer Ave ~ `3 ~ ~ 7~ ~ ~ ~ Brookview pr ~i 4 ~ `~ ~~ ~ tv~~ G 1e~ o 9.~~ Li ` pton Dr j g Elmwood Dr w BdmrE]nrcrtarysdwd 4645 euckld Rd C~K~ D ~B 7} ~ ° ~ San Jose CA 95130 Ave S m p` ~ ~ ~1 D Q Q0~ ~' ~r Elrrm~n4ry tgplcton Ln Jr. r~ anooi Bucknall ~ ` m S We ~ ~ ~ ~? ' Y ~ Shuyey /k (., E Norwich S ~ ~ ~ X m 1 n ,~~ I Acepu{co Dr 3 ~ ~,~~ .Baylor Ave Grimshr Dr ~ ,~ P1ex Dr aerie Or ~ 8udd Ave y ~ o ~~} ~i ~ ht pawn Ave vanaaront Dr KetIA Dr ~ r Cheese ay ~ ~ ' ~go~ Mer1hM CoY Ave ~ ~ Waldo Rd Hazel Ave ~ 0~ ~ ~ Momreal Dr o O~ g Ave ~ Ave ~n ~Y ~ Elam Ave Smith tt^ ~ 5 ° Lapyrlak 92007 Mcroso allay tz Y supp Ws M nswaE. Please also note that no candidate sites north of Prospect Road /Campbell Avenue were considered, because applicant already has a telecommunications site immediately north of the Westgate Mall area. Any candidate site north of Prospect Road /Campbell Avenue would likely create co-channel interference with applicant's existing Westgate communications facility. AT&T Wireless Site 2128-D /Crown Monopole / 17777 Saratoga Avenue / APN 386-010-049 VelociTel • Alternate Site #2: Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, 12770 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 This location (the blue pushpin) met applicant's wireless telecommunications signal propagation and subscriber service requirements, however a new tower would need to be built at this site in order to achieve an antenna height sufficient to meet applicant's coverage objectives. Because there is an existing monopole tower located 0.6 miles to the northeast (the red pushpin), this candidate site was rejected as being too costly in relation to the existing monopole alternative. • • ~.~ cnia~a ~ ~ ~ F~~ w ~ Blue Hill Dr ~ ~ ;~5 ~ ~ Mitzi ~ Rhoda Dr 'rib `' m ~ o ~unlese [k ~ _ e Dpyfe +?tl ~ Barrymore Dr l Berk Ln ~ 3 ~ Rainbow Dr ° ~ ~ ~ ~ o Freed Ave Payne Ave CuPSrllno ~ 3 W W ~ safe ~ nCreNOOd Q ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~k~ is ~-aytn ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~, Q ~ is San J4ae teaser, A~ ~aaa ~ ~ ~ Gleason Ave ~ ~ e212E-D ! ~+~n MuoPde ~ c 3'.2907 -121 995.^. 1 ~ N ~ ~ t77n serMOpa Avenue b n Bismarck Dr is. h`~' 3 s°`x°9°~ c" "s°~o a1° Haminon Ave Eric Dr ~ P ~ 3B6-Ot0-049 O dp1e6 Dr Q In ~ ~ ~i "v°~9°'r` O` Springfield Dr _~ _ e~,e ~ h ~ G SPe d. O. Seagull ~ ~' ~ Brookview pr ~ Koh O at 4' ~, Colleens ~ Prtice d Poedr Lutheran p 3 CarryNrM ,~ 12770 Saatoga Ave iy ~ ~; ytr D Ve ~ C~wrP Saa[oga, CA 950.'0 o Q ~rtpbell A~9 0 ~ g ~ L°~~ ~ ° cv to € 5 .~ p yy $ Bucknall Rd Norwich Way r m m Piarca Rd ~ ~ RS v Chateau pr ?, ~ Co>t Ave ~ Acapulco Dr ~ Bl~rer O a m ~~e~ ~ ,Baylor Ave Alex Dr ~ ,,Aerie Dr ~ Q ~ p ~~ Devon Ave ~ Kel1h tk Martha Ave 3 = s qva m McCoy Ave m 3. ~ I ~~ Dr ~` d_ Montreal Dr ~ 11aze1 Aw "~`k~ o coovnar. a:ooz wacio.on ceq..«r~o. ~, sv,ee.s w ~ nsn.e Ave D Elam Ave Sm1th Ave AT&7 Wireless Site 2128-D /Crown Monopole / 17777 Saratoga Avenve / APN 386-010-049 Veloci7-el • Alternate Site #3: Westhope Presbyterian Church, 12850 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 This location (the blue pushpin) met applicant's wireless telecommunications signal propagation requirements, and offered sufficient ground space for the placement of applicant's equipment cabinets, however, like alternate candidate #2, a new tower would need to be built at this site in order to achieve an antenna height sufficient to meet applicant's coverage objectives. Because there is an existing monopole tower located 0.65 miles to the northeast (the red pushpin), this candidate site was rejected as being too costly in relation to the existing monopole alternative. Blue Hill ~ Mezi ° Rhoda Yh Q ,~D. Bark Ln ~ ~ ~~~ ~ Ca~g G w ~ ~>Ae +?tl ~ Berrymore Dr c bn a d t "- Ave ,~ ~y° Freed Ave ° ~ ~ d m ¢ Rainbow Dr S ~' m a, ~ W Welbr~k ~ ~ V Beg ~ +>~e~y~ fA ~ ~.+P ~ ~ o` & baby ~ ~ o a° ~~ ~~ $ ~ Wisteria Way E ~ A' r~~ ~~ ~ ~ " Gleason Ave m ~ ro -~ Lis ~'ay, Carole Ave c $ m aRZtze-o/aownMaravda~ ~ A~ q~ 1O '~ 37.29M -12^1.9952 [- ~ ~ 177775eratogaAVene ~68 '~' Bismarck Dr ~ ~ ~ ~ Saratoga, CA 950?0 A~ ~ tiamikon ~. Pr APN 3~-oro-at9 ~O 13olea m a t py ~7vasrger` ~, Springfield Dr ate rya G ~ '~ ~~. .~~ e ~ Bmokview Dr e ~ O° Seagull rn ° 4 ° Colleen D '.~:! ton Dr ~ t• p Elmwood Dr ~$q ~ Csrpbe~ Ave m ~ C~~O~L 1M~o5aratoge~Aw~ ~ ~ ~Wr.r~_~ W Gn'9~ A G o '$ ~ ~ Saratoga, CA 9507D F ~ --"`"9pd ~ ~. m G3Sr* 'f3. ° ~ 5 ~ '~j,. ~~ BucknalC Rd Nornich Wey ~ e m Pierce Rd 9 ,,, . COk ~ ~ n Chateau Or ° ~~ Acapulco Dr 3 Saratoga a0 gaylgr Ave 6~ ~ ~ ~" AJe>t Dr ~ lerie Dr o ~ ~~~ DeWn Ave Vanderbilt Dr ~ Kett Q, ~~N Cj c Cry ~ Ave ~Q ~ Martha Ave ~ m Dr ors ~ McCoy ~ MoMreat Dr mo O~ ~ Hazel Ave ~' flea a~~3 ~"~~' Ave i Y°~ Way S,~ ~ Elam Ave Sm><h Ave Glen Brae !1 m Cnpyrphc 81007 Abrosott Cap adla is AA ripMZ iaserrM dy Please also note that applicant did not consider alternate candidates south of Cox Avenue because applicant already has a telecommunications site near the intersection of Highway 85 and Saratoga Avenue, and placing another communications facility south of Cox Avenue at this time would likely create co-channel interference with applicant's existing Highway 85 communications facility. A7~T Wireless Site 2128-D /Crown Monopole / 17777 Saratoga Avenue / APN 386-010-049 o ~ I m Q ~ M N U z WJ d o N ~ Y N O ~ ~ b b tno O 1D 1D tG ~ ~ tD G W ~ N ~~ ' O a l ~a W O U •J Z U \n .J.I Op W ~ I I I I I ~ n n a n n n n N n n I n n O Q ~ r ~ ~ N U (J W ter- 8 Z ~.1 ~ Q a Z F U ~ Z m n Q M O~ N N 1~ N N v~ v v O~ Of N Of O W = ~ ~ Q O ~ O Q ~ N ~ O N ~p Q a O O W ~ ~O J Una >~n Z N O p~ ~- F „ Z 3 W ~-- w J F- Z 0 ... N a Z ~ Z O 2 O a Q w J Z 3 O W n' U ~ ~ W ~ O ~_ V O ~ m ~ ~ I Oni Q < ~ d N~ K ~ U ~ Z LWi O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W W J W W J p ~) a N Q ~~ Q a a ~ W w o ~~ 0 1 1 m > U > 4 1 O 41 Z~ a Oa jQ d W~ F ~ Z = ~ ~ NZ U O ~ O > > Z Z U ~ ~ (=/1 V 1 NpU F Q U Q U Z F J U W >~ d' ti~ 0 W~ S W N Z ~ ~ ~ // V W '7 ~~= Qvio a0 am U Qao ~a<m O w~~ woa m a a o o O w O W ~ a Z N W O~ G U Y Q` O W R Q U O Z Q W J Q ; a 1D r1 a d' W ~ N O ~ ~ J Z x J W_ k N U ~ ~ Q' ~ ~ a W^ U<V I BOO K W VI m0~0 F N ~Q ~ WW N N O a0 < N K O v Z W W Z ~ ~ k ~ O ' ~ Q U K x V Q ~~Q Z t`<aD ~N M QUnQ YQ~N ~u1O Q{ON n N Q O M ~ Z N ~¢ Z U d 7 ~ N QI O~ w~ O Z K ~ Y~ ~-. Q O v ~ 2 O QO O J ~ ~ w o Q ~ O Q O w U~ Z~ ~ ~ d' Z z 3 O ~ ~ W ~ W Z W W Z N ~ O O N D Z O_ H j ~ c _ O a W W W z a x = Q O < w O Q U ~ O Z O ~ ~ ~ < U U ~ W ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ i °1 Z ~ ~ W O O O c~na~< ~ v~ < a d a F G w ~~ ~ w ~ ~ O ~ v a W U Z O 4 0 Q N d' U ~ Z 0 N I ~' ~ ? ~ ~ _ V1 W Q N o O - ~ W _ N o 7 2 ~ r ~ ~ Q ~~ _ p "`~~Q~16~ p` ~'~ ~ b v. ~Q l a 2 H W N 7 ~ N t!) i b ~ ~ "'` 0 , ~ , oo . ~ r_ Q; a i ~ ~ ,~ - V N ~ ~ ~ r A~ G4 ~ 6 ~ r; o ~N Q a o ~ ~ W Z Z ~ ~ ~et ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~~ e~ Q Wa No J ~ ~ ~ ,o, ~ ~ ~ =- ~ WaLL ~ ~ W o Z ~ ~~ W ~ ~~~~,. ( ~ ~ w ~ ~. ~ ~ U o ° '`~ `.`~ y ~ ~'~ "~ ~" db '~,' Zm a z ~ w a w ~ ~~ ~ - r ~ C ~ ~ ? ~ ~ py ,~ ~v o ~ ` - ^ ^ W N ~x W~ ~pw ov,3~ os~ a ooW ~~ ~ O : ~ ~ ~~, ~ °i~ .. ~ . ~ r ~ .U v 3 °o ~0. ~/ ~ r ~ ~'`~ P ~ W Z ~o ~N ~ F ~o~ ~ } Af~ , ~~._ .x ~~ Tapp Q O ~r1 2}}3 V Ny YWy< Y T N ' ~ Z ri Q O O JaWZ ~. '.. a ". Y~ ~~ ~~ ~ ,?Oyu ~U.~F ~ ;~ x O ~ Z ~ o~ ~ ~~ F--w= t~ir)d '-waw viral: Q~QO ~~Q Flo W ~ ~~~Q = V f eh ch ch ch eh O ° a O IL m ~ U O n QOw ^a K W V n~ g 0 mN3 a y U Z O F a ~ a z Z~ a N O u~ Z V - a y a Z ~Qt3 Fy Z W t = y ~ ~ d W ~ d ~ W Z W ° z ~ ~~ ~~ ^~ ~~~~~ °~ ~~~ ~ ~~ g Z g a a a a / 3 N N N N N ~Ap Opp~~ EAp ~p~ Opnp~ Q N N N N N T N • • • H ~ a w p w w w ~/~ 4~~°"~ \ W a ~a UOU I Z w °~o ~ m~ n~ ~~ ~/ / ~~ ~ oQ~~~ / Q~ ICI ~ ~t ~~ 0 X 1O X X ~ -k ~0 P ~ ~ o Q a / w 0 J ~ 3 as `~. G w s /~~G~ n[' o 0 adU .. pSl_ V U O ~aa ~ m ~-- Z N W ~ ~ N d I d ~ ~ O N I ~ ~\ ~2! ~ N lil d F'02~~ Z Ii~I W .~~ \~ III _ --_--- ~ - - - - / `~ ~ ~~ N U Y >i °o ~ f-° ~ z O N O Z 1 3 a a cn in N Z O N Q ~ n O ~ ~ S U Z K z w ~ o w ~ w in ~~~ Z o ~, o U \ J O o ~ w ~ O ~ J ~ w ~'' ~ m ~ w a 3 J ~ J ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ? W a ~ a ~ N Z~3 ~ \ Z W Z ~W~W I _-, ~oa~n _ o Z Q t0 N 3 ~ "W oa wcn= U W ~ VI N zao~o ~. z z ~oc~~~ a w~pzda a U a W I ~' j+ /; Q' 0 2 ~ Z ~ W ~ W X U U a ~~ ~~ ao Q Z W ~ U Q a v a~ o ~~~~ ~ 0 a X11 a X U m 1 'll ~ I ~ a I I~ o a ~ o I I m J Z m W a~ rr I ~ ~ a a I ° ° z ~~ I ~ ~~ i X11 ~ X11 ~~ lil I ~I Ill ~ 111 Ill ~I I 111 ~ Ill W Ill ~ Ijl ~ III III I~I Ii~I ~`r0„ I I I '1'6S, Ir~I w sW ~ ' If I U W O y ~li~j i 1i vwi 3 x ~ ~ .~. I I rn a° °~ a I z~~ ~3X Iii Wow. ~aa 3 a IIIM1~~~9~ aZo oo°dv ~ w Ill ~, S ado OU ~ ~ ~' I~I x owz a ~ o I Ir ~ ~~ o W W I~ I I m w Q 1 ry O U I" sl 0 b ~ N ~ g ~ N )) m ~ W Z N ~ V W 0 0 W N N = GO ~ yN~ < q\q O ` ` O O ..~ C Z Z a J o ~ Q Q p U N N ~ ~ SS~ $ o U xa ~ N>a ~ w ~ o o ~ mp m> ¢ W~ I ~ I ' ~ ~ z ~ N a Q ~ ~ ~~~ ~o o~~ a~ ~ am o~~ ~~ J~~ a~ ~o~ ^o ZZa ~~ VHZ ^vai my0 rz Ln ~/ o ~~ ~ ~ a N I a x~g z ~ oJa ~ ~~ ~~~_~~ a~.-. ~ ° ~ww o z .(1 Ciy~~~~ 1 1^ rn z ~d a~ a ~ •O o~ ~i Wz w ~ m w~j~ /- z o~~ Ww ~ oaavi N aao >J m rl ~ ~ ~ W rrdm wx v ~;wN v A\ ~ a w .~ In a s rn .~ v ~ )¢ a ~b ~l~s ~~ o m x w J m a m V • • • O c~ Z p m W ~~ ~ ~ I/7. // i ti.~ ~. ~~ \ U I III Y ~ Um InI v pmpp ~U~ Q I I p_ I ~opz a J~m Zpp I a ~ NO 3 p ~ OW U I- H 'x wa~a a~ a~~ aww I I I3Uw 3~a Now ONwW w~ pw~0 w~i3 l a I p~Z w~~ pQN o~Qa oa ova oS~~ I ~oW~ NZ yip ~HNw O~ Od'r O&3I~ dy0 dWF dJO ~7davwi aao aw°~ avwia ~vw ~~"~ ~~~ Ia I a~~ a~~ aUC~ I I I ~~ - I I ~ ~ I~~ ,o, \ X N ~~ x IaI U I a v ~, a W ~~ ~ ~ QC ~,~ ~x oho ~~ ~+- ~ W 1 ^Zr o~m ~3x ~m~ k" pgJ wow aci`` aoz I ~ - ~ -_ , I f ~. I ~ O Z > ~O N ~ ~ z w W 2 azp a o~ aa~ \ \~ \~ Hlnwizv .o o „b„ 2l015~~ -a a J O a 0 O W /~ ~~ ~~ ~ ii i~ ii ii ~i O mw ~~~Z tD W N ~ O ~ U U mom}} ~`~ m ~OJ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~~;0~ ~i a~ ~ U m z g Z N vW ~ U a oao ~;z aao m vi w zo 2 ~ U N W U Qo~ ~ W N W Z .W.i 3 W OW a? a = O y ~ ~U ~za a=,~ p~ J Wz ~w O~ as ~ d aI w ~~ -, , . I ~ ~ °o, ~ ~ ~ , ; ~'~ •• mac,-' / \ ,, 4 ~ < v;--~-, _,_~. ~. ~- ~ ,.rJ;,, \~ \~ ~ / O ~ ry } , ~~ ~\ ~~ ~ / w W_ } p / N ~ ~ O / Z m w ~ ~ _J a m ~ } o v 0 z /v a ni } w w ~ / O U > aw / N ~` p .Wi y p WJO O W o¢~ / ~xw N } d U m c N ~ N aUN~ a = p N ~ Z N ~ W ~ W~'a o~~~., ~ Z W J a aw ~, m. O ~ 3 0 m J ~ J W O ~ O O \ Zo~pN i '° w ~^o ~ rte- ~ ~ °a a ~arn 4 ~~ z © ~ g~ a ~~~ Q ~ Z ~ `W ~ r a~ Z Q U z a v c p w N O a 0 a a W U z w Y Z_ Z ~ a. a / O x z J ~' } Z a ~ / Q Q a U 0 U w a p w N O a 0 a „6-,5 ..ll-.S ~illlf'! k~~ ~~3 ~ U O x H ~~ F U_ b 0 x >~ „Z Z M W O ~ N p_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N Z Z ~ o ga ~ z o a z i' 3 ~W a F- Z W-- ~a (n Op z o .n ~ ~ O ~ ~ J ~ i ~ O I N 0 g a ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ W ~ z 0 u=i o ~ < 2 0 ~o Q w i~ p Aso ~~ O~O ~ cN~yy ~ ~.i o ~Q~ a~pn U a °' O~~ °~ m JN~ N< o ~ ^~ O ~ ZZQy ^~ Y W c) n N VHz mN0 N ~~ Q~ ~ 0 ~~ :v ~~~~~ •O ~~~~~ ,s • • • o ~ ~ 1 m Q M Z W ~ ~ d O N I Q z a0 ~ ~ Q Z V w '~ ~ l //Q~} U Z 1~ a Z Q Y ~ > J i _ ~ _ O In ~ ¢~ O U a Z Z ~ Z Z Z Z J V d O l W ~ ~ O 02 NO Z N Z Z Z Z Z O j ~ ~ ~ Q a ~ ~.' a o v~ a ~ I O I 3 ~ Zi N a o ~ z 3 0 . ~ u o ~ ~W W O N 1 FW- a O (n = ~ N O O ~ > w Q O ~ N p F- p N ~ d' a J w J w J ~y o J U' a N 3 a J w Z J Z J= Z O aN Q Z ~ m Q~ I I~ l~ V Q a w 0 Q o w O a e ~ ~ O ~ ~ l~ O s ~ N J w a o ~ Z ZZ a00 Z O apr O Iw O J O ao Y N p ~ p ~ O I ~ O I io a0 I N ~ U - O N~Z a d Vy„Itn (nZd ao0 cn~ Q Y U F- t0 m N H N i n _ w w J m U \ `°oZ Q O Y a °~~ a J o~ ~ a w ~ w o uwipwZ~ 1 ~ wa O OZ> F ~ a ~ Ov U =w d a V O - a z w o~~ V o= z ca oo`'' w ~ ~ azd~ a= ~ ~~ u i a .6 -,4 ~ a Z J u _ O i ~ K a Q ~ 4 U ~ ~ _= _ w 0 -- - --- J W W ~ ~ ~ N a W W i ~ N O Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ` 7~ 4 a Z O '~^/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~// Z J ~ O = a' a Q m • 0 o N 7 l V w Z .w^.. ~ ~ W p $ J In a° ~ < N ^ ~ _ ~Xt o ~ w _ ~ ~ p = v=i a ° rnoWz 7W a'NO Z OZ V NQ am V QV ,~Na W W Z Inw W ~ H pW Z J V Z cn~ gz~ r ~ ~ a° O °az~a 00 p ~ ~ ' Z a~ ~ aOw~OOw ~< ~ °~ Q 3S II I' ~ 3~ N a a w U Z W W U w J W Z J Y J w Z V w Y J a O Z !Y ~ - -- Z Z° ~ a° o ° Z V ~o O O = O Z U O Z W Z ~ . i m W H Z Q N Z Z F Q Z Q ~ Z Z a Z p r`~ 3 ~ '' a o In ~ zd Q C ~ ~ ~ ~ N p J a0 Z ON N j ~ Z W N Q M N W O ~`' ~ T a 0 Q ~ In Z ~ ~ w Z w ~ ~ J N a m o aQ Wa Wa J oa N as JQ J= o N Z O ~ o1L~ ~~ a °~ Z~ w o w, o w. ~ ~ w, ~~. oN ° z z a zo ~ ~ a Q Q ( J ~ N~ ~~ a ~~ o ~~ a.l ~ o ~_I m~ ~ I z . ~~ v ° N z ; awa ] o ~ na Q (Qq n ~ , n J w J YWU ^N ~~z o zo ! ° W ~N3 vwi w~ o w I ~ c7 m ~ Q a ~ cwn ... ... - ~"" F~ ~a~ - Z F-=- _- _ a : ~ S~ ~ -- -- S ~ z •_ ~~~ ~ ' ~ • ~~~ v Cl ~ O ~ O ~ •O W~~G~ N V ~ N W p rl ~ Vl i W m mZQJ < v> a a0Y U ~ QU +~NLL Uw D Z W ~ W Z J V Z M W Z w N o H < NOZ ~ ~~ g p ~N ~l i aazVa a a ~ aw O~J z" ~ a O~ I Z~~ OZ a = aa~ o a v d ~ v i ow T N ~ • • o ~ ~ I m ~ Q M Z W O O - ,4/l Z d - ~ ^~ N I ap ,B S f- ,S w ~ N \ ... Z ~i N / U / N • Q Q b ti\ ~\ Z ~ O ~--- O= W W Z N ,;'/ cn 3 a N a ~ M ®_ __-__-_-______ - ___---__- _ Z w c - - V ~ m a - _ -__ _ __ Q ,'a ~ ,y\ Z Z O v d. O w ~ N N n \ M G I O i N '~ \ ~ ~ w --L ~ p r H aw ~ Q V w ~ ~ p 1 I S ° o z (/~ w W . N ~ a ~ a O NZ ~ ~ N~ O Q , /1 N Q ~ ~ ~ ~oo ~ ~k o Q N o ~ ° ~ g w w a O ox''-' Gm N J W Q ; . Oc~~pO rno w~ a a~ ~ m~ U Z V ~ ° ~ a N?~O~ ril ~O ~ m~ _ W ~ - ° a M vNZ z 3 m 3 ~ W a V a ~ ~m~~ v mm Z~ O V L4S W a b N ~ a° a c~ I J i cn ~ „ ~ g 4 ~ ~ a N I •• O~ M a D MM ~ ~ O .915 ~ V ~ ~ ° W ~ U ~ wp O n ~ ~ _V O Q i ~ m N ~ ~o~ ~ .. .. H cY >a w CY ~ w~ Q ~ Z p N ~ ~ cJi~~ ~ . ~~ 3 Z ~ Z _ ~ ~ ~ N c G J ~ ~ ~ z a „b-.Z ~- - „b- ~--- .4 - ~ r a Q N ~ R $ ~ ~ a N 7 Z ~N ~ ~ Z Z ~ ~ 3 ~ a4 O ° ~ I ~ w N z Ow O~ ooh M y N Z \\ ~ 00 O O Z N Z ~ V K °w~o U1 V n ama ~ ~ O \ ~ v;i ~ ~ `` O a "' `~ a \ ` ~ ~ i , O W ~ CU Z ~ 3 ~ i, 00 ~ ~ o ~ 7j \'\ ~ M I ` w- UUu ~a S --- --- ~ ~ r LLtnl > ~ o , J- \ I i , ~ W= M n // WW J m z H ~ Z.- _-_ - -.. __. __~. / ._ - - 2 ~ H 'I I' ~~. < ° Y >- C7 Z ~ ~ a U N OH O QO 3 3 O 3 Q fya O d a Y Oaq J J NQ ~ ~a a N ~w x~ QUO O O~ c x N~ Iw Iw w o Jaa ao am ^ ~ a QN~ wa O Z a ~ H ~ _O OOx 0 3 p; ~ J C)00 • ~ ~ y M J Y a~ ~r o Q~~ a 0 b OH a0 O Oe Os ~ Z ~ H 00 a \N i ~ O as ~`^o Z Z gg o~oU~N~a ~ ~ Z O xa3 H x ~~ 5a~~ U x ~V~oa Q~ ~ H U SGa w ZNW a~ JNZ 3Lt~ d~ ZOO N ~- ~Z~ a'Q N U j Q~ J p N J O W I Z fw..nv~NN O X a. lJi aUJ J W 3 0 ~(7 ~7 °oZ~s w Z {•J ~ U J OJ O ~ N ON a' Z a' x U~ 2~ Sx UU W UU jHtn W w-~ Y YFa-- 2~ w UW ~~xZ m Q na Z ZQ n~ n I 8~ o-o Ozw maou~~wa o0 Oc~oa ~a~ vein? m~ pa~o a xw3J O YWV ~vai V HZ aaz ~ ~ AND U ?NO ~ U rim V~jA~jA~jA~j ~ ~ o O O ~ ~ ~ m Q U /, J w O J=ow a ~ 0 /~//~////~% / ~ \/ \/ \• as ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ? a z /\~\~~~\/\~\!~~\ w Q // // // // ' -J ~ ~ a '- a J ~\ ~\ ~\ ~\ j~j/j//~/ / / / / / m ~ F- O z (/ ~ I_ ~~ N ~ ~ ~ //\//~//\///\/ O w I Q ~ ~ ? F /\~~/~~%/~~%//~\~/ m cn W o ~ N o m y 1V00'1 Ol 01313 ~ ~ o ~NO ~ ~ o //~%%/~ /\~j ~~/\%\~~~ c~ a Q U w w ~ ~ Z } O \ / ~//~/ ///~! X - 31VOOl Ol O1313 ~ a W ~ ~ z ~ ~~~~~~~~~~\~~~ ~ ~ 0 3 0 ~ ~ as a~ m Z U_ a a \ \ \ /~ VJ S Z U ~ =f n /j ~//~ ~/j ~//~ ~i a ~ \ ~ \ ~/\~/~ ~/~ \ /\ ~ 0 2 \ \ \ •/, ~~~~ ~ V ~ ~ ~~~ 0 _ ^ T N M ~ ~ ITEM 4 • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 04-034/ 15145 Sobey Road Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: D~stZ Design Associates/ Overland Development Ann Welsh, AICP, Associate Planner October S, 2004 397-08-091 Department Head: . _____ _ _ i ,, :. ~ ~, ,. ,. ~~ ~ ,OLfITORD~ ~ ~~~ '• (~ 1 ..~ ,fiNAN CR€~KSR6k.,. /( ,' ' '/ ~~ r _ .' , -' t... _ e _:-. ~ ~1 • rric an SUNNYSIDE DR ~'~. _. ~.. ~ , . . ~~ ~' ~I 571NWs -,-,.. I MONYe'+nSrA-D~t _ 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 km SARATAGJr-LOS GATOSRDi„ '. ~--~_-- ., -.._ ._..._ ~. ~, ,' ...... ~ ~` ~i ..." ~ EI~AL~l1S DR,, i<_ ~- ~ ~ _. - 'AU . _ ~ .. ~ 15145 Sobey Road ooooos File No. 04-034 -15145SobeyRoad EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 2/24/04 Application complete: 5/13/04 ls` Notice published: 6/09/04 ls` Mailing completed: 6/09/04 ls` Posting completed: 6/02/04 2nd Notice published 9/29/04 2nd Mailing completed 10/1/04 2nd Posting completed 9/22/04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Design Review application involves construction of a new 5,677 square foot 23.75 foot high single story dwelling with an 845 square foot basement on a vacant lot, which takes access from Sobey Road via a shared access drive. The style of home is Country French, which is typified by steep pitched roof, dormers and stone facade. The lot is 46,082 square feet in area however due to an average slope of 15.62% the net lot area is reduced to 35,944 square feet. The maximum allowable floor area for the site is 5,688 square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution 04-021. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Minutes of June 23, 2004 Planning Commission meeting 3. Assistant City Attorney Legal Analysis dated October 6, 2004 prepared by Jonathan Wittwer, Esq. 4. Arborist Report dated March 8, 2004 5. Fire Department report dated March 9, 2004 amended June 16, 2004 6. Geotechnical Clearance Memorandum 7 2nd Affidavit of Mailing 8. Neighborhood Correspondence 9. Justification of Height from DMZ Design Associates 10. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • • 000002 File No. 04-034 -15145SobeyRoad • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The General Plan designates this area as Residential Very Low Density, which requires low-density single family dwellings with a maximum density of 1.09 dwelling units per acre. This house is located in Area "G" Fruitvale-Sobey Road Area of the General Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Area Plan policy of maintaining the single-family character of the area. MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 46,082 square feet gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average slope of lot is 15.62% GRADING REQUIRED: The grading plan indicates that the project will require 400 cubic yards of cut for the basement, 600 cubic yards of cut for the house, S00 cubic yards of site excavation and 200 cubic yards of fill. A grading permit will be required for the project. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The propos d project consisting of constructing a new single-family residence is Cate orically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section X15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of remodeling and renovating one single-family residence. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The plans depict a charcoal brown class "A" concrete the roof with "suede drystack ledgestone" veneer front facade. Hand hewn header trim, corbels and trellis beams are proposed. The side and rear facades are "rolling stone" stucco with "pebblestone clay" trim. 00003 File No. 04-034 - I5I4SSobeyRo~srd ~i R-1- 40,000 Proposal Code Requirements Lot Size 46,082 sq. ft. 40,000 sq. ft. gross/net site area Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Building Footprint Driveway/Parking Walkways, Patio Pool Sport Court TOTAL First Floor w/Garage Basement TOTAL 5,637 sq. ft. 3,250 sq. ft. 1,661 sq. ft. 6os sq. ft. 1,125 sq. ft. 12,495 sq. ft. 5,677 sq. ft. (845) sq. ft. 5,677 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 35% of net site area's Setbacks: Height: Front East Side West Side Rear 16,128 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 5,688 sq. ft.* Minimum Requirement 30 ft. 30 ft 38 ft. 20 ft 68 ft. 20 ft 74 ft 50 ft. One Story Maximum Allowable 23.75 ft 26 ft. * Due to 16% slope, lot size is reduced by 22% for the purpose of calculating floor area. For purposes of calculating site coverage a net site area of 46,082 square feet is used. •i •i 4 ~~©~ Fik No. P4-034 -1514SSobeyRa~ad PROJECT DISCUSSION This is the second public hearing on this project. The first hearing on June 23, 2004 was continued in order to address access and setback issues raised by adjacent neighbors. Since the previous meeting, the applicant has revised the plans in the following areas: • Reduced building height from 26 to 23.75 feet. • Reoriented the garage to face north towards Sobey Road rather than toward the eastern property line. • Increased the eastern side yard setback to 38 feet. • Retained tree # 5 the multi stem oak. • Moved the house further west and excavated into the hillside. • Reduced the floor area by 40 square feet • Reduced the impervious coverage by 210 square feet or 12,281 square feet (maximum allowable is 16,128 square feet). • Revised the landscape plan to plant low growing flowering plum trees on the western side of the property and coast redwoods on the eastern property line. These revisions address many of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission members and the neighbors. In addition, the City Attorney was consulted to a ess the access questions raised by a neighbor who shares the access drive o it to Sobey Road. A legal anal sis of the uestions is attached to the staff re rt Attachment #2). This Y q P~ ( analysis concludes that the issues raised during t e 1983 public hearing to subdivide this parcel were decided by City Council in 1983 and unless the Planning Commission makes findings of changed circumstances, the 1983 decision must stand. Therefore, resurrecting questions about the number of parcels legally taking access over the private access road easement to Sobey Road and questioning the validity of the access easement are invalid issues since the decision on these items was made over twenty years ago. Response From Neighbors The neighbors to the east of the parcel are satisfied with the plan revisions which relocated the garage to a north facing entry, eliminated a portion of the driveway adjacent their home and proposed additional landscaping along their shared property line. The neighbors to the west of the parcel had concerns with the movement of the house further west. Their concerns are retaining the view and maintaining a buffer to screen the new home. The applicant proposes to plant low growing flowering plum trees in the west side yard area in order to screen the proposed house from the western neighbor while still allowing the neighbor to retain their view of the valley. ~~~~s File No. 04-034 -15145SobeyRoad The neighbor along the shared access drive received response from the City Attorney to his questions regarding the access drive. The legal analysis concludes that reconsideration of an issue that was previously resolved is not permitted under the legal doctrine of res judicata. However their concerns about the impact on their warranty on trenching through their "paver" driveway are addressed in the conditions of approval. Necessary Findings The Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-45.080 identifies the following findings as necessary for granting Design Review approval. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. (e) Employs current grading and erosion control methods. (f) Utilizes Residential Design Guide policies and techniques. Actzlal Findings The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. 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 andprivacy. The revised plans address issues of privacy and views by revising the garage location and planting additional screening along both the eastern and western property lines. (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 the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The proposed re-design conflicts with seven trees and their removal is required in order to construct the home. In addition due to the 16% slope, the site contours will be altered, and two retaining walls will be installed in the rear of the house in order to create a level rear yard. The applicant will be required to plant replacement trees for a combined value of $9,410. In addition staff recommends additional landscaping be provided at the eastern and western property line in order to mitigate the impact of construction on the adjacent neighbor's privacy. • ~~©~~ Fik No. 04-034 -1514SSobeyRa~nd The plan depicts retaining over 73 percent of the lot in landscaped natural area. Given that one quarter of the parcel is to be developed and that the staff recommends additional landscaping at the eastern and western property hne and the azborist recommends replacement trees, the impact of this development with these mitigation measures will, in staff's opinion, not constitute an unreasonable impact on the natural quality of the landscape. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. 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 proposed home does follow the design guidelines in terms of minimizing excessive bulk. The structure follows the contours of the slope. The facade is softened by use of different materials. Such material include stone veneer front facade, stone azched and hand hewn lintels, hand hewn timber trellis over the garage and hand hewn corbels, and board and batten shutters. These elements of Country French architecture do minimize the perception of bulk. In an attempt to reduce the perception of bulk, the height of the roof line was lowered to 23.75 feet. The applicant expressed interest in retaining the roof height in order to create a steep pitched roof in keeping with the Country French style of azchitecture. (d) 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 adjacentproperties to utilize solar energy. The proposed 23.75 foot high single story home is not incompatible with the surrounding homes. The Sobey Road neighborhood contains a mix of single story and two story homes. Given the secluded nature of the subject parcel setback approximately 300 feet from Sobey Road on an access easement driveway, the impact of the proposed development is realized primarily by the immediately adjacent neighbors. The concerns of these neighbors have been addressed in the revised plans. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates currentgrading and erosion control standards used by the Ciry. The grading plan indicates that the project will require 400 cubic yards of cut for the basement, 600 cubic yards of cut for the house, 500 cubic yards of site excavation and 200 cubic yards of fill. A grading permit will be required for the project. The applicant will be required to minimize the impacts of grading in the vicinity of protected trees and preserve as much of the natural topography as possible. Q-~oQ"1 .. File No. 04-034 - ISI45SobeyRoad (~ Design policies and techniques. The proposed home will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook The proposed project conforms with Residential Design Handbook Policy #1, Technique #3, reduce perception of bulk is addressed by use of different materials, such as stone veneer front facade, hand hewn lintels, and board and batten shutters. Technique #6, use architectural features to break up massing, is addressed by the recessed entry and varying height of roof elements. Policy #2, integrate structures with the environment, Technique #1, use of natural colors and materials is addressed through use of neutral colored stone and stucco and brown file roofing material. Technique #4, integrate all structures on the site is addressed by combining the garage and house in a single structure. Policy #3, avoid interference with privacy, Technique #1 is addressed by planting of additional trees and landscaping to ensure privacy and creating additional setback in the area of the garage. Technique #3, maintain landscaping to enhance privacy, is addressed by requiring tree planting, minimizing tree removal and requiring additional landscaping. Policy #4, preserve views and access to views, Technique # 2, which calls for maximising views while avoiding privacy conflicts, is addressed by planting trees in areas of potential conflict and increasing setback. Policy #5, design for energy efficiency, Technique #1, design for maximum benefit of sun and wind is addressed since the rear patio and windows are southwest facing in orientation. Technique #3, allow light, air and solar access to adjacent homes, is addressed since the proposed home with additional setback will not encroach on the solar access of neighbors. Thus the above anal sis concludes that the findin s re uired for antin desi y g q ~' g gn review approval can be met if the plans are revised per the conditions outlined above. The City Arborist, the Santa Clara County Fire District, the Public Works Department and the City Geotechnical Consultant have reviewed this application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval. Community Development The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" "Sobey Residence, Overland Development prepared by Derr Design Associates, dated August 19, 2004. Conditions outlined in this staff report shall be incorporated into the final plans. Prior to final occupancy permit, the six flowering plum trees which are depicted along the western property line of the conceptual landscape plan prepared by Greg Ing ~ Associates dated August, 2004 and the two coast redwood trees which are depicted along the eastern property line on this conceptual landscape plan shall be planted. ~~©Q~ File No. 04-034 -15145SobeyRoad 2. Trenching for utilities along the portion of the access easement which crosses assessor's parcel number 397-08-60 shall be done under the supervision of that property owner's installing contractor in order to maintain the existing lifetime warrantee on the paver driveway. 3. The grading and drainage plan shall be revised to depict retention of all storm water on the site. The grading plan as submitted appears to allow the runoff to flow to the south east and north east corners of the property with no means of impeding flow onto adjacent parcels. A system of grassy swales or retention areas should be incorporated into the grading and drainage plans to address this issue. 4. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating required revisions and this Resolution and the Arborist report on a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 5. The complete construction plans shall include a final landscape plan, which depicts all proposed screening vegetation, replacement trees as well as tree protection fencing as depicted in the Arborist Report. All trees identified in the Arborist Report shall be identified on the landscape plan. 6. The surveyed site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. I 7. Where feasible, landsca in shall be desi ed and o' erated to treat storm water P g ~ P runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 8. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hadscaped area. 9. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 10. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 11. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 12. The address of this parcel shall be revised to allow ease of identifying the parcel along Sobey Road. The current address does not follow sequentially from the adjacent parcels along Sobey Road. The current address creates a hazard in terms of emergency response due to the difficulty in locating the property. ~~©~9 File No. 04-034 -1514SSobeyRowd 13. Site access shall comply with all fire department requirements for suitable access. 14. A utility plan shall be submitted with the revised plans for the arborist to review in terms of impact on adjacent trees. Fire Protection District The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on March 9, 2004 and revised their review on June 16, 2004. Their requirements are included as conditions of approval: 1. The fire flow of 2,250 gallons per minute is not available due to the travel distance to the nearest fire hydrant. A new fire hydrant is required. The spotting of that new fire hydrant is negotiable but will need to be adjacent to the driveway entrance from Sobey Road at least. 2. The building shall be provided with Early Warning Alarm System per City of Saratoga requirements. 3. The building shall be provided with an approved residential fire sprinkler system due to fire flow shortfall. If the applicant is able to provide the required fire flow via the correct number of fire hydrants (two within 500 feet of the most remote portion of the building) the fire sprinkler requirement will be for the garage only. 4. A complying fire department driveway of 14 feet with one 2 foot shoulder shall be installed. 5. A complying fire department turnaround shall be provided. Per site inspection, it appears that the turnaround will occur on the site itself. The circular drive-around turnaround as reflected on the most recent plans does not comply with fire department standards. 6. The building shall be properly addressed with appropriate markings acceptable to the fire department. City Arborist Report The City Arborist reviewed this project and prepared a report dated March 8, 2004. The recommendations of this report and any forthcoming reports are included as conditions of approval. In general the project exposes twenty-four ordinance-sized trees to the risk of potential damage. 1. Seven trees are to be removed to accommodate the proposed development. The combined value of these trees is $9,410. Mitigation for these removals '° OOH®10 File No. 04-034 -15145SobeyRoad shall include installing new trees on site that are equivalent to their combined value. The revised landscape plan shall identify the proposed location and species of replacement trees. 2. The combined appraised value of trees planned for retention is $21,610. In accordance with the City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of this value is required to promote their protection. Geotechnical and Prablic Works Review Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. Conditions of approval are as follow. 1. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., building setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. 2. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall specifically address the adequacy of surface drainage measures associated with the proposed cut slope and retaining wall (i.e., concrete v-ditches and related culverts). 3. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter s and submitted to the Ci En 'neer for review and () ~ ~ approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 4. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project demolition and construction. These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 5. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in letters and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to Final Project Approval. 6. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 7. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. • 1 ~ 000®~.1 File No. 04-034 -1SI4SSobeyRo~d 8. Traffic safety review shall be conducted to assess the ingress/egress driveway intersection with Sobey Road. Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code if developed with the recommended conditions. The residence will not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape and will minimize the perception of bulls so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal if developed with conditions and revisions, will satisfy all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the Resolution for application 04-034. • 12 ®~V®~A+ • • Attachment 1 • ~~®~~ File No. 04-034 -15I4SSobeyRo~d RESOLUTION N0.04-021 APPLICATION N0.04-034 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Overland Development/15145 Sobey Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,677 square foot 23.75 foot high single story dwelling with an 845 square foot basement on a vacant 46, 082 square foot lot. 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 is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the construction of one single family home and associated out buildings; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy 1, Minimize the perception of bulk The proposed home does follow the design guidelines in terms of minimizing excessive bulk. The structure follows the contours of the slope. The facade is softened by use of different materials. Such material include stone veneer front facade, stone arched and hand hewn lintels, hand hewn timber trellis over the garage and hand hewn corbels, and board and batten shutters. These elements of Country French architecture serve to minim;ze the perception of bulk. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The plan depicts retaining over 76 percent of the lot in landscaped natural area. Given that one quarter of the parcel is to be developed and that the staff recommends additional landscaping at the eastern and western property lines and the arborist recommends replacement trees, the impact of this development with ~'Ot)~14 FileNa. P4-034-15I4SSobeyRoad these mitigation measures will not constitute an unreasonable impact on the natural quality of the landscape. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy The revised plans address issues of privacy and views by revising the garage location and planting additional screening along both the eastern and western property lines. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views With proposed revisions, the project will protect the neighbor's privacy by appropriate landscaping and additional setback in areas of potential privacy conflict. Low growing screen trees will serve to preserve views. Policy S, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The orientation of the house maximizes the southern exposure since the rear family room, kitchen and outdoor areas are southwest facing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of t~e site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted m connection with this matter, the application of Overland Development for Design' Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" "Sobey Residence, Overland Development prepared by D~r~' Design Associates, dated August 19, 2004. Conditions outlined in this staff report shall be incorporated into the final plans. 1. Prior to final occupancy permit, the six flowering plum trees which are depicted along the western property line of the conceptual landscape plan prepared by Greg Ing &r Associates dated August, 2004 and the two coast redwood trees which are depicted along the eastern property line on this conceptual landscape plan shall be planted. 2. Trenching for utilities along the portion of the access easement which crosses assessor's parcel number 397-08-60 shall be done under the supervision of that property owner's installing contractor in order to maintain the existing lifetime warrantee on the paver driveway. • 2 ~ ®©~ ~~ File No. 04-039 - I5I95SobeyRoad The grading and drainage plan shall be revised to depict retention of all storm water on the site. The grading plan as submitted appears to allow the runoff to flow to the south east and north east corners of the property with no means of impeding flow onto adjacent parcels. A system of grassy swales or retention areas should be incorporated into the grading and drainage plans to address this issue. 4. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating required revisions and this Resolution and the Arborist report on a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 5. The complete construction plans shall include a final landscape plan, which depicts all proposed screening vegetation, replacement trees as well as tree protection fencing as depicted in the Arborist Report. All trees identified in the Arborist Report shall be identified on the landscape plan. 6. The surveyed site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 7. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 8. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hard Gaped area. 9. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 10. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 11. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 12. The address of this parcel shall be revised to allow ease of identifying the parcel along Sobey Road. The current address does not follow sequentially from the adjacent parcels along Sobey Road. The current address creates a hazard in terms of emergency response due to the difficulty in locating the property. 13. Site access shall comply with all fire department requirements for suitable access. M ~FJU®~~ File No. 04-034 -15145SobeyRo~ad 14. A utility plan shall be submitted with the revised plans for the arborist to review in terms of impact on adjacent trees. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on March 9, 2004 and revised their review on June 16, 2004. Their requirements are included as conditions of approval: 1. The fire flow of 2,250 gallons per minute is not available due to the travel distance to the nearest fire hydrant. A new fire hydrant is required. The spotting of that new fire hydrant is negotiable but will need to be adjacent to the driveway entrance from Sobey Road at least. 2. The building shall be provided with early warning Alarm system per City of Saratoga requirements. 3. The building shall be provided with an approved residential fire sprinkler system due to fire flow shortfall. If the applicant is able to provide the required fire flow via the correct number of fire hydrants (two within 500 feet of the most remote portion of the building) the fire sprinkler requirement will be for the garage only. 4. A complying fire department driveway of 14 feet~with 2 foot shoulders shall be installed. S. A complying fire department turnaround shall be provided. Per site inspection, it appears that the turnaround will occur on the site itself. The circular drive-around turnaround as reflected on the most recent plans does not comply with fire department standards. 6. The building shall be properly addressed with appropriate markings acceptable to the fire department. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist reviewed this project and prepared a report dated March 8, 2004. The recommendations of this report and any forthcoming reports are included as conditions of approval. In general the project exposes twenty-four ordinance-sized trees to the risk of potential damage. 1. Seven trees are to be removed to accommodate the proposed development. The combined value of these trees is $9,410. Mitigation for these removals shall include installing new trees on site that are equivalent to their combined value. The revised landscape plan shall identify the proposed location and species of replacement trees. f~~U®1'~ File No. P4-034 - ISI45SobeyRowd 2. The combined appraised value of trees planned for retention is $21,610. In accordance with the City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of this value is required to promote their protection. GEOTECHNICAL AND PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. Conditions of approval are as follow. 1. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., building setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. 2. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall specifically address the adequacy of surface drainage measures associated with the proposed cut slope and retaining wall (i.e., concrete v-ditches and related culverts). 3. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the Ciry Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 4. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project demolition and construction. These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. S. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in letters and submitted to the Ciry Engineer for review prior to Final Project Approval. 6. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the Ciry Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 7. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 8. Traffic safety review shall be conducted to assess the ingress/egress driveway intersection with Sobey Road. (~®~J~3~'i,~ File No. 04-034 -15145SobeyRowd 9. 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. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. Cin Arroiuv~r 1. 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 or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 36 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of t~e State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to tli'~e requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • ~~~~~~ File No. 04-034 - I5145SobeyRond PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of October, 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission cce ted u on the a ress terms and conditions hereof, This perrrut is hereby a p p xp 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 OOU~2U • Attachment 2 • E~~~~21 Saratoga Planning Commissi~'Iinutes of June 23, 2004 • Page 8 • Said that the current home is 2,200 square feet and they are adding 1,100 square feet upstairs or two rooms. • Stated that this is a small house when compared to others in the area. Commissioner Hunter asked if the footprint is the same except for the patio. Mr. Karen Bhatia replied yes. Director Tom Sullivan reported that per the Design Review Section of Code, the maximum size of floor area allowed would be 7,200 square feet. Chair Garakani: • Said that this is a constrained property as the owners cannot move toward the setbacks. • Pointed out that they are only adding two rooms with approximately 1,100 square feet. • Said that there is no issue here and any concerns can be mitigated with the planting of good trees. With that, the Bhatias will have their house and the City will have its views. Commissioner Rodgers expressed support for the idea of native trees, proposing that a big Oak tree be planted up front. Commissioner Nagpal suggested giving staff guidance to finalize tree placement. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review request to construct a 1,739 square foot second floor addition to an existing 2,814 square foot single-story structure on property located at 13228 Pierce Road, with the following requirements: ^ Plant a screening tree for the neighbor to the east, upon consultation with the neighbor to see if it is found to be necessary once framing of the second story addition has occurred; ^ Provide landscaping along Pierce Road, using native trees; ^ Require the use of attractive pavers for the driveway and front of the property both for drainage and appearance; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop, NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** paved area at the Commissioner Uhl arrived at 8:10 p.m. and joined the Commission at the dais following the conclusion of Agenda Item No. 1. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #04-034 (397-08-091) OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT. INC.. 15145 Sobey Road: Request Design Review approval to construct a 26-foot high single-story structure on a vacant lot with • • O.®U®22 Saratoga Planning Commissi~Iinutes of June 23, 2004 ~ Page 9 an average slope of 16%. The size of the home is 5,681 square feet with a 845 square foot basement. The lot size is 46,082 square feet and the parcel is zoned R-1-40,000. (ANN WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to construct on a vacant pazcel. • Stated that the new single-story home is proposed at 26 feet in height and would include 5,681 square feet with an 845 square foot basement. • Described the lot as consisting of 46,082 square feet with access from Sobey Road through a 20- foot wide access easement. • Said that this project could be consistent with Design Review guidelines if conditions of approval are met. • Said that neighbor concerns include issues of proximity of the garage to an adjacent parcel and the access easement. Commissioner Hunter questioned the proposed placement of the house and gazage at angles and asked for the reasoning behind that site design. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh deferred that question to the project azchitect but said that they probably don't want to see the gazage when they drive up to the house. Commissioner Hunter asked why not place the gazage at the back of the house. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that this would interfere with a ~uture pool site. Commissioner Nagpal asked how many homes the access easement serves. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that this issue was addressed for the previous subdivision. Reported that minutes from the public hearing consideration of the subdivision indicate that staff had recommended the widening of the paved portion of the access at the time of subdivision to 18 feet. The Planning Commission had recommended that it stay as it is, which is a 20 foot wide easement of which 14 feet is paved. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this easement is serving four lots, including this one. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that it is a matter of interpretation. The front lot has about 90 percent of its driveway accessing directly from Sobey Road frontage. Three other lots use this easement and this would be the fourth lot to use it. Commissioner Nagpal asked clarification that a previous Planning Commission decided that the access easement served four lots and did not require widening. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied yes, correct. She added that a neighbor appealed this decision when it was made in 1983. However, Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision. She reminded that the subdivision plan shows access from Sobey Road for that pazcel. Commissioner Hunter asked what the grounds were for the appeal that occur in 1983. ~~-t~~23 S Commissi~iinutes of June 23, 2004 10 Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied there were a couple of issues including access for five lots and not four. Commissioner Rodgers asked who owns this access road. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh: Advised that the access easement is 291 feet long and is owned by four different people. Mr. Coe owns a portion. Another person owns 20 feet, a third owns 200 feet and the fourth owns 50 feet. Stated that the applicant for tonight's project had a title report that states that they have access to the 20-foot wide easement. The final recorded map shows access to Sobey Road. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is a copy of the restatement of right-of-way. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that final maps don't usually have proposed building footprints on them. She added that the subdivision was approved based upon that access easement agreement. Director Tom Sullivan advised that within the City's existing Subdivision Ordinance it is made clear that conceptual architecture is not approved. Commissioner Nagpal said that it is not the architecture but rather its placement on the site that is of concern. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that the original location was up high on the property. One neighbor would prefer that the house not be placed where it had originally been conceptually placed on the Tentative Map. Chair Garakani asked if there is room available for the enlargement of the access road. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that to do so would encroach on trees, etc. Chair Garakani asked again if it is possible to enlarge to 20 feet. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that it would be difficult as it would require the okay from the four different property owners who would lose three feet of their property. Chair Garakani said that this is an issue that should be looked into. Commissioner Nagpal said that it could be looked at as part of Design Review. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh agreed that it could be made a condition of approval. However, she spoke with Public Works and Fire staff and it is not their policy to require widening in apre-existing condition. The 14-foot wide paved access easement with two-foot shoulder is sufficient for fire access. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the authority to require expansion is available during the Design Review process. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes, the Commission could exact off-site improvements. OOU®24 ., Saratoga Planning Commissi~iinutes of June 23, 2004 • Page 11 Commissioner Rodgers asked if the Commission could impose a condition that affected non-involved property owners. Director Tom Sullivan replied no, only on the owner before the Commission. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Michael Davis, Project Designer: • Apologized to the Commission for missing the site visit as he was called into a meeting. • Said that the design and placement of the house minimizes the impact of grading of the site. • Explained that there is a 15-foot difference from the lowest to highest point with a 10-foot rise from the garage to the house. They are tucking the house into the hillside. • Added that building higher on the lot would equal a steeper slope. • Stated that they also wanted to keep the house away from the nearest neighbor. • Pointed out that the required setback on the east side is 20 feet. They have gone to 38 feet. • Said that they have staked out the home. • Said that the placement of the home allows fire truck turnaround on site. • Explained that the access easement serves Mr. Coe, his client and two other properties. • Stated that widening the access would require tree removal and that Fire is happy with what is there. • Reminded that there are not a lot of trip counts for this access easement. • Reported that the upper neighbors to the west, Dr. and Mrs. Johnson, aze concerned if the house is raised up higher on the site. • Said that they are taking out few trees and will provide screening~n consultation with the Johnsons. • Said that he personally spoke with five neighbors, four in person and one over the phone. ~I Commissioner Hunter asked for an explanation on the footprint of the house and the gazage being way up front near the Stocks' property. Mr. Michael Davis replied that the placement is to limit grading. Placing elsewhere would cut into the hillside more. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the gazage would be seen from the neighbor's deck. Chair Garakani asked what other problem would occur for neighbors if the house placement were to be moved. Mr. Michael Davis replied visual impacts. He said that they would extend the landscaping. Chair Gazakani asked if Mr. Michael Davis has considered both neighbors' concerns. Mr. Michael Davis said that they have considered neighbors' concerns and met with these neighbors. He said that there would be an eight-foot landscape buffer. Additionally, if the house is placed higher up the lot, it looks higher while they aze tucking the house into the site where it is located. Said that their home is aFrench-country style with a steeper roof pitch. Chair Garakani suggested that this particular parcel does not support that architectural style and asked if the applicant would be willing to change his architecture. (~'~~®~~ Saratoga Planning Commissi of June 23, 2004 12 Commissioner Hunter asked if this home is for sale. Mr. Michael Davis replied yes, it is a spec home. He added that it is a stepped house with four levels to keep the house tucked in. There have been no neighbor concerns raised regarding height. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there would be geotechnical considerations if the house were moved further uphill. Mr. Michael Davis replied no, the site is good. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Michael Davis if they had considered atwo-story home with a smaller footprint. Mr. Michael Davis replied that this was considered to be out of the question for this site. Commissioner Rodgers asked if they had considered lowering the height of the structure. Mr. Michael Davis replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked why the client wants this specific style since they won't live in this house. Mr. Michael Davis replied that this is the style that they like. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that they have made concessions on the setbacks so that it does not appear too close to the neighbor. Mr. Michael Davis reminded that where a 20-foot setback is required, they are proposing a 38-foot setback. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that the front setback is 30 feet, the other side is 78.6 feet and the rear is 73 feet. Commissioner Hunter asked whether the circle in front of the house is required by Fire. Mr. Michael Davis said that it is one option acceptable to Fire, the other being a hammerhead. Commissioner Rodgers asked whether a hammerhead represents a smaller area than a circular drive. Mr. Michael Davis replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked about tree preservation. Mr. Michael Davis said that they lost one additional Oak tree when the moved the house eight feet further. He added that no pool area is proposed. Chair Garakani pointed out that sports court depicted on the site plan. ~Q~~~~~ Saratoga Plannin nutes of June 23, 2004 13 Mr. Michael Davis advised that they had to show what could be put in but that they don't plan to actually put it in themselves. An eventual owner could pursue this. Mr. Tom Coe, 15217 Sobey Road, Saratoga: • Said that he and his wife, Norma, live on the northern boundary of the subject lot. • Said he submitted a letter. • Advised that they received the public hearing notices on June 14`''. • Asked the Commission to postpone its decision. • Reported that the house number on the notice does not fit correctly in sequence with existing homes in the azea and suggested that this proposal should be re-noticed as some neighbors are unawaze of the proximity to their homes due to this confusing address. • Said that the major issue is that this project will result in the over-burdening of the right-of-way to Sobey. • Said that the subdivision was appealed to Council because the access serves four lots already. This is a violation of the Subdivision Ordinance to have an access easement serve more than four pazcels. • Reported that the access is substandazd right now. On trash day there is no place to put out cans. One more home would equal more cans. • Stated that this is not land locking this lot as there is an easement in place to Monte Vista. • Said that there are lots of issue and that he would like more time to prepare. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Tom Coe for his opinion of a one- tory versus two-story home on this site. Mr. Tom Coe said that this is not an issue for him. The bulk of thi~ house is like atwo-story already and includes considerable attic space. Said that he can appreciate the architectural aspects of dormers but that he had not been allowed to incorporate them into his own home's design a few years ago. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Tom Coe for the height of his own home. Mr. Tom Coe said that his two-story home is 26 feet tall. He pointed out that the house size proposed for the subject lot during the time of subdivision was significantly smaller that the one currently under consideration. Mr. Larry Williams, 133 Glenridge Avenue, Sazatoga: • Said that he is the property owner who bought this property three years ago with the clear understanding that he had an easement. • Stated that the neighbor, Mr. Coe, has caused problems with previous proposals. • Said that he original planned for a mega home but backed off from that to a 5,600 squaze foot home. • Pointed out that Mr. Coe was well aware of this pending project as he ran into the project superintendent several weeks ago and discussed the project with him. Ms. Shinku Sharma, 15211 Sobey Road, Sazatoga: • Said that she moved here eight years ago and that the owner at that time explained the easement as being shared with three neighbors. • Said that four to five years ago, this subject lot went on sale. Q~~~~~ ' Saratoga Planning Commissi~'Iinutes of June 23, 2004 • Page 14 • Said that when she received the public hearing notice, she went looking for 15145 Sobey Road and couldn't find it. She was confused with the numbering and didn't realize this property was so close to her property. • Said that she has had no time to look at plans and that no one approached her with the plans. • Expressed concern for traffic on the access easement and pointed out that she owns the largest portion of this easement. • Said that she would like to come back and address the issue of the easement. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh explained that there is typically no address for a vacant lot. When she searched the Assessor's Parcel Map, the project site was labeled with the address 15145. Another address source had a different address. She said that to cover all bases, she had the project site posted. Suggested that if the project is to require re-noticing, perhaps both address could be included. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the old address is prior to subdivision. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that she did not know. One informal map of addresses has one address and the Parcel Map has this address. Usually the corresponding address to the Assessor's Parcel Number is used. It is the address used for the plans. Corrunissioner Hunter said that property owners who receive notices usually compare addresses to their own to see the proximity to their own homes. Ms. Barbara Stock, 15249 Sobey Road, Saratoga: • Stated that she has lived here for 39 years and that her property is immediately adjacent to this subject property. • Announced her objections as the garage entrance will face her rear property line with no room for a landscaping buffer. • Recommended rotating the garage by 90 degrees toward Sobey Road and the relocation of the main portion of the house by 12 feet. • Said that a 26-foot tall single-story house is not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood and suggested a reduction in height by at least six feet. • Pointed out that the attic could be illegally converted into living space. • Said that this is a spec house. These people will leave the area but she would have to live with the consequences of this project for the rest of her life. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Barbara Stock for the height of her own home. Ms. Barbara Stock replied that she was not certain but that it is a single-story. Commissioner Hunter estimated that a typical height for asingle-story home is about 18 feet. Mr. William Johnson, 18955 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that he lives to the west of this lot. • Said that if the home is moved uphill, it would cut off their valley view. • Said that he has lived here for 50 years and has a lovely view. • Suggested that trees and landscaping be limited to 25 feet in height. • Pointed out that the site has very high weeds and asked that these weeds be disked. ®~~~28 ' Saratoga Planning Commissi~inutes of June 23, 2004 ~ Page 15 Commissioner Hunter reported that the Fire Department sends out letters for such matters. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. William Johnson if he is open to the concept of access for this lot via Monte Vista. Mr. William Johnson said not from the private road but that from Monte Wood it would be okay. Mr. Michael Davis: • Reminded that the 1983 issue regarding access has already been addressed and that Fire is comfortable with site access through this easement access. • Stated that this issue has been put to rest already. • Reported that there is no easement on record from this lot to Monte Vista. • Said that this is the fourth lot to access the easement. • Stated that Planner Ann Welsh raised the issue of confusion about the address for the site and that they posted the site immediately when she asked them to do so. • Said that the neighbors saw the story poles in place. Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. Michael Davis if he had met with all of the neighbors who spoke this evening. Mr. Michael Davis said all but Mrs. Sharma. I Chair Garakani asked when these conversations occurred. ~' I . Mr. Michael Davis said prior to installation of the story poles. ~' Chair Garakani asked Mr. Michael Davis if any contact occurred prior to submitting designs. Mr. Michael Davis replied no. Chair Garakani advised that the application process requires applicants to discuss their plans early with their neighbors prior to the submittal of plans. Director Tom Sullivan disagreed with that statement. Commissioner Hunter said that this requirement is often hard to accomplish. Commissioner Nagpal added that something has to be drawn up in order to have something to show. Mr. Michael Davis: • Said that they can bring a plan to neighbors but that the story poles give an idea of the bulk and proportion. • Said that he talked to Mr. Johnson just last week. • Reported that spinning the garage would put it closer to them at 30 feet instead of the proposed 38 feet as it is now. • Said that they could go seven feet higher uphill, keep the garage as it is and drop the roof pitch. E~~~®29 Saratoga Planning Commi of June 23, 2004 16 Commissioner Nagpal said that there have been a lot of comments today and asked Mr. Michael Davis if he is open to a continuance of this project. Mr. Michael Davis said that reaching a compromise today would be preferable. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter said that she feels this item must be continued as the proposed house is very tall, close to the Stocks' home and there are a number of issues to consider. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that there are 34 names on the notice list and said that posting the site correctly is important. Commissioner Schallop replied that the notice is not improper and a continuance of this project is not required for noticing reasons. Said he would support a continuance if doing so would be productive. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that she could not find the site when she went looking for it. Commissioner Hunter said that there are more issues than just the noticing. Commissioner Schallop said that the Commission must give instructions on what to do. Commissioner Hunter said that the story poles have only been up for five or six days and there area number of reasons to support continuance. Chair Garakani said that he has an objection to the design, saying that the parcel should be able to support the design. This project is both wide and tall. The applicant could go with atwo-story structure with a smaller footprint. The whole design is disturbing. Commissioner Uhl said that a lot of neighbor feedback has not yet been incorporated and that four of the six required findings cannot be made in his opinion. Commissioner Rodgers agreed. Commissioner Nagpal: • Agreed with Commissioner Uhl. • Suggested that the house be slide up the hill using a smaller footprint and two-story design and reconfigured garage. • Said that such a design would be more sensitive to trees, particularly Trees 3, 4 and 5, which are Oaks. • Stated that there is not enough information available on the access easement and some research should be done to see if there is an easement available to Monte Vista. • Said that she could see how a 14-foot wide driveway serving five homes is quite an issue. Commissioner Rodgers cautioned that the easement is a legal issue that may not be in the purview of the Planning Commission. ' ~ Saratoga Planning Commissi~iinutes of June 23, 2004 • Page 17 Director Tom Sullivan reported that the 1983 Council action was final. The next avenue available to the appellants was Court action, which was not pursued. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh reminded that the first home was interpreted as not using the easement for access since most of their own driveway was within the City's right-of-way. Commissioner Schallop asked what options are being offered to the applicant. Chair Garakani replied the options include outright denial, which seems to be the direction the Commission is leaning toward if action is taken this evening, or continuing the application in order to work with the neighbors and City to work out design issues. Mr. Michael Davis asked if they would return for the next meeting. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. This item would have to be re-noticed and be worked into a future agenda. Mr. Michael Davis reminded that the Planning Commission and Council already granted approval of the Subdivision in 1983. Said that there is no concern that there is legal access to Sobey Road via this easement for this lot. Commissioner Schallop asked staff if the City Attorney could be consulted on this issue of the access easement. I Director Tom Sullivan said that an interpretation can be obtained. Chair Garakani cautioned that this body should not judge on that issue. Mr. Larry Williams reminded that he purchased a property with a recorded easement. This is an improved lot for which he paid two million dollars. Reminded that the easement is a Title issue. Chair Garakani informed Mr. Larry Williams that the continuance is not based on the easement but rather on design issues. Chair Garakani re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission continued consideration of a Design Review application to construct a 26-foot high single-story structure on a vacant lot with an average slope of 165 located at 15145 Sobey Road to a date uncertain with the following instructions: . That the project be re-noticed; • That the project be brought back to the next available meeting; • That the applicant meets with neighbors regarding design issues; • That a legal interpretation on the issue of the access easement be obtained by the City Attorney; • That the applicant consider the design comments made by the Planning Commission during this evening's hearing; ~~~~~~ ' ' ~ Saratoga Planning Commissi~tinutes of June 23, 2004 • Page 18 • That a project incorporating a smaller footprint, perhaps a considered; • That Trees 3, 4 and 5 be considered for preservation; • That the placement of the garage be reconsidered; and • That a detailed landscaping plan be prepared; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None two-story, be • *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Uhl apologized to the Commission for being late for this evening's meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on June 2, 2004 and Special Meeting on June 9, 2004. There were no Communications Items. Miscellaneous Information Director Tom Sullivan advised that a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce was held, ,the first meeting for the re-writing of the Sign Ordinance. Chair Garakani advised that he would be out for the July 28`s meeting as would Commissioner Rodgers. Commissioner Uhl and Schallop both advised that they would be out for the July 14`s meeting. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of July 14, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk OOU032 • • • Attachment 3 • ®~~~~J Jonathan wittwer WITTWER & pARKIN~ LLP 147 SOUTH RIVER STRBHT~ SuITB 221 FARALSfW. Jana William P. Parkin SANTA CRIIZ~ CALIFORNIA 95060 Rinaldi Shandra DObrovOlny Tas.araoxa: (831) 429-4055 FACSINI Las (831) 429-4057 E-MAIL: oftice®avittwerparkin.com October 6, 2004 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Request for Legal Interpretation re Access Easement Issue Application No.: 04-034 APN 397-08-091 (15145 Sobey Road) Owner: Overland Development Honorable Commissioners: The purpose of this letter is to respond to the Planning Commission's request for a legal interpretation regarding issues related to an easement for an access road connected to Sobey Road and related to the above application. The issues were raised by Sazatoga resident Thomas U. Coe and presented to the Commission at the June 23, 2004 Planning Commission meeting and through Mr. Coe's June 23, 2004 and July 12, 20041etters to the Planning Commission and Community Development Department. Mr. Coe states that he also raised these issues in 1983 as part of the City's consideration of the Tentative Map Approval (SDR-1533). SUMMARY CONCLUSION In general, and based on the facts in the Staff Report, the doctrine of issue preclusion bars reconsideration by the Planning Commission of the below listed issue determinations made by the City Council in 1983, unless the Planning Commission makes a finding of changed circumstances regarding facts directly related to such issue. (1) the number of parcels taking access over the private access road easement from APN 397-08-09 ("subject parcel") to Sobey Road; and (2) the validity and scope of the access easement referenced in (1) above. On the other hand, the Planning Commission, as part of the Design Review Permit application hearing, may consider appropriate improvements to the access road easement. However, the standards for such improvements must be based on four parcels being served by such access road unless a finding of changed circumstances is made as to issue (1) above. This would limit the required width of the access road to 14 feet plus aone-foot shoulder on each side. Other improvements could be required if needed to comply with fire safety or traffic safety standards based on City policies and sufficient evidence. ~~~®34 _ Planning Commission Re: Access Easement to Sobey Road October 6, 2004 Page 2 of 8 LEGAL ANALYSIS According to the Minutes, the major issue related to the access to Sobey Road raised by Mr. Coe at the June 23, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting was that "this project will result in the over-burdening of the right of way to Sobey[Road]." The Minutes further reflect that Mr. Coe appealed the original 1983 subdivision approval to the City Council on the basis that it was a violation of the City Subdivision Ordinance to have an access easement serve more than four parcels. This issue will be addressed first. DOES THE 1983 CITY COUNCIL DECISION DENYING MR COE'S APPEAL OF THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PRECLUDE THE CURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION FROM FINDING THAT THE ACCESS ROAD TO SOBEY ROAD SERVES MORE THAN FOUR PARCELS AND HENCE MAY NOT BE USED AS THE ACCESS FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT BEING SOUGHT? Short Answer: Yes, the current Planning Commission is precluded from finding that the access road to Sobey Road serves more than four parcels, unless changed circumstances directly related to the number of lots served in 1983 can be shown. In a letter dated July 12, 2004, Thomas U. Coe states that in 1983 (at the formation of the subject lot by Tentative Map Approval) he challenged the legality of the num er of parcels taking access to Sobey Road over the private access road in question. This is co firmed by a letter dated April 25, 1983 (copy attached to the Coes' June 23, 20041etter) in which Mr. & Mrs. Thomas U. Coe appealed the Planning Commission's approval of SDR-1533, a entative Map for three lots. The first "Ground for the Appeal" listed by the Coes is as follows: "The applicants third lot would take access from Sobey Road from aright-of--way on which 4 (not 3 as indicated in the Staff report) homes presently take access. The approval of this project will now cause 5 homes to take access from the same private driveway/portal to Sobey." The Coes Apri125, 1983 Appeal further details this ground by stating that this would be in violation of the applicable general and specific plans and standard practices. The Appeal explains that the Anderson parcel is one of the five parcels which take access over the private driveway to Sobey Road. The Appeal further states that the City staff s position was that the Anderson driveway qualifies as a separate access to Sobey Road. The Appeal included two drawings ("figures #1 and #2) provided by the Coes to illustrate their point. It is clear that the Coes fully raised and presented the facts regarding this issue and that the issue was properly before the Planning Commission and then the City Council and that the parties had an adequate opportunity to present the issue. The applicant for the Tentative Map Approval which was the subject of the Coes 1983 Appeal submitted a letter in response on May 13, 1983 (copy attached as Exhibit 1). As to ground #1 of the Coes' Appeal, the response letter provides information from which the City Council could determine that the Anderson access is not via the private access road in question. Planning Commission Re: Access Easement to Sobey Road " October 6, 2004 Page 3 of 8 The "Issue Summary" of the Staff Report to the City Council (Exhibit 2 attached) on this 1983 Appeal, stated, in pertinent part, that the proposed access for the subject parcel is "onto Sobey Road via a minimum access road" and that Mr. Coe is appealing the Planning Commission's approval "as not in conformance with the General Plan stating that 1) it would cause 5 lots to access on a minimum access road." The City Council considered the Appeal and adopted as its decision Resolution No. 2065 (Exhibit 3 attached) "upholding a decision of the Planning Commission and granting ... Tentative Building Site Approval for SDR-1533." Resolution No. 2065 specified that the City Council held a de novo public hearing and considered the Coes' request, staff reports and other evidence, and denied the Appeal, upheld the decision of the Planning Commission and approved SDR-1533 per the findings and conditions in the amended Staff Report dated February 4, 1983 (copy attached to Resolution No. 2065). As will be discussed below, the legal doctrine of res judicata or issue preclusion is applicable to preclude reconsideration ofthe same issue that was previously resolved in an administrative hearing by an agency acting in a quasi judicial capacity after such decision became final due to the absence of any timely challenge in court. An issue maybe demonstrated to have been "previously resolved" by reference to findings or other documentary information in the administrative record. Here, the findings specified in that referenced Staff Report for SDR-1533 are stated in the negative and are not a vision of clarity. Essentially, the findings state that denial of the Tentative Map for SDR-1533 is required if (among other things) the proposed map is not inconsistent with the applicable general and specific plans. There appears to be an inadvertent double negative in this finding. That may be because that amended the finding was drafted to support a recommendation of denial for SDR-1533. Nevertheless, a fair reading of the intended meaning of the finding is that the Tentative Map is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans. This is contrary to the position taken in the Coes' Appeal that the number of parcels from which access is taken to Sobey Road over the private access road in question is in violation of the applicable general and specific plans. In any event, the documents contained in the administrative record as described above make it clear that the issue of whether the private access road to Sobey Road serves four vs. five parcels was clearly raised by the Coes' Appeal to the City Council, responded to by the applicant and the City staff, and resolved against the Coes' position by denial of that Appeal. The terms res judicata and issue preclusion are sometimes used interchangeably. Here it is clear that the question is whether certain issues were resolved by the City Council in denying the Coes Appeal on May 18, 1983. Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) bars the reconsideration of issues that were previously resolved in an administrative hearing by an agency acting in a quasi judicial capacity. When the City Council (or a Planning Commission for that matter) considers an appeal or grants or denies approval of a Tentative Map, it is acting in a quasi judicial capacity. Issues ruled on by Q®~D~3~ Planning Commission Re: Access Easement to Sobey Road October 6, 2004 Page 4 of 8 a City Council regarding an application for a Tentative Map Approval qualify for issue preclusion once the ruling on the issue becomes final. Finality occurs when all administrative or judicial review opportunities have been either exhausted or not undertaken in a timely manner. The issue resolved by the City Council in its Resolution No. 2065 denying the Coes' Appeal and granting approval of the Tentative Map for SDR-1533 bars the City from making contrary issue determination or ignoring the previous issue determination. According to the California Supreme Court "[c]ollateral estoppel maybe applied to decisions made by administrative agencies `[w]hen an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate ...."'1 As described above, all of these elements have been satisfied in this situation. The test for issue preclusion is whether the issue regarding the number of pazcels taking access over the private roadway to Sobey Road was decided at the previous 1983 City Council hearing and is identical to one being raised before the Planning Commission regarding the current Design Review Permit application. The issues do appear to be identical. However, the actual identity of issues is a factual determination to be made by the Planning Commission. Another scenario in which issue preclusion would not apply is where there has been a change of circumstances which distinguishes the current issue from the former one. In such a case, there is no issue preclusion. For example, issue preclusion would not apply if the • configuration of the Anderson driveway has changed in a manner so as to call into question whether it remains a sepazate access to Sobey Road, or if there is, another pazcel which now accesses Sobey Road using the private access road in question so as to increase the number of such parcels beyond the number accessing it in 1983. Whether there has been a change of circumstances is also a factual issue for the Planning Commission. A third situation in which issue preclusion would not apply is where the Planning Commission finds that the purpose of regulations limiting the number of parcels using the private access road as to the approval of a Design Review Permit is distinguishable from the purpose of the similaz access regulations applicable to the Tentative Map Approval in 1983. This is discussed in the June 23, 2004 Staff Report at the bottom of page 5 and the top of page 6. No distinction as to the purpose of such regulations was identified, nor has this Office identified any such distinction. Again, this is subject to the ultimate determination of the Planning Commission. IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION PRECLUDED FROM EXAMINING THE VALIDITY AND SCOPE OF THE EASEMENT SERVING AS AN ACCESS ROAD FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO SOBEY ROAD? ' People v. Sims (1982) 32 Ca1.3d 468, 479, overruled by statute on another issue (quoting United States v. Utah Construction Co. (1966) 384 U.S. 394). See also Knickerbocker v. City of Stockton (1988) 199 Ca1.App.3d 235. ~~~®~'7 Planning Commission Re: Access Easement to Sobey Road October 6, 2004 Page 5 of 8 Short Answer: Yes First of all, the Courts, not the Planning Commission, have the jurisdiction to determine the validity of an easement; in anv event. this issue was raised in the Coes' 1983 Appeal and to the extent that the Crtv Council or Plannm Commission could (in general) legally test the validity or scope of the easement b requiring a Court Judgment quieting title to the easement, reconsideration of the validity and scope of the easement is precluded as to the Design Review Permit. In their Apn125, 1983 Appeal to the City Council, the Coes stated as follows: "There is also a serious question as to whether the Foley's [former owners of the subject parcel] have the legal right to use a 20' "right of way" to Sobey Road for purposes of a "permanent and main access and egress roadway" and/or for the required utilities..... Title reports do indicate that such a 20' "right of way" might exist but certainly not for this specified use. Should you as a commission decide to continue approval of this subdivision project ... we ask that you make your approval contingent to the Foley's substantiating their legal right to the Sobey Road "right of way" for these specific purposes." Much of this was repeated in the Coes June 23, 20041etter to your Planning Commission, referencing their Apri125, 1983 Appeal. • The May 13, 1983 response from the then applicant included an Apri125, 19831etter from Ticor Title Insurance Company (attached to Exhibitl) confirming that the easement remained insured as valid, as well as other documents from which the City Council could determine that there was no basis for questioning the validity of the easement, commencing from 19672. Both the 1983 proceedings and the current proceedings include evidence in the form of Preliminary Title Reports showing that that the subject parcel is the beneficiary of "a right of way 20.0 feet wide" from the parcel to Sobey Road. The most recent Preliminary Title Report dated as of July 1, 2004 references the Parcel Map recorded June 6, 1985 (Book 544 of Maps, Pages 14 and 15) apparently based on the 1983 City approval of the Tentative Map for SDR- 1533. This Parcel Map describes the subject parcel as Parcel C and shows its access as being via the private access road in question to Sobey Road. This is consistent with the amended Staff Report dated February 4, 1983 attached to the 1983 City Council Resolution No. 2065 approving the Tentative Map for SDR-1533 which states that the third lot (Parcel C) "would take access from Sobey Road from an easement on which 3 homes presently take access." z According to the RESTATEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY AND GRANT OF EASEMENT prepared by an attorney for the Foleys, the right of way traces its roots to that certain Grant Deed from James W. Foley and Esther R. Foley, his wife, to Department of Veterans Affairs of the State of California, dated Mazch 10, 1958 and recorded as Document Number 1448073, in Book 4029 of Maps, Page 574, Santa Clara County Official Records which created a right-of--way in favor of the Foley property over and across a portion of the parcels intervening between the subject parcel and Sobey Road. ~~v®~~ • Planning Commission Re: Access Easement to Sobey Road October 6, 2004 Page 6 of 8 The approval by the City of the Tentative Map and the Parcel Map showing Parcel C being served by the access road in question, and the subsequent recordation with the County Recorder, all without timely legal challenge, renders the validity of this access road easement beyond challenge at this time, by reason of issue preclusion. As to the scope of the right of way, as a matter of law, as stated in the May 13, 1983 response by the then applicant: "The term `right of way' has been defined by the Supreme Court of California as a `right of ingress and egress to and from the grantee's lands.' (San Raphael Ranch Co. v. Ralph Rogers Co, volume 154 California Supreme Court Reports page 76 and 77.)" See also County of Alameda v. Ross (1939) 32 CA2d 135, 143. Furthermore, City Council Resolution No. 2065 (with its attachment), as well as the recorded Parcel Map, support the conclusion that the access road in question is the permanent and main access for the subject parcel. The May 13, 1983 response from the then applicant also states that utilities can be provided by the above right of way or an existing easement through the Stock property and across Parcel A of the Foley lands. Furthermore, an attachment to that May 13, 19831etter shows a "10' gas & water main r/w" in the above road right of way and references a document recorded at Volume 838, Page 204. The City Council was justi ed in resolving the issue of easement validity and scope in favor of the applicant in 1983, d hence has created issue preclusion today. i Again, issue preclusion would not apply to this issue if the Planning Commission finds any of the following: (1) lack of identity as to the issue; (2) change of circumstances; or (3) a distinction between the purpose of the current Design Review regulations and the prior Tentative Map regulations as to this issue. IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION PRECLUDED FROM REQUIRING A WIDENING OF THE PAVED AREA OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO SOBEY ROAD? Short Answer: No, but it is limited to the 14-foot standard applicable to a Design review Permit today absent a finding of changed circumstances. This is because in 1983 the then applicant took the position before the City Council that improvements to the right of way would be made as required by the City Furthermore, the Planning Commission may (or may not) find that there have been changed circumstances related to traffic safety or fire safety, although currently documented evidence ~s inadequate for such a finding. According to the Minutes of the Plamm~g Commission on March 9, 1983, the Commission voted to eliminate the proposed condition of approval that would have required the access road to be improved to 18 feet in width and instead left the access road as it is. In the Coes' Apri125, 1983 Appeal, ground # 7 is as follows: ~'~~~~~ Planning Commission Re: Access Easement to Sobey Road October 6, 2004 Page 7 of 8 "The same thoughts [if we have standards, let us enforce them against all or do away with them as to all] would apply to the waiving of the standrsd conditions requiring the improvement to the right of way to Sobey Road...." The May 13, 1983 response by the then applicant stated that: "There is no proposal that the standard conditions of improvement of the right of way to Sobey Road be waived, nor is there any waiver of them. The right of way to Sobey Road will be improved as required by the City. In that connection, adequate drainage will be provided for the protection of the adjacent property. All necessary plans, specifications, etc. will be provided in accordance with city requirements and procedures. There is no need to provide them for tentative map approval." As a result of the above statement by the applicant, the City Council decision to deny the Coes' Appeal did not necessarily preclude the City from requiring appropriate improvements related to the right of way or drainage in the future. However, the June 23, 2004 Staff Report points out at page 6 that the current standard would be a 14-foot wide roadway with a 1-foot wide shoulder on each side. This is for a driveway serving up to four parcels. The issue preclusion as to the number of pazcels served by this right of way would apply as described above so as to render the 14-foot standard applicable. Furthermore, as set forth above, there are other potential scenarios in which issue S preclusion would not apply as to this issue: (1) Where the Planning Commission makes a factual determination that there is not actual identity of issues between the issue before the City Council for the Tentative Map Approval and the issue currently before the Planning Commission for the Design Review Permit; or (2) Where there has been a change of circumstances which distinguishes the current issue from the former one. For example, fire safety or traffic safety needs may have changed in the interim and the Planning Commission makes such a factual determination; or (3) Where there is a distinction as to the purpose of the applicable Design Review regulations compared to the 1983 purpose of the Tentative Map regulations related to the improvement of the right of way. The June 23, 2004 Staff Report generally considered the foregoing possibilities and found none of them applicable, although changes in circumstances regarding traffic safety on the right of way or at the intersection of the right of way with Sobey Road is not discussed in detail. Again, it is for the Planning Commission to make the ultimate findings in this regazd. However, it is recommended that any evidence upon which the Planning Commission relies to make this finding be fully documented in the administrative record. • a~~®~~ Planning Commission Re: Access Easement to Sobey Road October 6, 2004 Page 8 of 8 Thus, in general, the above-quoted statement by the then applicant in his May 13, 1983 letter, and the possibility that changed circumstances may negate issue preclusion as to improvements, leaves the Planning Commission with some flexibility as to imposition of off-site requirements for improvements related to the access road in question. Please advise if you have further questions in this regard. Very truly yours, Wittwer & Parkin, LLP By Jonathan Wittwer, Assistant City Attorney Encls.: Exhibit 1 -Letter from Jack Foley dated May 13, 1983 responding to Coe Appeal Exhibit 2 -City staff "Issue Summary" for May 18, 1983 Appeal to City Council Exhibit 3 -City Council Resolution No. 2065 (adopted June 1, 1983 -with attachment) cc: Thomas Sullivan, AICP, Community Development Director • • ~©~®~r~ • Attachment 4 • •'F ®~®~~ • ~~^ ARBO~RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting do Tree Care A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT 15145 SOBEY ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION #: 04-034 APN #: 397-08-091 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga I ~ 13777 Fruitvale Avenue '~ Saratoga, CA 95070 ', Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A March 8, 2004 P.O. Box 25295. San Mateo. California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ®~WU~~~ . David L. Babby, Registered Consng Arborist • March 8, 2004 SUMMARY The proposed project exposes 24 trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential damage or removal. By implementation of the proposed design, eight trees will require removal (#3-5 and 18- 22). Their removals are appropriate. due io their poor structural condition, __ Replacements equivalent to their combined value of $14,120 are recommended as mitigation. The removal of tree #2 is encouraged and should be allowed. No replacements for this tree are suggested. The tree protection bond is required to equal 100% of the appraised value of trees planned for retention, which equals $16,910. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposal to construct asingle-family residence on a vacant lot 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga. • This report presents my findings; provides protection measures for retained trees and mitigation for those being removed; 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. A previous City Arborist report (dated June 19, 2002, Ban-ie D. Coate and Associates) was prepared for development of this site and contains an inventory of trees #1 thru 22. Trees #14a and 16a were added to the inventory and are included within this report. Please note much of the survey data presented on the attached table was derived from the previous report. Aluminum rectangular tags were found attached to the trunks of most inventoried trees. They contain numbers that correspond to those shown on the attached map and table. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets Cl (Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated 9/21/03), and L1 (Greg G. Ing and Associates, not dated). A copy of the Conceptual Landscape Plan is attached that identifies the prescribed locations of protection fencing, as well as each tree's number and location. Trees #6, 8, 10 and 16 were not shown on the plan and were plotted by me; their locations should not be construed as being surveyed. ~J 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga ~ ~ Page 1 oj4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department O~U0~4 David L. Arborist • March 8, 2004 • FINDINGS The proposed project design exposes 24 trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential impacts. They include eight Coast Live Oaks (#1, 3-7, 17, 18), one Valley Oak (#16a), three Califonua Black Walnuts (#20-22), one English Walnut (#19), ten Monterey Pines (#8-14, 14a, 15, 16) and one Red Ironbark Eucalyptus (#2). __ __ Trees #6 thru 9 are located on the neighboring southern property. They are inventoried for this report as they are exposed to potential damage from development activities. Eight trees are in direct conflict with the proposed design and include #3-5 and 18-22. These trees have been assigned either a low or moderate suitability for preservation and their removal is appropriate to accomplish development. Replacements are necessary. Tree #2 is a Eucalyptus that has been severely reduced in height some time ago. As a result, the tree has and will continue to have, throughout its life, weakly attached branches. Plans indicate retaining this tree. Due to the potential risk this tree presents to public safety, I recommend its removal rather than retention. Replacements for this tree are not necessary. Trees planned for retention are anticipated to survive the development provided recommendations presented in the next section are carefully followed and incorporated into the construction plans. I i RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any grading, surface scraping or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized steel posts that are 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. Its location shall resemble the precise location shown on the attached plan and be placed at or beyond the canopy edge (i.e. the furthest overhead branch from the trunk) and no further than two feet from any proposed hardscape. 2. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and off unpaved soil beneath tree canopies. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading (both soil fill and excavation), surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials {including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 3. Utilities should be planned outside from beneath a tree's canopy. Where this presents a conflict, I should be consulted. • 4. All trees resented in this report should be shown on all applicable plans. P 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Page 2 of 4 , 6~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department OO~I./O~a~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist • March 8, 2004 5. 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 canopies must be labeled for safe use near trees. 6. The pruning and removal of trees must be performed under supervision of an International...Society of Arboriculture (I$A)__Certified_.Arborist__ and__according to standazds 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. 7. Landscaping (hazdscape, planting and irrigation) plans and those showing any new underground utilities should be submitted to the City for review of tree impacts. Approval should be provided prior to their implementation. 8. Stones or mulch should be placed no closer than one-foot from a tree's trunk. 9. 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. Please note trenches dug for electrical lines should be installed by the same guidelines. • 10. The combined value of trees proposed for removal is $14,120. Mitigation for their removals shall include installing new trees on site that are equivalent to their combined value. The replacement tree values and sizes are presented on the `Replacement Tree Values' chart shown on the attached table. Acceptable replacement species include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Black Oak (Quercus kelloggit~, Blue Oak (Quercus douglasit~, Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa), Big Leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), California Buckeye (Aesculus californica), Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesit~ and Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). The tree sizes and species shall be shown on any landscape or planting plan. In the event that the necessary amount and size of replacement trees cannot be reasonably installed on site, the outstanding value amount shall be provided to the City for deposit into the `Tree Fund' (City Tree Ordinance, Section 15-50.150). r~ U 1 S 14S Sobey Road, Saratoga City ojSaratoga Community Development Department Page 3 ~®~®~~ David L. Bobby, Arborist • March 8, 2004 TREE PROTECTION BOND The combined appraised value of trees planned for retention is $16,910. In accordance with the City Ordinance, a bond equivalent to 100% of this value is required to promote their protection. The appraised tree values presented within. the_June 19,_2002_report were calculated by others and were used for this report. The values for trees #14a and 16a were 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 Conceptual Landscape Plan • 15145 Sobey Road, Saratoga Page 4 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~-~QL~~ • • • ARBOI~ESOURCES ~ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE Coast Live Oak 1 uercus a ' olio 11, 8, 7 20 20 100% 259~o Fair Low 2 - S1,870 Red Ironbark Z (Eucal tus side Ion 18, 8 20 20 75% 0% Poor Low 2 - SO Coast Live Oak 13,9,8,8,6 3 en^us a 'olio 3 20 35 100% 25% Fair Low - X S3,310 Coast Live Oak 4 ercus a 'olio 13, 7, 7, 3 20 20 100% 25% Fair Low - X 52 820 Coast Live Oak 12,10(3),6 S emus a 'olio ,6,5 25 35 100% 25% Fair Low - X 54,710 Coast Live Oak 12, 11, 6 emus a 'olio 11, 6 25 35 100% 25% Fair Coast Live Oak 7 er+cus a 'olio 9, 6 20 l5 100% 75% Good 4 - X 4 - Monterey Pine g pines mdiata 18 35 25 100% 50% Good Hi 4 - X S1,000 Monterey Pine 9 (pines rodiata 12 40 20 75% 509/o Fair 4 - 5360 Monterey Pine 10 Pines rodiota 12 40 20 100% SO% Good Moderate 4 - X S450 Monterey Pine 11 (Pines rodiam 18 40 40 100% SO% Good Moderate 3 - S1,080 Monterey Pine 12 (Pimrs radiaw 9, 6 30 20 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 - 5190 Monterey Pine 13 Pines mdiota 16 35 35 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 - S730 Monterey Pine (pines rodiam 12 35 20 75% 509/o Fav Moderate 3 - REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES qon ~ 5130 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = SS 000 52-inch box = 57,000 '72-inch box ` 3 " •5 -~ a ., ~ 3 ., ~ 3 C ~~ 3 ; ~ °" ~ > a b $ . ~ ~ S ~ c ~~ « r, ~ '~ «. a ~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~~ _ ~, :: s ... a ,.__ ~_..~ ... r. .. Job: 13J~3 s•b•l R••~ Sip Pnpo~sl j•r. CYq •js~•as• Cew~wrwip• Dsvdyiwa~t Dqc I oj? Prsp~rJbr: DniJL B•bbl, RCA g€~048 •i ~i - • • • ARBOI~ESOURCES ~ • Professional Arboricultural Consulting 8c Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE .. ~ ^ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ U - ... . v sC ;, p TREE NAME ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,_„ > y !i, ~ Monterry line I I I I° I I I 1I- 14a (Pines mdiata) 11.5 15 35 75 /0 25% Fav Low 4 S350 Monterry Pine 1S Pines rodiata 21 45 35 75% 50% Fair Moderate 4 - 51,180 Monterey Pine 16 Pines mdiata 25 45 45 75% 50% Fair Moderate S - X S1,670 Valley Oak 7.5,6,5.5, 16a er+cus lobam 3 25 30 100% 25% Fair Moderate 4 - 52,600 Coast Live Oak 17 encus a 'olio 9,9,9,7 15 30 100% 25% Fav Low 4 - S1,790 Coast Live Oak emus o 'olio 8,7,6,6,4 20 35 100% 50% Moderate - X 51,580 English Walnut - 19 Ju lans 'a 16 20 35 75% 75% Good ' Moderate - X 51,100 California Black Walnut Zp Ju Tans hi»dsii 14 15 30 75% 50% Fair Moderate - X 5220 California Black Walnut 21 Ju lore hirulsii 16 l5 30 50% 25% Poor Low - X S290 California Black Walnut 22 Ju laps hindsii 11, 10, 10 l5 20 50% 25% Poor Low - X 590 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES is uoo - s~so 2a-n~ ~ =sago s~-~ uoa - x1,320 as-inch ~ = ss o0o s2-inch ~ = s7,ooo rz-~ box = s~s,ooo ~.r: u~*s s.M R..4 s...ar. p-iNMIJbr: Uq ejs.~.s. CowWwwwlry P+~Dge y~~d b: Deri/L 6~, RCA O®®®~~ 2 ojJ 3R/lIII • 209.41' N 89' 41'55' E ems: uus soer,~ nr.a s..o~. - >r~d.far. cy or3mtop cr,~,T o,v~lop,nelr n~.~ a: n~.ree e, ma j I ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ l~ , ~ r / ~ o e~a ~ '/ ~ o Q° ~ i L \ I I ~I a , 1 ~ ~` ~ i ~ I L u' \ M v I I ~ I~ 2,? ° ~m r .I I I ~ , I I Q I ~ .+ t J 1 ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~~ u~ ~ - 21 L A 1 TREE PROTECTION FENCING ~- ' ~ ' ~' y,: W i ~~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ b7. ~ ~ 18 11 .,,..,;,.. ~ ` o '~ ~'~ ~~ 5 `,' •;, . `\~ ~ ~ • N \ ~' ty~/0 / ~ / r r _ y . ~ ~ ~' •. _ 15 14 ~ ~ ~ ~ / / ~ • .13 ~. ~ >' [ \ ,~ 11 ~~ TREE PROTECTION FENCING ~ ~ ; 12;3 ,•~ ~~ ~ ~ 10~ 9~ f Pnpand By: 8 • '~ ` ~ ARBOR RE3OURCBB ~ L ~ E i ~ ~ O®~®~O hr/enbwN ArbrlerlnrN Gwrwklq ! Tree Cnw V r.o. sa t!m . s. w+, CA . waf N rr.rtaw:u~.nsi . e..r~ • Attachment 5 ®~®~S1 4- - ~,~r~L"R`' coy FIRE DEPARTMENT ~ ~~,~ SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • wwu,.sccfd.org COY11,p....11VICE -- ~,,,,,,,w,~, 04 0412 DLDO PERMR NUtAlER coNrRDL NUMBER ALE NUMBER 04-034 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODFJSEC. I SHEET I NO.I REOUIREMENI' Fc ppAendix r~ 13.2 Fc i3.2 -- - New 6,485 sq. ft. single family dwelling including unattached garage and basement. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. Reattired Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 2,250 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is not* available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. *Fire flow requires 2 fire hydrants, only one available in required travel distance. 2. 3. Required Fire Flow Option (Single Family Dwellin¢s); Provide the required fire flow from fire hydrants spaced at a maximum f 5oum 0 f OR, provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building, designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D and local ordinances. The fire sprinkler system supply valuing shall be installed per Fire 'Department Standard Detail & Specifications SP-4 (See attached). Required Access to Water Suvvly (Hydrants): Portions of the structure(s) are greater than 150 feet of travel dist n e from eth centerline of the roadway containing public fire hydrants. Provide an on-site fire hydrant OR, provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE AppNcantPhnr DATE PAGE TG ^ ^ ® ^ ^ R-3 V-N D & Z DESIGN ASSOCIATES 3/9/2004 1 of 2 ECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION ~ 6,485 sq. ft. Residential Development Chase, Melanie AME OF PROJECT ~ LOCATION SFR- SOBEY 115145 Sobey Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Claro County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos. Los Altos Hills. Los Gatos. Monte Sereno. Morgan Hill, and Saratoga Q®®©.~~ :. • c~ . ~,,,~~ 04 0412 ~,~h °o~ FIRE DEPARTMENT `~ SANTA CLARA COUNTY SLDGPERMrrNUMOER ~ a~ 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org °OMAOL~B°~ cou~nar a alma 04-034 RLE NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. SNEET NO. REQUIREMENT ~4 5.110 4' Early W~ arising Fire Alarm system Required: Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga Standards. Prior to installation, a licensed C-10 contractor shall submit to the fire department, plans, specifications & listings, a completed permit application, and applicable fee's for review and approval. ,~ 4 5• Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review Conditions shall be restated as "notes" on all pending and future plan submittals and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal. I, Clty PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL A8 OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE AppUcantPHrM DATE PAOE CG ^ ^ ® ^ ^ R-3 V-N D & Z DESIGN ASSOCIATES 3/9/2004 2 2 of CJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY 6,485 sq. ft. Residential Development Chase, Melanie p1~F PROJECT LOCATION SFR- SOBEY 115145 Sobey Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District O®S~ Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell. Cupertino. Los Altos. Los Altos Hills. Los Gatos. Monte Sereno. Morgan Hill, and Saratoga •~ ' , . ~, STANDARD DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS spec No ~ Rev. Date 06/03/99 SUBJECT: Specifications for Fire Sprinkler Systems in single Eff. Date o8 /97 family dwellings in excess of 3,600 square feet Approved By Page ~_ of ~_ _ SCOPE This standard applies to single family dwellings, as classified by the Building Code, in excess of 3,600 square feet where fire sprinkler systems are installed as an approved Alternate Method of Compliance to the provisions of the Fire Code, or when such systems are required under a specific local ordinance. DEFINTITONS Alternate Method of Compliance: An approved method of compliance that, in the opinion of the Fire Department, meets the intent of the provisions outlined in the Fire Code. NFPA 13D: National Fire Protection Association Standard 13D, Fire Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two Family Dwellir-.gs and Mobile Homes. I REQUIREMENTS 1~. The sprinkler system installation shall comply with provisions of the most recent edition of NFPA Standard 13D with the following exceptions: System Design • The number of design sprinklers shall include all sprinklers in the most remote room . or area up to a maximum of four (4) sprinklers. • If the most remote room or area contains .less than four (4) sprinklers, hydraulic calculations shall be provided in accordance with NFPA Standard 13D (2 head calculation). Additionally, calculations shall be provided for the largest room that is the most remotely located from the supply riser to verify operation for all fire sprinklers within that space up to a maximum of four (4) fire sprinklers. Location of Sprinklers The exceptions listed for the locations of sprinklers as per NFPA Standard 13D shall be applicable except as follows: • Fire sprinklers shall be provided in any attached garage, carport, basement or foyer(s). ~~r~v-~e ~aG y~ • FIRE '` FIRE DEPARTMENT • SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd • Los Gatos • CA 95030-1818 •.(408) 378-4010 r~ ~~~~ , • • & S SP-4 Pag of ~ • Attics, crawl spaces, or concealed spaces, with a greater than 22 inch by 30 inch standard utility access opening and/or, if provided with access stairs and/or, if intended to be used for living or storage purposes, shall be provided with fire sprinkler protection. • Attic spaces that contain mechanical equipment such-as-furnaces and-~n-a#er-heaters shall be provided with sprinklers limited to the protection of the equipment itself. Small closet spaces that contain furnaces, water heaters or other mechanical equipment shall be provided with sprinkler protection regardless of the size of the space. larm • Exterior audible water flow alarms shall be provided. Additionally, water flow shall activate either a separate interior audible device that can be heard in all sleeping areas or, through interconnection with the smoke detectors, which will sound an alarm in the sleeping areas. Sontrol Valy .a Section 3-1.1 of NFPA Standard 13D requires, "each syst to have a single control valve . arranged to shut off both the domestic and sprinkler syst, and a separate shut off valve for the domestic system only." To provide visual depictio of the valve arran ement Appendix Section A-2-2, and Fi res A-2-2 a throw g gu () gh (c) reflect possible arrangements for • the underground supply piping and valve(s). What has not been shown on these figures is the location of the valve with respect to the structure. To establish consistency and meet operational needs of responding emergency equipment, the following specification shall be incorporated into the design and installation of residential fire sprinkler systems and associated underground supply piping. Valves controlling the water supply to residential fire sprinkler systems installed in accordance with NFPA Standard #13D shall be distinguishable, accessible, and located adjacent to the structure, proximal to the domestic shut off valve. The main system control valve shall be distinguishable from the domestic valve by means of a permanently attached tag and be of contrasting color (i.e.: red handle for main system, versus black handle for the domestic supply). • ~©®®~~ ~~PG~ coG ~ ~~ ~,.~...~ June 16, 2004 • FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org Ms. Anne Welsh, Associate Planner City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 Subject: 15145 Sobey Rd., Plan review comments Deaz Ms. Welsh, Following our discussions today, I have reconfirmed my original conditions of 7/16/02. Those conditions shall supercede the subsequent developmental review comments issued 3/9/04 by this department. While the more recent review comments acknowledge a smaller home than the original, the original conditions still do apply regardless of the building size. To reiterate our original conditions: 1) The fire flow of 2,250 gallons per minute is not available due to the travel distance to the neazest fire hydrant. Anew fire hydrant is required. The spotting of that new fire hydrant is negotiable but will need to be adjacent to the driveway entrance from Sobey Road at least. 2) The building shall be provided with an Eazly Warning Alarm System per City of Saratoga requirements. 3) The building shall be provided with an approved residential fire sprinkler system due to fire flow shortfall. 4) If the applicant is able to provide the required fire flow via the correct number of fire hydrants (two within 500' of the most remote portion of the building), the fire sprinkler requirement will be for the gazage only. 5) A complying fire department driveway of 14' with one 2' shoulder shall be installed. ~, J • • Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District iflkfA~®56 - Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga • Ms. Anne Welsh Page 2 6) A complying fire department turnazound shall be provided. Per a site inspection, it appears that the turnaround will occur on the site itself. The circular drive-around _ turnazound as. reflected on the most recent plans does not comply with-onr-standazds. The applicant should be directed to our Standazd, Detail and Specification D-1 for proper dimension and circulation radius. It is noted that should the center feature of the drive-around be removed and converted to a driveable surface, adequate azea remains available for the turn-around. 7) The building shall be properly addressed with appropriate markings acceptable to this department. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact myself. Sincerely, ~ ~ ,~ ~~~~ W~yne A. Hokanson Deputy Fire Marshal II I Fire Prevention Division i ®Q~®~Y~~ • Attachment 6 • ~~®®5g MEMORANDUM TO: Ann Welsh, Associate Planner CC: Applicant FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions & Public Works Conditions for Overland Development, 15415 Sobey Road DATE: Apri127, 2004 Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. Conditions of approval are as follow. 1. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., building setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to enure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall specifically address the adequacy of surface drainage measures associated with the proposed cut slope and retaining wall (i.e., concrete v-ditches and related culverts). The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 2. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project demolition and construction. These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, ani excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in letters and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to Final Project Approval. • 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Cleazance. 4. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Sazatoga hazmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 5. Traffic safety review shall be conducted to assess the ingress/egress driveway intersection with Sobey Road. • • • Attachment 7 • ~~®~61 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) l I, ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18//y~ears; that acting for the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission on the ~ day of ~~,~~~h~ 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 Nt9~ice 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. ~~~~ t ~~®®62 COIS SEBASTIANO & FRANCESCA r Current Owner 181 SOBEY RD ARATOGA, CA 95070-6238 BERRY RONNIE TRUSTEE or Current Owner 15225 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 BOEHM ROBERT & MARY K TRUSTEE or Current Owner 15215 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6265 KIM JIN DUCK & KYUNG SIK ETAL or Current Owner 15277 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 96070-6255 FUJIlVIURA AKI or Current Owner 15220 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6239 ~NS SCOTT TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 18974 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6201 OBOT JOSEPH & MARY A or Current Owner 18721 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6221 MAYO CESAR M & CORAZON G TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 18801 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA, CA 96070-6221 LIPTON HAROLD P & ELEANOR TRUSTEE or Current Owner 15420 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6277 ~RVATH DAGMAR M Current Owner 15209 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-6268 SRIDHAR ANJALI & MADHU or Current Owner 15201 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 BERLINER SANFORD A & JAN BERGER M TRUSTEE or Current Owner 15237 SOBEY RD ~Ai~AT{3GA~ CA__95070-6256. COE THOMAS U & NORMA J TRUSTEE or Current Owner 15217 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 96070-6265 LEWIS ROBERT P & VIRGINIA L TRUSTEE or Current Owner 15279 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 PROPACH DAVID & NATASHA or Current Owner 15200 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6239 KRIENS SCOTT TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 18940 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6279 LOHR CAROL W & JEROME J or Current Owner 18766 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6221 ANASTASIA JOHN & GLORIA A or Current Owner 18811 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA, CA 96070-6221 GUPTA RAMP & SAROJ K or Current Owner 15000 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-6268 BOBROWSKI DEAN V & JAIMIE D or Current Owner 16225 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-6268 SHARMA RAMESH & SHINKU or Current Owner 15211 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 STOCK BARBARA A TRUSTEE or Current Owner 15249 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 FOLLMAR KENNETH E II & DEBORAH A TRUSTEE or Current Owner 15261 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 BRAND VERA H & BERNARD TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 15283 SOBEY RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6255 RONALD M TATE/REGENCY MONARCH DEVELOPMENTS or Current Owner 22 S SANTA CRUZ AV 2 LOS GATOS, CA 95020 CHEN JESSE J & WANPYNG or Current Owner 18975 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6202 LO WEI-JEN & MEI-LIEN or Current Owner 18787 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6221 SIMONSEN TOVE or Current Owner 18433 MONTEWOOD DR SARATOGA, CA 96070-6221 HORVATH DAGMAR M or Current Owner 15209 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-6268 BOBROWSKI DEAN V & JAIMIF D or Current Owner 16226 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-6268 ®Q©~6~ OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP or Current Owner 18025 MONTEREY HY A MORGAN HILL, CA 95037 O'HAREN PATRICK J & SILVIA M or Current Owner 18935 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6202 FOLEY MICHAEL E ETAL or Current Owner 18927 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6202 JOHNSON WILLIAM A & ROBERTA J TRUSTEE or Current Owner 18955 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA -95D7-0-6202 _... SWEENEY JOSEPH J or Current Owner 18929 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 • • ~~~~~~ • Attachment 8 • '~~~®~~ • • • THOMAS U. CoE~ CMfgE, PE Telephone: 1 (408) 354-2139 15217 Sobey Road, Saratoga, California 95070-6255 USA Facsimile: 1 (408) 354-2286 June 23, 2fl04 Via Hand Delivery (page 1 of 27 w/enclosures) Saratoga-Planning-Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Fax: (408) 867-8555 Subject: Issues and concems pertaining to APPLICATION # 04-034 (397-08-091) Overland Development, Inc. 15145 Sobey Road Re: 1) APPLICATION # 04-034 (397-08-091) Overland Development, Inc. 15145 Sobey Road 2) Your "NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION" to us, undated but postmarked JUN 10, 2004 (received 6-14-04) concerning this above referenced APPLICATION # 04-034 3 Enclosed co of Mr. & Mrs. Thomas U Coe's 1 tter to ou, dated A ril py y p 25, 1983 as a "Statement of appeal toward the Com fission's Approval of Project File No. SDR-1533, Foley's Tentative Map for 3 lots with Building Sites and variances." w/attachments (8 pages); we also reference and refer you to this letter's references, its attachments and all the signature sheets of the surrounding neighbors attesting to sharing in the concems stated in this letter to you urging you to reconsider your approval and deny this project (these can all be found in your Project File no. SDR-1533). 4) Your entire Project File No. SDR-1533 as it pertains to all stated and potential aspects of the Subject APPLICATION # 04-034 including the cul-de- sac vs. fire-gate issue and this continuing subdivision project 5) Enclosed copy of Ronald W. Moore's (Fire Prevention Chief, Fire Preven- tion Division of Santa Clara County's Central Fire Protection District). to you (City of Saratoga Planning Commission), dated: 16 May 1983 (1 page) 6) Enclosed copy of a proposed "RESTATEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY AND GRANT OF EASEMENT" to be recorded at the request of William Gorman, to be entered into this day of , 2001 (5 pages) 7) Enclosed copy of my letter to Mr. Bill Gorman of February 21, 2001, w/enclosure (6 pages) ~®~t~6~ Saratoga Planning Commission, June 23, 2004 page, 2 of 7 8) Staffs "REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION", regarding Subject APPLICATION # 04-034, by Ann Welsh, dated June 23, 2004, (received 6-21-04), and its attachments Dear Commissioners: We have a number of issues and concerns that we wou-Id like to Tring -to your attention pertaining to the Subject APPLICATION # 04-034 (397-08-091) Over- land Development, Inc. 15145 Sobey Road. We respectfully request that you give consideration and respond to the following: 1) First, we are confused about the potentially deceptive lot number of 15145 being used here which throws those receiving your Notice off as to the location of this site. We believe this to be in error as previous discussions about the development of this lot had used 15219 as the lot number which certainly fits its location better and corresponds to other city documentation. Accordingly, shouldn't this hearing be re-noticed with clarification so as to be fair and lawful to all concerned? Hopefully in a more timely manner also as it seems we should be able get more than a 9 day notice to such an important Hearing for us so that we have time to thoroughly research the matter and prepare an adequate response. We have subsequently heard from several of our neighbors that they didn't respond to this Notice as they would have because of confusion over the street number used and the actual location of the subject lot. 2) Our mayor issue with this APPLICATION ~s that the drawings reflect the ingress and egress for this new home to be off of Sobey Road, utilizing the existing nonconforming "minimum access street" which already has four plus lots/homes utilizing this street and its encroachment onto Sobey as a means of access for ingress and egress. In addition, this 20 ft. wide old existing easement runs along the entire eastern property line of the subject lot and beyond all the way into the 30 & 40 ft. wide easements to Monte Vista Drive. The lots to the east of this 20 ft. wide old existing easement also have access to it with existing gating and use it periodically for recreational vehicles, annual tractor access for discing, etc. Allowing this subject lot to have this ingress/egress will put five plus lots on this "minimum access street" which would be in violation of the City Ordinance/Code 14-25.030 (g) (1) which states that "The minimum access street constitutes the means of access for not more than four lots;". This subject lot should be required to take its access to the south along the easements to Monte Vista Dr. which would put only three lots on .that mini- mum access street. I suspect that it will be argued that the subject lot does not have a right of way to Monte Vista Dr. according to its submitted Titie Report. I do not believe this to be the case. As stated in my and my wife's referenced letter to you of April 25, 1983, beginning at the last paragraph of page 5: "To date, it has not been substantiated as to whether the Foley's have the legal right to this "right of way" to Sobey Road. If they in fact do, then the question arises as to whether they have the right to use it fora "permanent and main ~;~~®6'~ Saratoga Planning Commission, June 23, 2004 page, 3 of 7 access and egress roadway" and/or for any required utilities. Their alleged right of way across our property does not appear in any way on our referenced Individual Joint Tenancy Deed. Title reports do indicate that such a 20' "right of way" might exist but certainly not for this specified use. It is our opinion as well as our title officer's, that this right of way was never intended for these purposes and is not appropriate for such purposes today. Our opinion is derived from and substantiated by the following: a) The Foley properties already have 30' and 40' "easements" specified for road purposes to both sections of Monte Vista Drive (refer to refer- enced Preliminary Title Report, dated 2-4-83). b) The Foley properries also have established "easements" specified for public utility purposes. These issues of title and rightful use of easements and right of ways came to the surface again in late 2000/ear1y2001 when Michael Foley was attempting to sell the subject lot through Bill Gorman of Coldwell Banker. Research indicated that there was potential validity to these issues we had raised. This was substan- tiated and is attested to by the generation and existence of the referenced and enclosed copy of the proposed "RESTATEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY AND GRANT OF EASEMENT". Please carefully review in full detail this Restatement of Right of Way document that has ne~er been executed and my response to it being the referenced enclosed copy of my letter to Mr. Bill Gorman of February 21, 2001, with its enclosure. It is very important that you give careful consideration to all the factors expressed in these two documents as you contemplate your objective response to this Design Review. The fact remains that this old 20' right of way still exists along the eastern property line of the subject lot and extends all the way into the 30' and 40' wide easements to Monte Vista Drive. This 20' right of way has never had a recorded abandonment to our knowledge and has been in continuous use by all the adjacent property owners for the last 3? years that we have been involved. The subject lot can take its ingress, egress and utility easements from Monte Vista just as well as from Sobey. In doing so, it would not be overloading the already overburdened nonconforming right of way to Sobey and it would not overburden the right of way to Monte Vista which only has the two existing homes on it in contrast to the four existing on the Sobey right of way. 3) Before you come to conclusion on approving or denying this Design Review we feel it is also important that you become knowledgeable of the many issues and concerns that were raised, acknowledged and shared by the many surround- ing neighbors at the formation of this subject lot. This being by the subdivision of one lot into three lots, including the subject lot. You need to further understand the way these issues and concerns were represented and to be dealt with at the time and how that relates today. Concessions were made at the time that were contingent on other things being done that have not or are not being done. ®®~~~~ Saratoga Planning Commission, June 23, 2004 page, 4 of 7 This will require a thorough review of your entire referenced Project File No. SDR-1533 as it pertains to all the stated and potential aspects of the Subject APPLICATION # 04-034 including the cul-de-sac vs,. fire-gate issue, etc. It will require a thorough review of the enclosed copy of our referenced (Mr. & Mrs. Thomas U, Coe's) letter to you, dated April 25, 1983 as a "State- ment of appeal toward the Commission's Approval of Project File No. SDR- 1533, Foley's Tentative Map for 3 lots with Building Sites and variances." __ w/attacllments~~ pages; we-also re erence and refer you~to th~3~letter'~ re er= ences, its attachments and all the signature sheets of the surrounding neighbors attesting to sharing in the concerns stated in this letter to you urging you to reconsider your approval and deny this project. As examples, the original layout of the proposed home depicted on the subdivision map of the subject lot was far less obtrusive than what is being proposed today. This creates a very offensive, objectionable and inequitable situation in consideration of the concessions that were made originally in allowing the formation of these 3 lots, including the subject lot. This specifi- cally being where setback variances were granted allowing the substandard improvement and higher structure density, and this was allowed being based on the original relatively subdued layout. Now in comparison, the new layout has a substantially larger home, garage, driveway, etc., creating a significantly larger improvement/structure density than originally being considered. This new tack creates an untenable and inequitable situation for us who originally objected to this subdivision. It validates the validity of our concgms originally and should nullify the concessions granted. I Then in not requiring a cul-de-sac at the nor 'end of Monte Vista Dr., a fire-gate was to be installed to create a through street Ito the continuation of Monte Vista Drive. Please refer to the referenced en losed copy of Ronald W. Moore's (Fire Prevention Chief, Fire Prevention Divis'on of Santa Clara County's Central Fire Protection District) to you (City of Saratoga Planning Commission), dated: 16 May 1983 (1 page). This required fire-gate and through street transition has never been installed and this raises a significant concern in our minds if we should ever have to deal with afire-storm in the area. If a fire crosses this line a responding fire engine or engines would have to travel over 1.3 miles if they don't get lost, transition 4 speed-bumps and 2 boulevard-stops to get around to the other side of this barrier. How can this be allowed? These and other related points of issue are matters not equitable to the surrounding neighbors and in some cases pose significant safety issues. You will need to take all these matters into consideration in forming your decision. 4) In the event you should decide to approve this Design Review allowing the ingress and egress from Sobey, we respectfully request that you require the builder to bring the "minimum access street" right of way up to minimum required standards of the 18 feet of pavement width with one foot shoulders on each side. We further request that you require the builder to provide an unobstructed paved extension of the 20 foot wide non-exclusive Right of Way onto their property 30 feet in length so as to provide a "hammer-head" turn- around at the end of our common driveway. This so as to conform to the City of Saratoga's and the responsible Santa Clara County Fire Department's mini- mum requirements for this sort of turnaround -this to complete the turnaround requirement imposed on us installing our driveway gate. ~Q®~~i9 Saratoga Planning Commission, June 23, 2004 page, 5 of 7 In this case, this involves our own personal property as well as our deeded easements to Sobey. Because of this, we would like to insist that you enforce the minimum improvement standards in this area and request that these improvements are done in such a way so as to conform to or exceed quality wise to the existing improvements. As mentioned earlier in our referenced letter of April 25, 1983, we are concerned as to whether the builder can in fact physically develop these minimum 20 ft: roadway improvement- requirements in their alleged-~tYft. ~ight- of way without disturbing the adjacent properties and their improvements. For these reasons, and in the event that you should continue to approve this ingress and egress to Sobey, we would ask that you would make your approval contin- gent on the following: a) That the builder survey this right of way, establishing its boundaries and ascertaining all interferences to existing improvements and grades. b) Based on this survey, submit a detailed f~lan and specification as to how they will implement this minimum 20 ft. wide improvement in this 20 ft. right of way without disturbing the adjacent properties. c) This proposed plan and specification should then be approved by all the applicable regulatory agencies, that it will meet or exceed all the requirements including storm drainage and an' other required factors. • d) This implementation plan and specificatio should also be approved by all the adjacent property owners that they c be assured that all the required work can be done without disturbing eir adjacent properties and improvements. And/or that the builder obtain all the necessary grading or applicable easements that might be required from the adjacent owners to complete their project. e) We further request that the builder be required to get these mini- mum roadway widenings and pavings in place before they start any construction on their lot. This so as to minimize the inevitable congestion that will occur during construction, allowing for emergency vehicles and the free flow of traffic to the adjacent properties. 5) The drawings submitted with this Subject APPLICATION # 04-034 depict the home's driveway encroachment entering our property where they have no easement or right of way. This is unacceptable and will not be permit- ted by us as depicted. It should be further noted that there is no apparent provision for access to and from the Berry's (neighbors to the east) existing gate onto the existing 20 ft. easement and/or for future tractor access etc. to this easement by adjacent neighbors. 6) Though this proposed home is touted as a single story, it certainly appears and in fact is a two story home in bulk and height especially with the attic dormers and the expansive attic space that is provided via its design. This design technique is establishing a much larger home than being specified when • Saratoga Planning Commission, June 23, 2004 page, 6 of 7 you factor in the effective potential living floor space the attic area is providing. As per the referenced Staff Report dated June 23, 2004, on its page 7, the 6`~ paragraph, it is expressed: "However, additional reductions in the perception of bulk could be made by reducing the height of the roof line. This recommendation was made to the applicant and ther_res~onse_wasthat the Country .French style.. of architecture dictates the height of the roof line." That argument didn't work for us five years ago when we were before the Planning Dept. with our home design wanting the traditional steeper pitch and higher roof line for our English Tutor home. We also were required to remove the attic dormers that were in our design. The fact is, the attic dormers could be removed and the roof pitch and height reduced on this subject house to 'reduce its bulk. This then would, to again contradict the Sta~ Report, be in actuality more consistent with our adjacent home and the many others in the area that have been under the same constraints. 7) Another concern is storm water runoff with the subject project. The existing drainage in the common roadway to Sobey barely handles the runoff from the area, including the subject lot now. With the purposed planned impervious improvements the runoff will certainly increase and the drainage system on this roadway will need to be improved accordingly. 8) If this project is allowed to continue and bring its utilities up the roadway • to Sobey the builder will need to excavate our "paver" driveway which currently has a lifetime warrantee with the installing contractor. We want it stipulated that any such excavation and/or necessary post-construction repair to our driveway be done under the supervision of our installing contractor so as to maintain our warrantee. 9) We unfortunately were not able to see or obtain a copy of the referenced Staff Report for this subject project, dated June 23, 2004, until Monday morn- ing, 6-21-04. As a result, I need to now add that as per this Staff Report and my discussions with Ann Welsh on Monday, 6-21-04, I was surprised to learn that some of the issues I have raised have apparently indiscriminately become mute and unenforceable since we are supposedly no longer dealing with a subdivision. These being the issues I raised pertaining to the subject project better taking its access from Monte Vista Drive rather than using the full and nonconforming roadway to Sobey and if not; the builder being required to bring the roadway to Sobey up to the minimum width and improvement requirements. It further includes those issues raised with the other concessions being made on erroneous data along with the stipulations being made in 1983 at the initiation of this ongoing subdivision that have yet to be carried out. We strongly object to this pretense that we are no longer dealing with a subdivision. Considering these issues were brought to your attention over 21 years ago; that they were supported by the signatures of over 30 of the sur- rounding neighbors; that some were dealt with based on erroneous data; that some weren't dealt with at all, obviously being deferred to later in the project's development; that some of the stipulations have not as yet been implemented; all attest to the fact that this subdivision is still in development and that all the Saratoga Planning Commission, June 23, 2004 page, 7 of 7 ordinances affecting a subdivision should still be in play. Accordingly, you need to enforce these ordinances. In 1983 the Planning Commissioners allowed the formation of the subject lot with access to Sobey based on the documented, erroneous and expressed assumption that the right of way and encroachment to Sobey was only shared by three other lots -that the subject lot would only be the fourth thus . not in violation the City Ordinance 14.25.030 (g), that stipulates "(1) The minimum access streQ~ constitutes-t~.e means-of~tcc~ss-fnr-not-»wr~-than-four---- lots, and (2) The minimum access street is improved to the standards of a local street as set fourth in Table 1 of this Chapter" being a Right of Way Width of 20 ft. (min); Pavement Width of 18 ft.; Travel Lanes: 2 at 9 ft. _ 18 ft.; Distance from face of curb to property line: 1 ft. (min). However, the reality in 1983 and as it is today is that this "right of way" and its encroachment to Sobey already lies fully on four separate lots each of which use it as a means of access on a daily bases. In addition, as mentioned before, the lots to the east of this 20 ft. wide old existing easement also have access to it with existing gating and use it periodically for recreational vehicles, annual tractor access for discing, etc. Now that the reality of these physical facts are in evidence and can be validated, you allowing the subject lot to take its access from Sobey will be in direct violation of this Subdivision Regulation. Stopping this potential access to Sobey will not land-lock the subject lot for as described above, it can take its access from Monte Vista Drive. If for some reason you should allow the subject lot access to Sobey, you would certainly be obligated to have the builder upgrade the right of way to the minimum subdivision standards in completing this ongoing subdivision project. We are sure that there are other issues and concerns that need to be uncovered, researched, documented and appropriately presented with regard to the completion of this subject subdivision but we are flat out of time to do so. Since most of us have had less than 10 days to deal with this involved and confusing matter; and since we are dumping all of these points .of issue and concern on you for your absorption and consideration at this eleventh hour, we respectfully request that you postpone your decision on this im ortant matter until we can be better prepared to present our case and you can have t~e adequate time to conscientiously consider all the issues and concerns prior to making your determination. We want to thank you for all of your time, effort and conscientious consider- ation with regard to this matter and our community's well being. Sincerely, V "'~ omas U. Coe and Norma, J. Coe Enclosures: (4 documents, totaling 20 pages as referenced above) cc: to all the surrounding neighbors we can contact, w/enclosures attached) ~®®~~'~ Mr. S Mrs. Thomas U. Coe 15217 Sobey Road Saratoga, CA 95070 (408)354-2139 April 25, 1983 T0: Saratoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga i 3.7.7.7__ Fruitvale- AvEnuE Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Statement of appeal toward the Commission's Approval of Project File No. SDR-1533, Foley's Tentative Map for 3 lots with Building Sites and variances. REFERENCE: 1) Staff report to Planning Commission on same subject dated 2-4-83, revised 3-2-83, by Rathy Rerdus 2) Preliminary Title Report, dated, 2-4-83-SJV3-7B, order no. 132666-SJJ by W. R. Willis to the attention of Mike Foley 3) Individual Joint Tenancy De d granting to Tom b Norma Coe their properties at 1 217 Sobey Road, dated October 2, 1967 4) Resolution No. V-311-1, File No. V-311, City of Saratoga Planning Commission dated November 27, 1967 for the application of Thomas Coe for a sideyard setback variance 5) Variance application by Mr. 6 Mra. Larry Stock of 15249 Sobey Road for garage setback allowance in approximately 1978 6) Other attachments • 1 ®~~~~~ r Grounds for the Appeal: It is our opinion, that there are at least six specific aspects to this approved project that are not in conformance with the objectives of the General Plan and/or the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City. These in brief 'are: 1) The applicants third lot would take access from Sobey Road from a right of way on which 4 (not 3 as indicated in the Staff report) homes presently take access. The approval of this project will noW cause homes---to-ta a access rom t e same private driveway/portal to Sobey. 2) Dariance for the 10' side yard setback of the garage. 3) Dariance for the 23' rear yard setback of the garage caused by the new proposed lot line. 4) Standard conditions would require a cul-de-sac at the end of Monte Dista Drive (at the barrier) which would preclude the applicants from having the required net lot site area. S) Waving the standard condition which would require the cul- de-sac at the end of Monte Dista Drive. 6) Waving the standard conditions requir nq the improvement to the entire footage on Monte Dista Avenue. 7) Waving the standard condition requiring the improvement to the right of way to Sobey. 8) This project has a "lot yield" factor of 2.64 lots allowed rounded up to 3. This is in conflict to your approval ~on 2-23-83 to the Amendment to Section 13.9-3 of Subdivision Ordinance providing for the rounding down of slope density calculations. The approval and allowance of these concessions and aspects; 1, • 2, 3, 4, b 8 defined above will synergistically create an improvement and structure density which will be inconsistent with the General Plan; be a deterioration of the openness and beauty of the Sobey Road area; as well as devalue the adjoining oropertiea. There is also a serious question as to whether the Foley's have the legal right to use a 20' "right of way" to Sobey Road for the 2 ~~~©~~ purposes of a "permanent and main access and egress road way" and/or for the required utilities. If the Foley's legal right to this "right of way" for the stated purposes should be substantiated then there becomes the question as to whether they can physically develop the minimum road way improvement requirements (18' of pavement with 1' shoulders) within the 20' without excavation and grading easements which they do not have. __ We .-wll__be__elaborating on each of these aspects and concerns as __ __ well as expressing additional concerns and- c-ona~derat#-ons--3-n-- t e text to follow. It is our objective to show and convince you that, perhaps not individually, but synergistically all these aspects and concerns come together to form an undesireable, non- conforming, and untenable "improvement project" to this area of our city. We will be urging you to reconsider your approval of this project as planned. Expansion to the aspects of non-conformance: 1) The approval of this project will now cause 5 homes to take access from the same private drive way/portal to Sobey. This would be in violation of the applicable general and specific plena and standard practices. Please refer to figures ~1 b ~2, attached. Figure it depicts the "Right of Way" over which the Foley's propose to take access for their third lot. This "Right of Way" and access to Sobey Road is already currently being used by 4 homes, the Anderson's, the Belik's. the Bonacina's and the Coe's. Section "A" is expanded in detail to scale in Figure ~f2. Figure 42 depicts the current pavement configurations and apron/portal to Sobey. The staff (Mr.~ Robert Shook) has felt that this main (1 of 2) Anderson driveway (shown) really has separate access to Sobey. Pigure ~2, however, illustrates that in fact the Anderson driveway and the Belik/Bonacina/Coe drive cross each other completely prior to intersecting Sobey and that in fact they share the same Apron/portal and/or access to Sobey• 2) The ten foot side yard setback of the garage is an existing condition and this variance by itself would not be of great importance. It does, however, become a significant factor by allowing for a greater density of improvements S structures in an area that normally would not be allowed or tolerated. • • 3) The twenty three foot rear yard setback variance for the garage to accomodate the new proposed lot line creates another even more significant factor in allowing higher structure density than normally allowed in this area. In the past (refer referenced documents), the Planning 3 ®~~~~~ . commission has denied garage set back variance requests for adjacent properties; for the Coe's in November 1967, and the Stocks in 1978. Why are you allowing this now and if you do, will you also be willing to grant the Coe's and the Stock's their variance requests of the past? 4) As stated earlier, standard conditions would require a cul-de-sac at the end of Monte Vista Drive which precludes the applicant from having the required net lot site area. In the referenced report, the Staff recommends "denial of the subdivision application since the required site area is not adequate in Parcel "B" Riven the standard practice of requiring a cul-de-sac at the end of Monte Vista Drive." This aspect alone should be enough to cause you as a commission to deny this application. If not, it becomes a major link in thin synergestic chain that will allow significant substandard improvement densities in this area of our city. 5) Waving the standard condition which would require the cul-de-sac at the end of Monte Vista Drive could allow this subdivision to come into place "today", but please consider tomorrow. If in the future, this cul-de-sac should become a mandatory requirement and has to be put into place, it now creates a substandard, undersize, developed lot. This would now become another factor allowing eve further substandard improvement density. 6) Waving the standard conditions requiring the improvement to the entire footage on Monte Vista Avenue seems to us, inconsistent and inappropriate. If we have put such standards into place, let us conform to them and inforce these standards. If not, we should do away with these standards so that at least we are fair b equitable to all. By inforcing these standards on some and at our whim waving them for others we are doing an injustice to individuals as well as to our community. 7) The same thoughts would apply to the waving of the standard conditions requiring the improvement to the right of way to Sobey Road. In this case, this involves our own veraonal property as well as our deeded easements to Sobey. Because of this, we would like to insist that you enforce the minimum improvement standards in this area and request that these improvements are done in such a way so as to conform to the existing improvements, i.e.; a) that AC pavement be used where AC currently exists, etc. b) that after all the appropriate widening and grading is accomplished, that a conformal coating of a double seal coat of oil and screenings be applied to cover the patch work so as to match the existing drive ways for cosmetics as well as 4 ~~~~~~ for preventive maintenance in preserving the integrity of this patch work. Aa mentioned earlier we are concerned as to whether the Poleys can in fact physically develop these minimum 20' road way improvement requirements in their alleged 20' right of way without disturbing the adjacent properties and their improvements. For these reasons, and in the event that you shoult~-continue to aapr_nve__ xhis__p_ro~ec_t_,_. __we_would_ ask that you would make your approval contingent to the following: a) That the Poley's survey this right of way, establishing it's boundaries and ascertaining all interferences to existing improvements and grades. b) Based on this survey submit a detailed plan and specification as to how they will implement this minimum 20' wide improvement in this 20' right of way without disturbing the adjacent properties. c) This proposed plan and specification should then be approved by all the applicable municipal agencies, that it will meet or exceed all the requirements including storm drainage and any other required utilities. d) This implementation plan and specification should also be approved by all the adjacent property owners that they can be assured that all the required work can be done without disturbing their adjacent properties and improvements. And/or that the Foley's obtain all the necessary grading or applicable easements that migh t be required from the adjacent owners to complete their project. 8) As discussed earlier this project has a "lot yield" factor of 2.64 lots which you are allowing rounded up to 3. This is in conflict to your approval on 2-23-83 to the Amendment to Section 13.9-3 of Subdivision Ordinance providing for the rounding down of slope density calculations. This aspect now becomes yet another factor to further allow substandard higher improvement density into this Sobey Road area. To date, it has not been substantiated as to whether the Foley's have the legal right to this "right of way" to Sobey Road. If they infect do, then the question arises as to whether they have the right to use it for a permanent and main access and egress roadway" and/or for any required utilities. Their alleged right 5 ®~~~`7~ • of way across. our property does not appear in any way on our referenced Individual Joint Tenancy Deed. Title reports do indicate that such a 20' "right of way" might eaist but certainly not for this specified use. It is our opinion as well as our title officer's, that this right of way was never intended for these purposes and is not appropriate for such purposes today. Our opinion is derived from and substantiated by the following: __ a)__ __The Fo_lep properties already _ha_v_e_ 30_' _and.__40' _"easeme_nts_"_ _ __ specified for road purposes to both sections of Monte Vista Drive (refer to referenced Preliminary Title Report, dated 2- 4-83) b) The Poley properties also have established "easements" specified for public utility purposes. Should you as a commission decide to continue the approval of this subdivision project, we ask that in consideration of the above facts, you make your approval contingent to the Foley's substantiating their legal right to the Sobey Road "right of way" for these specific purposes. We feel that this contingency would be to the best interest of our City, as well as all those individuals concerned, from a legal standpoint. Please Rive consideration again to the synergetic effect that all these aspects and factors will have on this area. We believe that the net effect would be substantially inconsistent with the general and specific plans for this area of our City. We urge you to reconsider your decision and deny the approval of this project. Ia the event that you should continue with your approval of this project, we would respectfully ask that you formally respond to this letter of appeal, answering it's questions, and stating your position on each of the issues presented. This should be done by making specific findings in support or warrant on each of your cositions. We would like to thank each of you for your interest and consideration to our appeal. Thomas II. Coe Norma J. Coe G%~2~~, ~~ ~ ~~ Attachments 6 ®~®~r~i ~ - u / ~J • ~\ ~~NGS ~~~/~Q~~sOR ~ Q ,,A,. ~ . ~~ ~. Lr ,:~ ! ' ;~~ / `-~ ,~ .~-.... ~~:: :.. -- _- --_ / ~..~. .~ •...f.i., j ~~ .. i 1 ~ ~`! i ~~ ,., ~ i ~ / ~ T 1 .~1~ ~ • ~"'`v .{ ~ ~ 1'~ ~ ~ ~ ... • • ~ / ~ ' • ~~ /fir I~f • ~:~~~ I' 2 .t: • . ~J ~ • 1- ~ r Kr ~ tIa ~~ • r w I f ~ fir , • i l .! ~ . ; wr- J ~ ~ ~f..I • v _ •~ r ~ • ~ I r. ~r • ~ roNTC ~n~T~ ORn[ _ A .t asa~.~ ~ ~ aas ~..~r-.+i` ---- - nr~ ~ ~+ ~ir'' ~ ~ ""' ... ~ .r •r w ww I~~ ~ ~ ~/~1 ~ •• ~ • f ~ . • .~ ~.~.• ~ ,~ I~ a •~~ ~ ZI t ~. ~ `~ TRACT N0. 3 2 ~! `f ~1 ~ ~ ~; 'YOM[ tOOD' r J 1=1G USE ;. , :~ •~ • 1 \ \ \ \O~ ~ \Fy ~~\ ~~ \ l4 ~ 1 -~ \.~~~i .~ _ I~ I ~ \ AniQ ~~2so~v ~ , ~ ,- _ .. .- ~ I I ~ I I I I C~ 4~3~~~® ~~ I~E T~I.C 1iq ~ I /Gu~E ~2 o-~ C~o.~ i,l SERVICE CENTRAL F1RE PROTECTION DISTRICT 3071 DRIFTWOOD nRNF SAN JOSE, CA 951284499 SINCE 1947 (408) 3784010 16 clay 1983 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Subject: SDR-1533, Monte Vista Avenue (Foley) At the request of Mr. Foley, for clarification I am re- peating the requirements of our earlier report: 1. We are not requiring a cul-de-sac at the end of the street. The addition of a gate, crating a through street, will negate the need for a turnaround. . I 2. A driveway servicing only one (1) hduse does not need to be 18 feet in width. See Saratoga Standards for driveway details . 3. Lots will need turnarounds that are within 150 feet of the exterior walls. Should there be any questions concerning the above, please call the Fire Prevention Division of the Central Fire Pro- tection District at (408) 378-4015. Sincerely, RO ALD W. MOORE Fire Prevention Chief Fire Prevention Division RWM : j g cc: Planning File James Foley • ~~~~~~ I(l:(.CIItUL;UiII Illl; I(L(1U1~,)'I Uh. William Gorman 14.7~ENRF.(.'OR>)F.U PLL:9SE RETURN lO: Robin B. Kennedy, Esq. Miller Starr c4C Regalia 545 Ayddlcficld Road. Suite 2()0 Menlo Park, CA 94025 APN 397-08-092 APN 397-07-038 APN 397-07-039 APN 397-07-059 APN 397-07-060 RESTATEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY AND GRANT OF EASEMENT This Restatement of Right of Way and Grant of Easement ("Easement") is made 200 ~ , by and between Ml(:I~AEL E. and entered into this day of • FOLEY, A MARRIED MAN ("Grantee") and MADHIJ SRIDI-IAR AND ~1JJALl SRIDHAR, HUSBAND AND Wll~l: (collectively, "Sridhars"); RAM13SI1 $IIARMA ANll SI{1NKU S ~HAItMA, HUSBAND AND wIFL• (collectively, "Sharmas"); TItOMAS U. CUE AND NORMA N. COE, NRJSBAND AND WIFE (collectively, "Goes"); and RUBFR'1' BnF.HM ANI~ MARY K. BOEHM, HUSBAND AND wIF1/ (collectively, "Boehms"). Sridhars, Sharmas, Coes and Boehms are referred to collectively herein as "Grantors." RECITALS: WHEREAS, Sridhars are the owners of certain real property located in Santa Clara County, California designated as Santa Clara County Assessors Parcel Number 397_ 0_, and more particularly described in Exhibit A ("Sridhar Property"); and WHEREAS, Sharmas are the owners of certain real property located in Santa Clara County, California designated as Santa Clara County Assessors Parcel Number 397_ p_ 7_039, and more particularly described in Exhibit B ("Sharma Property"); and WI-AREAS, Coes are the owners of certain real property located in Santa Clara County, California designated as Santa Clara County Assessors Parcel Number 397-07-060, and more particularly described in Exhibit C ("Coe Property"); and WHEREAS, Boehms are the owners of certain real property located in Santa Clara County, California designated as Santa Clara County Assessors Parcel Number 397-07-059, and more particularly described in Exhibit D ("Boehm Property"); and ~®~Q'$~ -A5 the Sndhar I'ru erty, the Shari»a I'ruperly, the l:ue I'rupcrly and the W H~Kl. p IIoehm Property are collectively referred to herein as the "Servient Tenement"; and WHEREAS, Grantee is the owner of certain real property located in Santa Clara County, California, which real property is designated as Santa Clara County Assessors Parcel Number398-08=09fi and more particularly-described in Exhibit-Es which_real_~r_operiy_is __ hereinafter referred to as the "Dominant Tenement"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to (a) that certain Grant Deed Joint Tenancy from Clara Maude Shoemaker, George F. Shaner and Ruth E. Shaner, his wife, dated May 28, 1949 and recorded as Document Number 576868, in Book 1798 of Maps, Page 105, Santa Clara County Official Records (as to the Sharma Property) and (b) that certain Grant Deed from James W. Foley and Esther R. Foley, his wife, to Department of Veterans Affairs of the State of California, dated March 10, 1958 and recorded as Document Number 1448073, in Book 4029 of Maps, Page 574, Santa Clara County Official Records (as to the Dominant Tenement), aright-of way over and across a portion of the Servient Tenement was created in favor of the Dominant Tenement (the "Right of Way"), which Right of Way is more particularly described in Exhibit F; and WHEREAS, Grantors and Grantee (collectively, the "Parties") wish to restate the Right of Way and to effect the granting to Grantee of an easement for public and private utilities; and NOW, THEREFORE, for other good and valuable onsideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Parties hereby agre as follows: 1. Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits: The ecitals above and all exhibits to this Easement are incorporated into the text of this Easement as though set forth in full. 2. Restatement of Ri h~?, t of W ~: Grantors hereby acknowledge and agree that the Right of Way comprises anon-exclusive appurtenant easement for ingress and egress of motor vehicles, transportation conveyances and pedestrians on, over, across and above that portion of the Servient Tenement described in Exhibit F (the "Easement Area"). 3. Grant of Easement: Grantors, subject to the terms and conditions contained herein, hereby grant to Grantee the following described easements (the "Easements"): 3.1 Utilities Easement: Anon-exclusive appurtenant easement for public and private utilities on, over, across and below the Easement Area. 3.2 Secondary Easements: The rights herein granted include incidental rights to enter upon the Servient Tenement for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, repairing and replacing all improvements and facilities on the Easement Area, so long as such entry and activities are undertaken so as to minimize any impact upon or conflict with the use of the Servient Tenement. ~~~~~~ ~ nls Kunnin with the LanJ. Lath and all ul the cuvenants, ~4. (,uvei a ~~ conditions, restrictions, conditions and provisions contained in this Easement shall be and constitute covenants running with the Servient Tenement and the Dominant Tenement, and shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors and assigns. An appropriately executed copy of this Easement shall be recorded in the Official Records of Santa Clara County, Califorrua, and the provisions fiereo#'siiall both-bind-arid fieneftt the-Serv~ent~'-element-and-sha --------- run to all successors and assigns of the Servient Tenement and the provisions hereof shall be fully and completely enforceable as covenants running with the land. 5. UndergroundinQ of Utilities: Grantee agrees that all utility and other service facilities constructed, reconstructed, relocated or otherwise established in the Easement Area shall be installed underground at the cost and expense of Grantee if required by appropriate governmental agencies. 6. No Dedication: Nothing contained in this Easement shall be or be deemed to be a gift or dedication of any portion of Grantors' lands to the public. 7. Maintenance of the Easements: Grantee shall be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, to maintain, repair and replace the Easement Area and all improvements and facilities located therein and shall keep and maintain the same in a neat and orderly condition and in accordance with all laws, ordinances and regulations. 8. Indemnity: Grantee (during the term of its ' wnership of the Dominant Tenement), and each of Grantee's successors-in-interest (during th terms of their respective ownership of the Dominant Tenement) shall indemnify, protect, de end (with counsel reasonably acceptable to Grantors) and hold Grantors, their agents, employees, officers, directors, shareholders, successors and assigns (collectively, "lndemnitees"), and the Servient Tenement, free and harmless from and against any and all claims, actions, causes of action, suits, obligations, liens, proceedings, costs, expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and costs), judgments, orders, decrees, damages, or liabilities of any type or kind arising out of or in any way connected with its use and enjoyment of the Easement Area and any act, omission or other conduct of Grantee, or any of its respective officers, agents, contractors, invitees, licensees or other representatives, save and except for such as may arise out of the negligence or intentional acts of Grantors, their contractors, agents, employees, invitees, licensees and other representatives. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, nothing herein is intended to obligate Grantee to indemnify Grantors or any other party from and against any condition of the Easement Area existing prior to the date of this Easement. 9. Notices: All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered (including by means of professional service) or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the following addresses and shall be deemed received and effective upon the date of receipt thereof. Said addresses for notice may be changed at any time by either party upon prior written notice to the other party. Upon a sale or conveyance of the Dominant or Servient Tenement or other transaction assigning or transferring rights or obligations under this Easement the transferring party shall endeavor to give written notice to the other party of the same and ~~~~~~ ~• • r • successur lu wluch uutices aie to be scut, NruvrJcJ, liuweve~, tlral lailuie to give aJJr~,55 ul ll c such notice shall not constitute a default under the terms hereof. To Sridhars: __ _ __ __ -- - _ _ _ - - - _ -Mr--a.~d ~r~-Madhu Sridhar 15211 Sobey Road Saratoga, California 95070 To Sharmas: Mr. and Mrs. Ramesh Sharma 15201 Sobey Road Saratoga, California 95070 To Coes: Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Coe 15217 Sobey Road Saratoga, California 95070 To Boehms: I Mr. and Mrs. Robert Boehm ~i 15215 Sobey Road ~ Saratoga, California 95070 To Grantee: Mr. Michael E. Foley Saratoga, California 97070 With a copy to: Robin B. Kennedy, Esq. Miller, Starr & Regalia 545 Middlefield Road, Suite 200 Menlo Park, California 94305 10. Attorneys' Fees: Should any dispute arise over the terms or conditions of this Easement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. } I . Entire Agreement: This Easement contains the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein set forth. Any prior, contemporaneous, or subsequent written or oral representations and modifications ~~~~~~ •ement shall be ul uu lolce ur etlecl, exccNl a su~seyuellt wuJllicalwn ul tlus concer-ung lhls Las Easement in writing, signed by the owners of the Servient Tenement and the owners of the Dominant Tenement and properly recorded in the Official Records of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 12. Applicable Laws: This-Grant-is subject-to all-valid and existing contacts, leases, licenses, encumbrances Grantee, in the exercise of the rights herein granted, shall at all times comply with all applicable laws and lawful regulations. Executed the day and year first above written. GRANTEE: MICHAEL E. FULEY, A MARRIED MAN GRANTORS: MAllHU SIZlUI-IAK, A MARKIEU MAN ANJALI SR1llFlAR, MARRIL'D WC)MAN RAMI::SI 1 SI IAI2MA, A MARR]);D MAN SFIINKIF SHARMA, A MARRIED WDMAN T}IUMAS U. COrs, A MARRIED MAN NORMA N. COE, A MARRIED WOMAN RU13LR'f BUGI~vI, A MARRIDI) MAN MAKY K. BORHM, A MAIZRIT:I~ WOMAN ~~~~~~ THOMAS U. COE, CMfgE, PE Telephone: 1 1408) 354-2139- _15217 Sobey Road, Saratoga, California 95070-6255 USA Facsimile: 1 (408) 354-2286 1'~UfUJfy Zl, Z~l ORIGINAL VIA U.S. MAIL Cop Via Facsimile (page 1 of 6 w/enclosure) Mr. Bill Gorman Coldwell Banker ' 12029 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Fax: (408) 996-0849 Subjects: Issues pertaining to your proposed "Restatement of Right of Way and Grant of Easement" .and related matters with respect to Mike Foley's lot Re: -Your proposed "RESTATEMi/N'1 ur tttvn t Vr Wry ~ r-i~a~ .~.~~•- ~ OF EASEMENT" for Mike Foley's use of our driveway - Enclosed copy of a diagram page from the Santa Clara County Fire Dept. Dear Bill, In response to our meeting Saturday evening (2-10-01), Norma and I feel it is important to document the salient points of issue that we have with your proposed "RESTATEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY AND GRANT OF EASEMENT" for Mike Foley's use of ouruture m sunderscandings and so that he others involvedaw our posuton, avo~dtng f have a clearer understanding of our issues, concerns, questions and proposals. As you knew and I expressed in our meeting, when judge Foley wanted to subdivide his property into three lots in 1985, Norma and I took issue at the public hearings with Mike's lot having a proposed right of ingress and a Tess over this 20 ft. wide right-of--way. There were a number of reasons for this all o~which I can't remember and unfortunately all of our records of these matters are st>Ill to storage at this time. Some of the significant issues we raised in recollection are: 1) Judge Foley's property had a 40 ft. wide right-of-way to the Southwest onto Monte Vista Drive and in subdividing his property, they could have easily fumed Mike's lot into aflag-lot using their 40 ft. wide right-of--way for ingress and egress. This approach would then not be overloading our 20 ft. wide right- of-way and encroachment onto Sobey which already had 4 residences in full- time use and another adjacent property owner (Bob Betry) with occasional use. a Cit ordinance restricted the use of a 20 ft. wide private 2) A Saratog y driveway to a maximum of 4 residences and allowing this subdivision seemed to ~~~©~~ Mr. Gorman, February 21, 2001 page, 2 of 5 ins to he in violation of this ordinance. As I recall, the city officials at the time took the position that what is now the 5rtdhars' lot (A1'N .~y'1-U'1-U3d) was not in full use of this right-of-way so they were allowing the subdivision. However, in my experience in using this right-of-way over the past 34 years the closest calls for an accident were when cars were approaching our shared encroachment with the Sridhars' lot simultaneously. With this issue in mind, I find it ironic - - that you are--now including ihe-~ridhats_inlhis _proposed 'RESTATEM_ ENT' - but their position is indeed significant in this matter as they certainly own and use a portion of this right-of--way on a regular basis. In the event we cannot come to terms with this proposed `RESTATEMENT', Norma and I will certainly re-raise these issues toward any proposed development of Mike's lot using this right-of--way for regular ingress and egress. In regards to your proposed "RES"I'A'I'EMENT's" paragraph: "NOW, THEREFORE, for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Parties hereby agree as follows:". We are curious as to what good and valuable consideration of sufficiency is being offered to the Grantors of this proposed `RESTATEMENT'? I believe some discussion and perhaps research into the relative values that this proposed 'RESTATEMENT' holds for its "Parties" is in order. 1) To begin, what are the benefits and shortcomings -value -for the Grantors of this proposed 'RESTATEMENT'? A) An obvious and frankly the only benefit I can see is that we would have another party to share the burden, cost and expense of maintaining and improving our collective driveway, encroachment and features. B) An obvious shortcoming is that we will have more traffic and congestion on our driveway and at its encroachment along with the additional disruption and noise that this will bring. Considering the youngsters we now have living on this corridor who will soon be reaching driving age, along with their friends who drive, this shortcoming will become more pronounced and problematic. C) When the Foley lot is developed and if this proposed 'RESTATE- MENT' should be in place, we will again have the inconvenience of construction going on at the end of our driveway with the associated traffic. In this case trenching will need to occur along the driveway for water, gas and sewer. This will restrict travel for several days and there will be a lot of dust and dirt during the course of construction and until the driveway can be resurfaced. D) The additional traffic over the length of the driveway will cause more wear and tear, creating higher maintenance costs along with the associated inconveniences. E) A significant disadvantage for Norma and me as well as for the Boehms is that if you are successful in obtaining this proposed ~~~0~~ page, 3 of 5 Mr. Gorman, February 21, 2001 'RESTATEMENT'/Right.-of-Way, the front yard of Mike's lot would then be against our Southern property line which ~iieans a develupc:r could build a home within 30 feet of our driveway. On the other hand, if you are not successful in obtaining the proposed RESTATEMENT and have to develop the ingress and egress from the South, the rear yard of Mike's lot would then be against our Southern propert line which would mean -_ eet of our driveway, - - ----a developer~~uld -nat build-a~ome-within-~- - providing an extra 20 foot buffer for our properties. What is t-he value impact of this issue on our respective properties? 2) On the other hand, what are the benefits and shortcomings -value -for the Grantee of this proposed 'RESTATEMENT'? A) In this case I know of no shortcomings for the Grantee except for the associated expense in obtaining the proposed 'RESTATEMENT'. On the other hand I believe there are significant benefits and substantial value for the Grantee in obtaining your proposed `RESTATEMENT'. B) For Mike's lot to have this Sobey Road address and access as opposed to the Monte Vista Drive address and access along with the conveniences of same, I believe will add significant value to his property. Perhaps more than $100,000 in relative value. I believe it would be very interesting and appropriate, in light of this request for your proposed `RESTATE- MENT' to have an MAI appraiser evaluat this aspect. This being attested to by the highlight in your ad for his lot oad ar a„es "Located along the finest portion of the prestcglous obey R C) Though you have mentioned that the water, gas and sewer utilities could be brought in from the other side of Mike's lot, it would be more convenient and I suspect less expensive to have them brought up our driveway. Does Mike have existing right-of-ways from the other side of his lot for these utilities or would they need to be acquired? What is the value (potential savings) of obtaining this right-of-way from us to Mike's lot as opposed to other alternatives? D) For the developer of Mike's lot to have access to our over 300 feet of improved roadway as opposed to having to develop a new roadway to the South will be of significant savings or value to Mike's lot's owner. How much is this worth? E) Having our new home "next-door" along with its improved driveway which you were an,~cious to have completed and tout in your advertisem- ent apparently also adds value to Mike's lot. How much? If Mike should end up with his ingress and egress having to come from the South, our improved home would be of less significance to his lot. Is this not so? If it is so, then your proposed `RESTATEMENT' has further value for Mike. F) Getting your p o Poa nt'fom Mike's lot,I of nophavingla clean ande problematic stigma ®Q®~~~ Mr. Gorman, February 21, 2001 page, 4 of 5 • clear right of way for ingress and egress and suitable utility easements. So what is the value ul tl-ts ~ucuniuit to Mikes lut (tutu this pctspccuvc! These then are a few items and I am sure that there are more, that need to be considered and evaluated to determine the relative values that your proposed `RESTATE- MENT_bolds.for_ts_respective_partes. This needs to be done to determine what good and valuable consideration of sufficiency is being offered to the Craniors o t -is proposed 'RESTATEMENT'. As we further discussed, there are a few other items that Norma and I would want incorporated into your proposed 'RESTATEMENT' toward making it acceptable to us, these are: 1) The document needs clarification with regards to its "...the Right of Way Thep non- exclusive) needs ~o be res ricted to ju t the pagtteies olved and that Mike and/or his assigns cannot grant further use of thts easement to other lots on the other sides of his lot. 2) This would be a good opportunity to incorporate a good, simple, clean and crisp maintenance agreement that would be acceptable to all parties involved and that would pass on to future owners. This should include when and how maintenance projects are determined to be neede and approved for our com- mon driveway and how the cost, expense and/or a fort is going to be shared amongst the parties. It should also include reason ble requirements for the parties to regularly maintain their sections of the c mmon driveway with regard to keeping it clean and neat (free of accumulated leaves, dirt, debris) and their adjacent landscaping maintained in a trimmed, clean and neat manner. 3) We will want Mike to provide an unobstructed extension of the 20 foot wide non-exclusive Right of Way onto his property so as to provide a "hammer- head" turnaround at the end of our common driveway. I had suggested that the length of this unobstructed extension be 20 feet, however in review, I discovered that the City of Saratoga and the responsible Santa Clara County Fire Department require a minimum length of 30 feet for this sort of turn- around. Please refer to the referenced and enclosed copy of the diagram page from the SCCFD. Then in consideration that you are also asking Norma and I for an additional utility easement across the upper portion of our driveway for electrical power, phone and TV/data cable from the utility pole on our property, we have a proposal from our perspective. This would be in keeping with what we deem to be a good and valuable consideration of sufficiency for our play in this matter. We propose that we would be willing to sign your proposed 'RESTATEMENT' • if the three items identified and discussed in the preceding paragraphs on this page are incorporated into yottr'RE.STATEMENT' toward making it acceptable to us, and we would grant the additional utility easement across the upper portion of our driveway for electrical power, phone and TV/data cable which will add additional value0t®~~~~ page, 5 of 5 Mr. Gorman, February 21, 2001 Mike's lot.. We will be willing to do this contingent on the Grantee arranging for and absorbing the cost of putting what are now the overhead utilities w the pule un uur property all underground. A preferred alternative to this from our perspective is for Mike to arrange with his father for a lot line adjustment creating a flag lot to give him access to the original 40 foot wide Right of Way for ingress, egress and utilities. I believe this to be in __ - -- reality >:he liesf so uton-for-ali- involvr----- - -------- ----- - - I would certainly appreciate getting your thoughts on the questions and issues that I have raised in this fax/letter to YO1volved in theselmatters.~scuss these issues and exchange ideas with any of the parties in Sincerely, ~; ~ ~-~ homas U. Coe Enclosure: (1 page as referenced above) cc: - Mr. and Mrs. Robert Boehm, w/enclosure, via U.S. Mail - Mr. and Mts. Michael E. Foley, w/enclosure, via U.S. Mail - Mr. and Mrs: Madhu Sridarnw/enclosure rvia U.S. lvla jail - Mr. and Mrs - Robin B. Kennedy, Esq., Miller Starr & Regalia, w/enclosure, via U.S. Mail • • ~®091 • A 40 20 A IMEN ION A 12 FT CAMPBELL CUPERTINO LOS GATOS MONTE SERENO MORGAN HILL 14 FT LOS ALTOS LOS ALTOS HILLS SARATOGA 60 20 Rn 20 • DASHED LINE INDICATES POINT OF CONNECTION TO DRIVEWAY TIRE AREA OF TURNAROUND SHAH BE PROVIDED .-~ a nc SAC' TURNAROUND DIMEN$I P1 n~nii ~C !1F :16 FT.OUTSIDE AND 23 FT.INSIDE I I I , I A I ~ i i i 50 20 20 FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY DRIVEWAY TURNAROUND DETAILS MAR~~Q~92 SCALE: 1 IN. = 20 FT. DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET THOMAS U. COED CMfgE, PE Telephone: 1 (408) 354-2139 - 15217 Sobey Road, Saratoga, California 95070-6255 USA Facsimile: 1 (408) 354-2286 July 12, 2004 . Via Hand Delivery (page 1 of 29 w/enclosures) -Nls.~nn~W`e~lsh -:_.. ~ :_--- -_-.. _. .___ . -- - -- _--. Saratoga Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Fax: (408) 867-8555 Subject: Questions for our City Attorney related to issues and concems pertaining to the ongoing subdivision SDR-1533 and to APPLICATION # 04-034 Re: 1) APPLICATION # 04-034 (397-08-091) Overland Development, Inc. 15145 Sobey Road along with all its related documentation 2) Your entire Project File No. SDR-1533 as it pertains to all stated and potential aspects of the Subject APPLICATION # 04-034 including the cul-de- sac vs. fire-gate issue and this continuing subdivision project 3) Enclosed copy of my and my wife Norma's letter o the Saratoga Planning Commission of June 23, 2004 along with its reference and enclosures (27 pages ) Dear Ms. Welsh: As per your request, I am submitting the following list of questions that we would like posed to our City Attorney related to issues and concems pertaining to the ongoing subdivision SDR-1533 and to APPLICATION # 04-034 (397-08-091) Overland Development, Inc. 15145 Sobey Road. We respectfully request that you ask the City Attorney to give consideration and respond to the following: 1) Can the validity of the ingress/egress to Sobey for the subject lot be challenged considering there are already 4+ lots using the "minimum access street" (re. City Code 14-25.030 (g) (1))? Recognizing: a) I challenged this in '$3 at the formation of the subject lot in an appeal to the City Council where the City Planner stated erroneously that only 3 other lots were using the street. This was not true because this "minimum access street" and its encroachment onto Sobey was then and is now already the means of access for more than four lots (this is more fully discussed in sections "2)" and "9)" of our referenced letter of June 23, 2004, please review prior to your response). ®~®~~~ Ms. Welsh, July 12, 2004 page, 2 of 2 . b) We would not be land-locking the subject lot if it could not have Sobey access as they have a right of way to Monte Vista Dr. via a mini- mum access street with only 2 other lots using it. This being attested to in the discussion and references of section " 2)" of our referenced letter of June 23, 2004, please review this as well prior to your response. 2) Would I, as an effected property owner, have the r_i_ght to refuse the _ _ _ _ ._ ._- _._- -__ ~ t__ applicant the use~of his rightof way across my property for a primary ingress/egress until he brings the entire right of way up to the minimum im- provement standards specified in City Code 14-25.030 (g) (2) Table 1? 3) Do I, as an effected property owner, have the right to insist that the previously required and planned fire-gate dividing Monte Vista Dr. be installed as a prerequisite to the construction of the subject home; so as to be in conformance to the requirements established for this subdivision and the formation of the subject lot (this as discussed in section "3)" of our referenced letter of June 23, 2004, please again review)? 4) Considering the setback variances granted this subdivision allowing substan- dard structure/improvement density were based on the Building Sites and Improvements depicted on the originally submitted subdivision map, should this new proposed Site Plan which is far more imposing ;and overreaching in sco e be allowed? Such an allowance would certainly no be equitable to those o~us who raised concerns about the density of this subdi 'sion in the first place (this is also more fully discussed in section "3)" of our ref renced letter of June 23, 2004, please again review prior to your response). ~ This concludes those questions we would like brought to the attention of the City Attorney. If at all possible, I would certainly appreciate being present when these issues are discussed so that I can hear the City Attorney's thoughts on these matters first hand. If not, we would appreciate a thorough and clear response to each of our questions with an appropriate explanation. Thank .you for your conscientious attention to these matters. Sincerely ~~ Thomas U. Coe Enclosure: (as referenced above, 27 pages) cc: - To each Planning Commissioner, w/o enclosure - To all the surrounding neighbors we can contact, w/o enclosure • ~~~Q'S~~ THOMAS U. COE,, CMfgE, PE Telephone: 1 (408) 354-2139 - 15217 Sobey Road, Saratoga, California 95070-6255 USA Facsimile: 1 (408) 354-2286 June 23, 2004 • Via Hand Delivery (page 1 of 27 w/enclosures) __._ . _. _ ~, _ ,Saratnga`Planning Commission - --. _ _ ...., : _ ...- . . City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Fax: (408) 867-8555 Subject: Issues and concerns pertaining to APPLICATION # 04-034 (397-08-091) Overland Development, Inc. 15145 Sobey Road Re: 1) APPLICATION # 04-034 (397-08-091) Overland Development, Inc. 15145 Sobey Road 2) Your "NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION" to us, undated but postmarked JUN 10, 2004 (recei ~ d 6-14-04) concerning this above referenced APPLICATION # 04-034 3) Enclosed copy of Mr. & Mrs. Thomas U, Coe's litter to you, dated April 25, 1983 as a "Statement of appeal toward the Comrr~ission's Approval of Project File No. SDR-1533, Foley's Tentative Map for 3 lots with Building Sites and variances." w/attachments (8 pages); we also reference and refer you to this letter's references, its attachments and all the signature sheets of the surrounding neighbors attesting to sharing in the concerns stated in this letter to you urging you to reconsider your approval and deny this project (these can all be found in your Project File no. SDR-1533). 4) Your entire Project File No. SDR-1533 as it pertains to all stated and potential aspects of the Subject APPLICATION # 04-034 including the cul-de- sac vs. fire-gate issue and this continuing subdivision project 5) Enclosed copy of Ronald W. Moore's (Fire Prevention Chief, Fire Preven- tion Division of Santa Clara County's Central Fire Protection District) to you (City of Saratoga Planning. Commission), dated: 16 May 1983 (1 page) 6) Enclosed copy of a proposed "RESTATEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY AND GRANT OF EASEMENT" to be recorded at the request of William Gorman, to be entered into this day of , 2001 (5 pages) 7) Enclosed copy of my letter to Mr. Bill Gorman of February 21, 2001, w/enclosure (6 pages) ~©©~1~~ Saratoga Planning Commission, June 23, 2004 page, 2 of 7 8) Staffs "REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION", regarding Subject APPLICATION # 04-034, by Ann Welsh, dated June 23, 2004, (received 6-21-04), and its attachments Dear Commissioners: We `have a number of issues and concerns- tl=iat -we would; like to" lring~o your -~-` attention pertaining to the Subject APPLICATION # 04-034 (397-08-091) Over- land Development, Inc. 15145 Sobey Road. We respectfully request that you give consideration and respond to the following: 1) First, we are confused about the potentially deceptive lot number of 15145 being used here which throws those receiving your Notice off as to the location of this site. We believe this to be in error as previous discussions about the development of this lot had used 15219 as the lot number which certainly fits its location better and corresponds to other city documentation. Accordingly, shouldn't this hearing be re-noticed with clarification so as to be fair and lawful to all concerned? Hopefully in a more timely manner also as it seems we should be able get more than a 9 day notice to such an important Hearing for us so that we have time to thoroughly research the matter and prepare an adequate response. We have subsequently heard from .several of our neighbors that they didn't respond to this Notice as they would have because of confusion over the street number used and the actual location of the su ject lot. 2) Our major issue with this APPLICATION is tha the drawings reflect the ingress and egress for this new home to be off of Sob y Road, utilizing the existing nonconforming "minimum access street" which already has four plus lots/homes utilizing this street and its encroachment onto Sobey as a means of access for ingress and egress. In addition,. this 20 ft. wide old existing easement runs along the entire eastern property line of the subject lot and beyond all the way into the 30 & 40 ft. wide easements to Monte Vista Drive. The lots to the east of this 20 ft. wide old existing easement also have access to it with existing gating and use it periodically for recreational vehicles, annual tractor access for discing, etc. Allowing this subject lot to have this ingress/egress will put five plus lots on this "minimum access street" which would be in violation of the City Ordinance/Code 14-25.030 (g) (1) which states that "The minimum access street constitutes the means of access for not more than four lots;". This subject lot should be required to take its access to the south along the easements to Monte Vista Dr. which would put only three lots on that mini- mum access street. I suspect that it will be argued that the subject lot does not have a right of way to Monte Vista Dr. according to its submitted Title Report. I do not believe this to be the case. As stated in my and my wife's referenced letter to you of April 25, 1983, beginning at the last paragraph of page 5: "To date, it has not been substantiated as to whether the Foley's have the legal right to this "right of way" to Sobey Road. If they in fact do, then the question arises as to whether they have the right to use it fora "permanent and main Qp~C~~6 Saratoga Planning Commission, June 23, 2004 page, 3 of 7 access and egress roadway" and/or for any required utilities. Their alleged right of way across our property does not appear in any way on our referenced Individual Joint Tenancy Deed. Title reports do indicate that such a 20' "right of way" might exist but certainly not for this specified use.. It is vur opinion as well as our title officer's, that this right of way was never intended for these purposes and is not appropriate for such .purposes today. Our opinion is derived from and substantiated by the following: a) The Foley properties already have 30' and 40' "easements" specified for road purposes to both sections of Monte Vista Drive (refer to refer- enced Preliminary Title Report, dated 2-4-83) . b) The Foley properties also have established "easements" specified for public utility purposes. These issues of title and rightful use of easements and right of .ways came to the surface again in late 2000/ear1y2001 when Michael Foley was attempting to sell the subject lot through Bill Gorman of Coldwell Banker. Research indicated that there was potential validity to these issues we had raised. This was substan- tiated and is attested to by the generation and existence of the referenced and enclosed copy of the proposed "RESTATEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY AND GRANT OF EASEMENT". Please carefullyI review in full detail this Restatement of Right of Way document that has never been executed and my response to it being the referenced- enclosed copy of my letter to Mr. Bill Gorman of February 21, 2001, with its enclosure. It }s very important that you give careful consideration to all the factors expressed in these two documents as you contem late your objective response to this Design Review. The act remains that this old 20' right of way still exists along the eastern property line of the subject lot and extends all the way into the 30' and 40' wide easements to Monte Vista Drive. This 20' right of way has never had a recorded abandonment to our knowledge and has been in continuous use by all the adjacent property owners for the last 3 7 years that we have been involved. The subject lot can take its ingress, egress and utility easements from Monte Vista just as well as from Sobey. In doing so, it would not be overloading the already overburdened nonconforming right of way to Sobey and it would not overburden the right of way to Monte Vista which only has the two existing homes on it in contrast to the four existing on the Sobey right of way. 3) Before you come to conclusion on approving or denying this Design Review we feel it is also important that you become knowledgeable of the many issues and concems that were raised, acknowledged and shared by the many surround- ing neighbors at the. formation of this subject lot. This being by the subdivision of one lot into three lots, including the subject lot. You need to further understand the way these issues and concems were represented and to be dealt with at the time and how that relates today. Concessions were made at the time that were contingent on other things being done that have not or are not being done. ~~®Q~~ Saratoga Planning Commission, June 23, 2004 page, 4 of 7 This will require a thorough review of your entire referenced Project File No. SDR-1533 as it pertains to all the stated and potential aspects of the Subject APPLICATION # 04-034 including the cul-de-sac vs, fire-gate issue, etc. It will require a thorough review of the enclosed copy of our referenced (Mr. & Mrs. Thomas U, Coe's) letter to you, dated April 25, 1983 as a "State- ment of appeal toward the Commission's Approval of Project File No. SDR- _ __1533LFoley's_Tentative_Map for 3__lots w_it_h Building,Sites and,variances." __ _ w/attachments (8 pages); we also re~rence ana~ r~r yo- ~ u to t~hi Teti s refei= ences, its attachments and all the signature sheets of the surrounding neighbors attesting to sharing in the concerns stated in this letter to you urging you to reconsider your approval and deny this project. As examples, the original layout of the proposed home depicted on the subdivision map of the subject lot was far less obtrusive than what is being proposed today. This creates a very offensive, objectionable and inequitable situation in consideration of the concessions that were made originally in allowing the formation of these 3 lots, including the subject lot. This specifi- cally being where setback variances were granted allowing the substandard improvement and higher structure density, and this was allowed being based on the original relatively subdued layout. Now in comparison, the new layout has a substantially larger home, garage, driveway, etc., creating a significantly larger improvement/structure density than originally being considered. This new tack creates an untenable and inequitable situation for us who originally objected to this subdivision. It validates the validity of our conc~ems originally and should nullify the concessions granted. ~, Then in not .requiring a cul-de-sac at the nort~i end of Monte Vista Dr., a fire-gate was to be installed to create a through street to the continuation of Monte Vista Drive. Please refer to the referenced enclosed copy of Ronald W. Moore's (Fire Prevention Chief, Fire Prevention Division of Santa Clara County's Central Fire Protection District) to you (City of Saratoga Planning Commission), dated: 16 May 1983 (1 page). This required fire-gate and through street transition has never been installed and this raises a significant concern in our minds if we should ever have to deal with afire-storm in the area. If a fire crosses this line a responding fire engine or engines would have to travel over 1.3 miles if they don't get lost, transition 4 speed-bumps and 2 boulevard-stops to get around to the other side of this barrier. How can this be allowed? These and other related points of issue are matters not equitable to the surrounding neighbors and in some cases pose significant safety issues. You will need to take all these matters into consideration in forming your decision. 4) In the event you should decide to approve this Design Review allowing the ingress and egress from Sobey, we respectfully request that you require the builder to bring the "minimum access street" right of way up to minimum required standards of the 18 feet of pavement width with one foot shoulders on each side. We further request that you require the builder to provide an unobstructed paved extension of the 20 foot wide non-exclusive Right of Way onto their property 30 feet in length so as to provide a "hammer-head" turn- around at the end of our common driveway. This so as to conform to the City of Saratoga's and the responsible Santa Clara County Fire Department's mini- mum requirements for this sort of turnaround -this to complete the turnaround requirement imposed on us installing our driveway gate. ~dOd~~ Saratoga Planning Commission, June 23, 2004 page, 5 of 7 In this case, this involves our own personal property as well as our deeded easements to Sobey. Because of this, we would like to insist that you enforce the minimum improvement standards in this area and request that these improvements are done in such a way so as to conform_to or exceed quality wise to the existing improvements. As mentioned earlier in our referenced letter of Apri125, 1983, we are __ _ __conce_rned as to whether the builder can in fact;physicall~develop these.. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ minimum 20~'t. roadway- improvement requirements' m~ht eir a~lTeged-fit: right ~`~ ~~ of way without disturbing the adjacent properties and their improvements. For these reasons, and in the event that you should continue to approve this ingress and egress to Sobey, we would ask that you would make your approval contin- gent on the following: a) That the builder survey this right of way, establishing its boundaries and ascertaining all interferences to existing improvements and grades. b) Based on this survey, submit a detailed f~lan and specification as to how they will implement this minimum 20 ft. wide improvement in this 20 ft. right of way without disturbing the adjacent properties. c) This proposed plan and specification should then be approved by all the applicable regulatory agencies, that it will meet or exceed all the requirements including storm drainage and any other required factors. d) This implementation plan and specificati n should also be approved by all the adjacent property owners that they an be assured that all the required work can be done without disturbing eir adjacent properties and improvements. And/or that the builder obtain all the necessary grading or applicable easements that might be required from the adjacent owners to complete their project. e) We further request that the builder be required to get these mini- mum roadway widenings and pavings in place before they start any construction on their lot. This so as to minimize the inevitable congestion that will occur during construction, allowing for emergency vehicles and the free flow of traffic to the adjacent properties. 5) The drawings subixlitted with this Subject APPLICATION # 04-034 depict the home's driveway encroachment entering our property where they have no easement or right of way. This is unacceptable and will not be permit- ted by us as depicted. It should be further noted that there is no apparent provision for access to and from the Berry's (neighbors to the east) existing gate onto the existing 20 ft. easement and/or for future tractor access etc. to this easement by adjacent neighbors. 6) Though this proposed home is touted as a single story, it certainly appears and in fact is a two story home in bulk and height especially with the attic dormers and the expansive attic space that is provided via its design. This design technique is establishing a much larger home than being specified when O~®CT~9 . Saratoga Planning Commission, June 23, 2004 page, 6 of 7 you factor in the effective_potential living floor space the attic area is providing. As per the referenced Staff Report dated June 23, 2004, on its page ?, the 6 paragraph, it is expressed: "However, additional reductions in the perception of bulk could be made by reducing the height of the roof line. This recommendation was made to the a scant and their res onse was that. tie Country French style of architecture . . =~__ ctates tbe~ei t o e roo hr e ' --~}~ ~ ' . That argument didn't work for us five years ago when we were before the Planning Dept. with our home design wanting the traditional steeper pitch and higher roof line for our English Tutor home. We also were required to remove the attic dormers that were in our design. The fact is, the attic dormers could be removed and the roof pitch and height reduced on this subject house to reduce .its bulk. This then would, to again. contradict the Staff Report, be in actuality more consistent with our adjacent home and the many others in the area that have been under the same constraints. ?) Another concern is storm water runoff with the subject project. The existing drainage in the common roadway to Sobey barely hand~es the runoff from the area, including the subject lot now. With the purposed planned impervious improvements the runoff will certainly increase and the drainage system on this roadway will need to be improved ac' ordingly. 8) If this project is allowed to continue and bring is utilities up the roadway to Sobey the builder will need to excavate our "pav "driveway which currently has a lifetime warrantee with the installing contract r. We want it stipulated that any such excavation and/or necessary post-construction repair to our driveway be done under the supervision of our installing contractor so as to maintain our warrantee. 9) We unfortunately were not able to see or obtain a copy of the referenced Staff Report for this subject project, dated June 23, 2004, until Monday morn- ing, 6-21-04. As a result, I need to now add that as per this Staff Report and my discussions with Ann Welsh on Monday, 6-21-04, I was surprised to learn that some of the issues I have raised have apparently indiscriminately become mute and unenforceable since we are supposedly no longer dealing with a subdivision. These being the issues I raised pertaining to the subject project better taking its access from Monte Vista Drive rather than using the full and nonconforming roadway to Sobey and if not; the builder being required to bring the roadway to Sobey up to the minimum width and improvement requirements. It further includes those issues raised with the other concessions being made on erroneous data along with the stipulations being made in 1983 at the initiation of this ongoing subdivision that have yet to be carried out. We strongly object to this pretense that we are no longer dealing with a subdivision. Considering these issues were brought to your attention over 21 years ago; that they were supported by the signatures of over 30 of the sur- • rounding neighbors; that some were dealt with based on erroneous data; that some weren't dealt with at all, obviously being deferred to later in the project's development; that some of the stipulations have not as yet been implemented; all attest to the fact that this subdivision is still in development and that all the ~Q;®~.®© Saratoga Planning Commission, June 23, 2004 page, 7 of 7 ordinances affecting a subdivision should still be in play. Accordingly, you need to enforce these ordinances. In 1983 the Planning Commissioners allowed the formation of the subject .lot with access to Sobey .based on: the documented, erroneous and expressed assumption that the right of way and encroachment to Sobey was only shared by three other lots -that the subject lot would only be the fourth thus not. in violation the City Ordinance 14.25.030 (~). that stipulates _"(1) .The minimum access street constitutes the means of access for not more than tour lots, and (2) The minimum access street is improved to the standards of a local street as set fourth in Table 1 of this Chapter" being a Right of Way Width of 20 ft. (min); Pavement Width of 18 ft.; Travel Lanes: 2 at 9 ft. _ 18 ft.; Distance from face of curb to property line: 1 ft. (min). However, the reality in 1983 and as it is today is that this "right of way" and its encroachment to Sobey already lies fully on .four separate lots each of which use it as a means of access on a daily bases. In addition, as mentioned before, the lots to the east of this 20 ft. wide old existing easement also have access to it with existing gating and use it periodically for recreational vehicles, annual tractor access for discing, etc. Now that the reality of these physical facts are in evidence and can be validated, you allowing the subject lot to take its access from Sobey will be in direct violation of this Subdivision Regulation. Stopping this potential access to Sobey will not land-lock the subject lot for as described above, it can take its access from Monte Vista Drive. If for some reason you should allow the subject lot access to Sobey, you would certainly be obligated to have the builder upgrade the right of way to the minimum subdivision standards in completing this ongoing subdivision project. We are sure that there are other issues and concerns that need to be uncovered, researched, documented and appropriately presented with regard to the completion of this subject subdivision but we are flat out of time to do so. Since most of us have had less than 10 days to deal with this involved and confusing matter; and since we are dumping all of these points of issue and concern on you for your absorption and consideration at this eleventh hour, we respectfully request that you postpone your decision on this important matter until we can be better prepared to present our case and you can have the adequate time to conscientiously consider all the issues and concerns prior to making your determination. We want to thank you for all of your time, effort and conscientious consider- ation with regard to this matter and our community's well being. Sincerely, v y~ omas U. Coe and • • v Norma, J. Coe Enclosures: (4 documents, totaling 20 pages as referenced above) cc: to all the surrounding neighbors we can contact, w/enclosures attached) 0~®~,~~. Mr. b Mrs. Thomas U. Coe 15217 Sobey Road Saratoga, CA 95070 (408)354-2139 April 25, 1983 T0: Saratoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13 7 7 7_ Fru i tva-i a ~venu-e-_ _ ---_ - - SaratoRa, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Statement of appeal toward the Commission's Approval of Project Pile No. SDR-1533, Foley's Tentative Map for 3 lots with Building Sites and variances. REFERENCE: 1) Staff report to Planning Commission on same subject dated 2-4-83, revised 3-2-83, by Rathy Rerdus 2) Preliminary Title Report, dated, 2-4-83-SJV3-7B, order no. 132666-HJJ by W. R. Willis to the attention of Mike Foley 3) Individual Joint Tenancy Deed granting to Tom ~ Norma Coe their properties at 15217 Sobey Road, dated October 2, 1967 4) Resolution No. V-311-1, File No. V-311, City of Saratoga Planning Commission dated November 27, 1967 for the application of Thomas Coe for a sideyard setback variance 5) Variance application by Mr. S Mrs. Larry Stock of 15249 Sobey Road for garage setback allowance in approximately 1978 6) Other attachments • 1 ®~®~,®2 Grounds for the Appeal: It is our opinion, that there are at least six specific aspects to this approved project that are not in conformance with the objectives of the General Plan and/or the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City. These in brief are: 1) The applicanta third lot would take access from Sobey Road from a right of way on which 4 (not 3 as indicated in the Staff report) homes presently take access. The approval of --- this project-will now cause 5 homes-to take access- rom" t e same private driveway/portal to Sobey. 2) Variance for the 10' aide yard setback of the garage. 3) Variance for the 23' rear yard setback of the garage caused by the new proposed lot line. 4) Standard conditions would require a cul-de-sac at the end of Monte Vista Drive (at the barrier) which would preclude the applicanta from having the required net lot site area. S) Waving the standard condition which would require the cul- de-sac at the end of Monte Vista Drive. 6) Waving the standard conditions requi ing the improvement to the entire footage on Monte Vista Ave ue. 7) Waving the standard condition zequirinA the improvement to the right of way to Sobey. 8) This project has a "lot yield" factor of 2.64 lots allowed rounded up to 3. This is in conflict to your approval ~on 2-23-83 to the Amendment to Section 13.9-3 of Subdivision Ordinance providing for the rounding down of elope density calculations. The approval and allowance of these concessions and aspects; 1, 2, 3, 4, b 8 defined above will synergistically create an improvement and structure density which will be inconsistent with the General Plan; be a deterioration of the openness and beauty of the Sobey Road area; as well as devalue the adjoining oropertiea. There is also a serious question as to whether the Foley's have the legal right to use a 20' "right of way" to Sobey Road for the 2 ~~®~.0~ . purposes of a "permanent and main access and egress road way" and/or for the required utilities. If the Foley's legal right to this right of way for the stated purposes should be substantiated then there becomes the question as to whether they improvement can physically develop the minimum road way requirements (ion andparadinR easementshowhichatheytdonnotehave. without excavat 8 We will be elaborating on- each- of- these-as~ecte--.and_concern_s as well as expressing additional concerns and considerations in the text to follow. It is our objective to show and convince you that, perhaps not individually, but synergistically all these aspects and concerns come together to form an undesireable, non- conforming,. and untenable "improvement project" to this area of our city. We will be urging you to reconsider your approval of this project as planned. Ex anaion to the as acts of non-conformance: 1) The approval of this project will now cause 5 homes to take access from the same private drive way/portal to Sobey. This would be in violation of the applicable general and Please ref er to specific plena and standard practices. figures ~1 6 #2, attached. Figure # depicts the "Right of Way" over which the Foley's propose t take access for their third lot. This "Right of Way" and access to Sobey Road is already currently being used by 4 hom s, the Anderson's, Section "A" is the Belik's, the Bonacina's and the C e,s'Figure ~2 depicts expanded in detail to scale in Figure ~2. the current pavement configurations and apron/portal to Sobey. The staff (Mr.~ Robert Shook) has felt that this main (1 of 2) Anderson driveway (shown) really has separate access to Sobey• Figure #2, however, illustrates that in fact the Anderson driveway and the Belik/Bonacina/Coe drive cross each other completely prior to intersecting Sobey and that in fact they share the same Apron/portal and/or access to Sobey• 2) The ten foot aide yard setback of the garage is an existing condition and this variance by itself would not be of great importance. It does, however, become a significant factor by allowing for a greater density of improvements b structures in an area that normally would not be allowed or tolerated. 3) The twenty three foot rear yard setback variance for the ~taraRe to accomodate the new proposed lot line creates another even more significant factor in allowing hiRhln structure density than normally allowed in th~he arplanning the past (refer referenced documents), commission has denied garage set back variance requests for - adjacent~properties; for the Coe's in November 1967, and the Stocks in 1978. Why are you allowing this now and if you do, will you also be willing to grant the Coe's and the Stock's their variance requests of the peat? 4) As stated earlier, standard conditions would require a cul-de-sac at the end~of Monte Vista Drive which precludes _ _ _ _ _ _-_th_e_~a p~l~s~_n~---._.- f r o.m--h_ava ng _t h e__ r e~ u .r a d,__.JS a-t _:1_o_t- - a_ ~ e____ a r e a In the referenced report, the Staff recommends "denial of the subdivision application since the required site area is not adequate in Parcel ^B" given the standard practice of requiring a cul-de-sac at the end of Monte Vista Drive." This aspect alone should be enough to cause you as a commission to deny this application. If not, it becomes a mayor link in this synergestic chain that will allow significant substandard improvement densities in this area of our city. 5) Waving the standard condition which would require the cul-de-sac at the end of Monte Vista Drive could allow this subdivision to come into place "today", but please consider tomorrow. If in the future, this cul-de-sac should become a maadatory requirement and has to be put iato place, it now creates a substandard, undersize, developed lot. This would sow become another factor allowing even further substandard improvement density. 6) Waving the standard conditions requiring the improvement to the entire footage on Monte Vista Avenue seems to us, inconsistent and inappropriate. If we have put such standards into place, let us conform to them and inforce these standards. If not, we should do away with these standards eo that at least we are fair ~ equitable to all. By inforcing these standards on some and at our whim waving them for others we are doing an injustice to individuals as well as to our community. 7) The same thoughts would apply to the waving of the standard conditions requiring the improvement to the right of way to Sobey Road. In this case, this involves our own versonal property as well as our deeded easements to Sobey. Because of this, we would like to insist that you enforce the minimum improvement standards in this area and request that these improvements are done in such a way so as to conform to the existing improvements, i.e.; a) that AC pavement be used where AC currently exists, etc. b) that after all the appropriate widening and grading is accomplished, that a conformal coating of a double seal coat of oil and screenings be applied to cover the patch work so as to match the existing drive ways for cosmetics as well as 4 ~~~~~~ for preventive maintenance in preserving the integrity of this patch work. As mentioned earlier we are concerned as to whether the Foleys can in fact physically develop these minimum 20' road way improvement requirements in their alleged 20' right of way without disturbing the adjacent properties and their improvements. For these reasons, and in the event that you should continue to approve this pro ect, we`would-ask--rthat you would make your approval contingent to the following: a) That the Foleys survey this right of way, establishing it's boundaries and ascertainiag all interferences to existing improvements and grades. b) Based on this survey submit a detailed plan and specification as to how they will implement this minimum ZO' wide improvement in this 20' right of way without disturbing the adjacent properties. c) This proposed plan and specification should then be approved by all the applicable municipal agencies, that it will meet or exceed all the requir ments including storm drainage and any other required uti ities. d) This implementation plan and specification should also be approved by all the adjacent property owners that they can be assured that all the required work can be done without disturbing their adjacent properties and improvements. And/or that the Foleys obtain all the necessary grading or applicable easements that might be required from the adjacent owners to complete their vroject. 8) As discussed earlier this project has a "lot yield" factor of 2.64 lots which you are allowing rounded up to 3. This is in conflict to your approval on 2-23-83 to the Amendment to Section 13.9-3 of Subdivision Ordinance providing for the rounding down of elope density calculations. This aspect now becomes yet another factor to further allow substandard higher improvement density into this Sobey Road area. To date, it has not been substantiated as to whether the Foley s have the legal right to this "right of way" to Sobey Road. If they infect do, then the question arises as to whether they have the right to use it for a "permanent and main access and egress roadway" and/or for any required utilities. Their alleged right 5 QQ®~©~ of way across our property does not appear in any way on our referenced Individual Joint Tenancy Deed. Title reports do indicate that such a 20' "right of way" might exist but certainly not for this specified use. It is our opinion as well as our title officer's, that this right of way was never intended for these purposes and is not appropriate for such purposes today. Our opinion is derived from and substantiated by the following: __ __ _. _-___ - -. J t_-. _!!_. .. f! _. __-8~-__.The-Foley proper~~es already h-av~-.3.~ __-ari~1-:._4fl easemenrts specified for road purposes to both sections of Monte Vista Drive (refer to referenced Preliminary Title Report, dated 2- 4-83) b) The Foley properties also have established "easements" specified for public utility purposes. Should you as a commission decide to continue the approval of this subdivision project, we ask that in consideration of the above facts, you make your approval contingent to the Poley's substantiating their legal right to the Sobey Road "right of way" for these specific purposes. We feel that this contingency would be to the best interest of our City, as well as all those individuals concerned, from a legal standpoint. Please give consideration again to the synergetic effect that all these aspects and factors will have on this area. We believe that the net effect would be substantially inconsistent with the general and specific plans for this area of our City. We urge you to reconsider your decision and deny the approval of this project. In the event that you should continue with your approval of this project. we would respectfully ask that you formally respond to this letter of appeal, answering it's questions, and stating your position on each of the issues presented. This should be done by making specific findings in support or warrant on each of your vositions. We would like to thank each of you for your interest and consideration to our appeal. Thomas II. Coe Norma J. Coe ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ G7~ Attachments 6 ~~~~,~~ + / ~ .+ \ • / ~ANOS a f'/QNOIrt 30 ~/ ~ •' \~~ ~~ ~ ~ ` 1 . 1 ' ~ ~ ,~ / L.w~• •f Ii/~L 1 ~ ~ ; y / / .. .~-~~ L' {., _ _ __ /;: , 1 / ~ L~wI• ./ •.....:.. I ~ t ..i. .! C.• ~ •• I . :/ 1 ~ ~/ ~ .«. % ~ ~ ~ ~. .~... * ,~ .~ . .. ~ _ ' ~~~ ~ ~ ,' . ~ I • ~~ . . ~ r .Z~• ~ , >,. aaat ~+•~ ~ t • . / • • /'r •''~ l ~- ~ ~ ~ • ~. v ' ,,..,,:. _ T z ~ . t~ ;. ~. .,,, . ~ roNTt v1aT~ oalv[_~~; F~ A• ":'""" L arm. ~ .^r ~ '= a as •s. ~rI .w. 1~ Arr ~ ~ «•~ w w+. /wrv.n C..~ •i.Il \ . ~. 1./~~ ~'Li ~ ~ - .\ a \ ../ri'm' I v~•' ~ a~" f ~ a -~~ f .~..... `J~ TIIACT MO. 3 2 I! •~ ~1 ~ ~ ~` 'YOMf [ •000' ~; J r / ~u USE w 1+ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ 0 ,,~ -1 .. so \B~y ~\\~,~1- ~ t \ t ~I - ANDERSoN , _ . i ~ _ .. = -. - --- -- ~ - - --- - O ~ I ~ l/ I •i ~~ ~ETi9/,L ~ ~ I F/~u~E #2 ~~®~~ ~~ • SERVICE CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 3A71 DRIFTWOOD T)RNF. SAN JOSE, CA 951284499 SINCE 1947 (408) 3784(110 16 May 1983 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Subject: SDR-1533, Monte Vista Avenue (Foley) At the request of Mr. Foley, for clarification I am re- peating the requirements of our earlier report: 1. We are not requiring a cul-de-sac at the end of the street. The addition of a gate, c ating a through street, will negate the need for a urnaround. Z. A driveway servicing only one (1) h use does not need to be 18 feet in width. See Saratoga Standards for driveway details. 3. Lots will need turnarounds that are within 150 feet of the exterior walls. Should there be any questions concerning the above, please call the Fire Prevention Division of the Central Fire Pro- tection District at (408) 378-4015. Sincerely, RO ALD W. MOORE Fire Prevention Chief Fire Prevention Division RWD9 : j g cc: Planning File James Foley ~~~~~L® • I(/z(:W(UI:UiII Illl:ItL(IUI:.ti'1 UI•. William Gorman - --~,r#f'f~ P~L~4SE R~'~'1/~N-7Y-1=------ ----- --------_ _ _---- Robin B. Kennedy, Esq. Miller Starr Rt Regalia 545 Middlefield Road, Suite 200 Menlo Park, CA 94025 APN 397-08-092 APN 397-07-038 APN 397-07-039 APN 397-07-059 APN 397-07-060 RESTATEMENT OF .RIGHT OF WAY AND GRANT OF EASEMENT This Restatement of Right of Way and Grant of Easement ("Easement") is made and entered into this day of , 201, by and between Ml(:HAEL E. FOLEY, A MARRIED MAN ("Grantee") and MADHU SRIDHAR AND ~ANJAIJ SRIDHAR, HUSBAND AND Wll~)r (collectively, "Sridhars"); RAMI'sSl l SI IAIZMA ANI) SIiWKU SIt1AKMA, HUSBAND AND WIFE (collectively, "Sharman"); TIIUMAS U. CUE ANll NORMA N. CoE,'I-IilsBAND AND Wll~E (collectively, "Coes"); and RUBER'1' BnF:HM /1NI) MARY K. BOFHM, HUSBAND AND WIF1; (collectively, "Boehms"). Sridhars, Sharman, Coes and Boehms are referred to collectively herein as "Grantors." RECITALS: WHEREAS, Sridhars are the owners of certain real property located in Santa Clara County, California designated as Santa Clara County Assessors Parcel Number 397-07-038, and more particularly described in Exhibit A ("Sridhar Property"); and WHEREAS, Sharman are the owners of certain real property located in Santa Clara County, California designated as Santa Clara County Assessors Parcel Number 397-07-039, and more particularly described in Exhibit B ("Sharma Property"); and WHEREAS, Coes are the owners of certain real property located in Santa Clara County, California designated as Santa Clara County Assessors Parcel Number 397-07-060, and more particularly described in Exhibit C ("Coe Property"); and WHEREAS, Boehms are the owners of certain real property located in Santa Clara County, California designated as Santa Clara County Assessors Parcel Number 397-0_ 7-459, and more particularly described in Exhibit D ("Boehm Property"); and ®©~~~~ WH1/KLAS, the Srulhar I'ruperty, the Sharu~a I'ruperly, the (.ue I'rupcrly and the Boehm Property are collectively referred to herein as the "Servient Tenement"; and WHEREAS, Grantee is the owner of certain real property located in Santa Clara County,. California, which real property_is_ designated as Santa Clara County Assessors Parcel P p y ___ __ -- Number 398-08-091 and more particularly described in ~xliibit E~ which reafi ro drt _ _i _. hereinafter referred to as the "Dominant Tenement"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to (a) that certain Grant Deed Joint Tenancy from Clara Maude Shoemaker, George F. Shaner and Ruth E. Shaner, his wife, dated May 28, 1949 and recorded as Document Number 576868, in Book 1798 of Maps, Page 105, Santa Clara County Official Records (as to the Sharma Property) and (b) that certain Grant Deed from James W. Foley and Esther R. Foley, his wife, to Department of Veterans Affairs of the State of California, dated March 10, 1958 and recorded as Document Number 1448073, in Book 4029 of Maps, Page 574, Santa Clara County Official Records (as to the Dominant Tenement), aright-of way over and across a portion of the Servient Tenement was created in favor of the Dominant Tenement (the "Right of Way"), which Right of Way is more particularly described in Exhibit F; and WHEREAS, Grantors and Grantee (collectively, the "Parties") wish to restate the Right of Way and to effect the granting to Grantee of an easement for public and private utilities; and NOW, THEREFORE, for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Parties hereby agree as follows: l . Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits: The Recitals above and all exhibits to this Easement are incorporated into the text of this Easement as though set forth in full. 2. Restatement of Ri hit of Wes: Grantors hereby acknowledge and agree that the Right of Way comprises anon-exclusive appurtenant easement for ingress and egress of motor vehicles, transportation conveyances and pedestrians on, over, across and above that portion of the Servient Tenement.described in Exhibit F (the "Easement Area"). 3. Grant of Easement: Grantors, subject to the terms and conditions contained herein, Hereby grant to Grantee the following described easements (the "Easements"): 3.1 Utilities Easement: Anon-exclusive appurtenant easement for public and private utilities on, over, across and below the Easement Area. 3.2 Secondary Easements: The rights herein granted include incidental rights to enter upon the Servient Tenement for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, repairing and replacing all improvements and facilities on the Easement Area, so long as such entry and activities are undertaken so as to minimize any impact upon or conflict with the use of the Servient Tenement. ~~~~~~ id all ul the wvenants, 4. (:uvenants Kunn~n > wUh the Land. Lath at conditions, restrictions, conditions and provisions contained in this Easement shall be and constitute covenants running with the Servient Tenement and the Dominant Tenement, and shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors and assigns. An appropriately -- - executed cop~~f this Easement -shall be recorded in the Official Records of Santa Clara County, California, and the provisions hereof shall both bind and benefit ihe-ServienfTenement-and~halt run to all successors and assigns of the Servient Tenement and the provisions hereof shall be fully and completely enforceable as covenants running with the land. 5. Underarounding, of Utilities: Grantee agrees that all utility and other service facilities constructed, reconstructed, relocated or otherwise established in the Easement Area shall be installed underground at the cost and expense of Grantee if required by appropriate governmental agencies. 6. No Dedication: Nothing contained in this Easement shall be or be deemed to be a gift or dedication of any portion of Grantors' lands to the public. 7. .Maintenance of the Easements: Grantee shall be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, to maintain, repair and replace the Easement Area and all improvements and facilities located therein and shall keep and maintain the same in a neat and orderly condition and in accordance with all laws, ordinances and regulations. 8. Indemnity: Grantee (during the term of it ownership of the Dominant S 'T'enement), and each of Grantee's successors-in-interest (during t e terms of their respective ownership of the Dominant Tenement) shall indemnify, protect, d fend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to Grantors) and hold Grantors, their agents, employees, officers, directors, shareholders, successors and assigns (collectively, "lndemnitees"), and the Servient Tenement, free and harmless from and against any and all claims, actions, causes of action, suits, obligations, liens, proceedings, costs, expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and costs), judgments, orders, decrees, damages, or liabilities of any type or kind arising out of or in any way connected with its use and enjoyment of the Easement Area and any act, omission or other conduct of Grantee, or any of its respective officers, agents, contractors, invitees, licensees or other representatives, save and except for such as may arise out of the negligence or intentional acts of Grantors, their contractors, agents, employees, invitees, licensees and other representatives. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, nothing herein is intended to obligate Grantee to indemnify Grantors or any other party from and against any condition of the Easement Area existing prior to the date of this Easement. 9. Notices: All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered (including by means of professional service) or sent bdresses and shall be deemed~received andpeffecteve upon thetdate of requested, to the following ad receipt thereof. Said addresses for notice may be changed at any time by either party upon pnor written notice to the other party. Upo~i a sale or conveyance of the Dominant or Servient Tenement or other transaction assigning or transferring rights or obligations under this Easement the transferring party shall endeavor to give written notice to the other party of the same and ~~~~~~ address ul the successur to which nutices ai a to he seal, Niuvidcd, huwevei, tl~al lailui c lu give such notice shall not constitute a default under the terms hereof. To Sridhars: Mr. and 1Vlrs. Madhu Sridhar 15211 Sobey Road Saratoga, California 95070 To Sharmas: Mr. and Mrs. Kamesh Sharma 15201 Sobey Road Saratoga, California 95070 To Coes: Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Coe 15217 Sobey Road Saratoga, California 95070 To Boehms: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Boehm 15215 Sobey Road Saratoga, California 95070 To Grantee: Mr. Michael E. Foley Saratoga, California 97070 With a copy to: Robin B. Kennedy, Esq Miller, Starr & Regalia 545 Middlefield Road, Suite 200 Menlo Park, California 94305 10. Attorneys' Fees: Should any dispute arise over the terms or conditions of this Easement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. I I . Entire Agreement: This Easement contains the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein set forth. Any prior, contemporaneous, or subsequent written or oral representations and modifications ~~®~,~~ . , ~ . . • ~ • ~ ~ ut utu~ilicalwu ul ll-i5 concenung thts Lasemenl shall be ul nu luic~, ul tllc.cl, ex~cNl a subscyue Easement in writing, signed by the owners of the Servient Tenement and the owners of the Dominant Tenement and properly recorded in the Official Records of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. -- -- g _ _ - - ___ 12. Applicable Laws: This Grant is subject to all va ~ an ex~shn con sac s, leases, licenses, encumbrances Grantee, in the exercise of the rights herein granted, shall at all times comply with all applicable laws and lawful regulations. Executed the day and year first above written. GRANTEE: MICHAEL E. FULEY, A MAIZRIEll MAN GRANTORS: MADHU StuUHAK, A MARRIED MAN AN.IALI SRlllI~IAR, A MARRIED WC)MAN RAML:SI l S1 IARMA, A MARRIED MAN ST11NK11 SHARMA, A MARRIED WOMAN TI TUMAS U. Cvl:, A MARRIED MAN NoRMA N. Coy, A MARR1Ell WOMAN RUI31sR'f .BC)EIiNI, A MARRIDt) MAN MARY K. BOF.HM, A MAI2RLT1~ WOMAN • ©~'~~.~~ • THOMAS U. COE, CMfgE, PE Telephone: 1 (408) 354-2139 15217 Sobey Road, Saratoga, California 95070-6255 USA Facsimile: 1 (408) 354-2286 1'l:~fU~ly Z 1, ZW 1 ORIGINAL VIA U.S. MAIL Cop Via Facsimile (page 1 of 6 w/enclosure) Mr. Bill Gorman Coldwell Banker 12029 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Fax: (408) 996-0849 Subjects: Issues pertaining to your proposed "Restatement of Right of Way and Grant of Easement" and related matters with respect to Mike Foley's lot • Re: -Your proposed "RESTATEMENT' Ur KtCiti 1 ur wH r H>.vL vrcrii~ OF EASEMENT" for Mike Foley's use of our driveway - Enclosed copy of a diagram page from the San a Clara County Fire Dept. Dear Bill, ~ In response to our meeting Saturday evening (2-10-01), Norma and I feel it is important to document the salient points of issue that we have with your proposed "RESTATEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY AND GRANT OF EASEMENT" for Mike Foley's use of our driveway and related matters. We want to do this to clarify our position, avoiding future misunderstandings and so that the others involved will have a clearer understanding of our issues, concerns, questions and proposals. As you knew and I expressed in our meeting, when Judge Foley wanted to subdivide his property into three lots in 1985, Norma and I took issue at the public hearings with Mike's lot having a proposed right of ingress and egress over this 20 ft. wide right-of-way. 1"here were a number of reasons for this all of which I can't remember and unfortunately all of our records of these matters are still in storage at this time. Some of the significant issues we raised in recollection are: C7 1) Judge Foley's property had a 40 ft. wide right-of--way to the Southwest onto Monte Vista Drive and in subdividing his property, they could have easily turned Mike's lot into aflag-lot using their 40 ft. wide right-of-way for ingress and egress. This approach would then not be overloading our 20 ft. wide right- of-way and encroachment onto Sobey which already had 4 residences in full- time use and another adjacent property owner (Bob Berry) with occasional use. 2) A Saratoga City ordinance restricted the use of a 20 ft. wide private driveway to a maximum of 4 residences and allowing this subdivision seemed to ~~~~~~ Mr. Gorman, February 21, 2001 page, 2 of 5 its ro he in violation of this ordinance. As I recall, the city officials at the time took the position that what is nuw the 5rtdhars' lot (A1'N 3y'1-U~1-U3d) was nut in full use of this right-of-way so they were allowing the subdivision. However, in my experience in using this right-of--way over the past 34 years the closest calls for an accident were when cars were approaching our shared encroachment with the Sridhars' lot simultaneously. With this issue in mind, I find it ironic -_ _ __ -that you are nowinc-Iud~ng-t~ie~r"id~iars n~his ~sroposEd-~~5~-A~' - - but their position is indeed significant in this matter as they certainly own and use a portion of this right-of-way on a regular basis. In the event we cannot come to terms with this proposed `RESTATEMENT', Norma and I will certainly re-raise these issues toward any proposed development of Mike's lot using this right-of--way for regular ingress and egress. In regards to your proposed "RESTATEMENT'S" paragraph: "NOW, THEREFORE, for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Parties hereby agree as follows:". We are curious as to what good and valuable consideration of sufficiency is being offered to the Grantors of this proposed 'RESTATEMENT'? I believe some discussion and perhaps research into the relative values that this proposed `RESTATEMENT' holds for its "Parties" is in order. 1) To begin, what are the benefits and shortcomings -value -for the Grantors of this proposed `RESTATEMENT'? A) An obvious and frankly the only benefit I can see is that we would have another party to share the burden, cost and expense of maintaining and improving our collective driveway, encroachment and features. B) An obvious shortcoming is that we will have more traffic and congestion on our driveway and at its encroachment along with the additional disruption and noise that this will bring. Considering the youngsters we now have living on this corridor who will soon be reaching driving age, along with their friends who drive, this shortcoming will become more pronounced and problematic. C) When the Foley lot is developed and if this proposed 'RESTATE- MENT' should be in place, we will again have the inconvenience of construction going on at the end of our driveway with the associated traffic. In this case trenching will need to occur along the driveway for water, gas and sewer. This will restrict travel for several days and there will be a lot of dust and dirt during the course of construction and until the driveway can be resurfaced. D) The additional traffic over the length of the driveway will cause more wear and tear, creating higher maintenance costs along with the associated inconveniences. E) A significant disadvantage for Norma and me as well as for the Boehms is that if you are successful in obtaining this proposed OO~g.~,~ page, 3 of 5 Mr. Gorman, February 21, 2001 'RESTATEMENT'/Right.-of-Way, the front yard of Mike's lot would then be against our 5outhcrn property line which tt~eans a developer wul~ build a home within 30 feet of our driveway. On the other hand, if you are not successful in obtaining the proposed RESTATEMENT' and have to develop the ingress and egress from the South, the rear yard of Mike's lot would then be against our Southern property line which would mean - - adeveloper could not`biifid-a homes-witfiin-5fl feet of ouc riveway;- providing an extra 20 foot buffer for our properties. What is the value impact of this issue on our respective properties? 2) On the other hand, what are the benefits and shortcomings -value -for the Grantee of this proposed 'RESTATEMENT'? A) In this case I know of no shortcomings for the Grantee except for the associated expense in obtaining the proposed 'RESTATEMENT'. On the other hand I believe there are significant benefits and substantial value for the Grantee in obtaining your proposed 'RESTATEMENT'. B) For Mike's lot to have this Sobey Road address and access as opposed to the Monte Vista Drive address and access along with the conveniences of same, I believe will add significant value to his property. Perhaps more than $100,000 in relative value. 1 believe it would be very interesting and appropriate, in light of this request for your proposed 'RESTATE- MENT', to have an MAI appraiser evaluate this aspect. This being attested to by the highlight in your ad for this lot which states "Located along the finest portion of the prestigious Sobey Road area". C) Though you have mentioned that the water, gas and sewer utilities could be brought in from the other side of Mike's lot, it would be more convenient and I suspect less expensive to have them brought up our driveway. Does Mike have existing right-of--ways from the other side of his lot for these utilities or would they need to be acquired? What is the value (potential savings) of obtaining this right-of-way from us to Mike's lot as opposed to other alternatives? D) For the developer of Mike's lot to have access to our over 300 feet of improved roadway as opposed to having to develop a new roadway to the South will be of significant savings or value to Mike's lot's owner. How much is this worth? E) Having our new home "next-door" along with its improved driveway which you were an.~tious to have completed and tout in your advertisem- ent apparently also adds value to Mike's lot. How much? If Mike should end up with his ingress and egress having to come from the South, our improved home would be of less significance to his lot. Is this not so? If it is so, then your proposed 'RESTATEMENT' has further value for Mike. F) Getting your proposed 'RESTATEMENT' in place will remove the problematic stigma or taint from Mike's lot, of not having a clean and ~~©~~8 Mr. Gorman, February 21, 2001 page, 4 of 5 clear right of way floc ingress and egress and suitable utility easements. So What tS lhl' VdIUC Ul L~IIS ~Ul.UlllClll lU Milks Sul fruw tllia pctspccltvc! These then are a few items and I am sure that there are more, that need to be considered and evaluated to determine the relative values that your proposed `RESTATE- - MENT'-holds for-its--respective_~arties,__Th.is_needs to be_done to determine what good and valuable consideration of sufficiency is being offered to the Grantors of this proposed `RESTATEMENT'. As we further discussed, there are a few other items that Norma and I would want incorporated into your proposed `RESTATEMENT' toward making it acceptable to us, these are: 1) The document needs clarification with regards to its "...the Right of Way comprises anon-exclusive appurtenant easement for ingress and egress ...". The "non- exclusive" needs to be restricted to just the parties involved and that Mike and/or his assigns cannot grant further use of this easement to other lots on the other sides of his lot. 2) This would be a good opportunity to incorporate a good, simple, clean and crisp maintenance agreement that would be acceptable to all parties involved and that would pass on to future owners. This should include when and how maintenance projects are determined to be neede and approved for our com- mon driveway and how the cost, expense and/or ffort is going to be shared amongst the parties. It should also include reaso able requirements for the parties to regularly maintain their sections of the ommon driveway with regard to keeping it clean and neat (free of accumulated eaves, dirt, debris) and their adjacent landscaping maintained in a trimmed, clean and neat manner. 3) We will want Mike to provide an unobstructed extension of the 20 foot wide non-exclusive Right of Way onto his property so as to provide a "hammer- head" turnaround at the end of our common driveway. I had suggested that the length of this unobstructed extension be 20 feet, however in review, I discovered that the Cicy of Saratoga and the responsible Santa Clara County Fire Department require a minimum length of 30 feet for this sort of turn- around. Please refer to the referenced and enclosed copy of the diagram page from the SCCFD. Then in consideration that you are also asking Norma and I for an addithone utility easement le fromhhe up litpo ole onf our propertyywerhave a proposalrfrom our and TV/data cab Y P perspective. This would be in keeping with what we deem to be a good and valuable consideration of sufficiency for our play in this matter. We propose that we would be willing to sign your proposed 'RESTATEMENT' if the three items identified and discussed in the preceding paragraphs on this page are incorporated into your 'RESTATEMENT' toward making it acceptable to us, and we would grant the additional utility easement across the upper portion of our driveway for electrical power, phone and TV/data cable which will add additional valu~t~~~~~ page, 5 of 5 Mr. Gorman, February 21, 2001 Mike's lot.. We will be willing to do this contingent on the Grantee arranging for and • bin the cost of putting what are now the overhead utilities w the pule un uur absor g property all underground. A preferred alternative to this from our perspective is for Mike to arrange with his father for a lot line adjustment creati ress_ and u~il ues1V I believe thisttotbe inr~g~nal 40 foot wide-.Right of Way. for-ingress,- eg _ _--- __ - - --_ -- -- - - - -_- _ reality the best solution for all involved. I would certainly appreciate getting your thoughts on the questions and issues that I have raised in this fax/letter to YO1volved n theselmatters.iscuss these issues and exchange ideas with any of the parties to Sincerely, homas U. Coe Enclosure: (1 page as referenced above) cc: - Mr. and Mrs. Robert Boehm, w/enclosure, via U.S. Mail - Mr. and Mrs. Michael E. Foley, w/enclosure, via .S. Mail - Mr. and Mrs. Ramesh Sharma, w/enclosure, via U S. Mail - Mr. and Mrs. Madhu Sridar, w/enclosure, via U.S. Mail - Robin B. Kennedy, Esq., Miller Starr & Regalia, enclosure, via U.S. Mail • 0®®~,2Q --_2Q_-- A •i 50 no DIMENSION A 12 FT CAMPBELL CUPERTINO LQS GATOS MONTE SERENO MORGAN HILL 14 FT LOS ALTOS LOS ALTOS HILLS SARATOGA 20 n 20 00 80 20 I GASHED LINE INDICATES I , POINT OF CONNECTION TO DRIVEWAY 1 I !TIRE AREA OF TURNAROUND SHAH 8E PROVIDED , A I i ~-~ ~~ nc cer TURNAROUND nIMFNSIONS ~ ......~ .r nc 7~ FT fll ITSIOE ANO 2J FT.INSIDE 20 .i 20 FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY DRIVEWAY TURNAROUND DETAILS Oh®~~~ MARCH 1997 l9 SCALE: i IN. = 20 FT. DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET Attachment 9 • 0~®.~2w DZ Des ~~. , City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Design Review #: 04-034 To whom it may concern: sociates, Inc. ,,. l~- June 1, 2004 The architectural style of this proposed home is "Country French." Some typical design elements of a "Country French" design are, steeper roof pitch, slate roof texture, eyebrow roofs, dormers, rustic wood details, and stone veneer. The home we have proposed incorporates these elements into the design. We feel that it is important to maintain the 7:12 roof pitch to achieve the "Country French" look that we are striving for. The roof shown with it's charcoal brown blend color, will help break up the mass d bulk of the stucco walls. The varying plate heights and ridge lines also help to mitigate the perception of bulk and mass created by vertical stucco w lls. The design of this home is consistent with the Saratoga Residential Guidelines, while trying to achieve the "country french" architectural style our client desires. If you have any questions regarding this project please call me at (408) 778-7005. Sin ely, Greg rman ~~ 0~;~~,2~ 6 11 11 VU E~ ~~ ~~ ~ ""~ eiuao~~µ>:) 'e$oleaeg tar qn v rtls:q,q~ in~u.~ ~)l'OjI ~~J( SOS ~,~ I S l CfML-N IN(Il•I _ 1 Kl! NLL IHUYI .aax 41 Yeil00V e0f Gs u5t; c(woJgn,) 'qp I u(>`sixtW - ,);)UJC)ISJ2~ ~~J(~05 `. tI I :)ImS 'JnU:):~~I olrl I SOLL1 auu eor s~~aei~osst~ t_I~-s~Cl!~l a.).)~~S ~~I~U. ,. ~. ~.~,~« ~~ ~ ~~. la~~u. ~~ ..ti ~~ u., avu awvua VW?1Ox[1"IV.) 'V~~O.LV2I~S CNO~I ~J~IOS S~ 1 ~~ f y t .I.N~~do~~n~c~ a~d~~~no ~, ~~~ ~~I~I~QIS~~I ~~SOS r r~ W ~~ y ~- A ~ ~ ~ V ~v /~ °~ ° ° - ;n C - ~ A ,~ ,~ _ ~ Y ~ (n ~ r F- ~ I• r. ~ V I :+J ~1 a ..-~ \.! ~~-. \./ L.J w l / . F Q A ^ W ~~ ~ M z ~ ~ -< 3 `° ~ c %_ ~ ~ . ^~ `~%v I^ '~ ~ ~/? ~ ~ r ~~//~~ L ~~ W' ~~;~nx 0=~~~ I~ s ~ r __ .~ o w ~ ., C " ~ ~ ",~ C ~ t; _ li aJ ...-gip NtO-t oC It ~ II~C Q m~-c~o~ol~lr, u,.°-~ C(`] `_ ~ f, O .-, .-. o 17 U ti ~ _ ~I~~s N W ~~ -+ N -3' O f I C ~1C1. ~YiYY /111 ; N 'h `~ a ~ ~, - s Z ~ ^ ,Cray NvCOr J G GIJ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ro xo v ~ ~ ~~ti c r F" r, y .~ ~ v ~ ~' ~~a ~" u ° ^" c, ~~n _ :~ x r- - sv~ssssss sxc Im C 7 I ~ CC 7J I ^ - -- ;; L _ ~= ~ 'CL 1 ;L J; :fl = r y ^. % bG , n ~ ~ _ ~ C ~ i ~~'V ~ ~ ss_-_ ~~.. ~ L I- ti 2 . _ ~ _,"=. Q ~~ v 0 ,~ e z ~ , O ~ ~ ~ e ~ a4 ~ u_ L S~ ~ ~ ,~y ~ i. ~ f j .:r!C: .-. "- ' `- f S T J. U, U7 .~ ~ - ~', x ,~ -~r=ri-x-r ~x ~Wx r; l ~ i * / ? C/L~ f _ '3/ ~"' / $ 7 O ~_ / __ f ~f _ f 1 / "i ~ _ t / Y - / ~ G / ~ -~ - / _~- C 1 W /~ // ' z , _ _, rW , '_' x' ~ 7 ~~ ~// a ~ V / - ? ` / ~. Y J - ~ _ / r r ~ _ ..~ / !_- % a f ~ ~ _ / a f'/ ~~ ,. / f. l ~' ~ ! =may! _ / .. _ - .. _ l _ r ~ i. - / l it c~7 - _ ,~ - f / ~~l 7 Y' C'~FE i zz U x A O~ _ U ~ 0 p ~~1~rrr^111F FF FF rr FF F FF FF FF FF ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ LL LL 1 ly LL LL LL Y LL LL LL LL LL LL LL x p_ m ryr.Nmemrt+mrym~mryrg r_ q~ _ 0 J.9~-mrvmrrvl"v }"vrvrv __ S N x J rv Q m m i. ~ n ~ ~ .Q Z ( ,~g a ZrVp (aa~~ ,aaop$ ~p(~71 v.~,~ppmmggg (~(~,(p~t~ Q Ua eY ~~ddva~aoadi Jiddi ~iSnm ~ m m ~ v / I y LL LL ~ ~ LL LL LL Y ~ ~ LL ~~ ~ LL LL ~ LL LL ~ ~ LL ~ ~LL ( y ( y (yy C~~ ( 1 ~ 1 ( ~ ~ { r ~ ~{{ C ( 1 ( y ( N ~ B ~~~ dr d S ~j ~b d S~dS~d4 ~d ~ dS ^~~di ~d~~dS dS 1 ( ~ ( ~ g Y~~ rv W m^ m~~ M y Y1 ~~ rv rv~ d Qry A~ S ~ - J1 r y rv m ~I A 11Q~ ~ 3 K ~ ~ Y S V a Q - s e_ eo ~a ~a ~ 9 e ' (7~ 0g 9_ Y w~ i a eon 9eg9- + "~m m4 ~~ ~ x zw x x x'x xF~ii L ~ 8 41 x 0 e3 x x x x m ' e000e e p / v0gg 0?0. ~p 000~u w ~JJ7 ~ n nf.-~n0 ~.-..-.__ea mm^-^"` F+al ~ ~ 1 u Q > ~ O p [iii4mUpwu U=-~Y~LzOdtl0:~0 ~,n~0 O I~ _ ~7 1 _ ~. a J. =r L g L. J _ _f L 'y _ _ J f - - f. WW 1.~ Q ~ .. _ f~- a ~ - ZI ~ y ~ 3 ~ y~ z ~.~ ~~ r fy~ lI = nV ~ s ~ ~ a C W :h N :/: ^ C O c} z =. cG d 1:7 ~~ C . i d' GC N ~ `JC= 00 GC J;` OC a x;rOa ~'^ `~_c~ ~ ~ mac; f ~=tGC Ux 1 J~' J ~, b.V "nCl oN „ I ~ ~~ J f~j: ao~ ti I ~:.N „ ~l'I ~:C . a y - ~~ ~ , r' ,.,. - - ~~ U I~- ~/ - __._: /~ 7 k f, < I .: f " y C/] ~ _ z 0 - - _ ~ ~. _ _ . M .. -_ ~ r F+.1 .... .,., .. .. • • F ~W aka: k § ~p 9 F 'X 0 4 ~~9~ ~~~ ~g3GX 9 :gl81 ~. E> oi. ~oo d~ ` ~ aa ~ '~ K { ~ aX N S 9 9 .SY ~_ ~YnE=~L. E' ~>.E: py" I ~2 ~ , `: p ~ ~ ~ ..X ' ~ E 1 p. S' 6 ~ Y' - 3~ ~~~ 2E 7 Yt~ k fr ru tl ~. ~ E tf ~: F € Y~gZY .. ~e~ E'~ C~~~ ~ 4 ~~ B C ~ P R ..~•. ~;: ~ti~'_:"_ ~e, a 'fr E" ~:".€° io E.. ~">. G "o pp"aE.~~:#~:~°k?~R~EE E~~6~E. sy~iog4 c• ~ ~s ~~ 9~.a~ ~ ~° m~® Q G~-.~se:.~~~~~,e?o.. E9?.Y9~~gA~.. ~r. ' s~oLL ~ ~~ ~~t ~ ?~ r Ire:: p is?::'g>°•..r2 ~.. a _iYg e-?s:c:~~" ~?° r' ..€ ~f 3 fan 3 ~ .. xEY?~~#E~P?a ;ereb• ~.aeYEa .i~sE a, s~ ~gE .~ ~~.R ~ ~~ r~~k~. ~ ~ °~ ?~~ ~ ~Y ~y ~z~ s E E' Ba ?,g 1.. s9 E "• ~ ry W I _~ °~ ems"3~ ~ N a $ I~ .. °~~• ~~ :~..~ ~ n O~ ... ,. .. s.. ... .. ":~, me.e ,i ~ o ~ ~" ~ ~° 9k'[ ~~'"~ ~[" III 1 ass ~L c ~~ ~:~5 ~5~~ ~~jC ~•~~~~ ~~ ~ ~`_ ~? ~F ~ ~~4~° ~° ~ ~~ a ~ ~9w ~,43g €`~~ `"~1 I ~,~9 ~ ~'~ ~4n sa2~ 39a ~~ $i t~ 'F ~~~ ~ s ~~ as •~a a~ ~~ s ~~~ ~>;~~ ~~aa~ ' i' g t a a r c r e d S k' ~ ~ ~a F~e ~~9 ~¢ ~ aF ~ ~ j~ a a r s s~~ 3z ~u k ~ 5 7 es b ~~ ~~~ ~ I, "s a a 5- ~< I, ~ rsj o zz _~ o~e~ "~?; fta qua c e E ~~~ t" a d'e n ~ a a® n ~r ~%~, C ~ ~ s'~ ~ ~ ~ ,s ~ ~F ~ ~ r s ~~ 3r ~' r €~° €n~ :° ~€€ m geE~ §~~$ $E~~ ~; 11 zr 4a q t/ ~~ r'E ~3a- €~~en a€..~ g~ ~~ ? •s°~ ~~~~ , I z { a@1 a€~~` a ~e €~~•"j~ ~~~ s r re x: Js,iW ~• ?€z ~ y a 6y es e~~ ~i I :.r ~ ~ s6: '~,~ P~ z ~;~xEcs 'xz ~=W a ~ ~~ °€ ~s~ de - ~ 9 as ~°~ ~•°° I. ens ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ anai~ ~~ii ?~e~~~e s~~ ~s~ esfl~ 3~&a} ~~,~€ ~~a ~'~ ~g ~ ~ ~~ 5 ~a"~~~ ~va I~~ i~ p g ~ s € ~°~ ~5 ~ z "z5 ~m~dts .~ ~P. g y4 ~~~ ~'tl6~ ~°~~ x3~ a€• ~~ Q€~ h _ ~ r ~; ~~ ~~~ s a n ~ P~ ~zF i~ iff. k'~~ 8 ~@ y~ e~~ ~n"• ~~a? i~5°• ~~~ a•~ ~ ~ ~~h 4 ~t~~~ ~~j ~s~ ~~~ ~ =v ~~~r m~~zn~ ~a~€ ;~ ~.1 z a eo niz~ R; 9ea:. ~ ,~• w s s z ~ s ~~. 7:. ~ sr, Kc ~"' ~ ~ • ~ ~ ii !' <9fifi go~p~~ ~~'° ~ ,:^~e~~ 7€ ~ ~ a ~t c Ink €~ y1G.a ~~ s Wzc , gs .; ~~ a~~s4 ~ ~,~., i~ ~ o ?c~,'i`~ .~ .~'~ .kL .~&2! sac .,1~~r .•. ..;.5 .. # .}rc .> .Sm~~ .a3 .~e .~£s .$ tsar ."FP~a C.,~ ~ I I ~i ~ I~ ~`I I ~ ~ hie I •I Q ~ ~&a' F ~+- I e ~~ I i ~. ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ i ~ ti Im s I ~ e 5 iYp 1~ `o ~ a E gcv $ F ~'/ ~ ~ a 1 b3 Z ~' ~ ~~ !%,'~~ z t. $ ; _ Y d = iii ~ 1 • o w ~ ~, '_ _ _ 3 e ~ ii i x~ N I .. I ` I =tea a~~~ r ~ ~ ~ i `. po ~~~ ~ ~4 S ~ I +'D I~,~m_ _ ~ i • ° ~i~ ..~J N '' .. If R ~ ~ 3 ;f ~ o ~ ~ ~ a 0 41 ~ I >< ~ ~ I ° m ~ N li II a 0 i O I n A a - ~Pr'~ IFo E--• w . ,~ ~~°~ z aQ Z Op W Va) w°a ~O Q ~ Z~ QQm Q~ Uv Z ;n Q~ (.~ Z (/') z °~ 0 Z W N J Q ~ m ~.~..~ ~G~ 9 i ~!~ ~„ ~. < ~~'4 L w r ~ A 0 0 h 1 M ~I O ml SI TI _1°v ~ 9~^` Y m ~ Q y ~i ~ ~ ~ a° •~ w ° W z .. °I ~ lol~l~ld a 3 S o a ~ E ~ ~~ `o ~~~ ~~~~ Z~ ~~ € § ~- ~ § E a 0 I 0 '~ A M I 11 f~ ~ Y • • 0 ~ W a ~ b n ~ ,~ ~o 3u oq ~a a o Q ~; o, ~ ~ J enaao;geJ 'e$oleaes ~„~~,. ~,.R,~ ,~, ~~. rv ~, ro ~~, ucu~eir..iwxe u uimk su xn rcxs~n zw x au r wvc guru nr r M~ ~ ~ ~ r~aru~r't ~~y,~~~ya scc l ~ « "; y 'f L ~ ~ C i ' £~f3 peoH ,<agoS S h ~ s i s, xucul i .n~nrccnxi ~~uv cncr. vav ~wn i" wry ~~ ~. ~ ,~~ V.[ ~ r ~' MMaY ~ vt~~tn~+' 1~~,'~hy~y~~. = ' 1~. a~~ap~sa~ ~Cagog i~,a l(1":YIAM' II VC%T 'L%4M T1 NE1 T1[Y1 ncwn `~' ~ w ~' n, "*'5 UO~1L>a~f6~~1~ 3uLL eDP n , . ~ ~ Av iv ~rt . w -0,, ~,n,, ~~., ~~u, ~,< <~~, '~u~ 'sa~~r~ossd u~-saa ~ ue~~( aus ~~ e e ~' ' ~ e, gg a~ 0 `® ~ W ~ N 4 ~ ~Q 3 L ~ ,f, ~. ~~ Nub eW wH -~-- ~ .eo 1 0 Y2 ~. __ ~. _. b~ 0i i r ~~_~ i - - _-. - ~ o}~ a~ ~~ a~~ ~~ a~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~, 0 "~z Ws~ ~w~ rX~" ~=~~ 7"~ ~ -'~~ r~~~ e~ a ~~~ ~~s~ -- - - -~ ~ sir / see 1 1 ~ _' ,~- / _-"-- sego ~f I ~ I COI r ~ I .~ . ~~~ ' ,~ ~ t, ,i i d - ~~~ gm. ,~ ~~ ~ 3~a ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ I ~ ~: ~ .... . ~ _. °~ ~~ ___ ---- - ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~~~ fs }~iyi o ~ - -- - ------- ~ ~a~~ - ------- --- - - J~ - -~ _ .~ / 3 .._ i % ~ _-- ~ i .~ y , - -- ~I -~~ ~ ~ ass i Z ~ ~% ~ ~ N •Y ~ , i eoo 1 ," ~, r ~~ / I ~ _-` ~n ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ea _ . _i' m ,~40~81 .0 N ~00'S61 ,~ U ~~~ 'I p ~p w .. p d9~ yp1 Q ~~> J W2 y~166Q Q ~Q7 ~ ~ 66b~Q W M d1 Q lQ7' °d W ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ _~ ~ ~m~ Y ~~ ~ ~ ~o o ~ E~~ <~ ® <~ o8e ~~~ ~' a ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~a ~~r~ ~~~ a = ~9~~ ~~ Rio ~ai~~ '~ ~~~"d • 0 s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ #~ ~~ ~a o a' : i' o a , g ~ ``~ !1 , ,,~.~ ~ enuo~geJ 'e8oleaeg .MS~.„~„ .,, w>~.,nw,l~>+, ~~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~. ., ~~,. ~ ~~ peoH (agog S~b ~ S l a~ ,e~wxuauiv .nu<u LOrxmn ,lu mmnsrn-N aciu rn <cncwz~su A.xavmuxixl ANV . uvumv ~inan na k~ LL9l1~,ULY]1UlM lLill~m1[ML1 S101F H.iUn NU 91Y1f , _ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ , FYa;. ^ y,''[[}}~~ ~ ~~'I~r:._ y~l aauaN~Sa~ Magog aw..or ,~I ~, ~, ~ ~~nxn~~ wxim m, ~, ~ N w rcu uew ~±u inn ~ urv lo~ _~ - l~ ~. ~' « ...~ .K -0 ~ >~'~ ~` r "~:, uu:uR'rvrAMM).ntt ~FNA icxwufa erv wvN.IG~LL '~ui `sa~~t~ossd u$isaa~ ue1~1 aoc>f,~ ~.~n.~~l ~(aiu_I 111LL OMMY110 .Y',IY .0-,W _.___- .O~.l~ ___ _ - 1 ,~, ~ r-----~ ` I --- I~ _ 14 rr5 .. -- ~ ~ --- ~ I I I I ' I ., d I ~ I ~ Q ,-Y I vd P. 1 I ;/; S Y j~ ~-~ I I .f ~~~I I ~e i~~l ~9 \ ~ I I _. _ d:~ ~./ ~ 9 I I I I I I -- __ ___ I •_. i ' __ I I ___ ____ ~l _ ~ ~. I i F ___ ______l I i ® ., f__________ J _, I ~____ I I I ~ I I a~ I ~ I ~ I I Z I ..-.~ I ®' I _ _ ~(~4J~ 3 I tl. 5 ~tl i I .j~ I ~ Ff=~ I I '~ I I ti I I ~ I I I 4~ ~ J~ I I ~~ I fl I I. ^~ i 4 ~~~JC I I I -~ I .. ,. II I O I II Imo' f- ----~ I I I I ~ I I I I I I _ I I ., .. .. .. , II -- _I i~ I I I ---- II CC------ - I ' I I I I ~~if `J C S I i li 4 I I H ~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I I I n------- ~ I tl ~ I I I ~_ ff I I I ~ I I~ ~} I I I I I I I T ~~ I ~ ~ ~ o - - I I i Y _-,- e I I 1 I ~ I _ ^ I L___-------- ~ ~ ~ i I I _ ~ _ 'I=i ~ / I C fi - ~~ ~~ ------ --~ ~ IE ~ - I ~;s i ~ _ r .- I ---`- I I ~ I I I ~~ ~ ~ -- e p rr---`----- C'd - d I I I I I ~~ ~~ I I ~} Z~ I I I I ~ ~d ~ y, 9 "' 9 I I I I I Ip~~ --- I ^~------- ~ I `. -- I i I r-- I ~------------' II [ I I I I I I II __ J I~ CC__ I II _____ ~ I 1 _ _____ ____ I I k C I I- I I --- ~ I I --ter ~r-- a r~ o L ~ I _ I n I~ I ~.r______ I ~ ~ I~ ~ II ~II ~ I I I .~~ r I JL__ L___ I I I w -~ i t===-Ir-~r---~ I B I i` L d I L I ii iii I ___ ____ I ~ I I ~_ _______ '. l ____J I ~ I C___JL_ L___7 I I I I I ~ I I lr-~r--- I I I I I it -II I I .-.. I I L I I I I j II I I ___JL _1L__ II ~ i I ~~- ------ _'_'-- I I Y ~ ~ H---- g. ii---- ~a ~<' -r£ I -4 ,, II A~ J II _ --- \ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I I 5 iiL J .. I I~ r~ I.. I... d r~ I I I_ I ~ e X~ I I ~~ I I 'ri :. ~ I I I I ~ i, d I I ~ d I I I I ~ ~ I I .C Q I I ~ I I r , CJ ~~ o ~ ~e ~i e ~ e ~ a ~ ~ u 4 ~ a ~ ~ N Q ^' ~ u S~ ~o n E C II J ? ~.~ X ^ `~ . Y-. : - O y~1k=_ Q ~ ~~ 7 J ~. x { ~` c a ? c~~ ~ _~r~ I :f :! f T J !' _~ n x ~ I xI^-ri~x _ ~ z I r~ x ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ^d n c ~ r~ ^ LZ i I r; n ' ~~ c ~~ rt _o ~i®i~-_u-. _i~ _ _ _ u~.l,. :~_ ~= ii _ _ _ i1..~4u_:i -I_I „®.11_1 J~ 11 ~~ i l i ~ I l i I I' I I I I I I I i J~~i- i I . _ _..,,._- _ I i '~ ~4 ~tl ~~ - - ---- ----- .m-,« II _ _ t • • • ~ ~~ a o o o ~:; ,~ : ~„ eluio~11eJ 'e$oleles r~~.waw:mon rc i'uwv.in ~wsnn~"i.H ~i'"•~ °~ ~ ~~tt~.( 1 ^'~t '~~-6 ~~~ pP.O~j I~~C~OS S't' l ~ 1 c~oav ~r ,~u in ,wwau,u ,~mk, suvc x~vv ~ ~, ~.`~,mu u.wu~`.+<cuwm vas nwi.'`L' `,'y!~ -r"- r k ~'~ J~U'~ IS7``j /~'J O ` K~~ ,a, u~~N~u ~K.35,.~~~ t-il 1 sd a~7 ul?~cl aoc~l:l IU:)LLI~sF?fl N;~a~~,. auu v«~vuo - uQ .v,mmi ~ i r i I I i ~ I i I I~ - --~ I ~ II I i I ," I I I ~ I I I ~ I I j J ~- ~ I I L u5 ~ L ~ I ~ ~ ~ i i ei - - _i~ I r I i ..-.~ v ,~ 0 m e ~ o M ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ r I I L ~; s -- a$ ~, ^" ~_' ^ i i. N.n __ -_ _- - .~-.m9 r ~ -~ ~ •w ~ ;~ c, ~ x ;i --- - I- - -- - - I -~ i i i ~ ~I I i • • • O 6 ~ ~ ' l F d~ ' ;9 ` C d Q i g ~ vwxsc~aalicrn- ~c -xc~arxnLl _ :• ~__.. r ~ ~, S+t!r~#*: P.[lUn;l~l?;~ `G'~()il?IC?S e ~ ,~~ ~,9c ~ ~~,oro~~, [~~ti~ ~ +~ v~ peoN (agog St'I9I was 0 x ~u~~ ~aixMUC~.uu,~un u uu ni ~am-W nau M~ S ~ ~ '~' F ) ~~ ~ 0 p ~ ~~, ,~, v,, u ~; ~,~ W z _ ~~~" T~F~ow` a -; y-;, aauapisaa ~(ago5 °' ~ N e} BALL x 8~ K ~ '!K rrL1s ~ - - ~ ^~td17 - {'~~~~(. 3uu Bol' ~- „ ~ ~ ry reu.~m.. ISy a x»wn~ia . _ rr~~ r~pp~,t ;J^ ate{ Jl ~ Q oa Gi.r~~ rxwK,uu••u~ao tic oal Sa~~TJOSJd u~lsa4~'7 Su(~~~E~•~~~~;~•«)~•~~71~~~ 31W pM1Vtl0 ~4 ~~F~ ~~~ Hf k1.WV INSMNI "MILL MtiA NII IGIfM.1LW RN :NYN~iti OLL .,(~ 6 E ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~3~~~~_ ~ t i ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~a~~o~ :~ >,~ 9~ 3~ae~E i .3 ~\ ~~ ~ / W `~ O ~ ^ W ^^ '~ W i~ O J ,.. 2 - - ~ P a ~ ~, K ma N ~ W ` G C w ~`~ i 7 a 7 F% " ~`*~ ? sc G .. e m f _ x ., / / y 1. L f-t 1 FG S ~/ 2 ~~ ~u ~ ~ C ?C F J ~, f ~. y ~ '',f i ~.... ~'e tL_ - =r ~' ca ~~ ~~~ o _ a~• .~ 9i 6 ~~ ~3 ~ ~ - __ aE ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~' w ~~ ~ ~ ~g~~~~E~~ ~~ ~~ ,Pa~~~~~~ a. 93~ s~ ~~e 06 =y 5333 ~j ~ ~j [y y 73 ~ __ .o-i. ~ ~', ~ B, q({rPrH 6ii ~\ ~~ O ~~ O •/y ' ~ /I ~~Iy~ rV ~ A ` W I~ 1 ' ^^' W z ~ g a z°~ } ° ~ q~~o a tg a ~,~~ ~~ ~~ nff ~~ r ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~_~ B~ _~ aE°~ ~a~~. • • ~ '~u~ Cl 1~6y (1 ~ F- a ~~ o a; e~ '~ ~J - r enuo~iTe~ 'e8oleleg ~~~ Kam, 2W1 fMM1 WMSTL~O'IX1 K1L1-4N i1V %L -01DNM%M1 ~~~• 2t p~a l\7q~s S~ I S I C8~100V Wf 'iLLd Jf.F LMYOV Yl l1LWMW} nSWI L~U L ~ %ireu.r a ~u a ~wx'a rma4 +Hr 3ur.~> t ft,1~"~~ N~~~~ Yt =` fit.. ~. LL ~ ; " ~ ~3t7~tG r `~ " a~Uaptsaa ~(agOs r,,, ~ ruunw. cm. ~ iawm w+ ~, .m w 1 ~ vim., - - "~ „~' a,uw^~ ~ w sat~~aoss u -sa Z~U..~A46iNM.lALL. !rv <Ff2MRkl dCi .L6LL fOCN~ S1I01~E7(`~~~:~ .IOI.IJ1A,l ~~ v ~p 0 0 61 a ~ ~~ H e a ~ ~ W ~~ `~ ~ ~ ~ U ~V a ~ ------------- e ---- ~ ~ ---- - -, ~ ----~ o , ~ D a ~ a , o o , ~, ~ D a O ~ ' J ~ 4 ~!~ i c o ~ 9~ ! Q !___ ______ __1 i, ~ L _______________________ I 1 v D ------- 1---- --'-- J ------- -- ~ ~ a , g~E ~e ' ~ ~ ` t 6 i di ~ eE : ®~ ~ ~ .,~P _ a~ ~ r y j i _ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ j ~ -- e I ~ }I e' a ~. ~ 9 Y~ ; J ~, - ~ ~~~ a e ~a~~. ,~..o..~.o,. # -- ~~ i I a~ i~ ,f€ .. ' ,~ __ ~~ .~ ,~ 1 - -- -...p ~~ ~ ~~ ' { ~: ~ ~-' ~ {~ } ~ ~ ` f i ~ 1 .m.~ _ .m .- -- 1} I ~ ~. t ~ ~~ ~I ~~~~~ ~ ~ `~ ~_ ~~,i~ 0 ~~ ~ O 1, ®, a• a •~ -~ ^..i S ~1 ®y aM ram. F3 ~ A~ - '..~. W 4 a 4 s D .~ .~,o ~ k-:~:a.,~:.-, ~ :.., ,~ ~ a ; • a y ~~ ~ r ~ , ~ , ~ 6 . ~ - ryL ~ J ',! ~ 3: .: qfE f ~ ~ ; ~t ~i ~ F ~~ 1 ~ ~ ,j f j Sl F :~ 4 ! ~T ~e ~ ~ y ~ ~~~~~ ~ r~~i o~~~ ~ x ~ F '~ ~ '~ ~ ~ 1~ 7 . ~q ~ ~. ~ . ~. _--- -- -- - ---- i~~ R~R~ a~ 4 ~ A A ~ • • i ~ ~ d 4 r 8 ° w w Q ~~ ~ t5c l ~~ ~9 + ~ g ~ `~'~ ;:w a .; t elU1n [ e~) 'e`~()1P le wieacrtan c°rn.. ~cw ixc~rzsrtu h ~~!«, ~.., .,,, .~,1~.,~ b ~..y, 11:AbMY ~ UL lNWL1 SdLK1f .SY K%tid(~ all 1 - : ~~ + r ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ + ~ ~~j ~, ) ~ . S peoN ~CagoS S'6 f S 1 sa~uoor eor ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ «Al,ul~,~,~lA,vu,l~«M,9~,~~1,M~~ ' ' ~:-. .: :: aauap~sa~ ~Cagos 1[i MI iU Jh~N}FJ d[~ dY1 NN llK S !!MY ru1.N c[ nkne u Wm. . _ .~. .~,, .~ .. ... ,.. ~ ~~~~, TLl BOf f lltlc LGM I! t~:LtM. Il1N AVID vl LlM1WYY.i ~°°~° ~~ ~, °u ~ ~~~~ ivr~ n~ urtal~lw~m ~!u ~-:u°iv -rvw~w ~-.eu ~°tl A~wci ccawira !rtn wru :n;lu - ~au~ 'sa~e-aossd u$rsa Q ~ - SUOf~J:)5 SSO.1;) TILL f11M1Hp v ~ 0 e T 9 j gg, e~ W ~ N 6 ~ ~ ~ 4 ~~ 0 ~~p~~ ~ :~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ,~~~ ~' i ~/ ~ ..~k ' ~ ~~r~i X1:1 1 ~.~ ~L._3.-- i I ~~ s I . { i ~, r.i ~ ~! ~! ';1 ,s. f ~; ~ ~ I ~: i ~ ` ' _ ~_. ~~ _ - I;:~ ~, ' I ~~~ ~~ a ~ ~. ,, ~,, , , ~ , , -'~ ,; ,i_ i' 0 b ,'I ,, °~/f . ~~3~~ ~ ~,k~ ~a~~ ~y~~ ~~g, 0 Y 8° 3 ;8 ~ ~? $~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~e ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ p~p e~ Y Y 9~ : bF 1j6~~ $3 G ~9 €~ ~ _~ Y~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ n o e~ 9 ¢i ~ n_ ~~ ~ ~$ ~g e$9e~<~~ ~ ~~e re '~ ~~ ~! :~ ~: \ ~ < 2 ~ a ~ ~ ~~ :. ,,, . I :~ ~'. i:l 4`' ;'u , ~i~ 0 (( ~ ~~~~ ~ K f~~,'~o ° ~ a~ j e~ X75 ~ . l ;I ,, I ' ~ 1 ~ ~ -- _ _ _.._ ___.- -- - ~ .~_ ~ ~ , ~ _ ~~ /,I ~ ~ -~ tl , it ~ av I f _ - { R~3 / ~ .a In a°rn .o-.~ f / _ ~ .. '={ I Q I ~I I 1 1 ~ ~ A ~ ^~ ` g~ ~ ~ S \ • r ~ - ~ e~ I `~ i. i 1 ~ I ~ U __ ~ I CJ f Ll uatli~.v-.a c~ ! (J; (n 0 ~ _ ~ J g~E .1 ~~~ .~ - = r, Ikt ._. .___ _~__._-~. _.-_ _ I i...,_~_,_ "1 - ---- . - ~ u :% ~~ ;, , ~_ { 1 ;~ ~ ~ , f ~ _~.._ I ~~ , ~; i s II • ~ I~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~i ~ ~a ~a ~ b' r C r ~ x ~ ya eiwo~ge~ 'e$ole.~eg Lv~f%4%FS iJW mniTmssuuamar~.u~.u w~ ~tirnn ra w%i.~ '° n.. }'zez.t 1: " }~~Oa /~:IC~Os St'~S~ ce~oc. eor resaRC~ ~u wwu suvt%nsv ne~isvu z~u i:A ~ ~ ~~,~- i,waun~. `au.cuuexnxaauTmawruasau.w ~ l ~'Y..h k'1j~' ~ouv% x ~r+v.~acxxi.wv cuvrncs rr%sun e~ci,~ r". ~• ~x~ur%n auLL~uw ruinmwds~vus~ww~l+o s+vti f,; '., 2~Ua~I$a~ ~aQOS -- ,,,,,-4LLK%~~,~.~z«~~,,,..e%~ -. .. .. ': ~ ,~~ auu ear tL11.IMw FbS3LL0~ ALL lll(MILLM IHVAM Nth ~!%MIM 1.'I - ~ ~ ~- Y%ItM.LM!%)R LIM AO It~n. AVYI (Irv SMV LIMW%%1 11rv 4A'M ~11iLL Y'LLK% S K16Y1 M,~;.,.~:~°:uarvurva~r~x~awi.,~uuw~u+ '~~ 'sajLi~ossd u$-sao~ ut'~d {cx~Zl r,,, ~~ 0 ~ F 0 ~ ,73q e ~ ~ O J ° I ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ 6 n l • • . -.,.. <>x>;,,_~ y~ 'e6o~e~eS P2i ~a4oS 9b lS l -_ } ~~N~aIS~2~ ~a2~ J~~80S,,,,,~ - ue~d adeaspue~ ~en~daauo~ ~,,,~ ~,~ ~ ~ J ~ _ ~• ~ ~ ~ Y I O Z ^~ rW V ~? ~~~ ~~ ~n'° ~d ~~~ ~~~ wig ~~~ W W U n-~ ~~~ ~~~ ~o~ ~ a., ~$ ~ ~~~ ~~~ _~~ ~~~ Jai ode ~~ J ~~~o ~~~ ~~~~ ~~d Wm'~o r g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rsa ~pp LL~ \ w~~ rw~~ ~~m ~ a~~ ~~ 4M 43l 4Y 49! em eos ea DIO DR a ~ ~ ~' x m~~ // .~"_REFERENCE/ _ NORTH-{` I~~y,/{- 4lb /~fY. 41p J 4p] ~ ~\~, ~~ ~ i -~ 4.. -~--- r ~ %~ ,.. ~ ~~' 4pg %~ ~ ~ / ,~ 4~] 4y1 ~ ~ 4y t O 4b tl 500 a sm so4 ._~ ~~ ~ so`, I soe / 610 O ~D - - DQ M (Cf ~ ° c~ U ~~ ^~ W U O U~ • • • ITEM 5 • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Type of Application: Date: I APN: App # 04-227/ 20125 Orchard Meadow Patrick Dougherty John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner 2'7~. Design Review v October 13, 2004 503-10-049 Department Hea~ G __ _ .. _ ~~ ~~;,, __ ,,~ N?~C PD ~ MT EbEN RD ~~ \ ~ \ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~~ ~ ~i ~ %i \ 1 \ \ ~ ~ - _. _.. ~ ' ~ i / - -_ % / i ~ i f ~ ~ ' \ i ` \ ~ i f.._...__ I ' .__ ~ ; ~ i ~_ / /: ' ; // MEADOW-D$___/, `` \ i 1 \ 0 100 200 700 400 500 N '~ ;; I 20125 Orchard Meadow Road • E~~IU®01 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 07/13/04 09/20/04 09/29/04 09/28/04 10/07/04 Request Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 7,960 square feet, which includes the 498 square foot garage. The gross lot size is 9.15 acres. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the application for Design Review with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. Settlement Agreement 3. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels 4. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" • • 0~0®~~ File No. 04-227,• 20125 Orchard Meadow STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Hillside Residential Prezone GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Not Applicable MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 9.15 Acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 31% GRADING REQUIRED: Grading, landscaping and erosion control are not subject to City review. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. PROJECT DISCUSSION Background The project is located in the County of Santa Clara outside tl~e City boundaries, but is in the City of Saratoga's Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area. The City Code does not apply to projects outside the City boundaries. The County dyes require certain projects that are in a city's Urban Service Area to have the city sigh a form stating that it is consistent with the City General Plan. Several years ago a prior city staff member erroneously signed this form stating the project was consistent. After proceeding with the plans for the project the applicant approached the current staff with forms from the County to be updated. The current staff advised the applicant that the proposed subdivision was not consistent with the City General Plan and could not move forward. The General plan requires a lower density of 20 to 160 acres per unit. Based on the applicant's investment in the project in reliance on the prior staff's action, the applicant threatened litigation. The City then entered a Settlement Agreement with the Applicant. The Settlement agreement requires the applicant to comply with the City's design review standards for the design, height and floor area of the structure. The grading, landscaping, setbacks and site coverage are not subject to City review due to detailed Santa Clara County requirements in these areas. Following approval by the City, the applicant will still need County Design Review approval. The County will issue the building permit and be responsible for all grading and erosion control. Design Review The applicant is requesting Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 7,960 square feet, which includes the 0®U®03 File No. 04-227,• 20125 Orchard Meadow 498 square foot garage. The maximum allowed floor area is 8,000 square feet. The gross lot size is 9.15 acres. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. The proposed exterior finish will be a combination of stucco siding and a stone veneer. The stucco will be a brown earth tone. The roof will be a clay tile. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in MCS 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors' views. The large lot and existing trees that surround the lot minimize any impacts to the neighbor's privacy. The house will be built into the hillside with a maximum height of 26 feet. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. This finding does not apply under the Settlement Agreement. Although this finding does not apply, the proposed project would be consistent with this requirement in that the majority of the existing landscaping will remain. Some of the small Oak trees that are in the building envelope will be transplanted. No protected trees will be removed (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The applicant is not proposing to remove any protected trees and will transplant some of the small Oak trees located in the building envelope. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The house will be built into the hillside reducing the bulk. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines including stone work along the front facade and main entry that will break up the front elevation of the building and add character and interest to the structure. The arched windows will also reduce the perception of bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this policy in that the existing landscaping that surrounds the site will be maintained as part of the project. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines and arched windows that break up the elevations of the building and add character and interest to the structure. The majority of the house has the appearance of aone-story structure. (f) Currentgrading and erosion control methods. This finding does not apply under the Settlement Agreement. All grading and erosion control aspects of the project must be reviewed and approved under County of Santa Clara ordinances and policies. ®00004 File No. 04-227,' 201250rchard Meadow (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. The home is also designed for energy efficiency in that it will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. Parking The applicant is proposing athree-car garage and will also provide parking in the driveway. Trees No protected trees will be removed. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed house is consistent with the above General Plar} Policy in that the proposed design and location will be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. CONCLUSION The proposed project is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all applicable findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minunize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • 0~®0.5 • Attachment 1 ~~®~s APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO.O4- CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Dougherty; 20125 Orchard Meadow Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot pursuant to an April 9, 2003 agreement between the applicant and the City. The proposed structure will be 7,960 square feet, which includes the 498 square foot garage. The maximum allowed floor area is 8,000 square feet. The gross lot size is 9.15 acres. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet; 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 proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residence I; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review Approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors' views. The large lot and existing trees that surround the lot minimize any impacts to the neighbor's privacy. The house will be built into the hillside with a maximum height of 26 feet. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The Settlement Agreement excludes this finding. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The applicant is not proposing to remove any protected trees and will transplant some of the small Oak trees located in the building envelope. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The house will be built into the hillside reducing the bulk. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines including stone work along the front facade and main entry that will break up the front elevation of the building and add character and interest to the structure. The arched windows will also reduce the perception of bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this policy in that the existing landscaping that surrounds the site will be maintained as part of the project. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines and arched windows that break up the 0~~0~~ elevations of the building and add character and interest to the structure. The majority of the house has the appearance of a one-story structure. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The Settlement Agreement excludes this finding. (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. The home is also designed for energy efficiency in that it will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review and is consistent with the following General Plan Policy: Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed house is consistent with the above General Plan Policy in that the proposed design and location will be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. 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, the application for Design Review has been approved and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit 'A' date stamped September 8, 2004, incorporated by reference. 2. The applicant shall be required to meet all requirements of the attached Settlement Agreement between Knoll One Associates LLC and the City of Saratoga. 3. The applicant shall provide the City of Saratoga with a copy of the approved subdivision map. The map shall show the location of the conservation easement, as required in the Settlement Agreement, and state the purpose and restrictions of the easement on the map. 4. No protected trees as defined by the City of Saratoga Code Article 15-50 shall be removed as a result of the proposed project or within 1 year to date of the building completion unless authorized by the City of Saratoga. ~~0008 • CITY ATTORNEY 5. 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 or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 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 (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of October 2004 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 • ®~~®~~ • Attachment 2 L ~'~~®~© .~ • • • SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") is entered into by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation, including its agents, employees, successors, assigns and other representatives (hereinafter referred to as "CITY"), as the first party, and KOLL ONE ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California limited liability corporation, including its agents, employees, successors, assigns and other representatives (hereinafter referred to as "OWNER"), as the second party, with reference to the following facts: RECITALS A. OWNER is the owner in fee simple of certain real property located at 20125 Orchard Meadow Drive in unincorporated Santa Clara County (APN 503-10-049) (the "Property"). B. The Property is located within CITY's sphere of influence. C. In June of 1999 OWNER applied to Santa Clara County ("County") to subdivide the Property (Santa Clara County Planning Department File No. 7494-18-59- 01 S; the "Subdivision"). I D. Pursuant to County Policy U-LM 7, a General Plan Conformance Form was sent to CITY by County. E. CITY's authorized representative indicated the conformance of OWNER's Subdivision with CITY's General Plan and signed the form on June 23, 1999. F. In reliance on this determination of conformity by CITY, County filed OWNER's application and OWNER expended time and resources to comply with various County requirements associated with the Subdivision. G. On August 12, 2002, CITY's authorized representative informed County that OWNER's application did not conform to CITY's Hillside Specific Plan, and hence to CITY's General Plan. County will not complete the processing of OWNER's Subdivision unless CITY confirms that OWNER's application conforms to CITY's General Plan. H. Presently, CITY and OW NER desire to reach an amicable disposition of their disputes regarding the matters described hereinabove, without the necessity for litigation and without admission of any wrongful conduct, wrong doing or liability by any party. • ~~~®~.1 • • AGREEMENT AND RELEASE Forthe mutual promises and othervaluable consideration recited herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. CITY agrees that OWNER's Subdivision is in conformity with CITY's General Plan, provided that OWNER's Subdivision be subject to those conditions .described in Paragraph 2 below. CITY's authorized representative will inform County of this fact in writing promptly after full execution of this Agreement. 2. OWNER agrees that each of the following will be made a condition of its Subdivision by County: i. The Property shall be subdivided into no more than two (2) parcels; and ii. OWNER will encumber that portion of the Property indicated on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Swale Buffer Area") with a conservation easement to be designated and described on the final subdivision map recorded in favor of CITY and in a form reasonably acceptable to the parties hereto. The sole function of the conservation easement will be to limit the use of the Swale BufferArea to orchards and vineyards, to be farmed using "organic" methods, being those methods which exclude any use of synthetic pesticides or fertilizers; and iii. All proposed structures, or additions or exterior modifications thereto, an the Property will comply as set forth below with those design review requirements regarding size, height, bulk and appearance set forth in Section 15-13.100 and portions of Article 15-45 and Section 15-13.100 of the Saratoga City Code as now existing and as amended in the future. Though the applicant for any such development will provide CITY with plans for setbacks, grading and landscaping for informational purposes, this design review process shall not include issues such as setbacks, grading, erosion control or landscaping (as addressed in Sections 15-45.040, 15-45.045, 15-45.070(a)(5), (8) and (11), and 15-45.080(e)), which issues shall be addressed by County pursuant to County. regulations; provided, however, that removal of any protected tree, as set forth in Section 15-50.050, will be within the purview of the CITY's design review. In light of the fact that the County design review includes consideration of compatibility with natural environment and mitigating visual impact from grading and vegetation removal (County Code Section 5.50.040), the finding described in Section 15.-45.080(b) shall not be required, though the applicant will adhere to the intent of that Section in developing its design. Compliance shall include filing of application, payment of applicable design review fees, prompt consideration by the appropriate reviewing authority, and, subject to the caveat below, compliance with conditions of approval pursuant to the design review process. After CITY approval, the applicant will submit the CITY approved plans to County for its design review approval. Should County request modification to the City approved design, the applicant will use best efforts to dissuade County from requiring such modifications. Applicant will 2 ®®~)~1.2 • • (1) notify CITY in writing at least ten (10) days before any County design review meeting or hearing in order that CITY be afforded the opportunity to speak in support of the design approved by CITY, and (2) provide CITY with copies of all design related correspondence applicant receives from County. 3. OWNER hereby releases and forever discharges CITY of and from any and all legal or equitable claims, demands, causes of action, liabilities or obligations of any kind, known or unknown, which OWNER has or may have against CITY arising out of or in any way connected with the dispute described above in the Recitals. ~ ' 4. The execution of this Agreement is entered into by way of compromise and to avoid the expenses and uncertainties of litigation, without any admission of any liability or responsibility on the part of CITY. It is understood and agreed that liability for any of the claims or demands referred to herein specifically is denied. 5. It is understood and agreed that this is a full and final release applying to all unknown and unanticipated injuries or damages to the undersigned, as well as those now known or disclosed. OWNER understands and agrees that this is a general release of CITY by OWNER, and OWNER expressly waives the provisions of California Civil Code Section 1542, which provides as follows: "A general release does not extend to claims w ich the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favo at the time of executing the release, which if known by h m must have materially affected his settlement with the debtbr." 6. In that connection, OWNER realizes and acknowledges that it may have sustained losses that are presently unknown or unsuspected, and that such losses as were sustained may give rise to additional losses and expenses in the future which are not now anticipated. Nevertheless, OWNER acknowledges that this Agreement has been negotiated and agreed upon in light of this realization and, being fully aware of this situation, nevertheless intends to release, acquit and forever discharge CITY as set forth above from any and all such unknown claims, including damages which are known and anticipated. 7. The terms of this Agreement are intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement and understanding vvith respect to such terms as are included in this Agreement and may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior or contemporaneous agreement. The parties further intend that this Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of its terms, and that no extrinsic evidence whatsoever may be introduced to vary its terms in any judicial proceedings involving this Agreement. ry 1 ®®~~1.3 v; N ~ 11 `r.,~ ~.~\ N r ~ Q ,i, W 1 ,J .C ONFIGURATION 40' r. 0~ v rL V ~~ oow °a~vE AAp M~ wtoF Are ~ v i EX~s ~;~ ; ~ ,~':/ .~ ._.~ ~ ' ~ `~ i ~ ~. W ~ ~ . //~ . Q, :, ~ 1 ~~ ~r aE ,,, ~r ~ ~ •r w ~' r ~l~ 1 ~ i / f/r / ~~~ _ ;~ I FasF~Nr / r ,; / . ' ~ ,. ~ / ~'' '~ ,~h moo. _ , ., ~ a' `.. , ,q~• ~ SCALE: 1" _. 60' ¢ a ~ P E. ~ .~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~~\e~ I ` ~ tr \0 ~ r • -~. 12• OnY. ,t 1 ~ ~ \\C~ S '~a ~24 ~ / ~j~•' ~ \ 1. a5'- 'T - I d`oo\26 `o~ ~ s '1 ~ i ; ~ Gg o"~~ o, ' E~~ ~ IN TH73 AREA: a• ` , w f ' ca Gq All uses shown ere orchard tress ' W ~ ~ ~~ ~~ .~ "~, such as walnut and ~~ ,~ ~ prune, or as noted. / = ` 1? Walnur ./ ~ Q _~~ i n ~~ ; ; - ~~ I ~II "' ~ i ~ PARCEL ~~. `~l1 ,+V ~• 14 ~ a+. pap \o ,~b e~^f~ ` f/ I C .,-' , '~ ,~' ,- ~. 1 ~ ~ ' ~ ~~ ' i I ~ ~ t - cres ~ ~ 6.39 Nat Acres i;i ~ i ~~ rr ' / .. ~p ~ ~ ' ~ 1 '' is ~ ~. I ~. ! i -'~ , I I , ~, .- `~ l ~,. \ >- Canterlina of Exinlinc ~.~i ` / r \ t~ 15-Fuel 11'idtt Trail Easernenl ®®V®~~ i~ • • .' .. '~ 8. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California., APPROVED AS TO FORM: Richard Taylor City Attorney City of Saratoga Dated: ~~~ CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation. Name: N ~c,~. 5 ~ ~~~ ~"? Its: Dated: ~ '~~ 2oU~ KOLL ONE ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California limited liability corporation Dan Shaw, fesic~''ent ~.._ • f;\UeensUaMe~miscetlaneouslKollOnesetllement agreement_and_releese.wpd 4 ~1JV~j,~ • Attachment 3 O®U®~f City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 13`x' day of October 2004, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Sazatoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Depaztment, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. City Hall is closed every other Friday. Please check the City web site at www.sazato ag~ca.us for the City's work schedule. APPLICATION # 04-227 (503-10-049) -Dougherty, 20125 Orchard Meadow Drive; -Request Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 7,960 square feet, which includes the 498 square foot garage. The gross lot size is 9.15 acres. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. Pursuant to an agreement between the applicant and the City,'the proposed project has been submitted to the City of Saratoga for Design Review. Once the 'City of Saratoga has approved the project it will be processed through the Santa Clara County Design Review and Building Permit process. All interested persons may appeaz 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 ].united to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. Please provide any comments or concerns in writing to the Planning Department to the attention of the staff planner indicated below. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. John F. Livingstone, AICP Associate Planner 408.868.1231 ~~®~.i~ • • 20125 Orchard Meadow Drive • o00~~.8 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, John F. Livingstone, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 28`h day of September, 2004, that I deposited in the mail room at the City of Saratoga, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to- wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursu i nt to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application 20125 Orchard Meadow Drive; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ,~ n F. Livingstone CP Associate Planner • 0®~®g.~ 351-16-018 SANTA CLARA COUNTY STEVENS CANYON RD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 503-09-003 LINDY FARMS I 12280 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-039 VIRGINIA A & TIMOTHY GUERTIN 23555 MOUNT EDEN RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-050 JAMES B ROGERS 20130 ORCHARD MEADOW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-053 STEPHEN A & PATRICIA SUELTZ 20055 ORCHARD MEADOW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-056 GREGORY E & PATRICIA MUDWILDF 20005 ORCHARD MEADOW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-059 LAWRENCE GUY 20120 ORCHARD MEADOW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-063 PRABAKAR SUNDARRAJAN 23490 MOUNT EDEN RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-035 EDMUND SOUZA PO BOX 2 SARATOGA, CA 95071 503-10-049 IRISH TRADEWINDS DEVELOPMENT 16705 LA MIRADA RD LOS GATOS, CA 95030 503-10-026 KELLY B CASANOVA *M* 23450 MOUNT EDEN RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-097 BRENT & HILAt~Y BELLM 23500 MOUNT EDEN RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-051 SUSHANT & NAMRATA PATNAIK 20095 ORCHARD MEADOW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-054 MEHRAN & NAHID AMINZADEH 20035 ORCHARD MEADOW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-057 RAYMOND S & EUNICE YAN 20060 ORCHARD MEADOW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-060 KIRK D BOWMAN 20140 ORCHARD MEADOW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-79-009 TIMOTHY E & VIRGINIA GUERTIN 23555 MOUNT EDEN RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 *** 25 Printed *** 503-10-061 TUSHAR A & RESHMA DAVE 16370 BENNETT WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-036 TR LITTLEHALE *M* 20040 ORCHARD MEADOW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-048 YANG M LIN 20175 ORCHARD MEADOW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 • 503-10-052. K B & SUKANYA CHANDRASEKHAR 20075 ORCHARD MEADOW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-055 JOSEPH ANGELI 20015 ORCHARD MEADOW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-058 GOUTAM & PATRALI PAUL 20100 ORCHARD MEADOW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-10-062 ROBERT A & JULIE RICCOMINI 20180 ORCHARD MEADOW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 503-74-010 CLEMMER & LINDA PECK 23501 MOUNT EDEN RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 • • ®0020 , . . . ~ ~ , ~ ~ K ^ ~ { .~ s .o ~ ~ bb0 - OI - EOS 'NdV s ~ ''?, OL056 ~/7 'JLLNf107 V21d~7 `OlNVS ~ ~ ~ e ^ l~~HS x-1111 ^ ~ ~ ~ y e 3hlLia MOa`d3^l QTJVH7!!O StIOZ `s g - a, ~ - - ~- - ~ ^ - . . , ... r ~ J ~ ~ Y`'" ' - 6 - ~ ~ :e . ~N~QIS~ J.1Zl~H9f104 ~ ,....~,..., ..., ! r r -- -- ---- - --- - _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _~~ -- ~ n a~ j~~ ~ n m I ~, U dui J~ ~ ~ ~ ul 6 ~ m N ~~~ ` ',~ i ,> Q~ ~ ~O~Q wp _ ~ ~~~ ~~ 4 ~~ ~~ _ W~~~ ~ oWz X \~~I p _ _ F !~ 4!nQ W \i -. ~ /> Qtmv l(1 wp~ ~ w~QO~ z0~ Z~N X p ui V ~ ~t r~ Z ~` ~dQ m z~W O N ~ ~ O~z W O~ Qa ~ `fl O Q v KU ~ QN~ p F~b F r ~Q~ p a a U QUW~ d~ ~ ~ Q pFQ ~ ~ ~O ~}. ~v U ~ ~ Z > Q ~`w ~ ~' ~~~~ ~ w ;, 3 N ~ uJo o ~ ~a~UO~ ~°~ ~~ ~ ~~ v =~ w~~ Z ~~op Q ZFo~- c~ F 2 ~ ~ d~i~ `fl d z ~ ~Oa m m z ONm~fw s~6 ~~~~ W ~a' NQNw O a'F O ~ ~ V QrQ O ~ ~ ~z~y0 w Wts (Y OLv ~ O W~ O~ Q ~ OQ• sJ w I, ~~JI z v a~N ~ a > ~~ UzJ v z0 a F- wz~0 a_ ~ ~ O~`f 6 /> Q. ~ O ~~tFf Q QQFV OLLV _ JzLL~~yQZ } ~~" .. ~ n ~ mLL '~~ o o ~ o ~~~o~Q ~o~ Wd k~ , ~a~ ~o w F- ~ s o F ~ ?off Q~ F ~ u, u, Q `, d ~ ~ A~W~~Q ~_oQr ~~ m~~Q = ~k~~ ~~o W ~~QQJJ ~ Q If Z ~ I C1 ~ a ~O~ W w ~ ~ W ~ ~~~~ O1N~ryv O zmQc~v l~ ~=Nma ~~~U~i q1 F \~ J ~ w 1 ~~_ J I Jr Iw1.I i ~ u~~ .. ~~ ~~ Wa'w ~ ZF-~ 6 W Q ZF Q 1Q~ R; ?~\~ Z ~NN O ONJV ~41z- h 7 .D A O Y; Q Q ~ Oj O~r~ Jt O ~~ ~~~a0a O -~ ~rN~ as a aka ~ ~~ ~ ~ w m a l~_~~ ~~ ~--m,•,d Q N, Q o Q~ a ~ o~~' ~lfl d lfl ._, ,. d ~ Q z ~i~~ ~ Q 0 a in i _S. ~' W 6 ~ ~ ~ U n ~ Q ~ 1!1 ~ ~ aJ ~ N `at N ~: O O a • z -~ Z ~- ~ F- Q U1 a W Q J J Q /~ i~ m dJ W~~ ~ F- H m m~~ / ~ ~ w / f m \ I ~~ I i ? oaf w Q oo a / ' ~ ~, \xima~wLLN_ ~a © :' Q~~~W-~N ( ~ xUOx~~z~ V ~ 1• O ~ ~ , ~ ~,- ~ ~Z ~LL ~ ~I ~ / \~ ,,~~ _~ z® d OC d Q d W ~ ~ d Z z® iL4 2 bb n ~ V1 O .,~. ~ r ~ R Z J W d of a w ~~ z d H Z V } .,~, Y 6 ~ ~ w~ ',4 ~~. ni ~~ ~ ~ e~ ~ r' S° ~~fi ~1=~.~~,m. d+~ tl a.i '''• n' ~~•. ~ r• ~, ,'~Nry ~ g ~ '~Y .r~ r y~_ n.. ~Y ~ .~ ~. . ~ * ~4 YY w ~ ~ '_' ~e.~:'d o .. _ $ ~f a ~~° ' '` d : ~Yy - ti ga ~a - • j ,~ _s ~ O SY ~ , d~ ~. ~~ o a±° 40RCNARO ~ '~. > >..,,• 6Y ., Y Y . -^° Y } ~ F V ~ aw R W~O- ~c ~ ~~ ~~' J~ ~ o Q ~~ ~ U ~~ ~u~U 0.~ Q ~~ Jf ~00~ N d N J o z Q Q ~ ~ ~ ~ H~ -~ ON a' ,_ H QQ o ~~ Q a> Z ~Q~o zin ~ QQ~> Q ~~ ~ ~n a NQ J~Nz N 'w s Jw ~ ~N~~ J w O_ Q Z > O au~i ~ x~ a~ o Q w m ~ ~ Z J Ci ~ N Q' • Z IN z d Z d H z IN W d Vp ~ Z p w Z ~ dw J J e ~~ t`'~ _ ~ , ..... ~ . ~ .. _ ~ ! . .... .. ^^ ^ :~ ^ _~ bbo - of - 6os ~riav OLOSb V7 'AJ.Nf10^J Vah''17 V1MY5 $ ^. 2N@ia MOdV~^I dlIVH77y0 BLIO~ ^ ~b~ ~~S ^ ~ ~ ^ 1~ ~ ~ - ~ • - ~' - ~ ^ .... r.. r. . ~ ..... ~........, t "`~ 37N~aIS~?J JJ.?~3H9(10a g ~; N 0 a W } 0 N n J Q Q ~, \~~~ .urra~ Vam v1rMC ,~ ~~~ ~~ 1 8 ~~~~~ r ~ ~ ~~ ~/ ,~ ~;, ~ ~' ~~~ ~R~ _ ~~n (~QbU +Z~ ~ ~ ~ 4J __ ` t~ J \ \ ~/ N11 ~ / V o o \ ® P `' z W 1 n ~~ (,QL'gV 3.L4,i1.WN ,~-- _ _~~ II I ~I ~' ~~ 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I \~ ~~ g ~~\\~ ~ I ~~ 1 V f ~ I 1 1 I \ ~ I \ ,\ ~ 1 \~~~ _~ a - ~ ~ ~~ ~~' \~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 _` V ' Q' ~~ 11 IIi o ~ ~~~,,, ~~~~ ~~ ~1 I 1 I I I 1 ~~ ~ I oG 1 1 t I 1 I i ~1 t ~$ ~ ~ ~~ 1 1 ~__ __ __~ 6C4'IbU M.atG6,LGN 1 I-. ~$ 1~ I~ I j~ 1 Z® ^ z 4 J W ~--' V1 g • • • • • • • 1111111.11/ C7 1 , , 1 , , , _ ° ~•o - of - eos Irrdv ~ ~ vlrrvs rn o o a vr 0 ~ o lu v c b v ~ ~ " - ~ ~ ~ : m ^ ~ ^ $ ^ ^ N'd w ~w n ~ ~ ~ ~~ w ~ ~ •1 ~ 1 ~ ld 1N3W35`d9 ^ ^ ~~o~ Q ' - ~ - ^ , . .. . . . . 1 - ~ - . y ~ I 1/o1i 1•IVa+Y S~ uYYI ~I ~IY ~ ! - r • 'ma 3~N3a153aJ J.1Z{3H9f104 V - - .11.,..11.1..11 1 - ~ ~~ i z ~~ ~z ~ > > Q. ~ ;~ ~ o o ~: ~: ~z Ow ~ oW ~ IL J W~ - - ~ Q • • • • • • Z® z Q a z w W N m H 41 F- W t0 0 n m • ~ r l/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 r . ~ '~ .~ ~,••. bb0 - OI - EOS INdV OLOfib d7 r~1.Nr100 Val'o'YJ d11i1i1Ci~ i ~ \ 1 J ^ ^ $ ~ ^ ^ anlala Moad~ aalvfr~ao szlot ^ Nb1d 240014 1S2did ^ ~ ~ - - ^ .... I I I r l ' ~ : ~ ~ ' - 5 = ~ JN~15~ ~.t?J~H9f100 ~ 11.1,11.,.1. 11, s - - - 1- - - ^. Z ~~ ~~ -~ ~ O ~ O n. o ~. ~. ~Z Ow o~ JW IL J m~ .n-,101 Q I O O ~~ ~ ~ t tt~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ ! p p p - 1 O ~ ~ - -- rfr ~ ~ 1 F _ ~ ~ y~ ~~ _t I Q' p p O iv p ~~ p 'O p I p ~. ~ •. •~ ~~ I 3 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ - _ m o 1 ~ 11 ~ ~ I I/ O ' •Y 'r O ~ ~~ in _ Q ~j~-~Lfi .b-~CI .b-.LC .t~0-~4 .II-.101 ^ • • • • • • Z® _~ WI • z J O O O I- n O 1...•111.111 = ~ 66'O - OI ~- EOS 'NdV 1 ~ _ ~ - • ~ Ne-td dooms ! - - - ~~N~415~1 JU.J~H~f104 6 f ............... . ~ z F~ ~s ~~ ~~ 0 ~~ o< ~~ Z® z 0 lL _' n ~i~ • ^ • • • • • ^ Q 1111'111'111 = ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 . ~ 640 - OI - 608 IA• \ wY OLOfib vo 'JLLN'107 IdaIV'Y~ v1NVfr NOIl'd/~~7~ 153M a~ ~ W ~ \ . . ~. ~ 1 ... . , ... n - ~ ~ .iNRla Moava't aavH7ao SLIOZ ' NOIl`d/~~~~ H1fIOS ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ - ^ ~ 3'~W34153~1 J11Z13H~f104 ^ 11111111111. 111 1 o a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ c >W W~©®®a®® • • z 0 ~- W W w z O Q } w J W H N W 0 n Il.l Q T • • ~. z 0 Q W W z O z O Q w W 2 0 N 0 n Q • • • • • , bb0 - OI - EOS 'PldV ~ o~o~. vo ',urrio~ vav-io vtNVS NO11`d/~~1~ lSb'~ ~ ~ Y ~ . ~ ° ^ • ~nlala ~aoQV~-t aav~nao silos ^ • ~ • NOIlbJ~~73 HlZlON ~ - ~ - ^ - ... .... , _ ~ ,~ - r - a0lv~als~ J.1Zl~H~XtOo b ~ ............... t ^ Z 0 ~- Q } w J W 0 ~~ ai Q o ~ ~ ~. 3 ~ ~~~ _ ~ ~ ~ Q z ° ~~ ~O >W ~~~~~~ WWo©®®®® f~ ~. z O r~ } w w E- N Q W ~. Z 0 d } w J W d IY z; O~~i Q } w w F- O Zi 0 ~~ d • • • • • • • • „ ~ ... ~ , . ~ ~ ~ E _ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . , , . bvo - of - eos ~riav ,, olo~l. vo 'urrtoo vav~o v1HVS ^ 5N011`d/~3-13 ^ '~ ~ ^ - rt - - ~ - - r ^ - ^ ^ _ ^ ~.~ Mom ~~oL a~d~ur~no-~ ~, ~ - ~ - [L - - ,, 30N34153~ JU.ZJ3H9(10a 6 a z ~. ~~ °~ ~ ~~ ~ d ~ ~ Q ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 02 00 QZ ~ ~ >W ~~~~~~ W~ Woo®®o®® z O 4 } w w 0 Q V O u Q ~-- l)1 d w O ~~ 111 z O d } w w Q Q o! v 3- I-- O N z O ~- Q }. w w Q a~ Q ~- o~ V V/ W O u O i IM 111 • • • • • • ~ ~ t 8 ~ 0 ~ , , , , , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1( _ bb0 - OI - £OS 'Ndb' i ~apN ~ /~~O oLOSb t+o 'uNnoo t+~e~o vlrivs o 9-9 NO Il'»S o =' ~ s W p ~ ~ _ ~ - ~ ~ a 1 ~ ~ _ , > , .. , . „ ! n ~Ia4 MOQ'd31^l aLI~dH7al0 SLIOL d-y NOIl'>3S ~~~,,~ ~' ~ ~s - _ ~ ~ ~'~N3Q15~ J.1~SH9f104 «~` 1 6 e ~ - - - e i~n~s ~s noux~s s ~` . m m z O V W to 0 w J Q s • d Q z O V W N 0 ~~ w J Q V N i i I 9ooy 14. NOyYN' ~ ~~~~;;~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ 8 ` ~ ~ ~~~~ ~> < ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s a 6 AYw,.,~ Dy ~f~ ~~~4~ l :3-tea ~` 1_•~\~~ g~~ \=_ ~~\ ~ \ oo . ~ ~ \. .oi °~ ~~, ~~~ \ ~`~f' \ ~ a \ '~ a~ ~ ~ ~g ~ ~~~= ~• ` _ o, ~B'~r~~~~~~ ~ ~~ _ i }{, ~ fB ~ .,~ ~ _ ''~~ ~. '~ .~ _~~.1C__ \~"!'-_... ~ ~~--~~•~ \ ~ \ \\ 1 1~` `(~ ~~~~ ~\~ \y.y~. .i .jam `\ \~ ...~ 0~6 a ,~ `~ . ~Oj'S 0-9 -~ ~', - a>e --- `~ ,~_= .-- 4;,stt - --- -_ i 1 ! ~~ 71,;y, ~ 4-`tti • ~• sl ~_ G!1 _ \ ~ .` .\ _ i -~._ ~~` _ _ I r./ - ` \ ~~ ~•~ 1 + ~ ,.~, fj" J _},~. •.-_= -yam ; ~~ ~ , ~ *. ~~ `\ t. • • ~ ; a, 7F`..Q ty~ -- _.; _ \ ~ yam, ~~i'(Y ( I~,I~`_'Jf• •r"T~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ =-~_ ' M1X~ `\ i ,~~ • v ~~ `.} Y ~ r r~'~'i^'~ WuYny~ t y Vii- •~- ti y~ ~ r 1 + '~ • 1 ` ~ ~~ • ... l 7 ~` t ~ , ~ . it ! I 1 ~, 1 ~ '~ W ~ ~K o ~ ~ ~ , `~,°s \ ,~ I i f! r! c~ i ~!i' .~,., to ..'~ ~^ ~ a \ ~~ 7;fna i ~ + *~'i i , I 1t i ~ i t H f,, i, ~ i ~, 'r'~. ~ ~s ~. li r $ e ~*`~ 1 ~ I ~ ~ ~ i 9 3 ~ rt. ~' .ti \ -e ~ 1 ~•• ~~~ ' ~ s ~ -. . ~ / , \\ i • ~ r ~ ~ ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. / w ~ / , ,1 ~9ta i~ Li ~ s I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __ 1 _ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Roe 8 r*... __ - ---' - - -- - _ ~__ tt .+i ~ •Mr na +tts ry . `~~ 1 s~ ii ~ ~ c t eiS1 ~~ 1 ij ~ ~ '~~ o i~ ~ya :sy9~~8~~~LL~~>t~~ ~ ~'~~C~S~@, •xr. ei tb il~~. t •Y . • • • • • - • - ITEM 6 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: 04-268 Location: 14435 B Big Basin Way Applicant/Owner: Nancy Duyen Le Phan Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: October 13, 2004 APN: 503-24-051 Department Head: • • ~, ~ Sao n e n-~ so324os~ ~; ~ APN30324051 ': ~'~ CCrWOs ~. ii\~~. Sh0~1 X11!! bMATW-surrVAtEw .,,,. , ~~`~ ~ Ln, I' x•,141 6AMTOOA AV SAUlR1AV U-ALCV~A AV UCWAPD Ib N-Al0 -AMC K G1K K Ow[It dOfR UITiA•IAb NTpb AD {50 300 450 600 750 ft t_; ~ I <-~~~ CR +1r~ ~ ~ ~ .TC.Abnavrv t~ ice, WMbT ~~ CVO(bT t - ~1~1 MFS1COfT0~ ~ ~ ~ r I "~ lOG M10611D t KWIAI RiMbDdWV 07111 bT i, .. pAK bT PQIESTI~lf Oi '. 14435 B Big Basin Way O~D00~. BACKGROUND At the September 17, 2003, City Council meeting, the Council discussed action taken by the Town of Los Gatos to adopt an Urgency Ordinance to preserve currently vacant retail spaces in their historic downtown commercial district by placing a moratorium on new Personal Service Businesses. The Los Gatos ordinance addressed a Town policy that classified Personal Service Businesses as a permitted use on street frontage in their historic downtown. In a move to preserve the remaining vacant retail space and overall downtown business mix, the Los Gatos Town Council adopted an interim moratorium on new Personal Service Businesses to allow staff time to develop alternative approaches to regulating these types of uses. At the same meeting, the Council directed staff to investigate whether the Saratoga Village has experienced the same trend away from retail towards a predominance of personal services. At the City Council meeting of October 15, 2003 an Interim Ordinance was adopted. On November 19, 2003 this urgency ordinance was extended until October 14, 2004 by the adoption of an ordinance. On September 1, 2004 the City Council extended the Interim Ordinance until October 14, 2005. This ordinance cannot be extended again. DISCUSSION On December 12, 2002, the Daisy Beauty Studio applied for and obtained a business license for personal salon services, which did not include massage. Article 4-55 of the Municipal Code regulates massage establishments and indicates that the provisions of the section be met prior to the issuance of a business license for a massage business. i In January 2004, Ms. Phan was issued a Warning Notice because she was operating a massage establishment without the proper permits. In February 2004, a Final Notice of Violation was issued. In March 2004, Ms. Phan wrote a letter to the Department indicating that the advertisement in the PennySaver was an error and that massage was not offered at 14435 B Big Basin Way. On August 4, 2004 Ms. Phan requested an administrative interpretation of whether an expansion of an existing personal services business fell under the provisions of Ordinance 225. I reviewed her request for an Administrative Determination regarding the expansion of the existing personal services business to include massage with the City Attorney. We both agreed that increasing the Daisy Beauty Studio to include massage would not be allowed under the provisions of Ordinance 225, the interim ordinance prohibiting on additional personal service businesses on the ground floor fronting a street. On August 19, 2004, Ms. Phan appealed the Administrative Determination to the Planning Commission. Section 15-90.010 of the Saratoga Code allows appeals from administrative decisions. The applicant or any interested person may make an appeal to the Planning Commission. The Saratoga Code provides that the decision of the Planning Commission is final. The Planning Commission may affirm, reverse or modify the determination or decision, which is the subject of the appeal. ®®U40~ Staff Recommendation Uphold the administrative determination by adopting the attached Resolution. Attachments 1. Resolution 2. Correspondence 3. Ordinance 22S r~ • 0®0003 • Attachment 1 • ®O~®04 RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an Administrative Determination, which was that expansions of existing personal service businesses where subject to the Interim Ordinance disallowing new personal service businesses on the ground floor fronting a street in the CH-1 and CH-2 Zoned Districts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held. a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said appeal, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The proposed location of the personal service business expansion is withinthe CH-1 Zoned District and the expansion of that business is contrary to the purposes stated in Ordinance 225. ^ That the proposed location of the personal service business expansion is on the ground floor fronting on Big Basin Way. • That the proposed personal service business expansion would violate the intent of Interim Ordinance 225. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the facts, the appeal of the Administrative Determination is hereby denied PASSED AND ADOFrED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, October 13, 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Plaruung Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • O~~~OJ~ • Attachment 2 • • oao~o~. ~~ . (~ m m~~x ~~g~ ~$~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ; g V cnp~ mom= <°~ ADO < ~ c-,- g ~ ~ N~~ ~ c ~ ('1 ~ `- ~ ~ ~ ~ o OTmo ?~~~ ~ w ~ ~ -C ~ ~ f~ p ~ o m I . w -2~~m G C ~ o ~ ~~C D~ . ~ m ~ m yy Z a p~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p W ~ ~ ~ m Cm np~ y ~ ~ ) ~ C1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ? ~ ~ ~i { -I Z pZ ~ a ~ ~~ o~° ~ y ~ o ~ ~~ .. > oo ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ,~ o° \ ~mN ~0 ~ ~ ~ Z y ~ A m <~ \ y ~~c ~~~n p t5 O ~, ~ ~ C ~ ~ o p~ ~-{ ° (~ V O~~ m C ~~ ~ ~ ~ Z DD ~ ~~+ ~~~ ' ~ ~ c ~ ~ o ~ a ~,~ =Z i ~ ~ z ~ZD ~ ~ W `/ ~1 C "'~ ~ O ~~ 3 m ~ ^~ L/ ~ioooo'~ ®~ ' ~ o e ~ O~~ 0 ~~ ~~ ~~ 137 77 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA; CALIFORNIA 96070 • (408) 868-:1200 . COCINCIL MEMBERSi .. Incorporated October 22,1966 February 10, 2003 FINAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION Stan $oyoslan Kathleen King !Norman Kline Nick St-elt Ann Waltonsmlti~. Duyen Phan . Daisy Beauty Studio 14435 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA. 95070 To Whom It May Concern: On January 8, 2003, you were notified by this office that you are in violation of the Saratoga Municipal Code, 4-55.040(a) Permit required for massage establishment..... massage practitioner. You were ordered to suspend massage services and immediate y apply for a massage establishment permit. As of today's date, we have not received. your application. Additionally, we have discovered your business has .continued to advertise m ssage services. Be advised that advertisement of massage services is satisfactory evidence of.a continued massage establishment and is in violation of Saratoga City Code. Therefore you are ordered to immediately suspend massage services, including but not limited to advertisement of said services, and remove from the business property any and all massage related equipment until such time as your business has complied with the City Code. Failure to comply with city ordinance will result in the issualice of a citation, criminal complaint, and the suspension or revocation of your business license. To avoid prosecution, it is essential that .you correct the above violations prior to February. 21,2003. After compliance, you are required .to contact ~ (408) 868-1.200 and schedule a .compliance inspection. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .Sincerely, J Steve Prosser Public Safety Officer • • Hand Delivered on Februuy 10, 2003 by CSO Edmonds N100 (~~~®Q8 a r • Daisy Beauty Studio 14435B Big Basin Way Saratoga CA 95070 Thursday, March 20, 2003 To Whom it May Concern, On last week from 3/09/03 to 3/15/03 we had an advertisement on PennySaver for Daisy Beauty Studio and they made a mistake to advertise for massage at 1443~.~In fact we don't do massage at 14435B Big Basin Way, so~ we would like to to you that. Thank you for your understanding. Best Regards, Owner, Phan Le Duyen ~ a~ 3 ~1 ~ - ~ `L~ 2 0®U~09 BUSINESS PLAN . DAISY BEAUTY STUDIO 144356 Big Basin way Saratoga,Ca.95070 (408) 741-5859 www. daisvbeautystudio. com email:daisybeautystudioC~.com plduyenC~yahoo.com Daisy Beauty Studio is located on Big Basin way, Saratoga: a little cute town on the hill. Population in this city is the richest people of statistic's Santa Clara county. This is a historical city of the travel list, either. My goal is to have a great Beauty Day Spa Salon with full services: Nails, Facials, Waxing, Massage, and Cosmetic tatoo...to serve Saratoga residents and tourists with an affortdable price, quality service and great atmotsphere. Besides, we have some retails sate like spa gifts, Skincare products... to attractive tourists with some nice souvernirs gifts, and to bring more tourists in. 1. Who are Daisy's customers? Residents in Saratoga, Cupertino, and we want clients around in Santa Clara county come to visit, We also welcome clients from other States or Foreigns. Specially, we want to serve about1000 Real Estates agents in Saratoga. 2. Advertise: San Jose Mercury News, Weekly News, San Jose Magazines, Spa magazines, web, etc.. 3. Services: We open 7 days a week from gam to 9pm(12hrs/days. 30days # 360hrs/months. 4. Employees: commission, 50/50. Excepts receptionists minimum wage: $8,00.12hrs.30days # $2,880. Most employees have costomelogy license, they are professinal and they have experience in nails, facials, waxing, and cosmetic tatoo.ln the beginning of plan, we have about six employees and 2 receptionists to cover 360hrs of operator.NAILS SERVICE include artificial nails) average:$300.30 days# $9,000( subtract commission 50/50: $4, 500) OOU010 MASSAGE, FACIALS, WAXING, COSMETIC TATOO SERVICE: We have 3 rooms to serve: Minimum operator: 3 rooms.4hrs/day.$70.30days # $25,200( subtract commission 50/50: $12,600) SPA TOURS :Bring more tourists come to visit Saratoga with a lot of beautyful Winery. 12 persons.$250.oo.8days/month# $24,000( expenses 60/ 100 # $14, 400 ) RETAILS SALE: We have a very nice front space for retail sale. SKINCARE PRODUCTS: In the longterm, we will expand skincare products to make good sale, because every bodies need to take care their skin and depend on their budget, they spend money for them. I know some Beauty Spa they make average sale of skin care $2,000 to $3,000 a day. In the beginning we calculate minimum sale with invest about $60,000 for skincare products: one very luxury skincare line (in Europe) $10,000 Three popular skincare line in day spa(like Decleor) $ 20, 000 Three quality skincare line with very affordable price $15.000 Specially I have knowledge to customize one skincare line of Daisy $15,000 VITAMINTS: Antioxidants helpful for skin, nails,hair and health $ 5,000 Spa gifts : customize jelwelry, soaps, sachets. Essentials oils, bath or massage oils to release stress etc... $10,000 Minimum retails sales in the beginning: $400.30 days# $12.000(subtract 60/100 expenses# $7,200) Invest $75,000 for invenntory is very important to attract clients come to us.Even we just count a minimum sale, but the more we stay the more we make profit. GROSS INCOME: Nails $ 9,000.12 mths # $108,000 Facials,masage..... $25.200.12 mths# $302,400 Spa tours $24.000.12 mths# $288.000 Retails sale $12.000.12 mths# $144,000 i Total 842 000 , .~ o®oo~.~. EXPENSES: Rent, Utility, Insurances etc... $4,500 .12mths# $ 54,000 Supplies $1,500 .12mths# $ 18,000 Advertises $1, 500 .12mths# $ 18,000 Other expenses $1,000.12mths# $ 12,000 Salary receptionists $3,000.12mths# $ 36.000 Comission Nails $ 4,500.12mths# $ 54,000 facial, massage,waxinn $12, 600.12mths#$151, 200 Spa tours $14.400.12 mths#$172, 800 Inventory for sale $ 7.200.12mths# $ 86.400 Tota 1-------------------------------- --------------------------------------- $602,400 NET PROFIT(Gross income -Expe nses) $842,000 -$602,400 # $239,400 Daisy needs invest from $150.000 to $200,000 to expand business( 50/100 invest for inventory for sale, 30/100 machines and supplies, 20/100 expenses cost). We make this profit very easy with good advertise and professional s~rvice, quality products for sale, and the profit will be increase with the time business to stay. Daisy would be a wonderful place for tourists on Big Basin way. • (~~J~12 Saratoga, August 04Lh,2004. - TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. Daisy Beauty Studio opened on December 2002. Previous business was resale and Beauty Service. They could not profit, so I took over this place to continue beauty service. I would like to have a nice Spa salon with full services: Nails, Facials, Waxing, Massage( the service of facial has some things familar with massage like body wrap ect...,). My goal is to have a great Beauty Spa with an affortdable price and quality service for Saratoga residents and tourists. In the beginning, I talked with Mr. Steve Prosser, and he helped me how to apply for a massage license, but the fact was difficult for me to do business, because beginning business with a lot of expenses in the worst economy was unexpected, so I should cover my recent bills before I apply a massage license. Now after a year and 9 months, my business is known by residents in Saratoga, Cupertino and tourists from INN, LODGE, and other cities. My customers are waiting for a massage part to bring more relatives to my business. Daisy Beauty Studio has served clients from Elementary, Middle, and High Schools in Saratoga. They are happy with ~s because Daisy Beauty Studio is a nice place with an affordable price for cl ents. The need of massage is not only for our customers, but also for me to handle my expenses to keep business alive, because when I got this place, that was my plan( business plan ), to have a full service spa salon. I know now the city doesn't allow any Beauty Salon to open to prevent competition, But in this case, my place is totally different. So I would like to ask you to allow me to have a massage license establishment to serve for residents and tourists. I respectfully request an administrative interpretation regarding my personal service establishment. I really appreciate your attention. Best regards, 1. Nancy Duyen Le Phan • .~-. ®®~~~.~ n4 ~~~~ZZ ~f" ~~L O 1:777 FRt?ITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868-12(10 Incorporated Oct.obr~r 22, 195E Stan Bogosian Kathleen King Norman Kline August 9, 2004 Nick Streit Artn Waltonsmith Nancy Duyen Le Phan 14435 B Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Le Phan, I have reviewed your request for an Administretive Determination regarding the expansion of your business to include massage with the City Attorney. We both agree that increasing the Daisy Beauty Studio to include massage would not be allowed under the provisions of Ordinance 225, the moratorium on additional personal service businesses. Section 15-90.010 of the Saratoga Code allows appeals from administrative decisions. The applicant or any interested person may make an appeal to the Planning Commission. The appeal is made by filing a "notice of appeal" or letter with the Secretary of the Planning Commission. This can be accomplished at the planning counter at City Hall, between the hours of 7:30 am and 12:00 noon, Monday through Friday. Please note that City Hall is closed every other Friday. You must clearly identify the determination or decision from which the appeal is made. The appeal shall be accompanied by the payment of a $250 filing fee. The appeal must be filed within 15- calander days of the date of this letter. The Saratoga Code provides that the decision by Planning Commission is final. The Planning Commission may affirm, reverse or modify the determination or decision, which is the subject of the appeal. Sincerely, ~ ~ Th mas livan, AICP Community Development Director ~~~~~~ • August 24, 2004 SARATOGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 14485 Big Basin Way Sazatoga, California 95070 (408) 867-0753 Fax (408) 867-5213 www.sazatogachamber.or~ - e-mail: info(a~sazatogachamber.org Thomas Sullivan Community Development Director City of Saratoga Chamber of Commerce 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Sullivan, I am writing to you in support of Nancy Duyen Le Phan's request to add massage services to her existing personal service business, Daisy Beauty Studio. i m understandin that Nanc had intended to have massa a services as art of the Its y g y g p Daisy Beauty Studio from the beginning but that the cost of the permitting process kept her from doing so until recently. In the mean time, the moratorium on additional personal service businesses in the Village was established. It is my belief that adding massage services will increase the likelihood of Daisy Beauty Studio being a viable and successful business in the Village. Due to the fact that she is not acquiring additional square footage to add massage services but making the best use of her existing square footage deserves consideration. Our goal is to see a vibrant and successful Village without the loss of additional merchants. Thank you for your attention. Kristin Davis x utive Director • 000®1S Joseph C. Masek 14467 Big Basin Way Saratoga - Ca - 95070 September 29 2004. Mr. Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga - Ca - 95070 RE: APPLICATION #04-268 (503-24-051) _.Daisy Beauty Studio___. _. _- Dear Mr. Sullivan In reference to the above, I should like to state the following. Within the City limits of Saratoga, there are akeady numerous Personal Spas, Massage parlors, Beauty Salons, Nail Parlors and countless other similar operations of Personal Services, as well as Chiropractors, NONE of which produces any, even if negligaible, Sales Tax income to the City. I ~~~ I believe, that, as all above-mentioned businesses operate on `By Appointment" only basis, they do not bring in any "shoppers"! ? Of course there are not too many shops left in the Village where one can really buy anything, besides a gift shop, some cleaners, real estate offices and few antique shops, which are not always open. In view of this, I do not think that the above application shouldm be approved, becasuse the majority of Saratogans, as well as strolling visitors, would prefer more _. boutiques and shops with buyer's appeal, so that they would not have to shop elsewhere. Sincerely, J J 15~~~ IN 15 OCT 6 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA '~~l-TtIT~~ f1F1/pi n~ OOO®~~ • • • Attachment 3 • 00001' ORDINANCE NO. 225 • AN INTERIM ORDINANCE EXTENDING A MORATORIUM ON NEW PERSONAL SERVICE BUSINESSES LOCATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THE VILLLAGE AND DECLARING THE SAME TO BE AN URGENCY MEASURE TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY THE CITY COUNCII, OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares as follows: a. The City of Saratoga's Village business district has long been recognized as an area that has a mix of businesses that included cross section of retail, service, restaurant, and personal service industries that contribute to our citizens quality of life. b. The City's Village Design Guidelines and Village Improvement Project both contain numerous goals to create a vibrant downtown where the mix of retail and service based businesses exist. c. A nationwide economic recession has reduced the demand for many retail goods resulting in retail business failures and increasing retail space vacandies in the Village d. While the total number of Personal Service Businesses cont~nues to grow, our current vacant retail space is being converted to additional Personal~Services Businesses compromising our desired Village business mix. e. The City does not .have complete and comprehensive information analyzing the current business environment of the Village or describing the total number, type, and mix of businesses located therein, or the growth trend of different types of businesses, including Personal Service Businesses. f. The zoning provisions of the City of Saratoga does not provide a definition of "Personal Service Business" nor does it contain adequate procedures for investigating and addressing the impacts of new Personal Service Businesses in the Village. g. While the precise number of Personal Service Businesses has yet to be determined, an initial review of City business license information indicates that in calendaz yeaz 2001 approximately 10 locations in the Village were used for Personal Services Businesses, that the number increased slightly to 13 locations in calendaz yeaz 2002, and that thus faz in calendar year 2003 the number has increased to approximately 161ocations. h. While a more detailed survey may more accurately reflect the number of Personal Service Businesses in the Village, the preliminary information referred to herein, coupled with the pending and anticipated opening of more such businesses, suggests the existence of a lazge and rapidly increasing number of Personal Service Businesses in the Village specializing in hair, nail, and skin care, and a trend of vacant retail spaces converting to Personal Service Businesses. i. An increase in the existing number of Personal Service Businesses in the Village potentially threatens the City's desired business mix of retail and service businesses in a number of way, including, but not limited to, a concentration of Personal Services O.®O®~~ r' Businesses which limit or exclude other retail activities, the decrease of varied retail opportunities thereby reducing the attractiveness of the Village to both shoppers and new retail businesses, and ultimately jeopardizing the ability of the City's retail areas to successfully compete with other retail azeas in the region. j. The City's Department of Community Development has been directed to evaluate and make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council regazding the necessity and potential form of regulation of new Personal Service Businesses. k. Establishment of new Personal Service Businesses during the time the City staff is studying the business environment and the value of imposing regulations on such businesses could result in conflicts with any regulations that might ultimately be adopted. 1. For the reasons stated herein, the opening of new Personal Service Businesses in the Village during the term of this Ordinance poses a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare. m. In recognition of the foregoing the City Council on October 15, 2003 adopted an urgency ordinance imposing a 45 day moratorium on the establishment of any new Personal Service Businesses in the Village. Because it has not yet been possible to obtain and evaluate the information being developed by City staff, the purpose of this ordinance is to extend that moratorium to October 14, 2004. n. This Ordinance is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, subdivision (b). In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in section 15061, subdivision (b) (3) of the CEQ Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that it may~have a significant effect on the environment. The purpose of this Ordinance is to rohi it on an interim basis new P Personal Service Businesses in the Village which maybe otl'tierwise permissible under existing policies. The Ordinance will not create a change in the environment because it maintains the status quo. Any delay in opening such businesses is only temporary in nature, and would not indirectly or directly result in a physical change to the environment. Section 2. Regulation. The following regulation is hereby imposed. This regulation shall prevail over any conflicting provisions of the Saratoga City Code or the other ordinances, resolutions, policies, and regulations of the City of Saratoga: 1. During the term of this Interim Ordinance, no new Personal Service Business shall be located on the first floor of the Commercial Historic District (CH-1 and CH-2), unless a lease has been executed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. 2. "Personal Service Business" means a use, not conducted within an otTice, providing services for the personal caze of an individual including, but not limited to, hair and nail salons and day spas. • 2 Q~0019 A' • Section 3. Interim Urgency Ordinance. Based upon the findings set forth in Section 1, above, this is an Interim Urgency Ordinance adopted pursuant to Government Code section 65858, and pursuant to the authority granted to the City of Saratoga in Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution. This Ordinance shall therefore take effect immediately upon adoption. This Ordinance shall extend the term of the Interim Urgency Ordinance adopted on October 15, 2003 until October 14, 2004, unless extended prior to that time by the City Council pursuant to Government Code section 65858. Section 4. Reporting Requirement. Ten days prior to expiration of this Interim Ordinance, the City Council shall issue a written report pursuant to Government Code section 65858(d) describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which have led to the adoption of this Interim Ordinance. Section 5. Severance Clause. The City Council declazes that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this Ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, pazagraph, sub-pazagraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this Ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this Ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declazes its express intent that the remaining portions of this Ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 6. Publication. This Ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. • 3 000020 This interim Ordinance was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga on November 19, 2003 and adopted by at least afour-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council as follows: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: Councilmembers Kathleen King, Norman Kline, Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor Nick Streit NAYS: Councilmember Stan Bogosian ABESNT: None ABSTAIN: None SIGNED: A EST: MAYOR OF THE Y OF SARATOGA CL OF THE CITY OF S ~ TOGA Saratoga, Califorma Saratoga, California • 4 00002. ~~ ~_~ • • MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 1, 2004 The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a Joint Session with Villa Montalvo Board in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 5:30 p.m. The following Board members were present: President Greg Prow, Executive Director Elizabeth Challener, Board members John Stuckey and Kevin McLarney. Also present were several neighbors from the Montalvo area. Mayor Waltonsmith stated the issues the Council would like Montalvo to address the following issues: • Fire access road • Future plans • Issue of noise • Piedmont Road repairs • Village Shuttle Program Vice Mayor King added that she would like to discuss the City's new grant program. In regards to the fire access road, John Cherbone, Public Works Director, reported that currently the technical description ,the final documents for the easement and the agreements between the City, Saratoga Fire Department and Montalvo were being drafted. Mr. Prow reported that Montalvo has been cooperating with the City throughout this process. In regards to the Piedmont Road repairs, Mr. Prow stated hat Montalvo offered to pay for 80% of the total costs. Mr. Prow stated that it would be approximately $300-$400 per property owner. Mr. Prow stated that they sent letters to 51 property owners and to date only received 18 responses - 14 in favor of the project and 4 against. Mr. Prow stated that they sent another letter out today and added that they hope this issue would be solved by the end of the year. In regards to the Village Shuttle Program, Mr. Prow stated that the program has been working out well. Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator, thanked Montalvo for supporting the Shuttle Program. Coordinator Surdin noted that the program has been a tremendous success. Coordinator Surdin noted that the business owners support the program and have told her their business has increased. Coordinator Surdin stated that the hotels have given out 50% of the shuttle passes. Ms. Challener suggested that the shuttle program be extended to the more popular shows thought the year. Coordinator Surdin suggested arranging a meeting to discuss her suggestion. A Montalvo neighbor voiced her concern in regards to a transit bus that was used for shuttling people back and forth at a recent concert. Montalvo neighbor stated that she called Montalvo and was told it was an "experiment". Addressing the neighbor's concern, Ms. Challener stated that given the feed back from the neighbors, transit buses would no longer be used. Addressing the noise issue, Mr. Prow stated that Montalvo recently formed a committee, composed of neighbors and Montalvo board members, to address 62 issues. Mr. Prow stated that Montalvo asked for a variance from the neighbors, who denied the request, so they moved the concert to Oak Meadow Park in Los Gatos. A discussion took place in regards to the noise complaints and the inconsistencies with the Sheriff Office. Steve Prosser, Community Service Officer, stated that he has purchased new sound meter equipment and would provide training to the Deputies. Officer Prosser stated that all of the Sheriff Deputies have been given a copy of the Court Order and City Attorney Wittwer would provide procedures to the Sheriff's Office at a later date. City Manager Anderson requested contact information from Montalvo Board members who would have the authority to make decisions when complaints are received by the Sheriff's Office. Mr. Prow stated that he would forward the information to the City. Ms. Challener stated the Montalvo hires off duty Deputies to monitor the noise. ! Montalvo neighbor stated that the Deputies are not stationed in the proper place in order to get an accurate reading of the noise; they are stationed in places where the decimal reading is lower. City Manager Anderson stated that the City and the Sheriffs Office would make a diligent effort to follow the Court Order. In conclusion, Mr. Prow stated that Montalvo is making every effort to work with the neighbors. Mr. Prow stated that Montalvo wants to be a good neighbor. Vice Mayor King explained the new grant writer program and offered the service to Montalvo. Mayor Waltonsmith thanked the Montalvo Board and the neighbors for attending tonight's Joint Session. The City Council met in Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 6:30 p.m. • 2 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 Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code 54957) Title: City Manager Conference With Legal Counsel -Threatened Litigation: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (1 potential case) 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 requested that Shahab Moghdalm, Saratoga Boy Scout Troop #581, lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Norman Kline, Nick Streit, Vice Mayor Kathleen King, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith ABSENT: Councilmember Stan Bogosiar} ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager' Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBERl. 2004 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of September 1, 2004 was properly posted on August 25, 2004. COMMUNICATIONS FORM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ray Davis noted that on Saturday at the Los Gatos Community Foundation's annual fund raising event, the names of the men and women serving in the armed forces from this area were mentioned. Mr. Davis also noted that the "Citizens for the Safety of Highway 9" recently persuaded VTA to include pedestrian crossing in the CIP project. Mr. Davis also requested that the City of Saratoga remove several trees on Austin Lane @ Highway 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1 A. DARKEN DEFFNER/ PG&E -NON-RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Darren Deffner, Government Relations, thanked the City Council for the opportunity to present PG&E's Energy Efficient Programs. Mr. Deffner stated that the programs provide information and financial incentives to help business customers save money on energy costs. Mr. Deffner introduced Ben Mehta, PG&E Energy Efficiency Manager. • Mr. Mehta explained the total electricity use per capita from 1960-2001 and explained the business efficiency incentives program. Mr. Mehta stated that the City of Saratoga earned a $16,455 rebate when the 2001 LED Traffic Light Project was completed. Mr. Mehta pointed out future opportunities such as: • Energy audit of large facilities and prioritize actions for retrofit opportunities and cost reductions • "Free" products under the Express Efficiency Pilot Program • Compact Florescent Lamps, LED Exit signs, Programmable Thermostats • Vending machine controllers for additional cost of $50 each after a $90 rebate Mayor Waltonsmith thanked Mr. Deffner and Mr. Mehta for their presentation. 1 B. VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY -COMMUNITY BUS SERVICE PROGRAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and provide input to VTA. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone reported that on August 11, 2004, City staff attended the first meeting regarding the proposed Community Bus Service Program. In attendance were representatives from Los Gatos, Cupertino, Campbell, Monte Sereno, and San Jose. It was agreed that the first step in developing the service would be a short presentation to each City Council by VTA staff. 4 Joanne Benjamin. ,VTA/Transportation Policy & Program Manager, thanked the Council for allowing VTA to present the Community Bus Program. Chris Tucker, VTA/ Chief of Operations, explained the Community Bus Program and listed its attributes as follows: • Use of small vehicles • Routes are short and continuous within a defined community • Match travel patterns ofcommunity-oriented activity • Flexibility to meet varying community needs Mr. Tucker described the Community Bus typical services and provided sample route coverage. Mr. Tucker described the Community Bus Program's ITS technologies. Mr. Tucker stated that current Community Bus Programs exist in Washington D.C. and Phoenix, Arizona. Mr. Tucker explained the next steps of the proposed program as follows: • Define Community/Transit market to be served: o Initiate meetings with cities -Summer 2004 o Conduct market segmentation analysis o Initiate consensus building planning process o Develop budget and identify funding sources • Develop transit plans -Spring 2005 • Public/CityBoard review -Summer 2005 • Vehicle purchase - Summer/Fa112005 • Start operations -January 2006 Councilmember Kline stated that he attended the August 18`h VTA Board meeting. and pointed out the Board did not approve the program. Councilmember Kline noted that he is excited about the program, but would be hesitant to get involved until the Board actually approved the program. Mr. Tucker responded that the VTA Board adopt the short-range program a year and half ago. Mr. Tucker stated Saratoga doesn't have to participate in the Community Bus Program. Mayor Waltonsmith asked the City Council if they would like to agendize this issue. Councilmember Kline suggested that two Councilmembers and a staffperson work with VTA on this issue. Mayor Waltonsmith thanked VTA for the presentation. • S CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JULY 21, 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. STREIT/ KING MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM JULY 21, 2004. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2B APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -AUGUST 9, 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. STREIT/ KING MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM AUGUST 9.2004. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -AUGUST 11, 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. STREIT/ KING MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM AUGUST 11.2004. MOTION PASSED 4-0-I WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2D. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -AUGUST 16, 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. STREIT/ KING MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM AUGUST 16.2004. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2E. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -AUGUST 18, 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. STREIT/ KING MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM AUGUST 18, 2004. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2F. APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. STREIT/ KING MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 6 2G CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR ALLISON KNAPP, CONSULTING SENIOR PLANNER FOR THE BARRY SWENSON/QUITO ROAD PROJECT • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve employment agreement extension with Allison Knapp not to exceed $20,000 without further Council authorization. STREIT/ KING MOVED TO APPROVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION WITH ALLISON KNAPP NOT TO EXCEED $20.000 WITHOUT FURTHER COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2H. 2ND READING & ADOPTION OF UUT ORDINANCE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance. STREIT/ KING MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. • 2I. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING TIME CHANGE REQUEST STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 04-070 STREIT/ KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION CHANGING THE PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING TO 7:00 P.M. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2J. CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR CITY SURVEYOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve two-year contract renewal with McDowell Associates and authorize City Manager to execute the same. STREIT/ KING MOVED TO APPROVE TWO-YEAR CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH MCDOWELL ASSOCIATES AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. • 2K. CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR CITY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve two-year contract renewal with Cotton, Shires & Associates and authorize City Manager to execute the same. 7 STREIT/ KING MOVED TO APPROVE TWO-YEAR CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH COTTON. SHIRES & ASSOCIATES AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2L. CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR MONTHLY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve one-year contract renewal with Gachina Landscape Maintenance and authorize City Manager to execute the same. STREIT/ KING MOVED TO APPROVE ONE-YEAR CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH GACHINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2M. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION 2002 RESOURCES BOND ACT (PROPOSITION 40): APPROVAL OF THE PER CAPITA GRANT RESOLUTION AND ROBERT-Z'HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM BLOCK GRANT RESOLTUION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution in support of the 2002 Per Capita Grant Program; adopt resolution in support of Robert-Z'Berg-Harris Block Grant Program. RESOLUTION: 04-68 & 69 Mary Robertson requested that item 2M be removed from the Consent Calendar. Mrs. Robertson asked if the resolution was strictly to acquire the funds. Director Cherbone responded that the purpose of this resolution lock up the funds so the State knows the City of Saratoga is interested in keeping the funds in Saratoga. Mrs. Robertson asked if the funds would be used for the Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project. Director Cherbone noted that in the CIP the City does have the funds appropriated to the Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project. The funds to pay for the majority of the funds would come from this grant. Director Cherbone explained that at this time the City is not directing the funds to any specific project- Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project is on hold. Director Cherbone noted that the City could reallocate these funds to another project. 8 STREIT/ KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE 2002 PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM; ADOPT RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ROBERT-Z'BERGHARRIS BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. Consensus of the City Council to move to item 6 & 7. NEW BUSINESS 6. SHERIFF'S OFFICE AGREEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept and authorize City Manager to execute the Law Enforcement Contract with Santa Clara County. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that the City has contracted with the Santa Clara County Sheriffls Office for law enforcement services for many years. Recent substantial cost increase associated with salary and pension increases for public safety employees resulted in discussions with the Sheriffs Office about the contract's future and produced the proposed contract. Assistant City Manager Tinfow highlighted the most significant elements of the proposed contract: • The term of the contract is for 10 years with a possible extension of an additional 5 years. • Service levels will be reviewed annually and can be modified at the City's discretion. • Cost controls have been put in place based on funding levels included in the City's 2004-2005 budget. Salary increases are tied to either actual increases or CPUW plus 2% whichever is smaller. Pension increases will reflect the City's proportion of actual increases sustained by the Sheriff's Office. • The contract also addresses costs associated with moving the Sheriff's Office operations to a new location. • The City or the County can terminate the contract at any time with 180 days written notice. Mayor Waltonsmith thanked City Manager Anderson and Assistant City Manager Tinfow for their work on this contact. Councilmember Streit stated that he was apprehensive in signing aten-year contract that would tie the hands of future Councils. Councilmember Streit expressed his concerns in regards to operating expenses that cannot be controlled - i.e. utilities and insurance. Councilmember Streit noted that the rent is locked into at 3% but all other expenses could substantially increases over time. 9 Captain John Hirakawa, SCC Sheriff s Office, responded that the property owner of the building in Cupertino has requested that utilities, taxes, and CIP have no cost cap. Captain Hirakawa stated that if there is a change of ownership there could be an increase of property taxes. Councilmember Streit stated that he doesn't fee the Council has done their due diligence on this contract - to many unknown cost. Councilmember Streit requested that this item be postponed until the next meeting. Consensus of the City Council to bring this item back on September 15, 2004. 7. WEST VALLEY MISSION COLLEGE STADIUM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept and authorize City Manager to execute the Agreement Pertaining to a Stadium at West Valley College. Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. City Manager Anderson stated that the issue of a football stadium at West Valley College has been a controversy in the community for over 35 years. This issue has been the subject of legislation, court cases, and political maneuvering. Last spring, City Manager Anderson explained that representatives for the College District, the surrounding neighborhood, and the City have generated a conceptual agreement. The City Council approved the conceptual agreement in June and directed staff to move forward with a final agreement. The City Attorney has worked with the College's District Attorney to formulate the final three-party agreement. City Manager Anderson highlighted the most significant elements of the proposed agreement: • The District will comply with the City's code and use permit requirements governing use of the football/track facility and will limit the use of the facility by outside groups (only k-12 school or non-profit youth groups will be allowed). • The District will not challenge the legality or enforcement of the City's code with respect to the football/track facility or imitate or implement any action that would permit construction of an athletic stadium on the West Valley Campus. • The City will recognize the current uses of existing athletic fields and the District swimming pool as legal non-conforming uses not subject to the code's restrictions on matters such as seating and amplified sound. This applies only to existing uses of existing facilities. Any new or expanded uses would be subject to the code. For atwo-year period the City will use its enforcement discretion in a way that allows the District to use portable hand held amplified sound equipment at two specified track events each year. • The neighbors will create a formal neighborhood organization with legal status allowing the organization to be a party to the agreement. 10 • The agreement covers 30 years and maybe amended by agreement of all . three parties. • The three parties have agreed to enforcement provisions that include mediation procedures and the possibility of liquidated damages. Jack Lucas, President/Board of Trustees, thanked the neighborhood group and the City Council for all of their efforts to resolve this issue. Mr. Lucas introduced the new President of West Valley College, Dr. Phil Hartley. Stan Arterbenry, Chancellor, thanked City Manager Anderson for his efforts and thanked the Committee for bringing closure to this issue. Phil Hartley, President, stated that he was involved in the last part of this process and commented on the professionalism and courtesy that the Committee showed each other. Mr. Hartley noted that it is now his duty is to honor the agreement. Evan Baker noted that he represented that neighborhood group. Mr. Baker urged the City Council to accept the agreement. Councilmember Streit thanked everyone for working on this issue. Councilmember Streit stated that throughout the process there were good negotiations and every one was very respectful. City Manager Anderson thanked Chancellor Arterberry for his leadership and thanked the other members of the AdHoc. STREIT/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO A STADIUM AT WEST VALLEY COLLEGE. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. Mayor Waltonsmith declared aten-minute break at 8:50 p.m. Mayor Waltonsmith reconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Consensus of the City Council to move to item #4 OLD BUSINESS 4. GRANT OPPORTUNITIES REVIEW BY CITY COUNCIL /REVIEW OF GRANT WRITER UTILIZATION AND GUIDANCE POLICY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review grant opportunities and provide direction to staff; Review Grant Writer Utilization and Guidance Policy for possible changes. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist reported that on June 2, 2004 the City of Saratoga adopted a City of Saratoga Grant Wirier Utilization Procedure and Guidance Policy. Analyst Bloomquist noted that as stated in these documents, City staff is required to forward grant opportunities utilizing the service of our contacted grant writer, 11 Randall Funding and Development, to City Council for review. Analyst Bloomquist noted that there were three grant opportunities requiring review by the City Council. Analyst Bloomquist summarized the grant opportunities as follows: • City of Saratoga - 2002 State of California Bond Act -amount to be determined • Saratoga Historical Foundation -Office of the State Historian- $60,000 • Saratoga Historical Museum -Institution of Museum and Library Services -$20,000 In regards to the Grant Writer Utilization and Guidance Policy, Analyst Bloomquist request that City Council revise the Procedure and Policy as follows: • Make changes to expand the jurisdictions served by the grant writer to include County Agencies and surrounding municipalities. This would enable staff to work closely with these agencies and offer the use of our contracted Grant Writer should mutually beneficial projects surface at some future date. • Appoint a two member City Council AdHoc Committee to review grant applications in the event a grant submittal deadline does not allow sufficient time to schedule a review at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Mayor Waltonsmith noted that she would be willing to support expanding the grant writing services to other jurisdictions as long as there is a benefit to Saratoga. Councilmember Kline stated that an AdHoc should review grant applications that are within Saratoga, but outside applications should come before the entire Council. Councilmember Kline suggested the Mayor and Vice Mayor be assigned to the AdHoc Committee. April Halberstadt thanked the City Council for contracting with Randall Funding. Ms. Halberstadt explained their grant application. STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO DIRECT RANDALL FUNDING TO SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATIONS; ESTABLISH ADHOC COMMITTEE WITH STAFF, MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR: SUPPORT CHANGES TO POLICY AND PROCEDURES. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PROHIBITING NEW PERSONAL SERVICES BUSINESSES ON THE GROUND FLOOR FRONTING A STREET IN THE VILLAGE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct Public Hearing and adopt ordinance. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. 12 Director Sullivan stated that the draft ordinance amends and extends Ordinance ' 223, which prohibits the establishment of new Personal Service Businesses in the Village. Director Sullivan noted that the ordinance would continue to bar against new Personal Service Businesses from locating in ground floor spaces fronting a street in the Village. Personal Service Businesses include, but are not limited to hair and nail salons and day spas. Director Sullivan stated that this ordinance would extend the Interim Ordinance by one year and may not be extended again. Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public hearing and invited public comments. Seeing none, Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing. STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PROHIBITING NEW PERSONAL SERVICES BUSINESSES ON THE GROUND FLOOR FRONTING A STREET IN THE VILLAGE. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. OLD BUSINESS 5. REVIEW COUNCILMEMBER ASSIGNMENTS TO DEANZA TRAIL TASK FORCE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. i John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone reported that at the time the DeAnza Trail Task Force was established, two Councilmembers agreed to participate -Bogosian and Waltonsmith. The Mayor recently asked that these assignments be reviewed to determine whether schedules allow for adequate participation. Mayor Waltonsmith pointed out the Councilmember Bogosian has missed the last four meetings. Vice Mayor King suggested that Councilmember Streit take Councilmember Bogosian's place on the DeAnza Trail Task Force. KING/STREIT MOVED TO REPLACE COUNCILMEMBER BOGOSIAN WITH COUNCILMEMBER STREIT ON THE DEANZA TRAIL TASK FORCE. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 8. PERMISSION TO FILL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER I POSITION VACANCY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council designate the position as "essential" and authorize the City Manager to fill the Facilities Maintenance Worker I position. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. 13 Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that the staff hiring freeze enacted in 2003- 04 continues to be in effect for FY 04-05. A current Facility Maintenance Worker ' has filled the vacant Parks Maintenance Worker II position and this action produces a new vacancy. At this time staff requests direction on whether or not Council considers this position "essential" and wishes to authorize the City Manager to release the hiring freeze in order to fill this position. A discussion took place in regards to amending hiring freeze resolution to exclude positions filled by internal employees. KING/KLINE MOVED TO DESIGNATE THE POSITION AS "ESSENTIAL" AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO FILL THE FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER I POSITION AND AMEND THE RESOLUTION ON THE HIRING FREEZE TO EXCLUDE IN HOUSE PROMOTIONS. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. AGENCY ASSIGNMENTS Mayor Ann Waltonsmith had no reportable information. Vice Mayor King had no reportable information. Councilmember Norman Kline reported the following information: Library Joint Powers Association -announced that libraries would start closing on Mondays. Valley Transportation Authorit,YPAC -Grand Jury report has been released. The City of Los Altos sent letter to the Board requesting reformation. Councilmember Kline requested that this item be agendized. Councilmember Streit reported the following information: West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association -continuing to work on the RFP for solid waste. West Valley Sanitation District -starting the process of taking over the Town of Los Gatos sewer system. One-year transition, which will save over $300k per year. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Referring to the presentation by PG&E, Councilmember Kline requested that staff investigate solar power on city owned buildings. Consensus of the City Council to support Councilmember Kline's request. OTHER City Attorney Taylor noted that he would be on vacation for the next two weeks and noted that Attorney Wittwer would be attending the September 15`h meeting. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson thanked Assistant City Manager Tinfow for acting as City Manager during his vacation. 14 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Res ectfull submitted P Y Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • • 15 • • • • MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 The City Council met in Open Session at 6:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, to conduct interviews for the Library Commission. MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 u.m. Mayor Waltonsmith reported there were no Closed Session items on tonight's agenda. 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 Norman Kline, Nick Streit, Vice Mayor Kathleen King, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith ABSENT: Councilmember Stan Bogosian C ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBERIS. 2004 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of September 15, 2004 was properly posted on September 9, 2004. COMMUNICATIONS FORM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Fred Armstrong announced that the 2"d annual "Building Bridges" week was October 3- 10, 2004. The main event would be held at West Valley College on Sunday, October 10, 2004. Mayor Waltonsmith presented Dr. Armstrong with a proclamation declaring the week of October 3-10, 2004 "Building Bridges Week". Mark Weisler read a letter he sent to the Community Development Department on July 27, 2004. Mr. Weisler noted that the General Plan and the Zoning Code are mismatched. Mr. Weisler noted that his property which is located at 20161 Hill Avenue is zoned in the General Plan R1-20,000 and in the Zoning Code it is R1-40,000. Mr. Weisler stated that the Zoning Code should be brought in line with the General Plan. Mr. Weisler requested that evidence of the zoning change to his property be shown to him. Mr. Weisler requested that his property be rezoned. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Referring to Mr. Weisler's comments, Councilmember Kline requested that an update on the General Plan update. Consensus of the City Council to support Councilmember Kline's request. ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1 A. COMMENDATION HONORING KERRI WALSH AND PATRICIA MIRANDA - 2004 OLYMPIC MEDAL WINNERS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendations. Mayor Waltonsmith read the proclamations and presented it to Patricia's father and family members. Mayor Waltonsmith noted that no one was able to attend tonight's meeting on behalf of Ms. Walsh. 1 B. PROCLAMATION -DECLARING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2004 AS "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Acknowledge proclamation. Mayor Waltonsmith acknowledged the proclamation. 1 C. PROCLAMATION -DECLARING OCTOBER 4-9, 2004 AS "LAWSUIT ABUSE AWARENESS WEEK" • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present proclamation. Mayor Waltonsmith read the proclamation and presented it to Mr. Don Wolf. 2 SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 2A APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2B. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER AS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA IN ORDER TO TRANSACT ROUTINE BANK BUSINESS WITH THE COMERICA BANK AND TO PERMIT THE CITY MANAGER TO DELEGATE THE SAME AUTHORITY TO OTHERS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 04-071 STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER AS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA IN ORDER TO TRANSACT ROUTINE BANK BUSINESS WITH THE COMERICA BANK AND TO PERMIT THE CITY MANAGER TO DELEGATE THE SAME AUTHORITY TO OTHERS. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2C. AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT FOR EMPLOYMENT OF CITY MANAGER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Mayor to execute the agreement. Vice Mayor King requested that item 2C be removed form the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor King expressed her gratitude to the City Manager for waiving his bonus and taking the same pay increase as the other City employees. KLINE/KING MOVED TO AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT FOR EMPLOYMENT OF CITY MANAGER. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT • 3 2D. CITY ARBORIST CONTRACT AMENDMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve contact and authorize City Manager to execute the same. STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE CITY ARBORIST CONTRACT AMENDMENT AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT 2E. REQUEST TO CHANGE THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S MEETING TIME STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 04-074 STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION GRANTING THE REOUEST TO CHANGE THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S MEETING TIME. MOTION PASSED 4-0-I WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2F. REVISION OF RESOLUTION 03-007 THAT IMPLEMENTED AN ANNUAL HIRING FREEZE ON VACATED CITY POSITIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 04-075 STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION REVISING RESOLUTION 03-007 THAT IMPLEMENTED AN ANNUAL HIRING FREEZE ON VACATED CITY POSITIONS. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2G. CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve contract and authorize City Manager to execute the same. STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT 2H. 2004 STORM DRAIN REPAIR AND UPGRADE PROJECT -AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT • 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Move to declare George Bianchi Construction to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project; Move to award a construction contract to George Bianchi Construction in the amount of $238,661; Move to authorize staffto execute change orders to the contract up to $24,000. Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 04-072 Councilmember Kline requested that 2H be removed from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Kline noted that he would recuse himself from this item because it affects his property. STREIT/K1NG MOVED TO DECLARE GEORGE BIANCHI CONSTRUCTION TO BE THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ON THE PROJECT; MOVE TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO GEORGE BIANCHI CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $238.661; MOVE TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS TO THE CONTRACT UP TO $24.000: ADOPT RESOLUTION. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT AND KLINE ABSTAINING. 2I. LETTER OF OPPOSITION TO THE CITY OF SAN JOSE APPLICATION #PDA 87-071-01 TO ALLOW SAN JOSE YMCA TO OPEN AT 5:30 A.M. INSTEAD OF 6:00 A.M. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor to sign letter of opposition. Mayor Waltonsmith noted that there were several residents were requesting that Item 2I be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Waltonsmith stated that she attended the hearing and it was postponed until next week. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan stated that several residents that live in the vicinity of the YMCA have expressed concern and opposition to the YMCA opening earlier and their request to have their Planned Development Permit amendment. Jou Garliepp noted that he lived by the back parking lot. Mr. Garliepp complained that the YMCA has never finished the approved landscaping plan and have extended their use hours. Mr. Garliepp stated that the noise and traffic have increased significantly over the years. Mr. Garliepp noted that the YMCA is currently open from 6:00 -midnight. Mr. Garleipp stated the he and his neighbors have tried to work the YMCA and have gotten nowhere. Mr. Garliepp stated that they were now approaching the City of Saratoga to help them deal with the YMCA. t 5 Don Shipman noted that in 1988 the YMCA showed them the original building plan that included a nice landscaping plan. Mr. Shipman noted that to date the landscaping plan is still not 100% complete. Mr. Shipman stated that he feels the property is an eyesore and the YMCA has not been a good neighbor. Kevin Hayes noted that he concurred with the two prior speakers. Mr. Hayes noted that every Saturday between 8-9 a.m. YMCA members drive up and down his street looking for parking. Vice Mayor King asked who the City Councilmember was in this district. Councilmember Kline responded that Linda LeZotte represented the district. Vice Mayor King suggested that the Mayor write Councilmember LeZotte a letter expressing the City's concerns. Vice Mayor King also suggested that the City Manager contact the Executive Director at the YMCA. Councilmember Streit suggested that the City Attorney should write the City of San Jose's Attorney a letter and the City Manager Anderson contact the City Manager. STREIT/KING MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN LETTER OF OPPOSITION AND ADDITIONAL DIRECTION TO CITY STAFF. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. I 2J. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSITION lA' M STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 04-076 Mayor Waltonsmith requested that 2J be removed from the Consent Calendar. City Manager Anderson stated that cities around California worked very hard to get this measure on the November ballot. City Manger Anderson stated that this measure would stop the State form taking money away form local governments. STREIT/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSITION lA. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 2K. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING MEASURE H STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 04-073 6 Phil Hartley, President !West Valley College, stated that this measure would allow the College to: • Renovate and repair the campus • Update the equipment in the Science and Technology laboratories - bringing them into the 21St century. KLINE/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING MEASURE H. MOTION PASSES 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS None OLD BUSINESS SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept and authorize City Manager to execute the Law Enforcement Contract with Santa Clara County. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that costs controls have been put in place to provide some degree of predictability. Service and funding levels adopted as part of the City's 2004-OS budget represent the base year. Specific controls follow: • Salary and benefit increases exclusive of PERS are tied to either actual increases or CPUW plus 2% whichever is smaller. The County has received the CPI data for the past 20 years in order to calculate the outcome of this salary and benefit cap -the average had been 5.4% annually. They are confident that the formula will produce increases that will meet service level needs. • Rent increases are capped at 3% per year. The Sheriff's Office expects to move in November 2004 and Saratoga's annual costs will be prorated to reflect the rent on the new location. Rent increases would be assessed next in November 2005. • Controllable operating cost increases are capped at 5% per year. Examples are landscaping, janitorial services, capital improvements, property management fees, etc. • The Sheriff's Office have offered to absorb the moving costs without contribution by the contract cities. • The Sheriff s office will treat Saratoga as any other mutual aid city and provide special services (i.e. SWAT helicopter time, etc.) as needed, at no additional costs. • The County will front the tenant improvement costs and prorate the amount plus 5% interest for City payback over the 10-year contract term. A maximum of $250,000 has been allocated; actual costs maybe less. Only the actual amount used (plus interest) will be passed on to the contracted cities. 7 • The County cannot unilaterally change service levels. The service Saratoga has today becomes the base service level. City Manager Anderson stated that PERS restricted the County that in order to even out the amortization they cannot increase their PERS for ten years. Adding to the City Manager's comments, Captain John Hirakawa, Santa Clara County Sheriffs Office, stated the Pete Kutros has verbally told the County Executives that increases to PERS have to be deferred over ten years. Assistant City Manager Tinfow pointed out that there are some disadvantages that come with this contract: Some costs are not capped such as the PERS pension increases. These increases are not capped but based on actual increases that the County might receive Insurance, tax, and utility increases over the life of the contract are limited to actual costs but are not capped. Term of the agreement is 10-years. If the City should want to cancel the contract all of the costs associated with the contract would have to be met including the rent & tenant improvements. Councilmember Streit stated that he had several concerns regarding this contract but staffdid a great job answering his questions and he fully supports the contract. Vice Mayor King and Councilmember Kline both noted that they fully supported the contract. Mayor Waltonsmith stated that although she fully supported the contract, she is sad to see the Sheriff s Office move to Cupertino, but unfortunately there was no place to relocate them in Saratoga. KING/STREIT MOVED TO ACCEPT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 4. SANTA CLARA COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT - MCWILLIAMS HOUSE RESTORATION PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve agreement and authorize City Manager to execute the same. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Planner Livingstone reported that on October 1, 2003 the City Council approved the Heritage Preservation Commission's request to apply for a grant for the City's Historic Park. The original grant request was for $500,000 to restore the McWilliams House and landscape the park. The grant was approved for only $ l OO,000 limited to the restoration of the McWilliams House. 8 Planner Livingstone explained how the grant would be used: $15,000 -Architectural Services $80,000 -Construction and materials $5,000 -Contingency Vice Ma or Kin re uested that the Ma or send a thank ou letter to the Count Y g q Y Y Y for granting the funds to the City. KLINE/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER O EXECUTE THE SAME. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 5. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Randall Funding to submit grant application packets. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist stated on September 1, 2004 the City Council authorized Randall Funding to process grant applications for the City of Saratoga and Saratoga Historical Museum. Analyst Bloomquist reviewed a new grant opportunity for Hakone Foundation. Analyst Bloomquist stated that Hakone has requested to apply for California Cultural & Historic Endowment Grant and, which was previewed and approved by the AdHoc Grant Review Committee. Analyst Bloomquist stated that due to the grant deadline, Executive Director Lon Saavdera has requested that the grant be delayed until the next cycle in January. Council discussion in regards applications from groups outside City limits that would have some benefit to the City. Analyst Bloomquist requested permission from the Council to bring back the Policy & Procedures guidelines for discussion. Consensuses of the City Council to direct staff to agendize the Policy & Procedures guidelines for the meeting on October 6, 2004. KLINE/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE RANDALL FUNDING TO SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATION PACKETS AND APPROVE HAKONE'S GRANT OPPORTUNITY AT $75,000.. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. NEW BUSINESS None • 9 COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Vice Mayor King reported the following information: City/School AdHoc Committee -noted that they recently meet with the new principal at Blue Hills School. The principal stated that this was the first time in her career that a City Council ever contacted her. Discussed traffic and field use. Councilmember Kline reported the following information: Village AdHoc Committee -RDA consultant would be bringing a feasibility report to the Council with in the next month or two. Councilmember Streit reported the following information: City/School AdHoc Committee -Campbell Union School District recently finished $400,000 road improvements around Marshall Lane School. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Referring to Councilmember Bogosian, Mayor Waltonsmith pointed out that he has missed several City Council meetings. Mayor Waltonsmith requested consensus to send him a letter. City Attorney Wittwer stated that in the California Code, a Councilmember's seat becomes vacant if the Councilmember is absent from Council meetings without permission for 60 days consecutively starting form the last regular meeting they attended. Councilmember Kline noted that at this time, he doesn't see a problem if Councilmember Bogosian misses a few meetings. Councilmember Kline noted that Councilmember Bogosian has been a great service to the City the past eight years. Councilmember Streit noted that he concurred with Councilmember Kline. Vice Mayor King stated that she would like to know what the code specifically states. Attorney Wittwer noted that he would email the City Council the section of the code that addresses this issue. Vice Mayor King announce that the Saratoga Fire Department would be having a pancake breakfast on Saturday September 18th from 8:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. Vice Mayor King also noted that they would be giving tours of the new station form 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. OTHER None ~i 10 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson stated that he would be attending the League's Annual Conference September 16-17, 2004. Assistant City Manager Tinfow would be acting City Manager on Thursday and Director Cherbone would be acting City Manager on Friday. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • • 11 • Written Communication Christy Oosterhous To: Ivan Burgos Subject: RE: Dear commissioners, Angela and I wanted to expressed our most sincere gratitude for you taking the time to study our project and coming up with recommendations. We understand that changes will have to be made to further deal with Barbara and kurt's concerns. Soon after the meeting, I went to their house and expressed our willingness to further change the plans. We have both agreed to work together in amiable terms and have agreed to have lunch so that we can get to know each other better. I have spoken with George Daniel Wittman, the architect, and directed him to come up with ideas to increase the set back on our neighbors side, to decrease bulk and deal with the rear balcony privacy issues raised by Barbara. If you have any further suggestions, please let us know. Thank you again, Ivan Burgos, MD. Iburgos a~msn.com Emergency Department Santa Clara County Valley Medical Center • 9/28/2004 • •