Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-02-2000 City Council Agenda Packet
Public hearings will start promptly at 7:30, when the Council will move from whatever item it is considering at that time to public hearings, r KEEP ONE YEAR TIME: AGENDA SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, February 2, 2000 - 5:30 p.m. PLACE: Closed Session - Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Regulhr Meeting - Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting OPEN SESSION.- 5:30 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION 1. CLOSED SESSION 1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a) - Name of Cases: City of Saratoga v. TCI of Cleveland, Santa Clara County Superior Court. 2. Public Employee Mid-Year Performance Evaluation pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 - Title: City Attorney (Continued from January 25, 2000) 3. Public Employee Mid-Year Performance Evaluation pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 - Title: City Manager (Continued from January 25, 2000) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION REGULAR MEETING/CALL Allendale Avenue. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. in the Adult Care Center, 19655 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - None REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA - Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 28, 2000. Page lof6 City Council Agenda February 2, 2000 3. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items - Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Council from discussing or taking action on such matters. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Agenda Item No. 8. q-lO Be Communications from Boards and Commissions 1. Recommendation from Public Safety Commission on comments to Argonaut Elementary School Renovation Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ce Written Communications Joint letter dated January 20, 2000 from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group regarding legislative advocacy trip to Sacramento scheduled for April 4-5, 2000. Page 2 of 6 City Council Agenda February 2, 2000 e CONSENT CALENDAR The consent calendar contains routine items of business separated into three sections. Items for each section will be acted upon in one motion unless they are removed fi.om the Consent Calendar for discussion. Previously discussed items in Section A have already been considered by the City Council at a prior public heating, which was eventually closed. Those items are not subject to further public discussion at this meeting because the vote taken at the previous meeting was final. Resolutions in Section A are for the purpose of memorializing the decision to assure the accuracy of the findings, the prior vote, and any conditions imposed. New items in Section B do not require a presentation fi'om staff unless the Council removes them for discussion, at which time staff may provide additional information if requested. Claims against the City identified in Section C will be presented by staffprior to the Council's vote. A. Previously Discussed Items - None B. New Items 1. Planning Commission actions of January 26, 2000. Recommendation: Note and file. 2. Approval of Check Register Recommendation: Note and file o Memo authorizing publicity for February 16, 2000 Public Heating item: Ordinance designating the Hyde House at 11995 Walbrook Drive as a Historic Landmark (HP-24, Rodenberg) Recommendation: No additional noticing is required by law. ° 1999 Annual Concrete Repair - Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion Recommendation: Move to accept the project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract. Claims Against the City - None Page 3 of 6 City Council Agenda February 2, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 p.m. If you challenge a decision of the City Council pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s), described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City · Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Reconsideration of City Council's decision to overturn the Planning Commission approval of applications SD 99-005, UP 99-018, DR 99-037 (12312 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Applicant: Azule Crossing, Inc., considered by City Council on December 15, 1999. Reconsideration granted on January 5, 2000. (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 19, 2000) Recommendation: Reconsider Council's December 15 decision to deny the project. B. Appeal of Planning Commission approval of application DR 97-061 (14085 Masson Court, APN 503-72-014, Appellant: Kwong, Park & Sze; Applicant: Liu). Design Review approval to construct a new 6,461 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. Approved by Planning Commission on December 8, 1999. (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 19, 2000) Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the application. Page 4 of 6 City Council Agenda February 2, 2000 OLD BUSINESS A. Amendment to Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Humane Society to extend Animal Control and Sheltering Services from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the Amendment to the Animal Services Agreement between the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley and the Cities of Saratoga, Cupertino, Campbell, Monte Sereno and the Town of Los Gatos. NEW BUSINESS Resolution to amend Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for wages, employee benefits, and conditions of employment between the City of Saratoga and the Saratoga Employees Association dated July 1, 1999. Recommendation: Adopt proposed resolution and authorize the City Manager to amend Memorandum of Understanding accordingly. ge ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Note: City Attomey may be excused at this point if no longer needed.) A. Special joint meeting (Closed Session) of January 14, 2000 Recommendation: Approve minutes. Page 5 of 6 City Council Agenda February 2, 2000 B. Regular meeting of January 19, 2000 Recommendation: Approve minutes. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda items for the next adjourned regular meeting (Note: The purpose of listing the items immediately following is not to discuss or take action on them, but simply to decide whether they are to be placed on the agenda for the adjourned regular meeting of February 8, 2000. 1. Joint Meeting with Public Safety Commission a. Mid-year review of Sheriff's Department activities. b. Report fiom the Saratoga Fire District. c. Report fiom the Santa Clara County Fire District. d. Review of 1999 Highlights and Goals for 2000. e. Saratoga Union School District Busing Program Update\. 2. Status Report on Saratoga Creek Litigation Settlement Activities. 3. Review of City Newsletter articles. ~', ~'l ~' B. Other I ~' OCr') 11~ CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 12. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269. 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] Page 6 of 6 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE February 2~ 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT. Ci.ty Manager 'AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: Larry. I. Perlin Chris Korn, Analyst SUBJECT: Recommendations from the Public Safety Commission on comments to Argonaut Elementary School Renovation Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): N/A REPORT SUMMARY: The report will be forwarded to you under separate cover on Monday. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None Memorandum From: Date: Subject: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chfistoph H. Kom, StaffLiaison to the Public Safety Commission d,4~/c/ January 31, 2000 Acceptance of the Argonaut School Draft Environmental Initial Study (ELS) On Thursday, January 27, 2000, the Public Safety Commission convened a special meeting to discuss the draft EIS for Argonaut Elementary School. The following presentations were made at the meeting: The School District's traffi6 consultant discussed the traffic flow plan for the site; · A Sheriffs Deputy gave a comprehensive area traffic review; · The City Traffic Engineer made a detailed critique of the site circulation plan; · The Saratoga Union Fire Chief discussed fire equipment site accessibility, fireplug placement, and water flow requirements; and · Several citizens commented about traffic and student drop off problems. Based upon the above reports and discussions, the Public Safety Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Argonaut School Draft Environmental Initial Study. However, the Public Safety Commission recommends that a formal letter be drafted from the Mayor to the School Board, strongly requesting that the final site plan include the following items: · Improve the sidewalk along the north side of the Area 2 parking lot and add a cross walk to allow safer student access to the school; · Remove Area 1 speed bumps and replace with a raised crosswalk bench at the present crosswalk location; · Make the Area 1 driveway exit a 90 degree exit to permit safer left tums onto Shadow Mountain Drive; · Create parking circulation to ensure that the Area 2 parking lot has left tums only except for access to the daycare facility and exit of the parking lot onto Shadow Mountain Drive; · To provide better visibility, make all staff parking spaces south of the crosswalk in Area 1 "compact parking only" and sign accordingly; · Ensure that all aisles in parking Area 2 be made 24 feet wide; · Ensure that the parking lot and drop off areas are accessible for school buses and fire equipment; · Ensure that a copy of the final site plans are provided to the Saratoga Fire District for the required site review; · Remove the existing center curb in Area 1 and include a through lane from the Area 1 crosswalk to the exit to reduce drop off queuing time; and · Ensure that the north driveway to the 'childcare facility in Area 2 is two-way throughout its length. In general, this school review went much quicker than previous ones due to the fact that several significant improvements to the existing site had already been incorporated by the School District. All presenters were cooperative and made worthwhile suggestions and it is believed that the School District's traffic consultant accepted the aforementioned recommendations as plausible subject to School Board approval. Thank you for your time and consideration. C: City Manager Pubhc Safety Commission City Traffic Engineer ChiefKraule, Saratoga Fire District Attachment: site plan · Page 2 !/ 'I Z SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE February 2~ 2000 AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER.- ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager PREPARED BY: City Clerk SUBJECT: Written Communication _ Joint letter dated January 20, 2000 from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group regarding legislative advocacy trip to Sacramento scheduled for April 4-5, 2000. RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): None REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is the above referenced letter for Council discussion. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: N/A N/A ATTACHMENTS: As stated Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group JOINT LEGISLATIVE TRIP April 4-5, 2000 ~,,Silicon % ' Vall.ey Manufacturmg~ Greup,~~ , January20,2000 The Honorable Stan Bogosian Mayor, City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Bogosian: On behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, we would like to invite you to join us by participating in our annual public sector/private sector advocacy trip to Sacramento, scheduled for Tuesday, April 4th and Wednesday, April 54. As you may know, this will be the fourth year that Silicon Valley's public and private sector leaders have joined forces on a shared agenda in Sacramento. We will cover key legislation on issues like transportation, housing, education, childcare and the environment. During the day-and-a-half trip, we break into small groups to meet with all of the top legislative and administration leaders in individual meetings. In addition, we host a dinner on Tuesday evening for our Bay Area legislative delegation and other top Senate and Assembly leaders. To make the trip as convenient as possible - and to ensure adequate time to prepare - each participant is encouraged to travel to and from Sacramento on a chartered bus. The bus will leave the SVMG offices (near San Jose International Airport) at approximately 3:30pm on April 4, and will return back to the SVMG offices on Wednesday, April 54, at approximately 7:30pm. We hope you will join us for this worthwhile and productive trip to Sacramento. To ensure that we can plan accordingly, please contact John Gibbs in Supervisor Don Gage's office at 40~-299-2373 or Carl Guardino at the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group at 408-501-7864, no later than Monday, February 21, 2000. If, for any reason, you cannot personally participate, we would also welcome you or your Council selecting a council colleague to represent your city on this important trip. Please just let us know who that might be, so that we can plan accordingly. Thank you for your consideration. Chair, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors We look forward to your participation. Carl Guardino President, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: February 2, 2000 AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPT: COMM. DEV. DEPT. HEAD James Walgren, Dir. SUBJECT: Planning Commission Actions, January 26, 2000 RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Note and file. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is the Planning Commission action minutes of January 26, 2000. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Action minutes. DATE: PLACE: TYPE: CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES Wednesday, January 26, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF: Commissioners Barry, Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe and Chair Bemald None Director Walgren and Minutes Clerk Swanson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mn, arrES - January 12, 2000 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 21, 2000. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR V-99-012 (517-07-024) - CONGLETON, 14771 Bohlman Road; Request for Variance approval to permit a previously constructed six-foot fence where only a three-foot fence would otherwise be allowed. The site is 1.3 acres and is located within an R-140,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 2/9/00 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT) PUBLIC HEARINGS If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public heating(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINLrrEs JANUARY 26, 2000 PAGE 2 o V-99-013 (397-24-087) - PETERSCHMIDT, 18881 Hayfield Court; Request for Variance'approval to construct a six-foot fence within the front and exterior side-yard setback, where three feet is the maximum height permitted. Variance approval is also requested to construct an 18-foot tall detached garage/carport, where 15 feet is the maximum permitted, and to allow the carport to exceed the 10 foot height limit allowed for unenclosed accessory structures. The site is the historic Hayfield Estate located on a 134,0~4 (net) square foot parcel in an R-i-20,000 zoning district. APPROVED 7-0. o DR-99-054 (397-24-082) - PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC., 20034 Spaich Court; Request for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,321 square foot, two-story residence. The site is 55,442 square feet and is located within an R-I-20,000 zoning district. APPROVED 6-0-1 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH RECUSED HERSELF' BECAUSE OF A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST). DR-99-050 (517-22-104) - METZ, 15102 Montalvo Road; Request for Design Review approval for the addition of 1,475 square feet and remodeling of an existing 4,397 square foot, single-story residence. The new roof will extend to a height of 26 feet. The site is 41,638 square feet and is located within an R-I-40,000 zoning district. APPROVED 7-0. DIRECTOR ITEMS March 10, 2000 Planning Commission Retreat topics COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council minutes for regular meeting of January 5, 2000 Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINLrrEs JANUARY 26, 2000 PAGE 2 League of California Cities' brochure offering a Planning Institute conference to be held March 1-3, 2000 ADJOURNMENT AT 9:.45 P.M. TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, February 9, 2000, Civic Theater 13777 Fruiwale Avenue, Saratoga, CA SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: February 2, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT: ' ADMIN. SERVICES AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: DEPT. HEAD: Mary Jo Walker~ Dir. SUBJECT: Approval of Check Register RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Note and file. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is the check register for January 27, 2000. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Check Register Certification IFund# A80558 - A80661 Fund Name 1 GENERAL 100 COPS-SLESF 110 Traffic Safety 150 Streets & Roads 160 Transit Dev 170 Hillside Repair 180 LLA Districts 250 Dev Services 260 Environmental 270 Housing & Corem 290 Recreation 292 Facility Ops 293 Theatre Surcharge 300 State Park 310 Park Develpmt 400 Library Debt 410 Civic Cntr COP 420 Leonard Creek 700 Quarry Creek 710 Heritage Prsvn 720 Cable TV 730 PD #2 740 PD #3 800 Deposit Agency 810 Deferred Comp 830 Payroll Agency 990 SPFA Subtotal PAYROLL CHECKS:B25162 - B25193 TOTAL Prepared by: Approved Date 0112712000 301,674.3O 3,335.90 87,174.81 5,783.71 28,818.98 5,393.10 12,299.00 4,351.70 950.00 759.60 450,541.10 Manual Checks 5,548.73 1,151.00 6,699.73 Date: / Void Checks Total J Ap>99 do :> o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 ~~o° oo°° oooooooooo o oo § 0 0 0~' o o o Uo § § I~ 0 ~ 0 E~ 0 I~ 0 0 00000 ooooo ~oooo 0 0 ~ 0 m 0 § ~ooooo §§ ~oo ~o Om trj~o o 0 ~0 O~ ~0 ,-r.o § o g § g o ~o ,-3 0 0 o U o o o 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 o o 0 C~O o~ Oo 0o~ 0 o 0 0 o ~-,0 o Q o O~ (~0 OO OO ~-, 0 ~' "' 0 u r~ Oo 0 o o o 00000000 oo ~ooo o o o 0 · wo r,,uZ o~ ~ ° ~ o ~oo ........ o o ~ .... ~ ~ ~ o o o ~ o § o o o o SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: February 2, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY MANAGER AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY City Clerk SUBJECT: Publicity for Upcoming Public Hearings RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): No additional noticing is required by law. REPORT SUMMARY: A public hearing has been scheduled on February 16, 2000 for the item described below. Staff requests direction as to any publicity in addition to that legally required for public hearings, which the Council wishes to have prepared. A. An Ordinance designating the Hyde House at 11995 Walbrook Drive as a Historic Landmark (HP-24, Rodenberg). FISCAL IMPACTS: None, or cost of additional noticing if so directed by Council. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): None ALTERNATIVE 'ACTION(S): Request additional noticing than required by law. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): None, unless Council directs otherwise. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A Notice of Public Hearing has been scheduled for publication in the Saratoga News on February 2, as required by law. ATTACHMENTS: None SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR.: DEPT. HEAD: ~ SUBJECT: 1999 Annual Concrete Repair - Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion RECOMMENDED MOTION(~}: Move to accept the project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract. REPORT SIIMMARY: All work on the 1999 Annual Concrete Repair project has been completed by the City's contractor, Meade Construction, Inc., and inspected by Public Works staff. The final construction contract amount was $67,822, which is 15.1% above the awarded contract amount of $58,919. The increases to the contract were connected with additional sidewalk, curb and gutter repair, which was identified during the course of the work, and the installation of a new walkway at the rear entrance to the Civic Theater, designed to function with the new disabled accessibility ramp to be built in the next few months. In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one-year maintenance/warranty period, it is recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the construction contract so that the requisite 30-day Stop Notice period for the filing of claims by subcontractors or material providers may commence. FISCAl, IMPACTS: The ten percent retention withheld from previous payments to the contractor will be released 30 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion assuming no Stop Notices are filed with the City. The adopted budget contains sufficient funds in Activity 3010 (Sidewalks and Trails), Account 4014 (Repair Services) and in Activity 3005 (Street Maintenance) Account 4010 (Contract Services) to cover the cost of the construction. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON THE RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The project would not be accepted as complete and staffwould notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete. The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete. AI,TERNATIVE ACTION(~q)I None. FOI,I,OW llP ACTION(S): Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract and release the contract sureties and retention thirty days thereafter. ADVERTISING. NOTICING AND PURl,lC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion. Incorporated October 22, 1956 Recording .requested by, and to be returned to: City of Saratoga Public Works Department 13777 Fmitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed to be performed under the contract mentioned below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fmitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and the Contractor mentioned .below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Owner .on the 2nd day of February, 2000. Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: October 6, 1999 Contractor's Name: Meade Construction, Inc. Contractor's Address: P.O. Box 7697, Burlingame, CA 94011 Description of Work: 1999 Annual Concrete Repair This notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California. The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information or belief, and as to those matters that he believes to be tree. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tree and correct. Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on 19 Executed at the City of CITY OF SARATOGA BY: Larry I. Perlin City Manager ATTEST: Susan Ramos, City Clerk Gov. Code 40814 -~eCl or~ recycled DaDer. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: MEETING DATE: February 2, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development AGENDA ITEM: ~ CITY MANAGER: SUBJECT: SD-99-005, UP-99-018 and DR-99-037; Azule Crossing 12312 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Request for Subdivision, Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct 20 new residential units of approximately 1,524 sq. ft. to 2,345 sq. ft. and remodel the existing retail building located at the front of the property. The commercial building would be expanded from its current 11,931 sq. ft. to 16,997 sq. ft. The property is located in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. The residential component of the project would occupy 2.62 acres while the commercial component would occupy 1.28 acres. Please refer to the previously distributed staff reports from October 27 and November 10, 1999 for project details and environmental analysis. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reconsider City Council's December 15 decision to deny the project. REPORT SUMMARY: The Planning Commission first reviewed this application on October 27, 1999. Two meetings were scheduled to provide the Planning Commission, applicants and neighbors ample opportunity to fully understand the project and the various land use issues associated with it. At the first meeting the Commission directed the applicants to make changes including adding single story elements to the designs, creating a more gradual transition between the proposed development and the existing neighborhood, providing more open space within the residential parcel, and providing a pedestrian link between the residential and commercial parcels. The applicants responded to these requested changes by redesigning the residence at the comer of Seagull Way to a single story structure, reducing the second story proportions on the next two units, eliminating two units, changing the row houses to a group of duplex units, adding open space areas, and providing a pedestrian and vehicular connection to the retail parcel. Architectural modifications were also made to the commercial building in response to comments made at the October meeting. At the November 10 meeting the Commission took further testimony from the applicants and neighbors. Following discussion, the Commission voted 5-1 (Commissioner Barry dissenting) to approve the project. The City Council "called-up" this approval for review. Following extensive public testimony and discussion, the City Council voted 3-2 (Council members Baker and Streit dissenting) to deny the proposal. As provided for in the Municipal Code, the Council can, and did, subsequently vote to reconsider their decision at the January 5 meeting. The applicants informed the City Council that they were in the midst of revising the plans for resubmittal to the Planning Commission. The Council agreed to review the revised plans as part of their denial reconsideration. As a result, the Council has the following options: · Affirm the Council's previous denial of the project and allow the applicants to submit a new application to the Planning Commission. · Reverse the denial and allow the applicants to present revised plans directly to the City Council at the February 2 meeting. The changes to the plans include a new 2,730 sq. ft. second story on the commercial building. The residential component is still proposed to be 20 detached homes. Staff has reviewed the attached updated traffic analysis and accepts the traffic engineers' conclusions that the additional 2,730 sq. ft. of commercial building does not alter the original environmental determination that a Negative Declaration can be supported. However, it should be noted commercial buildings in the Commercial Neighborhood zoning districts are limited to a maximum height of 20 ft. The new proposal is for a two-story structure with a maximum height of 26 ft. The City Council can deviate from this height restriction through the Conditional Use Permit process. FISCAL IMPACTS: Please refer to the discussion in the staff report of October 27, 1999 and the Economic Analysis for further information on these impacts. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: One of the aforementioned actions will need to be taken. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: One of the aforementioned actions will need to be taken. FOLLQW UP ACTION: The City Attorney will prepare a Resolution for the next available meeting memorializing the decision of the City Council on this matter. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None additional. This is a continued item. A heating notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News announcing the December 15 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Minutes of December 15, 1999 2. Updated Draft Transportation Impact Analysis 3. Revised Plans, Exhibit "A" Mlnmes for Ci~, Council ~uJar Meenn~ MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT REPORT AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 6. OLD BUSINESS B. Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) Contract Amendment to Provide the Third Level of Pre-Retirement Death Benefits Recommendation: 1. Adopt the Resolution of Intention to approve an amendment to the contract between the California Public Employees' Retirement System t PERS I and the City of Saratoga to provide the third level of pre-retirement death benefit for employees; and 2. Introduce an Ordinance authorizing amendment to the contract beiween the City and PERS; and 3. Adopt the Agreement to pool 1959 survivor benefits assets and liabilities between PEPS and the City; and 4. Direct staffto return on January 5, 2000 with the final Ordinance to formally amend the PERS contract. City Manager Perlin presented the staffreport. BAKERAVIEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION". MOTION PASSED 5-0. BAKER/STREIT MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE: WAIVE THE FULL READING 'OF THE ORDINANCE AND READ BY TITLE ONLY; AND TO BRING IT BACK FOR ADOPTION ON JANUARY 5, 2000. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BAICER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT WITH PERS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 p.m. If you challenge a decision of the City Council pursuant to a public heating in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s), described in this agenda, or in wriuen correspondence delivered to the Saratoga City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Appeal from Planning Commission decision on Azule Crossing Inc. Recommendation: Accept the staff report and uphold the Planning Commission d~cision to approve the project. City Manager Perlm reported there were additional letters received fi.om numerous citizens after the agenda was distributed. He deferred additional comments to Director of Community Development Walgren, who presented the staffrepon. Vice Mayor Mehaffey explained that this matter was called up to discuss policy issues, not design issues. Council concurred. Discussion ensued. For the record, Mayor Bogosian and the rest of the Council reported that some of them had talked with the developer and met or had phone conversations with some of the property owners prior to this meeting. Mayor Bogosian opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Scott Ward, co-applicant, provided background and summary of the project. He also commented on the focus of finding common grounds and striking a balance between the community and the property owners. He reported on the productive meetings held with the neighbors and have modified the plans to meet the concerns expressed by them. Pag~ 3of7 bhnutes for Csty Council Decemt~r ! .~. Regular Meeting Discussion ensued following questions and responses by the Council and applicants. Mayor Bogosian recognized the following persons who spoke to support the mixed-use development project and its modifications: 1) Zorka Ficovich. 20330 Zorka Avenue. Saratoga 2) Kristm Davis, 12378 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Saratoga 3) Beth Wyman, 12231 Fredericksburg Drive, Saratoga (also expressed suppo~ on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance) 4) Pat Andreson, 19952 Garnett Court. Saratoga 5) Jeanne Stewart. 13927 Pierce Road, Saratoga 6) Mary Helmers. 19875 Sea Gull Way, Saratoga 7) G-eorgi.'a Barnett, 13130 Ten Oak Way, Saratoga 8) Pearl Medeiros, 1045 Zarick Drive, Saratoga (also expressed support on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors) 9) Marjorie Ottenberg, 12881 Foothill Lane, Saratoga, (also expressed support on behalf of the Sierra Club and forwarded a letter to the City Clerk) 10) Jeffrey Walker. 20451 Sea Gull Way, Saratoga 11) Hung-Chin Gurthrie, 20422 Sea Gull Way, Saratoga 12) Diane Reese, 12450 Blue Meadow Coun~ Saratoga 13) Leon Mendelson, 20408 Sea Gull Way, Saratoga 14) Arvin Engelson, 20381 Sea Gull Way, Saratoga 15) Bill Guthrie. 20422 Sea Gull Way, Saratoga 16) Jack Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga 17) Doff Johnson, 19997 Sea Gull Way, Saratoga 18) Glyms Wmeinger, 12297 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Ste. 200. Saratoga 19) Art Roshon. 20379 Lentar Court, Saratoga 20) Marilyn Riding, 21836 Villa Oaks Lane, Saratoga 21) Zoe Alameda, 12341 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga 22) Dolores Oliver-Jamhour, 12361 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Saratoga 23) Mary-Lynne Bernald~ 14398 Evans Lane, Saratog~ expressed support on behalf of the Planning Commission. She urged Council's approval of the modified plans and asked that if there are going to be additional changes to the plan, to return it back to the Planning Commission for their review. Highlights of the comments to support the project included the following: · Applicants worked cooperatively with the neighbors and changed their plans to meet the concerns of the neighbors Enhance the center to make it a viable business center · Serve as a buffer from other business establishments in the area · Good waffic plan; good design · Compatible with other high density plans · Opportunity for added tax base Scott Ward, co-applicant provided closing statements to urge the Council to approve the project as modified. Mayor Bogosian closed the public hearing at 9:24 p.m. and asked the pleasure of the Council. Vice Mayor Mehafl'ey commended all parties for their efforts to work well together. He said that revenue is not the issue; he would mourn the loss of professional office space and would not want to encourage these types of business to go elsewhere. He supports the residential components, however, he would like to see the City retain more of its commercial designation. He recommended sending it back to the Planning Commission to review these issues. Councilmember Streit also commended the good working relationship between applicants and the neighbors. He addressed the retail sales tax base and buffer aspects of this project and expressed to support it as modified to 20 units. Page4of7 for C~ Council Councilmember Waltonsmith commended the good working relationship between the apphcants and neighbom~ She expressed concern about the City's economic viability and loss of commercial districts. She asked that the City review the existing commercial space and find other ways to enhance and refurbish that commercial district because she could not support the m~xed-use development that is being proposed. She also felt that open spaces and not more houses, should serve 'as buffer zones. Councilmember Baker said although this is 3/difficult decision to make, he would not want to give this back to the Planning Commission. He agrees that the existing office dismct is grossl.x neglected and office space may not be viable in that. particular propert3-. He would support the project as presented. Mayor Bogosian echoed commendations made to the applicants and the neighbors for a good working relationship. He would like to see the lot re-configured to expand the commercial pomon of this development and perhaps reducing the residential portion to 14 units. He also felt that thc traffic study did not address all of the traffic concerns. He would support sending this back to thc Planning Commission to review the issues and suggestions raised this evemng. Discussion ensued. Vice Mayor Mehaffey suggested holding a meeting with the developer, property owners, staff and two Council members to re-evaluate the project. In response, Scott Ward replied he does not think that modifying the plan to include up to 20.00(} sq. ft. of office space is viable and he does not know what kind of support they would get with a plan of fewer ama twenty residential units. Discussion continued. Mayor Bogosian asked and Director Walgren confirmed, that procedurally if the Council votes down the proposed project, the applicant would have an opportunity to resubmit new plans, which would be reviewed by staff, and the Planning Commission. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND DENY TI-[E PROJECT AS IT IS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 3-2, (COUNCILMEMBERS STREIT AND BAKER DISSENTED). Mayor Bogosi,,an called a recess at 10:15 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:25 p.m. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Memo from City Attorney regarding political activities by City officials. Recommendation: Receive report and direct staff accordingly. City Attorney Taylor presented the staff report. Mayor Bogosian recommended staff distribute copies of the memo to all commissioners for their information. Council concurred. City Manager Perlin suggested holding a workshop for Council, Commissioners and staff regarding the Brown Act, Public Records Act, Political Reform Act (Conflict of Interest issues) sometime in April of next year. Council concurred. 2. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement for design, environmental and Right-of-Way acquisition services in connection with the Quito Road Bridge Replacement Project (Capital Project No. 9111) Recommendation: Approve agreement. City Manager Perlin presented the staff report and deferred additional comments to Acting Director of Public Works Cherbone. Page 5of7 Minules for Cl~y Council D~ccm~ 15. 1 ~)0~ Regular Meeeng Discussion ensued. Councilmember Streit said it would be important to extend some kind of notice to the affected property owners regarding the proposed construction and any traffic impact thereof. In response, Director Cherbone replied that public meetings would be held with the affected neighborhood before construction begins. STREIT/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE AN. AGREEMENT WITH AN WEST. INC. OF RICHMOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $259,556. MOTION PASSED $-0. STREIT/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ADJUSTING THE FISCAL YEAR 99-00 BUDGET IN CONNECTION WITH THE QUITO ROA.D BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, C.I.P. NO. 9111. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications. None APPROVAL OF bl/NUTES (Note: City Attorney will be excused at this point if no longer needed.) A. Regular meeting of December 1, 1999 Recommendation: Approve minutes. Councilmember Waltonsmith corrected the minutes on pg. 11, paragraph 5 under Other, to read, "l/ice Mayor Meha~e~ ex'pressed his concern about the poor design... "Councilrnernber Waltonsmith concurred." STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ! 0. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Agenda items for the next adjourned regular meeting (Note: The purpose of listin~ the items immediately following is not to discuss or take action on them, but simply to decide whether they are to be placed on the agenda for the regular meeting of December 21, 1999. This meeting is cancelled. B. Other Discussion about pursuit of cooperative efforts with other West Valley cities to develop regional youth oriented athletic facilities and programs (Mayor Bogosian) Following a brief background report from Mayor Bogosian, discussion ensued. Council concurred to direct the City Manager to contact the West Valley managers one on one to sec which cities might be interested in pursuing a cooperative effort to develop regional youth sports facilities and programs. City Manager Perlin noted he should have a report back in late January. Councilmember Waltonsmith commented regarding the City's plans to improve the Gateway commercial center. ~ 6of7 Draft Report TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS for the CLASSICS AT SARATOGA (Saratoga, California) Prepared for: Classic Communities Prepared by: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. January 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page EXECUTIVE SUMM.M~Y ............................................................................................. iii 1 - INTRODUCTION ........................................................... ..........................· .................... 1 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 5 Roadway Network ................................................................................................... 5 Existing Transit Service ........................................................................................... 6 Existing Pedestrian and BicycleFacilities ............................................................... 6 Existing Traffic Volumes and Intersection Lane Configurations ............................ 8 Level of Service Methodology ................................................................................. 8 Existing Levels of Service ..................................................................................... 12 3 - BACKGROUND CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 14 Background Traffic Estimates ............................................................................... 14 Background Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................... 14 4 - PROJECT CONDITIONS ................................. ; ............................................ . .......... 17 Project Traffic Estimates ........................................................................................ 17 Project Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................... 18 Intersection Impacts ............................................................................................... 23 Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 2 .............................. 24 Site Access and On-Site Circulation ...................................................................... 24 5 - CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 26 Technical Appendices Appendix A - Intersection Traffic Counts Appendix B - Level of Service Calculation Sheets Appendix C Signal Warrant Worksheet 995-197 Table ES-la. ES-lb. ga. 3b. 4. Sa. 5b. 6. 7a 7b LIST OF TABLES Page Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ............................................... iv Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ........................................... iv Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay .............................................................. 11 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Total Vehicular Delay ................................................................... 11 Existing Signalized Intersection Levels of Service ............................................... 12 Existing Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service ........................................... 12 Approved Developments ....................................................................................... 14 Background Signalized Intersection Levels of Service ......................................... 16 Background Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service ..................................... 16 Trip Generation Estimates ..................................................................................... 18 Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service ...................... 22 Background and Project Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service .................. 22 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2. 3. 4 5 6. 7. 8. 9. Site Location ............................................................................................................ 2 Site Plan ................................................................................................................... 3 Existing Transit Service ........................................................................................... 7 Existing Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes ............................................................... 9 Existing Lane Configurations ................................................................................ 10 Background Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes ...................................................... 15 Directions of Approach and Deparmre .................................................................. 19 Project Trip Assigrnnent ........................................................................................ 20 Background Plus Project Peak-Hour Intersection Volumes .................................. 21 Classics at Saratoga Janua~ 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the transportation impact analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Classics at Saratoga development in Saratoga, California. The site is located in the southeast quadrant of the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way intersection. The Proposed project is the redevelopment of the existing 40,444-square foot commercial center (including 10,739 s.f. of retail, 24,755 s.f. of office, and 4,950 s.f. of vacant space) to 14,233 s.f. of retail space, 2,629 s.f. of office space, and 20 single-family dwelling units. Direct access to the commercial portion of the project site will be provided via one driveway on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, which will be restricted to right tums in and out, and one full access driveway on Seagull Way. The residential units will be served by one full access driveway on Seagull Way. In addition, the residential units will have access to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road via an internal connection to the commercial portion of the site. The purpose of the analysis is to identify the likely transportation impacts of the proposed redevelopment project on the surrounding roadway system and to identify improvements to mitigate significant impacts. Project impacts were estimated following the guidelines of the City of Saratoga and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. The operations of the intersections were analyzed during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods under Existing, Background, and Project Conditions. Project Traffic The amount of traffic generated by the proposed redevelopment project was estimated by applying appropriate trip generation rates to the number of square feet of retail and office space and the number of dwelling units. Peak-hour traffic generated by the existing uses on the site was measured with driveway counts. The traffic associated with the existing uses on- site was subtracted from the trip generation estimates for the proposed uses to determine the amount of net-added traffic due to the proposed project. The project is estimated to add 89 net daily trips and 5 net AM peak-hour trips (-7 inbound/12 outbound) and to reduce PM peak-hour trip generation by 22 trips (-17 inbound/-5 outbound). The project-generated traffic was assigned to specific street segments, intersections, and mining movements based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the site. Intersection Impacts Level of service (LOS) calculations were conducted for three key intersections for Existing, Background, and Project Conditions using existing count data and lane configurations, a list of approved developments supplied by City of Saratoga staff, and the project-generated trips. The calculations were conducted using the methodology described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) for signalized Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. iii Classics at Saratoga January 2000 intersections with adjusted saturation flow rates, per CMP guidelines. The unsignalized intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way was evaluated using the methodology for two-way stop sign controlled intersections described in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. Tables ES-la and ES-lb present the results of the intersection level of service 'calculations. Table ES-1 a Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary Intersection i Peak ~ Hour Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road AM and Prospect Road : PM 22.2 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road ~ AM 11.9 and Cox Avenue i PM 13.0 Existing Avg. Int. Delay (sec)~ LOS2 29.6 D C Background Avg. Int. Delay (sec) LOS B B- 29.61 D 22.31 C 13.21 B- Avg. Int. Delay (sec) LOS 29.7 D- A in A in Crit. Crit. Delay3 V/Ca +0.1 : +0.001 22.2 C -0.1 0.000 11.9 B -0.1 ' -0.001 13.2 B- 0.0 ~ -0.001 Notes: Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. LOS calculations performed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program. Change in critical movement delay between Background and Project Conditions. Change in critical volume-to-capacity ratio from Background to Project Conditions. Table ES-lb Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary Intersection Worst-Case Approach Peak Avg. Total Avg. Total Scenario Hour Delay (sec)~ LOS2 Delay (sec) LOS Existing Conditions AM 7.8 B >120 F PM [ 4.2 A >120 F ........ ? ...... ......... ........................... ..................... i .................... ........................................ ................... i PM i 4.6 A i >120 F Project Conditions i AM i 12.3 i C : >120 F i 2.7 i A ': >120 F Notes: ' Whole intersection weighted average total delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 2 LOS calculations performed using the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program. Project intersection impacts were identified based on the LOS C goal of the City of Saratoga. While the intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road is projected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour, the addition of project traffic is estimated to cause a Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. iv Classics at Saratoga .lanua~ 2000 negligible increase in critical movement delay and critical V/C. Therefore, the results indicate that the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on the key signalized intersections. The pioject is estimated to have a potentially significant impact on the intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way during the AM peak hour. This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at an overall LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour under Project Conditions, acceptable levels. However, both minor street approaches are prOjected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours both with and without development of the proposed project. The project is estimated to add eight trips to the westbound approach (Seagull Way) during the AM peak hour and to reduce the traffic volume on this approach by four vehicles during the PM peak hour. The project is not estimated to add traffic to the eastbound approach at this intersection. Both the existing AM peak-hour volumes at the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way intersection and the projected AM peak-hour volumes after completion of the proposed project satisfy the Caltrans Pe~ Hour Volume Wan'ant for traffic signal installation. It is recommended that the City of Saratoga consider signalizing this intersection and that, as · mitigation, the project contribute its fair share of the cost of the traffic signal installation. Fair share contributions are typically calculated based on the proportion of traffic associated with a project at the subject intersection. At the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way intersection, 28 trips associated with the proposed project are estimated to travel th_rough the intersection during the AM peak hour. This volume is equivalent to 1.1% of the total estimated AM peak-hour volume under Project Conditions. Fehr & Peers ~tssociates, Inc. v Classics at Saratoga TIA Janua~ 2000 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the transportation.impact analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Classics at Saratoga development project in Saratoga, California. The site is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way. The site location and surrounding roadway network are presented on Figure 1. The proposed project is the redevelopment of the existing 40,444-square foot commercial use (including 10,739 s.f. of retail, 24,755 of s.f. office, and 4,950 s.f. of vacant space) to 14,233 s.f. of retail space, 2,629 s.f. of office space, and 20 single family dwelling units. Direct access to the commercial portion of the project site will be provided via one driveway on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, which will be restricted to right tums in and out, and one full access driveway on Seagull Way. The residential units will be served by a second full access driveway on Seagull Way. In addition, the residential units will have access to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road via an internal connection to the commercial portion of the site. The site plan is shown on Figure 2. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the potential impacts of the proposed development on the transportation system in the vicinity of the site. Project impacts were estimated following the guidelines of the City of Saratoga and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. Since the proposed redevelopment project is estimated to generate fewer than 100 net new peak- hour trips, a Congestion Management Program Transportation Impact Analysis is not required. The following key intersections were analyzed for this project: SaratOga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road* Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue. *Designated Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection. The operations of key intersections were evaluated during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing volumes obtained from counts, representing peak one-hour traffic conditions during the morning and evening commute periods. Scenario 2: Background Conditions. Existing peak-hour volumes plus traffic fi-om approved but not yet constructed developments in the area. Scenario 3: Project Conditions. Background peak-hour traffic volumes plus project-generated traffic estimated for the proposed redevelopment project. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga TIA January 2000 Prospect Rd. Cox Ave. Key: I Project Site ~ N Study Intersection Not to Scale ,0,.,~,Figure 1 SITE LOCATION Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga 77.4 Janua~ 2000 The remainder of this report is divided into four chapters. Chapter 2 presents Existing Conditions in terms of the existing roadway facilities, transit service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, traffic volumes, and operating conditions at the key intersections. Intersection' operations under Background Conditions with traffic fi.om approved but not yet constructed developments are discussed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 describes the methodology used to estimate project traffic and its impacts on the key intersections. Chapter 5 presents the study conclusions and recommendations. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 4 Classics at Saratoga TIA danua~ 2000 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter provides a description of Existing Conditions in terms of the roadway facilities, traffic volumes, intersection operations, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit service. Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided by State Route 85 (SR 85) and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Local access is provided by Prospect Road, Seagull Way, and Cox Avenue. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way also provide direct access to the site. These roadways are described below. SR 85 is generally a six-lane freeway with one lane in each direction restricted to use by high occupancy vehicles (carpools, vanpools, buses, and motorcycles) during the commute hours. SR 85 extends westward from U.S. 101 in South San Jose through the West Valley area and then northward to U.S. 101 in Mountain View. Access to and from the project site is provided via the SR 85 interchange at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road is a four- to-six lane divided arterial in the vicinity of the project site. It is six lanes wide north of Prospect Road and four lanes wide south of Prospect Road to downtown Saratoga. The segment between Prospect Road and Seagull Way has a center lane for left tums. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road extends northward from downtown Saratoga becoming De Anza Boulevard, north of Prospect Road. De Anza Boulevard continues north along the western edge of San Jose and through Cupertino and Sunnyvale as Sunnyvale° Saratoga Road and Mathilda Avenue. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road was designated SR 85 prior to the construction of the Highway 85 freeway. Caltrans retains control of the roadway within the City of Saratoga. Prospect Road, east of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, is a four-lane roadway that extends eastward through San Jose, along the Saratoga border. At its intersection with Saratoga Avenue, it becomes Campbell Avenue and continues eastward into the City of Campbell. Turn pockets are provided at major intersections. West of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Prospect Road is a two-lane street with a center turn lane provided between Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Stelling Road. Seagull Way is a two-lane, residential collector street. It extends eastward from Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, terminating at Cox Avenue near the SR 85 overcrossing. Cox Avenue, east of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, is a two-lane street that continues eastward through San Jose to its terminus at Quito Road. West of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Cox Avenue becomes Wardell Road, a two-lane residential street. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 5 Classics at Saratoga TIA danuary 2000 Existing Transit Service The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)-operates bUs service in Santa Clara County. The existing bus routes in the vicinity of the site are shown on FigUre 3. Individual bus routes are described below: Route 53 is a local bus route that provides service between the Sunnyvale CalTrain Station and Westgate shopping center. It operates along Prospect Road in the vicinity of the project site. The hours of operation are 6:30 am to 7:00 pm on weekdays only. No weekend service is provided. The commute headway is 30 to 60 minutes while the midday headway is 60 minutes. Route 54 is a local bus route that operates along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road near the project site. This hne provides service between West Valley College and Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin. The hours of operation are 5:30 am to 10:00 pm on weekdays and 8:30 am to 8:00 pm on weekends. The commute headway is 15 to 20 minutes while midday, evening and weekend headways range fi:om 30 to 60 minutes. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities comprise sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Near the site, sidewalks are provided along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way. Crosswalks and pedestrian signals are provided at the signalized study intersections. Bicycle facilities comprise bike paths (Class I), lanes. (Class II), and routes (Class 1II). Bike paths are paved trails that are separated fi:om roadways. Bike lanes are lanes on ~-oadways designated for use by bicycles by striping, pavement legends, and signs. Bike routes are roadways that are designated for bicycle use by signs only and may or may not include additional pavement width for cyclists. In the vicinity of the site, bike lanes are designated on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, south of Prospect Road, and on Prospect Road and Cox: Avenue, east of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga TIA January 2000 lllll! 1 1 1 1 1 Rd. Cox Ave, Key: ~-=, Route 27 ,-- m Route 53 ~) ~ ~ Route 54 ==w Route 58 ~ Route 102 Figure 3 t97-13-01 Not to Scal~ Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga TIA January 2000 Existing Traffic Volumes and Intersection Lane Configurations Intersections were analyzed under weekday AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions. Peak conditi'ons usually occur during the morning and evening commute periods between 7:00 and 9:00 am' and 4:00 and 6:00 pm, respectively. Intersection operations were evaluated for the highest one-hour traffic volumes measured during these periods. New turning-movement counts were conducted at two of the key intersections in September 1999 (see Appendix A). Peak-hour volumes at the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Prospect Avenue intersection were obtained from the 1998 CMP monitoring TRAFFIX file supplied by the VTA. The peak-hour traffic volumes at each study intersection are shown on Figure 4. The intersection lane configurations and traffic control devices at each intersection (traffic signals or stop signs) are presented on Figure 5. Level of Service Methodology The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term level of service. Level of Service is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six different levels are defined from LOS A, as the best operating conditions, to LOS F, as the worst operating conditions. LOS E represents operations "at-capacity." When volumes exceed capacity, stop-and-go conditions result, and operatiOns are designated as LOS F. The City of Saratoga's Level of Service goal is LOS C. The level of service calculation methodology for intersections is dependent on the type if traffic control device (traffic signals or stop signs). Two of the study intersections, Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road at Prospect Road and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at Cox Avenue, are controlled by traffic signals. The third study intersection, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way, is controlled by stop signs on the westbound Seagull Way approach and the eastbound funeral home driveway approach. Different methodologies were used for each type of intersection control. The signalized intersection level of service methodology approved by the VTA, and accepted by the City of Saratoga, evaluates an intersection's operation based on the average stopped vehicular delay calculated using the method described in Chapter 9 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) with adjusted saturation flow rates. The average delay for signalized intersections is calculated using the TRAFFIX analysis software and is con'elated to a level of service designation as shown in Table 1. The operatiOns of the unsignalized intersection were evaluated using procedures outlined in Chapter 10 of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual for two-way stop' controlled intersections. Table 2 presents the level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections. Unsignalized intersection level of service criteria are based on average total delay as opposed to average stopped delay for signalized intersections. Level of Service A represents conditions with Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 8 Classics at Saratoga danuar~ 2000 ~.-- 320 (210) 155 (143) J 383 (232)--~ h f t~ 1 (1) 2(1)--~ o (o) -'~ 122 (53) 0 (0) 17 (21) Prospect Rd. Sea Key: Project Site (~ O Study Intersection N XX (XX)=AM (PM) Not to Scale Figure 4 EXISTING PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION ~ ,.-,~, VOLUMES '1" Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga Janua~, 2000 Prospect Rd. Key: Project Site Traffic Signal Stop Sign Figure 5 EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE ~ ..... ~ CONFIGURATIONS '1" Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Not to Scale Classics at Saratoga TIA January 2000 Table 1 Level of Service Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay Average Stopped Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) Description A < 5.0 ~ Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable i progression and/or short cycle lengths. B+ 5.1 to 7.0 i Operations with low delay occurring with-~'6~i'""~'~]~ii" B 7.1 to 13.0 ! and/or short cycle lengths. B- 13.1 to 15.0 C+ : 15.1 to 17.0 Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression C :. 17.1 to 23.0 and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to C- ; 23.1 to 25.0 appear. ............................ ................................. ............... D 28.1 to37.0 urffavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are D- 37.1 to 40.0 noticeable. .......................... ~ .............. :: ................ 4Wf-t-~'":~:-6 ......... E 44.1 to 56.0 long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures E- 56.1 to 60.0 are frequent occurrences. i Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring F > 60.0 : due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle i lengths. Source: VTA's CMP Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, May 7, 1998, and Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209), 1994. Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Total Vehicular Delay Average Total Delay Per Vehicle Level of Service (Seconds) A <5 B >5 and _< 10 C >10 and < 20 D ..................................................... >20 and _< 30 E >30 and < 45 F >45 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209), 1994. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 11 Classics at Saratoga Janua~. 2000 sufficient gaps in the traffic flow on the major slxeet for minor street traffic to cross safely. In contrast, LOS F represents long delays and limited gaps for minor street traffic to cross the maj or .street. Existing Levels of Service Current operations of the key intersections were evaluated with the existing peak-hour volumes, lane configurations, and traffic signal phasings/timings used as input to the TRAFFIX level of service calculation program. The results of the existing LOS analysis are presented in Tables 3a and 3b. The corresponding calculation sheets are contained in Appendix B. Table 3a Existing Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Avg.Int Peak Count Delay Intersection Hour Date (sec)~ LOS2 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and AM 10/98 29.6 D Prospect Road* PM 11/98 22.2 C Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and AM ~ 9/99 11.9 B Cox Avenue PM i 9/99 13.0 B- Notes: ~ Whole intersection weighted average stop >ed delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 2 LOS calculations performed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program. * Designated CMP intersection. Table 3b Existing Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service Peak Hour Count Date Intersection Avg. Total Delay (sec)~ Intersection LOS2 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and AM 9/99 7.8 B Seagull Way PM 9/99 4.2 A Notes: L 2 Worst-Case Movement Avg. Total Delay (sec) LOS >120 F >120 F Whole intersection weighted average total delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. LOS calculations performed using thc 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program. The results of the LOS calculations for the signalized intersections indicate that the' intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road is operating at LOS D during the AM peak hour, below the City's level of service goal of LOS C, and at LOS C during the Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 12 Classics at Saratoga danuary 2000 PM peak hour. The intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue is operating at LOS B during both peak hours, acceptable levels based on the City LOS goal. Table '3b presents both the level of service for the Unsignalized intersection based on delay to all movements at the intersection and the level of service for the worst-case movement or lane group. For a two-way stop sign controlled intersection, this movement is usually the left-mm movement fi.om the minor (stop sign-controlled) street. At the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way intersection, movements fi.om each of the minor street approaches share one lane. Therefore, the results for the worst-case approach are presented. The intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way is operating at an overall LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour, acceptable levels. However, both the eastbound approach (the worst-case approach) and the westbound approach are operating at LOS F during both peak hours Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant for traffic signal installation was investigated for the intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way. The existing AM and PM peak- hour volumes the intersection were compared to the peak hour warrant for rural areas or locations with speeds greater than 40 miles per hour. (The speed limit of Saratoga-Sunnyvale near the site is posted at 45 miles per hour.) The AM peak hour volume satisfies the peak hour warrant under Existing Conditions. The signal wan'ant analysis is contained in Appendix C. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 13 Classics at Saratoga TIA January 2000 CHAPTER 3 - BACKGROUND CONDITIONS This chapter discusses the operations of the key intersections under Background Conditions. Bac. kgr0und Conditions are defined as conditions prior to completion of the proposed development. Traffic volumes for Background Conditions comprise existing volumes from counts plus traffic generated by approved developments in the area. This chapter describes the procedure used to estimate background traffic volumes. The results of the level of service analysis for Background Conditions are also presented. Background Traffic Estimates The traffic volumes for Background Conditions were estimated by adding existing volumes and traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed projects in the study area. City of Saratoga staff identified three approved developments in the vicinity of the site. Descriptions of these developments and their associated traffic estimates are presented in Table 4.. The trip assignments and/or trip generation and distribution information for these developments were obtained from City staff (from traffic analyses conducted for each development) and supplemented with trip generation estimates based on rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (6th Edition). The trips associated with these projects were added to the existing traffic volumes at each study intersection. The resulting background traffic volumes areshown on Figure 6. Table 4 Approved Developments Development Kennedy Residential Development Herriman Avenue Residential Development Location West of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, south of Blauer Drive West of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road at Hemman Avenue Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Blauer Drive Description 12 single family homes 15 single family homes AM PM 9 11 12 16 center expansion Background Intersection Levels of Service Levels of service were calculated for the study intersections using the background traffic volumes. Tables 5a and 5b present the LOS results under Background Conditions and the corresponding LOS calculatiOn sheets are included in Appendix B. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 14 Classics at Saratoga January 2000 ~.- 411 (2S0) 320 (210) 155 (143) ,-~ 363(232)-+ · 72 (235) ~ ~'~=c~ A Prospect Rd. Sea Ave. Key: I Project Site ~'~ O Study Intersection N XX (XX)=AM (PM) Not to Scale Figure 6 BACKGROUND PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION ~ ,~,-,,~o, VOLUMES 'r- Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga TIA danuary 2000 Table 5a Background Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road Peak Hour PM Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and AM Cox Avenue PM Notes: ' Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. ~ LOS calculations performed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program. Table 5b Avg. Int. Delay (sec)~ LOS2 29.6 D 22.3 i C 1-i-i~---- ................... ~ ................... ~ .............. 13.2 i B- Background .Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service Peak Hour Intersection Avg. Total Delay (sec)~ Intersection LOS2 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and AM 8.2 B Seagull Way PM 4.6 A Notes: ' Whole intersection weighted average total delay ex ~ressed in seconds per vehicle. 2 LOS calculations performed using'the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program. Worst-Case Approach Avg. Total Delay (sec) LOS >120 F >120 F The results indicate that the keY signalized intersections will continue to operate at levels consistent with Existing Conditions. The intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road is projected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour, while the intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue is projected to operate at LOS B during both peak hours. The unsignalized intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way is projected to operate at an overall LOS B during the AM peak hour and overall LOS A during the PM peak hour. During both peak hours, both minor street approaches are projected to operate at LOS F. These operating levels are similar to Existing Conditions operations. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 16 Classics at Saratoga TIA January 2000 CHAPTER 4 - PROJECT CONDITIONS The impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding transportation system are discussed in this chapter. First, the methodology used to estimate the mount of traffic generated by the proposed project is described. Then, results of the level of service calculations for Project Conditions are presented. Project Conditions are defined as Background Conditions plus traffic generated by the proposed project. Project impacts are then identified by comparing the results of the level of service calculations under Project Conditions to those under Background Conditions. Project Traffic Estimates The amount of traffic associated with a project is estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In the first step, the amounts of traffic entering and exiting the project site are estimated on a daily and peak-hour basis. In the second step, the directions the trips use to approach and depart the site are estimated. The trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements in the third step. The results of this process for this analysis are described in the following sections. Trip Generation The amount of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated by applying appropriate trip generation rates to the number of square feet of retail space, the number of square feet of office space, and the number of dwelling units. The standard source used to estimate vehicle trip generation is Trip Generation (Sixth Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers). Traffic generated by the existing uses on the site during the peak hours was measured with driveway counts. Daily trip generation associated with the existing uses was estimated using ITE trip generation rates for the currently occupied uses on the site. The .traffic associated with the existing on-site uses was subtracted from the trip generation estimates for the proposed uses to determine the amount of net-added traffic due to the redevelopment project. The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 6. The proposed project is estimated to add 89 net daily trips and 5 net AM peak-hour trips (-7 inbound/12 outbound) and to reduce PM peak-hour trip generation by 22 trips (-17 inbound/ -5 outbound). Trip Distribution The trip distribution pattern for the proposed development was estimated based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the site and the relative locations of complementary land uses in the area. Distribution patterns were developed separately for the commercial (retail and office) and residential uses. The major directions of approach and departure for the project are shown on Figure 7. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 17 Classics at Saratoga TIA danuary 2000 Table 6 Use Size Proposed Uses Retail 14,233 Single Familyi 20 d.u.i Totall Project Trip Generation Estimates Weekday i AM Peak-Hour Trips.- PM Peak-Hour Trips Rate~ Trips! Rate~ 40.671 579i 1.301 11.01i 29i 1.56i 5.86i 191 0.75{ 799i In i Out i Tota[Rateai In : Out Total 4! 0! 4i 1.49i li 3~ 4 4! Iii 15i 1.Oli 13:~ 7: 20 ~91 ~9~ 38~ i so, 3:[ ................ 6_2 Existing Uses 10,739 s.f.2i Retaili 40.67i 4371 Officei 24,755 s.f.)} 11.01 Vacant{ 4,950 Total* 40,444 s.f i Net Added Traffic! (Proposed less Existing) i 273i 710i N/A { 26! 71 33~ N/A i 471 -17i '36 83 -5 -22 Notes: ~ Rates based on data published in Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (6th Edition). 2 Gross leasable area. a Gross building area. a AM and PM peak-hour trips based on counts conducted at site driveways with existing uses. Trip Assignment Net trips generated by the proposed project were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure described above. The trips assignments for both peak hours are shown on Figure 8. Project trips were added to background traffic volumes to estimate volumes under Project Conditions as shown on Figure 9. Project Intersection Levels of Service Intersection level of service calculations were conducted to evaluate intersection operations under Project Conditions. The results of the LOS analysis for Background and Project Conditions are summarized in Tables 7a and 7b. The corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 18 Classics at Saratoga January 2000 Prospect Rd. 0%/5% 5%/1 Cox Ave. ~/I. 25%/40% Key: 5%/10% = Residential/Commercial Project Site O Study Intersection Not to Scale I1 ~.~-17-01 Figure 7 DIRECTIONS OF APPROACH AND DEPARTURE I ~--p I Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga January 2000 ~ ~- 4 (-5) Prospect Rd. Seac Ave. Key: / Project Site O Study Intersection XX (XX)=AM (PM) Figure 8 ® Not to Scale Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga January 2000 ~.~ ~1 ,~ ~ ,~--320 (210) ~-- 120 (292) 155 (143) ,-~ 363 (232)'--~ ~ t ~ 72 (234) "~ ~o~ ~ ._o(o) ~ 21 (16) 1 (4) J 2 (1) ~ f ~ o (o) "~ ~ Prospect Rd. Seac 38 (16) -.~ 28 (13) ~ 33(11) "~ ~ 210 (95) ~-- 8(19) ~-- 436 (176) Ave. Key: ~ Project Site Study Inter~ection XX (XX):AM (PM) l ,o,.,~o, Figure 9 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES Not to Scale Fehr & Peers .dssociates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga danua~. 2000 Table 7a Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Peak Hour Background Avg. Int. Delay (sec) Avg.Int. Delay (sec)~ LOS' 29.6 D 22.3 C 11.9 B 13.2 B- Project A in Crit. Delaya A in Crit. V/C4 LOS Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and AM 29.7 D +0.1 +0.001 Prospect Road PM 22.2 C -0.1 0.000 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and AM 11.9 B -0.1 -0.001 Cox Avenue PM 13.2 B- 0.0 -0.001 Notes: ~ Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed m seconds per vehicle. 2 LOS calculations performed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX. a level of service analysis program. 3 Change in critical movement delay between Background and Project Conditions. 4 Change in critical volume-to-capacity ratio from Back~'ound to Project Conditions. Table 7b Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way Background and Project Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service Peak f Avg. Total Hour Worst-Case Movement Intersection Avg. Total Delay (sec) Scenario I Delay (see)~ LOS2 LOS Background Conditions AM i 8.2 B >120 F PM j 4.6 A >120 F Project Conditions AM i 12.3 C >120 F PM ! 2.7 A >120 F Notes: ' Whole intersection weighted average total delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 2 LOS calculations performed using the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program, i With the addition of project-generated traffic, the key signalized intersections are projected to continue to operate at levels consistent with Existing and Background Conditions. The intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road is projected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour. This operating level is unacceptable based on the City's goal of LOS C or better. During the PM peak hour, this intersection is projected to continue to operate at LOS C, an acceptable operating level. The intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue is projected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS B during both peak hours. The intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way is projected to opexate at an overall LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour. The minor Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 22 Classics at Saratoga TIA danuary 2000 street approaches are projected to operate at LOS F during both peak hours. The reduction in traffic volume on the westbound approach during the PM peak hour due to the redevelopment project improves the operating level of this approach (from 129.0 seconds total average delay to 73.9 seconds), however, the operating level is still LOS F. Intersection Impacts The impacts of the proposed redevelopment project were evaluated by comparing the results of the level of service calculations under Project Conditions to the results under Back~ound Conditions. Signalized Intersections For this analysis, traffic impacts at signalized intersections are defined to occur when the addition of project traffic causes: 1. Intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS C or better) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level; or Exacerbation of unacceptable operations (LOS D, E or F) by increasing the critical delay by four or more seconds and increasing the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more. Based on the impact criteria listed above, the proposed project would have a less-than- significant impact on the key signalized intersections. Although the intersection of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road is projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS D during the AM peak hour, the addition of project traffic is not estimated to increase the critical movement delay byfour or more seconds or the critical V/C ratio by 0.01 or more. Unsignalized Intersections For this analysis, traffic impacts at unsignalized intersections are defined to occur when: The addition of project traffic causes overall intersection operations to deteriorate fi'om an acceptable level (LOS C or better) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS D, E or F); or The proposed project adds traffic to a movement/lane group that is operating at an unacceptable level (LOS D, E or F) and the traffic volumes at the intersection satisfy the requirements of the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant for traffic signal. installation. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 23 Classics at Saratoga TIA January 2000 Based on this definition, the project would have a potentially significant impact on the unsignalized intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way during the AM peak hour..The project would add eight trips to the westbound approach, which is projected to operate, at LOS F under Background and Project Conditions. Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant for traffic signal installation is satisfied with both 'the existing AM peak-hour volumes at this intersection and the projected AM peak-hour volumes, after completion of the proposed redevelopment project (see Appendix C). During the PM peak hour, the project would not have a significant impact because, although the westbound approach is projected · to operate at LOS F, the Project would reduce the traffic volume on this approach by four vehicles. The project is not estimated to add traffic to the eastbound approach of the intersection. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures were identified to reduce project impacts on the intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way. The installation of a traffic signal at this intersection would improve operations to LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hours. As noted above, the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant for traffic signal installation is satisfied with the AM peak-hour volumes estimated under both Existing and Project Conditions. It is recommended that the City of Saratoga consider signalizing this intersection and that, as mitigation, the project contribute its fair share of the cost of the traffic signal installation if the City constructs the signal. ~ Fair share contributions are typically calculated based on the proportion of traffic associated with a project at the subject location. At the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way intersection, 28 trips associated with the proposed project are estimated to travel through the intersection during the AM peak hour. This volume is equivalent to 1.1% of the 'total estimated AM peak-hour volume at the intersection under Project Conditions (2,597 vehicles). Site Access and On-Site Circulation The site plan shown on Figure 2 was reviewed in terms of site access and on-site circulation. Direct access to the commercial portion of the project site will be provided via one driveway on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, which will be restricted to right tums in and out, and one full access driveway on Seagull Way. The residential units will be served by one full access driveway on Seagull Way. In addition, the residential units will have access to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road via an internal connection to the commercial portion of the project site. The number of' driveways will be more than adequate to serve estimated traffic volumes associated the proposed uses. Circulation'through the residential portion of the project is provided by a 20-foot roadway that extends southward from Seagull Way past three units and then loops through the Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 24 Classics at Saratoga TIA danuary 2000 remainder of the residential units. This circulation roadway provides clear and direct access through the site. On-street parking is not feasible with the proposed 20-foot width of the residential circulation road. The site plan shows 10 on-site guest parking'spaces. Residents should be required to park in their garages or driveways so that guest spaces are available for visitors. As shown of Figure 2, the commercial portion of the site includes two buildings surrounded by a circulation road with the majority of the parking spaces provided on the north and east sides of the buildings. This roadway will provide adequate circulation for the proposed retail and office uses. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 25 Classics at Saratoga TIA danua~' 2000 CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSIONS The proposed project is estimated to add 89 net daily trips and 5 net AM peak-hour trips (-7 inbound/12 outbound) and to reduce PM peak-hour trip generation by 22 trips (-17 inbound/ -5 outbound). The impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding transportation system were evaluated following guidelines of the City of Saratoga and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The results indicate that the proposed redevelopment project would have a less~than- significant impact on the key signalized intersections. The project is estimated to have a potentially significant impact on the unsignalized intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way during the AM peak hour. This intersection is projected to operate at an overall LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour under Project Conditions, acceptable levels. However, both minor street approaches are projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours both with and without development of the proposed project. The project is estimated to add eight trips to the westbound approach (Seagull Way) during the AM pe~,,k hour and to reduce the traffic volume on this approach by four vehicles during the PM peak hour. The project is not estimated to add traffic to the eastbound approach at this intersection. Both the existing AM peak-hour volumes at the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way intersection and the projected AM peak-hour volumes after completion of the proposed project satisfy the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant for traffic signal installation. It is recommended that the City of Saratoga consider signalizing this intersection and that, as mitigation, the project contribute its fair share of the cost of the traffic signal installation if the City constructs the signal. Fair share contributions are typically calculated based on the proportion of traffic associated with a project at the subject location. At the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way intersection, 28 trips associated with the proposed project are estimated to travel through the intersection during the AM peak hour. This volume is equivalent to 1.1% of the total estimated AM peak-hour volume at this intersection under Proj eot Conditions. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 26 APPENDIX SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO MEETING DATE: February 2, 1999 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development CITY MANAGER:t SUBJECT: DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 sq. ft. single-family residence on a 2.75 acre property. Please refer to the attached staff report from October 13, 1999 and Memorandum from December 8, 1999 for further details. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the Design Review application. REPORT SUMMARY: The Planning Commission first reviewed this application on October 13, 1999. The Public Hearing was opened for specific discussion of the project's architecture, and continued indefinitely at staff's request. This allowed the Commission an opportunity to discuss the unique design of the residence, give the applicant time to make any requested revisions and address potential impacts of the landslide repair to a large Oak tree. Staff's intent was to allow the applicant to learn if there would be a consensus in support of the architectural style before expending time and money on further plan changes, geology and arborist review. At that meeting the Commission did direct the applicant to make changes which included; eliminating a secondary driveway and reducing impervious coverage, providing a more complete landscape plan, providing fencing around the proposed pool, preparing a landslide mitigation plan to be reviewed by the City Arborist, and providing information on the effects of the proposed copper roof material on the environment. No neighbors spoke at the initial Public Hearing. The Planning Commission voted 4-1 in favor of the architectural style (Commissioner Kurasch opposed and Commissioner Jackman absent). The applicants responded to all of the Commission's requests by making the necessary changes, providing a landscape mitigation plan, which the City Arborist reviewed, and providing information on the copper roof material. At the meeting of December 8, 1999 the Commission took further comments from the applicant and heard from several neighbors. Mr. Park of Masson Court expressed concerns with the Appeal of DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court location of the driveway, in that it appeared that it crossed his property, that the building was too tall and that a copper roof would be incompatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Kwong of Saratoga Heights Court expressed concerns with the landslide repair and continued soil erosion, and privacy impacts. Mrs. Sze of Masson Court expressed concems that the building was too tall and too close to the street, that the proposed architecture would not be compatible with the neighborhood, and that the structure would block her views. After a lengthy discussion about the landslide repair and compatibility of the design with the neighborhood the Commission did approve the proposal 4-3 (Commissioners Barry. Jackman and Kurasch opposed) with a condition that another roof material be used other than copper, or that copper be studied further and this matter reviewed again by the Commission. Response to Letter of Appeal The appellants have listed 15 concerns in their letter of appeal. In the following discussion staff will attempt to respond to the issues raised. On the issue of architectural compatibility, it is evident that there is a mixture of architectural styles in the surrounding neighborhood and that the proposed residence is compatible in terms of size and mass and does fit with the site and surrounding environment. On the issue of setbacks, this is a unique lot in that it is long and narrow and runs parallel to the street. As evidenced on the Subdivision Tract Map 6665 (exhibit "B" of letter from applicant's architect of January 24, 2000) the building pad was shown and approved in the same location as the proposed residence. Due to the orientation of this lot the side setbacks are considered to be those along Masson Court and adjacent to Mr. Kwong's property. The front and rear property lines are those which are adjacent to Pierce Road and the adjacent property on Vintage Lane. On the issues of the City's Residential Design Handbook, staffhas determined that the proposed residence is consistent and does not conflict with the following Policies and Techniques as the appellants have indicated. · The residence is proposed on a relatively level pad and does not conflict with Policy 1, Technique 2 of the handbook. · The design uses a varied height roof plan and does not conflict with Policy 1, Technique 4. · The architectural style of the proposed residence, while not mimicking others in the neighborhood, will be consistent in terms of proportion, size, mass and height and would not conflict with Policy 1, Technique 5. · The design of the residence uses various rooflines with one and two-story elements and various natural materials to break up the mass of the structure and does not in conflict with Policy 1, Technique 6. · The residence is proposed on the only available building site which is a fairly level pad and does fit in with the surrounding environment by using a variety of natural materials such as Appeal of DR-9?-061; 14805 Masson Court unpainted wood, stone, glass and metal. The residence will be located along similar topographic lines as other residence in the neighborhood therefore it would be difficult to build any structure on this lot that would not interfere with views, however the privacy of the closest neighbor, Mr. Kwong has been addressed by limiting areas of the second floor windows on the elevation facing Mr. Kwong. The residence does not conflict with Policy 3,. Technique 1 or Technique 2, or Policy 4, Technique 1. · The residence is located on the only available building pad, which was selected and graded at the time of subdivision approval. Locating the residence on another portion of the site would result in a substantially higher amount of grading, as there are no other level areas on site. For other reasons as stated above relative to building height and roof massing the residence does not conflict with Policy 4, Technique 3. The issue of land instability on the proPerty has been a significant concern of City staff and the City's Geotechnical consultant. Addressing the instability concerns to the satisfaction of the City Geologist is the primary reason why this application has been in the review process since November 1997. The City Geologist did ultimately give the project a Geologic and Geotechnical Clearance in September of 1999. This means that the applicant's geologic repons adequately · addressed the landslide problem and means to correct them. Once the project is approved for construction the applicant will begin work to repair and stabilize the landslides and will remain in close contact with the City Geologist to guarantee that the work proceeds to the City's satisfaction. The issue of inaccurate height poles and location of property lines is being worked out by the applicant's surveyor. The applicant has expressed a willingness to move the driveway if there is in fact a portion which crosses Mr. Park's property. It should be noted that approximately half of this private road cuts through the applicant's property. In response to neighborhood notification, the City does its best to ensure that every property owner within 500 feet is notified. The City's noticing consultant uses County Assessor records of ownership to send notices and these records are updated approximately every six months. This means that new owners omen do not receive notices and owners of multiple properties in the County may receive a notice at another address if they list that property as the location to receive their tax bill. A copy of all property owners who were notified is attached. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. · ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News. Appeal of DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's approval, the project will be denied as presented. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The City Attorney will prepare a Resolution for the next available meeting memorializing the decision of the City Council on this matter. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter of Appeal from Joseph Park, Robert Sze and Jon Kwong 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices. 3. Property Survey of January 25, 2000 4. Arborist Report Update of November 8, 1999 - 5. Staff Report of October 13, 1999 (including attachments) 6. Staff Memorandum of December 8, 1999 7. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 13,1999 and December 8, 1999. 8. Supplemental Copper Material Information 9. Letter from Mr. Park dated January 25, 2000 10. Resolution DR-97-061 11. Plans, Exhibit "A" 12. Revised Site and Grading Plans, Exhibit "B" 13. Packet from Applicant's Architect dated January 24, 2000 14. Packet from Mr. Park dated January 27, 2000 Please Note-A site visit is scheduled for Tuesday, February 1, at 3:00 p.m. for interested Council members. The meeting will convene at City Hall in the Community Development Department. ATTACHMENT 1 TO: City Council City of Saratoga December 15, 1999 FROM: Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Park 14800 Masson Court Mr. & Mrs. Robert Sze 14780 Masson Court Mr. & Mrs. Jon Kwong 14581 Saratoga Heights Court We are appealing the Planning Commission's decision on December 8, 1999, Re. item 2, DR-97-061 (503-72-014) 14805 Masson Court, on the following ground. 1) The first issue is one of neighborhood compatibility. Not just one neighbor, but the entire adjacent neighborhood finds that the proposed structure on 14805 Masson Court (referred to as proposed structure in the following ) is incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of its architecture, site setback, its bulkiness, and its departure from the policies given in the Residential Design Handbook of the City of Saratoga. Each one of these incompatibility and departure will be detailed in the following. These issues were raised both in letters delivered to City's office prior to the hearing, and raised during the hearing. Departures from the policies in the Residential Design Handbook were cited during the hearing. There are also issues regarding landslide problems and property boundary lines which must be satisfactorily addressed before design approval can be granted. In past practice, the Planning Commission has paid attention to the inputs of the neighbors and adhered to the policies and techniques detailed in the Residential Design Handbook of the City of Saratoga. The December 8th Planning decision represents a significant departure from this past practice~ 2) Site Set Back. In the City's Setback and Lot Coverage Requirements, for the HR zone, front set back is specified to be 30 ft. minimum, and rear set back is specified to be 60 ft. minimum (for a two story). The front yard is defined to be that closest to the curb on a public/private right of way. The rear yard is that opposite to the front yard. The front and rear yards are not defined by the orientation of the house. In fact, the orientation of the house is not defined or mentioned in the Setback Requirelhents. A builder cannot circumvent the Setback Requirements by simply calling the front yard its side yard; or by calling the rear yard its side yard. The proposed structure has a 20 ft. front Setback and a 20 ft. rear setback, which do not meet the 30 t~./60/~, requirements. This violation of the setback requirements aggravates the other issues of incompatible architecture, bulkiness, and intrusion on privacy. All the houses in the neighborhood other than the proposed structure diligently complies with the City's setback requirements. We the neighbors do not want a violation to ruin the neighborhood we have worked so hard to preserve. · 3) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 1, Technique #2:Follow hillside contours; to avoid large, single form solutions, and to avoid tall 'support poles for overhanging areas. Proposed structure is mostly a large, single form solution, with tall crooked support poles for overhangs. 4) The proposed structure does not follow Residential Design Handbook Policy 1, Technique #4:Minimize building height; to minimize areas of maximum height, vary. height of roof elements and to set back higher portions of structure. Masson Court is a narrow private road. All existing houses on Masson Court are either single story or two story with the second story setback, some at the request of the Planninr~ Commission. ~ .Proposed structure's lack of second story setback, lack of minimizing areas of maximum height, lack of varying height of roof elements, all .at reduced setback less than required, aggravates its problem of bulkiness. 5) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 1, Technique #5 :Design structure to fit with existing neighborhood; to be compatible in terms of proportion, size, mass and height, to have architectural style that is compatible, and to avoid overwhelming existing residences. The neighboring houses to the proposed structure are similar in terms of proportion, size, mass and height. They are either single story or two story with second story setback, 30 to 45 fi. setback from the curb to the house, and -100 ft. setback from the curb to the garage· Both 14800 and 14780 Masson Court are smaller in size than the proposed structure. The square footage of 14800 is approximately 50% of that of the proposed structure. Proposed structure with its reduced setback of 20 ft. (front and back) which is less than the required 30/60 ft., is larger than 14800 and 14780 Masson in size and proportion. Proposed structure is incompatible with 14800 and 14780 in terms of proportion, size, mass, and height, and at close proximity resulted fi.om its reduced setback, it overwhelms existing residences on 14800 and 14780 Masson Court. 6) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 1, Technique #6:Use architectural features to break up massing to avoid vertical features that add to the perception of height. The proposed structure's excessive use of two-story high windows and tall, crooked poles drastically increase the perception of height to an already tall and massive structure. 7) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 2, Technique g2:Integrate with environmental texture and forms: to avoid large geometric shapes that appear as foreign objects in the setting. The clustering of hillside houses as mandated by the HR zoning heightens the importance of each new structure to blend in with existing structures and not to be out of place. Proposed structure with its abruptly cutoff roof and flare out overhangs appears as a foreign object from outer space. 8) The proposed structure .violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 3, Technique gl :Control view to adjacent properties, to avoid window and balcony locations that impact privacy, to avoid reducing required setback distances. Proposed structure has a long balcony facing 14780 and 14800 Masson Court. At a reduced setback distances less than required, this balcony poses a major impact on the privacy of both 14780 and 14800 Masson Court. A small balcony on the opposite side also at reduced setback less than required poses a similar impact on the privacy of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. 9) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 3, Technique g2:Locate buildings to minimize privacy impact; to avoid siting structures in direct line-of-sight to neighboring residences. Proposed structure has a long balcony in direct line-of-sight to 14780 Masson Court. At reduced front setback less than the minimum required, proposed structure maximizes privacy impact on 14780. A small balcony on the opposite side at reduced setback of 20 ft., less than the minimum required of 60 ft., poses similar privacy impact on 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. 10) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 4, Technique gl :Locate structure to minimize view blockage; to not block view with structures, and to avoid using site plans that will create view problems. Proposed structure with its height and bulk at reduced setback less than required maximizes view blockage for 14800 and 14780 Masson Court, and creates major view problems for both 14800 and 14780 and 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. Proposed structure is located on a parcel of 2.75 acres. Yet the design calls for essentially vertical construction on a small foot print located directly in the line-of-sight of 14800 and 14780. At a reduced setback of 20/20 ft. instead of the minimum required of 30/60 fi., the proposed structure maximizes view blockage and creates view problems for all its adjacent neighbors. 11) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 4, Technique g3:Locate structure to reduce height impact; to not block view by excessively high and bulky structures, and to avoid roof forms and ridge lines that impact view. .Proposed structure is designed to maximize square footage on a small foot print. To achieve this design goal, setback requirements are violated, and the proposed structure is located and vertically constructed to maximize height impact, and block view by excessively high and bulky structures. 12) A number of major landslides exist on the site of the proposed structure. In a letter dated Sept. 2, 1999, from the City geologist to the City, it was stated "second landslide (on 14805 Masson Court) extends offsite to the east, where it has impacted the residential development at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court." it was also stated "Without appropriate mitigation, a significant portion of the residential development 'located at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court is at moderate to high risk to damage from landsliding. We recommend that the City notify the appropriate property owner of this concern." The property owner of Saratoga Heights Court was never notified of this concern. Mr. Kwong of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court raised his concerns regarding the landslide problem and the lack of resolution, both in a letter and also at the December 8 public hearing. On the day of the December 8 hearing where the Planning Commission approval was given, no document in the City file on DR-97-061 adequately addresses the resolution of the landslide problem. During the December 8 hearing, a geological drawing was distributed to the Commissioners which purportedly addresses the resolution to the landslide problem. The Commissioners did not have a chance to study the drawing. Mr. Kwong was given a copy of the drawing and told to review it before returning to the lectern. This drawing was un-signed, un-dated, ambiguous as to the extent of the repair (e.g. how much cut and fill ), and it shows structures (buttress) that extends from the applicant's property 14805 Masson Court into Mr. Kwong's property 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. Down slope landslide was not addressed in this drawing. As noted in the City's geologist's letter, "owner (applicant) should be aware that there is a potential for further landsliding downslope from the proposed repair area", and "futUre landslide may require ... supplemental mitigation measures by the property owner." A few minutes later, Mr. Kwong was called back to the lectern. When Mr. Kwong raised the questions regarding this drawing he was told that was not the place to ask questions regarding the drawing. How can the City Planning Commission approve the plans for an applicant's structure that extends into neighboring property without the neighbor's approval 9 13) On December 7, the day before the approval Planning hearing, height~poles were put up on applicant 14805 Masson Court. Unsured of where the property line lies, the height pole workers repeatedly placed stakes inside Mr. Park's 14800 Masson Court property, contrary to the markers placed by surveyor previously hired by Mr. Park. The same workers also placed stakes inside Mr. Kwong's 14581 Saratoga Heights Court property. Due to the property line marker (between 14800 Masson and 14805 applicant) being at the center of the applicant's proposed driveway, the applicant's driveway would have to partially pave over property, however small it is, of Mr. Park's 14800 Masson Court. The approval for the applicant to do so must come from Mr. Park and no one else. The drawings available in the applicant's file show conflicting locations. One drawing shows swimming pool located at rear boundary with no setback. Another drawing shows house located at rear boundary with no setback. The inconsistency among the dra~ngs and height poles creates a confusion as to what is the site location and setback that is being considered for design approval. 14) The following are points of fact..Some neighbors did not receive notices to the initial public hearing. The proposed structure's site plan drawings on' file at the City office were either out of date or contain conflicting information regarding structure location and setbacks, obscuring exactly what is being considered for approval. New drawings were distributed during the approval hearing, allowing no time for review. Height poles were put up in the late afternoon . after the Commissioners' scheduled site tour, and on the day before the approval public hearing..Some Commissioners, in fact, may not have seen the height poles. The sum total impact of the above is critical facts and information were not made available for consideration prior to the hearing. Timely and accurate facts and information to the Commission and the public are necessary for a fair and impartial public hearing. The applicant proposed to cover the structure with a copper roof. The neighbors and several Commissioners have voiced their concerns regarding the copper runoff into the ground and into the bay. In the December 8 heating, a report from the copper institute supplied by the applicant was presented, which maintains that copper runoff is not harmful to .the environment. An opposing view may be found in a San Jose Mercury News article, dated December 10, 1999, where the environmental group San Francisco Baykeeper maintains that copper runoff is harmful to fish, plants, and other animals (copy attached). .. For protection of the neighbors, the environment, and the public at large, we, the neighbors and the public at large rely on the Planning Commission to make decisions based on findings and a body of unbiased facts. To this end, we are appealing to the City Council, seeking the same protection for the neighborhood, the environment, and ultimately the public at large. We would like to work with the applicant, including study sessions, to resolve all issues to our mutual benefit. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Group sues over metals (12/10/1999) http:l/www.mer~u~.'center.com'premmm,'local/ciocs,metal 10£.htm ldentsare unpredictable -ma, Local & State Dispatches Sections News Business & Stocks ·Technology Sports Opinion Living & Comics Weather Classifieds & Services Classifieds Jobs: JobHunter Homes: HomeHunter NewHomeNetwork.com ' Local & State Home Education Breaking News Digital High National Opinion World Mr. Roadshow Contact Us About ~ Published Friday, December 10, 1999, itt the San dose Mercu~ News Group sues over metals Copper, nickel discharge into bay called threat to fish BY PAUL ROGER.._.~__~S Mercury News Staff Writer An environmental graup is contending in a lawsuit that recent state rules will allow much more copper and nickel to be dumped into San Francisco Bay, potentially damaging fish, clams, plants and other aquatic life. The organization, San Francisco BayKeeper, said Thursday that the South Bay's three sewage treatment plants -- located in San Jose, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale - will be allowed to release more copper and nickel into the bay than they now can if new rules issued by the State Water Resources Control Board in 1998 remain in place. "If we're ever going to make sure we protect the bay from copper and nickel and other heavy metals we're going to have to make sure we don't allow increases," said Michael Lozeau of Palo Alto, an attorney for the environmentalists. "We have to prevent the problem from getting worse." The three South Bay sewer plants release about 170 million gallons of treated sewage a day into the bay. The mount of wastewater, enough to fill 6,800 backyard swimming pools, is regulated by the federal Clean Water Act. 12/17/99 9:2'6 AM Croup sues over metals ~ 12/10/1999) http:llw~v.mcrcu~.'ccntcr.com~prcnmm,~ocaL'doc.wme~allO£h m: Because of the shallow nature of the South Bay, where tidal action takes a long time to flush bay waters out to sea, the sewage plants are required to operate under the smctest controls of nearly any sewage plants in the United States. The wastewater from San Jose's plant, for example, is so clean it is recycled into imgation water for golf courses and other uses. Yet the plants are not able to efficiently filter out copper, nickel, mercury and other metals that flow through them in pans per billion. On Wednesday, BayKeeper sued the State Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento Superior Court, challenging the discharge permits the bOard granted to the three South Bay sewer plants, along with plants in Petaluma and Fairfield-Suisun, as inadequate. State regulators, however, say the roles are not being eased. They note that the 1998 standards were set after exhaustive scientific hearings and reviews of scientific studies. "It's not like we're just dreaming this stuff up," said Wil Bruhns, a spokesman for the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, based in Oakland. "We've had lots of public hearings." Bmtms said the board did allow copper and nickel discharge levels from the late 1980s to carry forward to the 1998 permits. San Jose, for example, puts 1,679 pounds of copper a year into the bay. Under the new regulations, it could double that. Sunnyvale, which releases 200 pounds, could increase to 715 pounds a year and Palo Alto could go from 504 pounds to 1,580 pounds under the new standards. But Brutms said that will never happen since strict roles regulating the concentrations of heavy metals were kept in place. So the only way more metals could get into the bay, he said, is if the amount of wastewater also increases. And that is unlikely, he said. 12/17/99 9:26 AM G'mup m ova- mctal~ (12/10/1999) hllp://www.memu,'3'cemer.conVpr~nu umqocal/doc~'mctal 1 Of. htm "In Sunn,vvale and Palo Alto, there's not a whole lot of room to grow in those areas. You aren't going to double the number of houses or industry," he said. And San Jose is under state order to cap its wastewater releases because the water is so fresh that it is diluting brackish marshes. Copper and mckel can harm the reproductive function of, and even kill, plankton and other animals. Contact Paul Rogers at l~ro£ers~.s/mercurv, com or (408) 920-5045. are unpredictable © 1999 Mercury Center. The information you receive online fi-om Mercury Center is protected by the copyright laws of the United States. The copyright laws prohibit any copying, redistributing, retransmitting, or repurposing of any copyright-protected material. 12/17/99 9:26 AM ATTATCHMENT 2 AFFII)AV~ OF MAILING NOTICE,~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) ) ) , being duly sworn, deposes and says: SS. that he/she is a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the Z~'a'~ day of ~e~.t~ , 199_~, he/she deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a cdpy 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 Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 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. 0000000000000000000000000000~000 ATTATCHMENT 3 GRAPHIC SCALE 50 I00 150 :~00 LOT 6 TRACT 5928 REFERENCE MAPS: TRACT NO. 5928 (442 MAPS 29-30) T .R~CT NO. 6665 (488 MAPS 40-46) MASSON COURT.., ; (PRIVATE DRIVE) INGRESS ,Il E~£~S, P.S.~. & ' ~ (-2 .^ps ~-~o) TRACT BEN~T ~ LOT 1, ~ACT ~5 PROPERTY MAP LOT1 TRACT 6665 LOT 1, TRAC~ NO. 6665 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ~_ AWN BY: BM I I ~"~n?r~S~re:iv~:~/eu~: '. C.~ivilm~ngineering : ! ,oe.o~i ATTATC H M ENT 4 BARR[E D. COAT~ AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (~O8) 353-105Z 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 9.5033' ,TREE PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS-AT THE LIU PROPERTY 14805 MASSON COURT SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of.' Christina Ratcliffe City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate November 8, 1999 Job #11-97-377-99 RECEIVED NOV ! 71999 PLANNING DEPT. Tree Preservation Recommend~ s At The Liu Property, 14805 Masson Court, .toga Assignment I was asked by Christina Ratcliffe, Planner, at the City of Saratoga to inspect the Liu property slide restoration plans, to identify any conflict between that activity and health of trees on site. Summary ~ ~ " Only one tree would be affected by the proposed landslip repair, and if protective fences are installed and maintained precisely as shown on the enclosed Site plan by Milstone Creotechnical Co., this affect should be minor. Discussion The tree is a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) of 22-inch diameter, 20-foot height., and 35 foot spread. Its health is excellem and with a good structure. Its value is $6,104. I suggest a bond of 20% ($1,221) to assure installation and consistent maintenance of the fence no closer than 16 feet from the tree trunk on the east side and 10 feet beyond the canopy on other sides. BDC/sl Respec 11 sul~mitt , Bariie D. Coate Enclosures: Tree Data Chart Map Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate November 8, 1999 ~3ZIgLL~3d (g- ~) 3SV-~$10 ~Y99OO .1OOB (g-I,) OOOM (g- L) B/O~NI (g-~) A. LI~OI~d ~NIN~d # o3033N iH~I~M-ON3 3AOI/;13B ~)NISIYB NMO~IO ONINNIH/NMO~O ONIN~90 NMOBO (8-~) ~NI/~r~ aB4r'~H (0 ~-~) ONI/¥~ NOI/IONOO HBO HBO HBO w EOGRID EINr-.ORCED J'/-rR ESS X BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES (4~) 3S~IOS2 23S35 S~lmil l~tl HOKTICUL/URAL CONSULTANT CONSULTING ARBOK/ST Liu Residence 14805 Masson Court Saratoga Job # 11-97-377-99 DATE: November 8, 1999 50% PROGRESS PRINT 50% REDUCTION HNICAL ~ ~ ~ ~ c.J.~m. ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 2 REPORT 'FO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: DR-97~061; 14805 Masson Court LIU Heather Bradley, Associate Planner October 13, 1999 503-72-014 Department Head: North MOUNTAIN WINERY 14805 Masson Court 000001. File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court C~E I-II~TORV Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: EXF~CIIT1VF~ SUMMARy 11/13/97 09/03/99 09/29/99 09/30/99 09/23/99 PROJECT DEgCRIPTION Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 square foot two-story residence On a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The site is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district, STAFF RECOMMENI}ATION Open the public hearing to discuss item DR-97-061 then continue the public hearing indefinitely with the direction that the applicant revise the site plan to eliminate the secondary driveway, perform condition 8 of the Draft Resolution requiring the Project Geotechnical Engineer to prepare a Landslide Mitigation Plan and have this plan reviewed by the City Arborist who shall provide comments relating to tree preservation. ATT A CI-IM~NTg 1. Staff AnalYsis 2. Draft Resolution DR-97-061 3. Arborist report dated December 17, 1997 4. Site Geologic Map (Plate 4 prepared by Frank Lee and Associates) 5. Conceptual Slope Mitigation (Figure C 1 prepared by Milstone Geotechnical) 6. Plans, Exhibit "A" 00000 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court ~TAI~ ANAI~y~qT~q ZONING: HR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Hillside Residential MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 2.75 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 19% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 6% GRADING REQUIRED: Landslide Repair Cut: 300 Cu. Yds. Max. Depth: 25 Ft. Fill: 470 Cu. Yds. Max Depth: 30 Ft. House Construction Cut: 130 Cu. Yds. Fill: 55 Cu. Yds. Max Depth: 1 Ft. Max Depth: 5 Ft. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Stained wood exterior with limestone and metal details. A copper roof is also proposed, but an asphalt shingle has been submitted as an alternative if the Commission feels it is more appropriate. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE LOT COVERAGE: HEIGHT: 12.5% (14,914 sq. fi.) 26 fi. 25% (or 15,000 sq. ft.) 26 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: SETBACKS: First floor: 3,741 sq. ft. Garage: 651 sq. ft. Second Floor: 2,108 sq. ft. TOTAL: 6,500 sq. ft. Front: 320 ft. Rear: 345 ft. Right Side: 30 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: 6,620 sq. ft. 30ft. 50ft. 20 20 ft. 000003 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court PROJECT DISCUSSION Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 square foot two-story reSidence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The site is located in a Hillside Residential zoning districL Background This application has been under review by the Planning Division for quite some time. The primary reason for the delay is that the project was slow in getting a geologic clearance due to the large landslide on the property and the amount of time it took the applicant to prepare the appropriate rep°rts. DESIGN REVIEW The residence is designed in a unique contemporary architectural style with wood, stone and metal details. Although it is quite different than homes in this area, it is comparable in terms of siZe and mass. The use of natural materials-such as wood siding with a dark stain rather than paint, limestone and metal details, does also help the structure to blend with the natural setting. The applicant is proposing a copper roof which they feel is integral to the design, however they have proposed an asphalt shingle alternative. While the Planning Commission has been concemed with the mineral runoff from the use of copper gutters, roofing, et cetera¢ it is accepted knowledge that if the roofs and gutters are drained properly into landscaped areas the minerals are quickly absorbed into the soil and do end up in the storm water runoff. Both altematives are shown on the colors and materials board. Grading The majority of required grading on site is to repair an existing landslide. This will reportedly require 300 cubic yards of cut, 470 cubic yards of fill, with maximum cut depths of 25 feet and fill depths of 30 feet. The pad for the residence involves 130 cubic yards of cut and 55 cubic yards of fill, with maximum cut depths of 1 foot and fill depths of 5 feet. This total amount of 985 cubic yards is under the 1,000 cubic yards guideline recommended for properties in the hillsides. Trees/Landscaping There are twelve gees on the subject property, but only one which is near construction. This is a Coast Live Oak in excellent condition and will be maintained. The applicant has modified a proposed driveway around the tree per the Arborist's original recommendation, however staff is concerned about the impacts to this tree given the nature of landslide repair which the City Arbofist has not had the oppommity to review. Staffis further recommending the removal of this secondary driveway and parking area for aesthetic reasons so the impact to this tree should be further minimized. Staff has recommended continuing this application to give the City Arborist the 000004 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court oppommity to review the proposal in light of the required landslide repair. Geotechnical Review This site straddles an east-west trending ridgeline with steep north facing slopes and gentle south facing slopes. The ridge top at the center of the property has been mOdified in the past (most likely during subdivision improvement construction) to create a level building pad. Sometime prior to 1997 the upper portion of the northern slope failed and resulted in the landslide visible below the building pad. Because the grading plan does not comprehensively reflect the nature of the landslide, staff has included two exhibits from the geologic and geotechnical investigations for further reference on the landslide. Based on the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project and geologic and geotechnical reports, the Public Works Director has granted the proposal a Geologic and Geotechnical Clearance. The City Consultant's recommendations have been incorporated as conditions of approval within the attached Draft Resolution. Conclusion The proposed residence is a very unique design, but staff has concluded that it does to conform to each of the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and does satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. The project meets all zoning requirements in terms of allowable floor area, minimum setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. With a change to the site plan eliminating the secondary driveway staff would be in support of approving the plan. RECO1VIME~ATION Open the public hearing to discuss item DR-97-061 then continue the public hearing indefinitely with the direction that the applicant revise the site plan to eliminate the secondary driveway, perform condition 8 of the Dm~ Resolution requiring the Project Geotechnical Engineer to prepare a Landslide Mitigation Plan and have this plan reviewed by the City Arborist who shall provide comments relating to tree preservation. 00OOO5 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. DRo97-061 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Liu: 14805 Masson Court WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval .to .construct a new 6,500 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties Were given a full oppommity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: -The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed residence meets or. exceeds minimum setback requirements and is located along a similar topographic line or lower than other residences in the neighborhood. -The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas, in that no ordinance protected trees will be removed, the site is virtually void of and natural landscape and the amount of grading is limited to the amount necessary to accommodate the structure and landslide repair. -The proposed residence 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 natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements that minimize the perception 'of bulk and integrate the residence into the natural environment. -The residence 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 (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy, in that the height, ~ass and bulk of the residence is comparable to surrounding residences in the neighborhood. -The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. 000006 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court -The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. 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 of Liu for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: ao Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. Four (4) set of engineered grading and drainage plans reflecting the City Arborist's recommendations, also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. Co The plans shall indicate that there will be no more than one wood burning fireplace in the main residence and the wood burning fireplace shall be equipped with a gas starter. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds five feet. In addition, no fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required fxont yard shall exceed three feet in height. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated December 17, 1997 shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: ao Pffor to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and grading plans shall be revised to indicate the following: The Arborist Report shall be attached, as a separate plan page, to the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plan. File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shown at as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. All fill soil on the east side must be removed to the original grade' by hand in any area within 15 feet of the trunk. No trenches or excavations even for utilities (gas, cable, phone, etc.) shall be installed within 25 feet of the trunk of the tree. The drainage system for the house shall be directed a minimum of 40 feet from the other trees on this site. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form' acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in an amount of $4,943 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits: Tree protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by staff. The City Arborist shall schedule unannounced visits to the property to verify that all tree mitigation measures are being complied with. c. Prior to Final Occupancy approval: All recommended tree cabling and endweight removal shall be completed by an ISA certified arborist. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arbofist and approval by the Community Development Director the bond shall be released. Any future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath the canopy of an ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with the "Planting Under Old Oaks" guidelines prepared by the City Arborist. No irrigation or associated trenching shall encroach into the driplines of any existing oak trees unless approved by the City Arborist. OOOOOS File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court 10. The Project Geoteclmical Engineer, with input fi.om the Project Engineering Geologist, shall prepare a Landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections (1"= 20') to depict the extent of proposed grading, landslide to be removed, subdrains, Property lines and proposed -' improvements. The plan should include repair specificatiOns, notes and details pertaining to earthwork, drainage and geogrid placement. The cross section should depict existing and proposed surface topography and excavation depths. One section should extend fi'om the building pad downslope along the axis of the active landslide, including and showing the lower landslide repair area (per Temtech drawings). A second section should be oriented roughly east-west across the landslide and portray Masson Court, proposed driveway, active landslide to be removed, and landslide on the adjacent property to the east. The mitigation plan should specify the appropriate geogrid slope gradient. Typically, geogrid should be designed to stand at its angle of installation (i.e., 1.5:lV), if not wrapped. The landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections shall be submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., landslide mitigation, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that the consultants' recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Project Geotechnical Engineer should consider recommending crashed rock, which has more void space than Class 2 aggregate base, for the capillary break material. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized in letters by the geologic and geotechnical consultants and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. These inspection should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for keyways,' foundations (including pier holes for structures and shear pin wall) and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall prepare a geologic map of the landslide excavation and confirm that landslide material has been removed. Information fi.om the excavatioll and pier holes shall be used to revise and update the engineering geologic map and cross sections. An engineering geologic map and cross sections of final, as-built conditions shall be prepared to depict the depth and extent of grading activities, and geologic conditions (including removed landslide mass). The results of these inspections' and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described 000009 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. in letters, and as-built geologic map and cross sections, and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to fi alizafion of the grading pemait. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. The owner (applicant shall enter into an agreement holding the City of Saratoga rharmless form any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil of slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16-60 City of Saratoga. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed throughout the residence and garage. All driveways shall have a minimum 14 foot width plus 1 foot shoulders. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless ~om all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the 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. 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. entities Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental must be m%t. 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 bom the date of adoption. O00010 File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning California, this (date) day of(month), (year) by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commission, State of Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission O0001.'l BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408--353-1052 Fax 408--354-3767 ~535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 DEO ~ 0 1997 AN EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE LIU PROPERTY 14805 MASSON COURT SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Carol Deming City of Saratoga 13777 Frui~vale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench December 17, 1997 Jobgl 1-97-377 000012 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408--353-1052 Fax 408--354-3767 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 AN EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE LIU PROPERTY 4S05 MASSON COURT SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Carol Deming, Assistant Planner, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to builc~ a new residence on a vacant lot in the context of potential damage to adjacent tees.-This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be minimized. The plan reviewed for this report is the Site Plan prepared by Amphibian ARC Design Studio, Los Angeles, sheets Al-A7, dated November 13, 1997. Summary Of the twelve trees on site, only one would be affected by construction. Mitigation is suggested for its preservation. This tree's value is $9,885. A 50% bond of $4,943 is suggested for protection. This tree should be preserved at all costs. Observations There are twelve trees on this site, but it appears that only one tree would be affected by construction. The attached map shows the tree's location and its canopy dimensions. The data sheets following this text provides a health and structure rating. The subject tree is a 24-inch diameter coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). This species is native to this ~'ea. The height is about 30 feet and the spread is approximately 45 feet. The health is excellent and the structure is very good but could be improved by pruning. The 14-inch diameter branch facing the south is horizontally inclined and is at least moderately prone to breakage as it matures. However, this risk can be virtually eliminated by proper pruning for endweight removal. Not all arborists understand this 000013 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench. A.,borist December 17, 1997 AN EVALUATION OF TREEb AT THE LIU PROPERTY 14805 MASSON COURT SARATOGA procedure. If pruning is desired, I suggest that the work be done by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture). However, this suggestion has nothing to do with proposed construction and should not be a requirement. There is a section of fill soil approximately 24 inches in depth on the east side and 10 feet from of the trunk at the edge of the canopy. It will be essential to remove this fill soil without allowing the soil to slip down the slope to cover the root collar. If this were to occur, the tree would then become highly susceptible to a fungus infection, which in time could kill it. This coast live oak tree would suffer severe root damage by grading and construction of the proposed 18' wide driveway. The proposal indicates a 1- to 2-foot clearance between ... the edge of the driveway and the tree's trunk. If the tree is t° survive, that driveway location must be changed. Recommendations If the subject tree is to survive driveway construction it will be essential to move the driveway and to mitigate remaining damage by the following actions: I suggest the driveway be relocated to the east so as to provide for a minimum clearance of 15 linear feet between the edge of the driveway and the east of the tree's trunk. To achieve even this the east side of the canopy must be pruned, and in any case no more than one-third of the entire canopy must be removed in a single growing season. The pruning of the south-facing horizontally inclined branch must be included in this pruning. It does not appear that the driveway could be located closer due to this pruning limitation. The fill soil on the east side must be removed to the original grade by hand in any area within 15 feet of the trunk. A temporary protective chainlink fence must be installed. The fence must be a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence must be located a minimum of 1 foot outside the edge of the canopy on the north and south sides, at the curb of Masson Court on the west side, and 2 feet from the new driveway. The fence must be in place prior 000014 l~par~d by: Michael L. Bench, Arbotist December 17, 1997 AN EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE LIU PROPERTY 14805 MASSON COURT SARATOGA to the arrival of materials or equipment and must remain in place until the completion of construction. 4. There must not be any other trenches or excavations even for utilities (,gas. cable, phone, etc.) within 25 feet of the trunk of this tree. I suggest the discharge for the drainage system for the house be directed a - minimum of 40 feet from the other trees (10 of which are coast live oak) on site. I re. commend a site inspection by our office after the fence has been installed but before any equipment arrives on site. I recommend an additional inspection during construction to assure compliance with the preservation procedures. Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, Associate Barrie D. Coate, Principal MLB:j.d Enclosures: Charts Maps 000015 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Arborist December 17. 1997 .~/ ! /I I Z / 1050 ATTATCHMENT 6 .... ITEM 2 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE · SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 · (408) 868-1200 · lncorP0razed October 22, 1956 MEMORANDUM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogos/an John Mehaffey Nic~( Streit Ann Waltonsmith TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commi~, James Walgr~0~unity Development December 8,1999 DR-97-061; Liu, 14805 Masson Court Director DESCRIPTION Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. BACKGROUND This apphcation was originally scheduled and heard at the October 13,1999 Planning Commission meeting. The application was not yet complete at that c/me and still required further detailed geologic investigations. However, given the unique nature of the architecture developed for this project, staff did want to present the plans to the Planning Commission earlier in the process than normal to save the applicants time and expense if the plans were deemed too "contemporary", and therefore incompatible, with the surrounding natural and built environment. The proposed residence incorporates wood, stone and metal details. Although its architectural style ~s quite different than the existing, more traditional, homes in this area, it is comparable in terms of s~ze and mass. The use of natural materials such as wood siclmg with a dark stain rather than paint, limestone and metal details, does also help the structure to blend with the natural setting. At the October 13 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal, took public testimony and then moved 4-1 (Kurasch opposed, Jackman absent) to support the application, but with changes to the plans as outlined in the staff report and discussed at the meeting. Both the original staff report and meeting minutes are attached for reference. In response to these recommended changes, the applicant has made the modifications outlined on the following page. Printed on recycle~ paper. 000001 Zi'u, 14805Masson Court Page Two · Reducing the total lot coverage area from 14,914 sq. ft. to 13,805 sq. ft. · Reconfigurmg and reducing the entrance driveway area. · Revising the grading plan to indicate the area of landslide repair. · Completing thelandscape plan. · Including fencing around the proposed pool. · Researcking the effect of copper roof materials on the environment. RECOMMENDATION Though the proposed architecture is truly unique, staff has concluded that it does conform to each of the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and does satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. The project further meets all zoning requirements m terms of allowable floor area, mimmum setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. With the changes to the site plan reducing the amount of driveway surface, staff supports the proposal and recommends approving the Design Review application by adopting Resolution DR-97-061. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution DR-97-061 2. Excerpted Planning Commission minutes from October 13,1999 3. Staff Report dated October 13,1999 (without attachments) 4. Plans, Exhibit ~A' 5. Revised Site and Grading Plans, Exhibit ~B' 6. Supplemental copper material information 00000 ATTATCHMENT 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 2 of 18 Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 8, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren announced two technical corrections to the packet as follows: Item #2, page 4, paragraph 5, line 4, amended to read: "This total amount of 995 cubic yards is under the ..... " - Item g4, page 3, last line amended to read, "The landscaping will consist of native California flannel bush to entirelv surround the enclosure. The pla~ts will be irrigated for approximately one ,year or until establiahed." CONSENT CALENDAR SD-98-009 & DR-98-070 (397'27-031) - NAVICO, INC., 14230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; Request for Tentative Map and Design Review approval for the subdivision of a 24,391 square foot parcel into six parcels ranging in size from 2,300 to 3,370 square feet. The remaining T451 square feet will be common area. Six townhomes ranging in size fi-om approximately 2,700 to 2,900 square feet will be constructed on the new lots. The site is located within an R-M-3,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED INDEFINITELY AT TIlE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. A NEW I:[EARING DATE WILL BE ADVERTISED). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-97-061 (503-72-014) - LIU, 14805 Masson Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the proposal is for design Consideration to a 6,500 square foot contemporary design home within the Saratoga Heights subdivision. The parcel is 2.75 acres and is constrained on the downslope and base of the property by several landslides. He said the application had be~n submitted sometime ago but has been delayed because of the length of time it took to get geological clearance on the property. He said the City geologist has granted a preliminary geotechnical clearance, noting that the landslides have been generally identified, and they will need to be repaired before a house can be built on the property. He conveyed that the application is sufficient to present to the Planning Commission for approval; however, because there are still details on the landslides to be identified, including the relationship to adjacent properties and the large oak tree on the property, staff is not prepared to recommend approval at this time. 000009 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 3 of 18 Director Walgren stated that this is one of the last homes in the development, noting that the other homes have been designed in more traditional or rural or English tudor styles. He said this home is a very contemporary and modem design. He expressed that the application is before the Commission tonight for an early read for the applicant's benefit before they continue through the geological investigation processl He said the'findings are that the home is consistent and comPatible in design, height, size, massing and materials with the natural environment. He noted that although the wood,-limestone, and .copper roofing should blend in very well with the hillside areas, it is difficult to say that it is compatible with the existing homes in the area. He added that the proposal meets all minimum zoning standards regarding allowable building area, lot coverage, setbacks, and height, and conforms with the original subdivision tentative map, site development and conditions of approval. Commissioner Roupe asked Director Walgren for a briefing on the issue regarding the secondary driveway and parking area. Director Walgren responded that iSsues raised in the staff report included the roofing material. He said the applicants are proposing a copper roofing and that concerns have been raised in the past about mineral leaching of copper materials. He said that issue could be mitigated through proper i'oof drains in the landscape areas where it can be absorbed into the soil very quickly. He stated that the applicants are willing to consider a composition roof if the copper roof is not acceptable to the Commission. He conveyed that the original design is a Yery large, expansive front guest parking area which almost matches the footprint of the home in addition to the two driveways - one accessing the area; the other accessing the garage to the building. He said that the applicants were aware that the City could not support the expansive hard surface on the property, and the plans presented before the Commission tonight show it in a reduced configuration. He said it is a significant improvement over the original proposal. Commissioner Patrick noted a typographical error in the design review portion of the report and confirmed that the term "and do end up in storm water runoff" should say, "and do not end up in storm water runoff..." Commissioner Page referred to the fact that it had been almost two years since the arborist had reviewed the project, and asked whether, depending on what happens with the second driveway, it would be appropriate to have an analysis of the tree below the tree that would be impacted. Director Walgren responded in the affirmative, noting that one of the recommendations to define this landslide would also give the arborist a second chance for a final look. Chairwoman Bemald opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Non Cho Wang, 1918 North Main Street, Suite 201, Los Angeles, CA, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the property owner. Using a model of the project as a visual aid,, he described the project. He sai~l much attention had been given to the design guidelines of the Planning Department. He said the intent is to build a building compatible with the surroundings, neighbors, and work with the landscape. He said that to comply with staffs concern about having too much paved driveway, the driveway was reduced and is now under the maximum allowable 15 percent of the lot size. He said his client had certain ideas about how to use the lot which is a very long shape, and that it has close to 900 feet from one point to the other, and the other direction is very short. He said given the shape, two driveways seemed to make more sense because the overall lot can be utilized more efficiently. However, 000010 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 4 of 18 he said he understood the intention of minimizing the driveway because of the water runoff, and that he is contemplating using a material that is semi-permeable to reduce the water runoff during the rain. Mr. Wang referred to the environmental concern associated with the copper roof, and quoted from' research done by the International Copper Institute on the environmental impact of copper on the ground soil and groundwater, which, in his opinion, was positive. He opined that.the way to use copper as a roof material is to treat it with proper drainage so when it drains to the soil it will not have high concentration and become toxic. Commissioner Patrick stated she did not see a drainage plan to show that water is not running off the roof into pipes and down into drains somewhere, and asked where the water from the roof was going. Mr. Wang responded that he would have to study the issue further to understand what is the proper way to drain, and explained that according to the report he quoted from earlier, 95 percent of the copper being washed off the roof is not biodegradable and the other 5 percent is diluted when it gets to the ground. He said by the time the 5 percent gets to the ground it has already reacted to organic material in the environment and is not toxic anymore. Commissioner Patrick noted she had information to the contrary. She said the only way to prevent damage to the environment is by puttinl~ it in the ground and not in the water runoff which can end up in the Bay. Commissioner Patrick referred to the driveway and asked whether it would be aesthetically possible to combine the two driveways such for a turnaround off of the driveway that comes in to the garage, which would serve the purpose of having parking for visitors and eliminating the pavement area. Mr. Wang replied that he would be willing to consider the suggestion. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern that it appeared that the flat or semi-flat area is virtually covered and the rest of the sloping area is uncovered. Commissioner Page noticed that much of the structure has a significant amount of metallic element and asked whether the side with aluminum or metal poles were just design elements, for looks, or for support. Mr. Wang responded that the poles act as design elements as well as structural elements. He said the roof overhang provides much energy conservation which needs more structure to support it. He stated that the south side which Commissioner Page was referring to is the back yard which will used for parties and children's play. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page, Mr. Wang confirmed that the south side is the side seen from the valley on the other hills. Commissioner Page asked whether the applicant had any objection to making the poles wood as most of the house is wood. Mr. Wang said he considered using different material;.however, the material would be painted so that it would not look like metallic, and when it is painted, one would not be able to tell whether it was wood or metal underneath. .. 000011 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 5 of 18 In response to questions from Commissioner Kurasch, Mr. Wang reviewed the materials, describing the detailed materials he plans to use. Commissioner Roupe commended the applicants for a creative and interesting design. He said he did not see a compelling reason that the design had to be compatible with the more contemporary houses, noting that some of then were not so contemporary. He urged the applicants to take seriously the matter regarding the copper roof, and indicated that the Copper Institute report could be biased. He conveyed that with some issues being addressed, he could support the project. Referring to the amount of hard pavement, Mr. Wang indicated he would be willing to work out a solution good for the environment and to the City's satisfaction. Commissioner Roupe urged Mr. Wang to work closely with staff. Ms. Cheriel Jensen, a resident of Quito Road, Saratoga, expressed that this was an unattractive building and did not belong on the hillside. Mr. Wang reSponded that architecture is an expression of the owner's interest and personality. He said the issues raised by the Commission were of great importance and he would do his best to address them. He indicated he would continue to work ;arith staff. Chairwoman Bemald indicated she did not agree with Ms. Jensen. She said there was an eclectic mix in the hillside, and this project would be an appropriate building. She expressed concerns with the privacy on the east side, and suggested the applicant work with the neighbors, and work with staff to cut back the driveway. She commented she would like to see more research on the copper issue. Mr. Wang responded to Commissioner Kurasch's questions regarding the driveways and the materials proposed for the project. Commissioner Page, responding to Chairwoman Bernald, stated he could support the project with the proposed modifications. Commissioner Patrick indicated she wanted to support the project. She said if she could see evidence that the copper would be no problem, she would have no concerns. She conveyed that two driveways is one too many, and that the drainage is a problem because of the copper roof. She commented that it was a fabulous design. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the design, specifically the poles having different angies and with too many blank walls. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A LATER DATE. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMA.N ABSENT). Upon comments from Director Walgren regarding tonight's discussion, a new motion was made. coMMIssIONERS ROUPE/PAGE MOVED TO TENTATIVELY APPROVE THE DESIGN AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF THE COPPER ROOF, FENCING, DRIVEWAY, AND GEOTECHNICAL MATTERS. · ' 000012 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 6 of 18 Responding to a question fi.om Chairwoman Bernald, Director Walgren clarified that the Commission was not bound by any decision until it makes a final decision. He said staff would continue to work with the applicant to address any of the east elevation concerns raised. City Attorney Wittwer opined that a subsequent hearing would not be limited only to the issues raised tonight. FOLLOWING DISCUSSION, THE MOTION PASSED 4-1 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). 3. UP-99-014 (397-10-009) - CELLULAR ONE, Utility pole in the State-owned right-of-way at the northeast corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9; Request for Use Permit approval to install two panel antennas on an existing utility pole at a height of 30 feet. An associated equipment cabinet located at the base of the pole is part of the proposal. The right-of-way is within an R-I-40,000 zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the proposal is for two panel antennas to be located on a less-than-50 feet high PG&E utility pole at approximately 26 feet in height. He reported that the City uses a very comprehensive approach to reviewing antenna applications, noting that antenna proposals can be made throughout the city and that, in the past, the City had ordinances which restricted antennas to particular zoning districts. He reported the City adopted the current ordinance with the provision that all antennas require a conditional use permit. He conveyed that any antenna proposal regardless of its location has to be presented to the Planning Commission for review based on the applicable findings. He said that in many jurisdictions if an antenna is being put on an existing utility pole, they are considered utilities and neighbors are not notified and hearings are not held. He said the City requires conditional use permits; applications are advertised in local newspapers; and mailing notices are sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility. He conveyed that Congress adopted the Federal Telecommunications Act (FI'A) in 1996 which established federal parameters for emissions that were determined to be not dangerous for humans. The FTA further ruled that if the radio frequency emissions were within the parameters of the standards established by Congress, local jurisdictions were not to deny them strictly on the basis of perceived health effects. Thus, he went on to say, the City is restricted in what can be taken into consideration. He noted, however, that the City requires radio engineers to prepare technical reports to evaluate the radio fi-equency emissions, both at the worst case scenario (base of the instrument and where a pedestrian may come in contact with the antenna) and broader case scenario (what the area radio frequency emissions may be.) He said the report prepared for this proposal shows that this facility is well under the federal guidelines for impacts to human health, resulting in a negative environmental impact in the initial studies. He said another issue associated with this proposal is aesthetics, noting that the pole is within the public right-of-way, in the center of several mature native trees, and the antenna would be located in the middle of the pole, intended to match the pole. He said tha~ staff found it to be an aesthetically appropriate location for a transmission and primarily on the basis of those findings, staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Walgren how the General Plan impact on property values would relate to the application. Director Walgren responded that the purpose of the land use element in the General Plan, the circulation, conservation, and open space, elements is basically to preserve and protect Saratoga's uniqueness, O0001.3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 2 attend to present their plan modifications. Commissioner Patrick noted that the applicants were 'in the audience and perhaps the item- could be heard as scheduled in the agenda. Additionally, Director Walgren distributed an eXhibit of the landslide repair detail on Item #2 which did not go out with the agenda packet. The exhibit was designated Exhibit C of the file record. CONSENT CALENDAR AZO-99-001 (Citywide) - CITY OF SARATOGA; The Planning Commission will consider changes to the City's zoning ordinance regarding hillside fencing regulations and administrative appeals. Under consideration will be: 1) amendments to the Hillside Residential zoning district fencing regulations, and 2) amendments to the administrative appeals process. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. (CONTINUED TO 1/12/2000). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS e DR-97-061 (503-72-014) - LIU, 14805 Masson Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,461 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 11/10/1999).. Director Walgren reported that this is a continued hearing from the October 13, 1999 Commission meeting, noting the proposal is for a contemporary, new, two-story family home at 6500 S~lUare feet on a 2.75 acre parcel located within the Saratoga Heights subdivision and within a hillside residential zoning district. He said this is the last lot of the approximately 60-lot subdivision that was approved in the early 1980's. He described the property as being at the end of Masson Court, a private cul-de-sac minimum access road which is developed with two or three relatively new single-family homes. He said the architectural style in the area is ah eclectic mix of newer French chateau, Mediterranean villas style, and traditional wood-sided gable roof buildings. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 3 Director Walgren added that the Liu application is unique in its design which he described as a very organic, free-flowing, modern building. The building uses natural materials such as stone and wood. He said the plan proposes a copper roof which was a topic of the October-13 Commission discussion. He said the materials should integrate the building well into the hillside terrain; however, he opined that the issue of integrating and compatibility with the existing single-family homes is a difficult decision to make. He stated that a significant landslide exists on the property; that the project had been under geological review for sometime to pinpoint the landslide and to determine what needed to be done to correct it. He said the landslide repair to stabilize the site does not require any significant native vegetation removal. However, he noted concern had been expressed that a particular Coast Live Oak tree be retained, and upon further geotechnical investigation, it was confirmed that the tree would be retained. Director Walgren reported that staff had previously told the applicant that staff would take the design review application to the Commission for a preliminary consensus regarding Commission support before the applicant continued to spend time and money in obtaining the necessary geological clearance. The item was heard at the October 13 meeting, and concerns were raised regarding the amount of impervious surface proposed. He said at that time, discussion focused on architecture, landslide repair, and copper roofing and the environmental effect of copper draining into the soil and potentially the storm drain system. Commissioner Barry had not been appointed Commissioner at that time, and the 4- 1 vote of the six-member Commission (Commissioner Jackman was absent) resulted in a conSensus that the architecture could be supported. The applicant then proceeded to finish the plans. The plan was revised to slightly reduce the lot coverage by eliminating the driveway which previously extended parallel to Masson Court and modifying it to a direct connection perpendicular to the cul-de-sac. He said the pool has been reconfigured to reduce its paved area; the grading plan has been revised to outline the landslide; the landscape plan has been completed as requested; and the area of fencing is under the 4,000 square feet permitted in the hillside districts. Director Walgren reported that the applicant has provided the research materials on copper roofing, noting that the report concluded that copper components that get into the public storm water system become bioavailable and diluted. (For an explanation, he referred to the report on file). He said that the report stated that for this type of application, it is found that there is no environmental concern with the proposed material. He said this finding is consistent with the findings presented to the Planning Commission several years ago by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Board. He said that the applicant has noted that should copper roofing material be unacceptable to the Commission, an alternative asphalt shingle roofing could be used. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 4 Director Walgren read into the record three letters received from the public regarding the project since distribution of the agenda packet. A letter from Robert and Mabel Sze, 14780 Masson Court, noted concerns about the location of the building and its proximity to their home. Correspondence from Joseph C. H. Park, 14800 Masson Court, expressed concern with the siting of the home, its height, and the copper roofing'. Jon and Kathy Kwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, expressed concerns with softs support and compatibility. Director Walgren responded to Chairwoman Bernald's questions regarding the project meeting the required setbacks and consistent standards for all homes in the area. Commissioner Barry noted that the letter frOm the neighbors at 14805 Masson Court states that all existing homes on Masson Court are one-story or were required bv the Commission to make the front part of the house one-story to minimize massiveness and that all houses have setback of 30-45 feet. Director Walgren stated that not all homes are one-story; that they are all two-story buildings. He said 30 feet is the minimum front yard setback requirement. Commissioner Barry asked whether staff had done any checking beyond the industry- funded copper runoff study that was presented to the Commission. Director Walgren responded that this was done on the applicant's initiative, and staff had not done any additional research. Commissioner Barry commented that she had more current information on this subject. Commissioner Barry expressed concern that Commissioners did not have a chance to review the grading specification. Director Walgren said that the City Geologist made it clear that it would be necessary to make this a stable building site. He said the only concern was the exact location of the landslide. Staff felt that the landslide was large enough, and close enough to a native tree, that it requested a more accurate definition before the project went through the design review process. He noted that the City Geologist reviews the document and it was provided as a very clear graphic depiction of where the landslide is exactly located. The location was on the original Exhibit A, and it has now been more clearly defined. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the information presented tonight was substantially different than what the Commission was led to believe in earlier submittals. Director Walgren responded that it Was not expected to be different, and the concern was that it is a significantly large area of repair. He said from a construction standpoint, it PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 5 would not be unusual for it to grow 10-20 feet in one direction or another. Considering there was a significant tree in the area, it was necessary to have a clear depiction. He further noted that the landslide encroaches onto the Kwong property., and if the landslide is to be repaired, it would require the Kwongs' cooperation and consent. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether Commissioners had been previously made aware of any reference to actual size, and Director Walgren responded that the landslide was plotted on the original plans and the exhibit presented tonight is very similar to the original plan. Additionally, supplemental geologic information was submitted with the original report. Commissioner Jackman stated she felt at a disadvantage being handed Exhibit C tonight. She said she was absent at the October 13 meeting; has read and reviewed the October 13 minutes; and made recent site visits, individually and as a group. She expressed concern with the landslide and noticed an area in back of the Kwong property that has also slid. She said she does not feel comfortable making a decision on this tonight and she would want to go back and look at the area. Director Walgren reiterated that the geologic review process on the project did not occur recently. He said the application was submitted in November 1997, and has been in geologic review since. The landslide information was defined earlier and acknowledged. However, the process is that once the area is defined as a landslide needing repair, the exact location of the landslide is deferred until the applicant applies for the building permits. He noted Exhibit C is only a graphic depiction, and that the information has already been presented to the Commission. · Commissioner Page said this is not something the Commissioners would normally See because it is part of the process conducted by staff before the building permits are issued. Director Walgren said that when landslide repair is involved, the applicant is required to submit a preliminary identification of the area to determine how many trees would be removed or whether the building can be shifted to another location that does not require landslide repair. He reiterated that the landslide was depicted on the plans reviewed at the October 13 meeting, and staff asked the applicant to go back and verify the extent of the landslide, which is what was presented tonight. Chairwoman Bernald noted that of four new Commissioners, three have expressed concern with addressing,the issue at hand. She asked since the Commissioners are new whether additional time is needed for their consideration. Commissioner Jackman said she did not want to delay the hearing again and asked if this is what the Planning Department routinely does in the geological preparation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 6 Director Walgren responded that the information submitted at the October 13 meeting is standard process. He said the Geologist had granted a preliminary geotechnical clearance at that stage based on the several extensive studies that had been done; however, staff felt that the applicant needed to go to the next stage, particularly because of the large oak tree, for a clear understanding that the landslide could be repaired without impacting the tree. Commissioner Barry stated she was prepared to go forward in discussing the project. However, she noted for the record that there is an issue to contend with regarding late- arriving information which cannot be made part of her deliberation if she has not had time to review it. She said her issue is not because she is new but an issue of the timing of the information. Commissioner Jackman stated she was ready to go ahead with discussion. Commissioner Kurasch stated she was mainly concerned with the size of the repair area and how it would impact the neighbor. Chairwoman Bernald shared her earlier experience as a Commissioner and said that when reviewing her agenda packet it is a tight timeframe in which to digest all the information, but Commissioners with questions do have three days to contact staff for answers. She would like to reiterate that when Commissioners have questions on issues as complicated as this, it would be most helpful if Commissioners contacted staff and had their questions answered. She said staff does a tremendous job in presenting information to the Commissioners in a timely manner, and that they have certain things which are out of their control and certain things that they present to the Commissioners just for their further edification and not necessarily for their means in making a decision. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:07 p.m. Mr. Non Chi Wang, 1918 North Main Street, Suite 201, Los Angeles, California, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicants. He described the revisions made to the plan based on comments made at the October 13 Commission meeting. They include: reducing the lot coverage from 14,914 square feet to 13,805 square feet by changing the driveway configuration to minimize the hard pavement area. He said the grading plan was revised to clearly indicate the area of landslide and completed the landscape drawing to indicate the vegetation to'provide privacy for the neighbors. He stated that the plan now includes a fence around the pool as required by Code. Describing his efforts in researching the copper roof issue, he explained that he spoke to a geotechnical engineer to understand the possibility of installing a drainage system on the property, and in the engineer's opinion, that solution would not be good for the property because of the landslide problem. He said putting more water into the soil would create a greater burden as runoff from the copper roof would be led through the hard pavement into the storm drain and lead to the bay. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 7 noted that was the only method to address the issue, and now has to rely on the research he did to provide a solution. He asked if that.would be acceptable to the Commission. Mr. Wang said that after the October 13 Commission meeting, he met with the neighbors. He said concerns expressed in the Park letter were raised since he met with Mr. Park, and that the issue would be discussed with him later on. He said he spoke to Mr. Kwong about privacy issues. He said because of the long and narrow size of the lot, it is necessarv to push the limit of the setback..He tried to mitigate the problem by architectural means to address the privacy issue. He addressed Mr. Kwong's other concern regarding the soils on the Kwong property, explaining how the soil would be protected. Commissioner Barry noted that although she was not a member of the Commission at the October 13 meeting, she was in the audience, heard the presentation, and took notes. Chairwoman Bernald referred to the privacy issue and asked Mr. Wang to describe and explain the project on the model which was passed to Commissioners for their review. Commissioner Page asked whether raising the soil level would be part of the landslide repair and whether additional fill would be required. Mr. Wang responded that fixing the slide takes quite a bit of excavation. The grade cannot be altered and would have to match the Kwong property grade. Mrl Wang responded to questions from Commissioner Kurasch regarding using semi- permeable material to reduce water runoff. Commissioner Jackman inquired about the percentage of permeable coverage, and Mr. Wang said that it could probably go up to 30 percent but it would depend on the type of material used. Commissioner Roupe asked whether plans were to use iron pipe for the drainage from the copper roof. Mr. Wang said he read the report and understood iron piping is significant material to absorb copper ions; therefore, he would use cast iron as a drainage pipe to absorb copper. Mr. Wang confirmed Commissioner Roupe's comment that instead of draining the roof to the concrete surface, the applicant would be willing to use an iron pipe going to the storm sewer system. Responding to a question from C6rnmissioner Roupe, Director Walgren recalled that previous discussion required the roof drains go into pervious landscape areas and not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 8 directly into the storm drain system. Commissioner Roupe understood from the Geologist report that the drainage should not go into the soils, but should drain across the concrete into the storm sewer system directly. He reiterated that he was still concerned with the report, frOm the Copper Institute regarding this issue, and he would suggest that Perhaps more study could be made on this point. He said he was hesitant to render a decision regarding this issue until he could see additional data or see how the applicant proposes to address the issue to conform the site to the report. Commissioner Barry cited the following from a flyer published by the Regional Qualit3, Control Plant operated by the City of Palo Alto: "Copper in our roofs is copper in our bay and that's a problem for mussels and other Organisms, and the ~recommendation is to builders and architects to use alternatives to copper roofing and gutters and to advise your clients of the adverse effects of copper and copper products." She said that with respect to a further study, her information from a local water district contradicts the Copper Institute report. Director Walgren said that a condition could be imposed which would defer to the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Board on the topic, and materials could be forwarded to them for evaluation and determine whether they would recommend that local jurisdictions not permit copper roof and rain gutter materials. Commissioner Patrick asked wl~at difference it would make in the plans if copper roof were used or not used. Mr. Wang responded that the only difference would be that he would not have to do the iron drainage system. He said asphalt would be the alternative because it is like a metal roof and flexible. Mr. Wang asked if another type of metal material would be acceptable other than copper. He said other metal roof materials are available which do not create the pollution concern and do not have metallic sheen if it is treated. Chairwoman Bernald responded that they would be acceptable as long as the material meets fire ordinance standards and color requirements. Mr. Wang described the alternate materials as zinc-plated metal, noting that asphalt shingle is not the best option. If another type of material were acceptable, he would submit a material sample for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 9 Mr. Wang thanked .the Commission for challenging the information he previously submitted which encouraged him to do more research and learn more about copper. Mr. Joseph C. Park, 14800 Masson Court, presented three concerns which he discovered this morning. He said the location of the house is such that the entry cuts right across a part of his property which extends beyond the cul-de-sac. Another issue he raised is the height. He said he was led to believe that the location was different than the mock-up shows. He said the copper roof was of concern to him because of the unique characteristics of the area. Using the property drawing tacked on the wall, Mr. Park described and demonstrated his concern regarding the building location. Jon Kwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, addressed the Commission regarding the landslide area in back of his house. He said his concern was the soil moving downhill and once it goes downhill, it can no longer support the adjacent soils. He noted that in 1995, the soil slid downhill and went down 10 feet overnight. He said the proposed repair does not address his concern. He said he is a registered.engineer and soil compaction is not the issue. He said the soil adjacent to his property is natural and is better than 98 percent compacted. He said it is still eroding because there is no support on one side of it. He said that without support, no amount of compaction is going to do any good. He said the applicant is doing the proper thing where the pool is, but it does not guarantee that his part of the lot will not continue to erode. He said this is not being addressed, and Mr. Wang has told him it will be addressed later. He is concerned that the erosion will continue onto his property. He cited a letter from the City Geologist dated September 2, 1999, stating that, "Without appropriate mitigation, a significant portion of the residential development located at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court is at moderate to high risk to damage from landsliding. We recommend that the City notify the appropriate property owner of this concern." (Later in the meeting, Director Walgren addressed this letter.) Commissioner Roupe noting that once the repair has been made, asked Mr. Kwong whether he would be in a better position regarding his property, and Mr. Kwong responded that the issue had not been addressed. Commissioner Jackman referred to Mr. Kwong's statement regarding the 1995 land drop, and asked when-the landslide is rebuilt and regraded whether the new property would bring the property back to the 10 feet it lost. Mr. Kwong responded that the subject had not been addressed. Director Walgren noted that the landslide repair is not only for the pool area, but for the substantial portion of the property which goes into Mr. Kwong's property and it raises the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 10 property approximately 10 feet back up to its condition before the landslide. He said he noted earlier in his comments that this would have to be coordinated with Mr. Kwong to do the improvements. He said this is shown on page 3 of Exhibit C. Chairwoman Bernald asked Director Walgren to provide Mr. Kwong with a copy of Exhibit C. Mr. Kwong addressed the privacy issue and said that the vertical structure of the building is not compatible with the surrounding homes. Director Walgren responded to a question from Commissioner Barry regarding the Geologist report dated September 2, 1999. Director Walgren explained that when an application for the hillsides comes in, staff uses a city-wide base map developed by the City's consulting firm of geologists to determine whether the area is subject to unstable soil. Staff refers the plans to the consulting firm who reviews the proposal based on their database of information, and submit a response memo indicating that the property has been cleared or further investigations are necessary. He said that in this case further investigations were necessary and have been ongoing for the past two years, an unusually long period. He noted that every time a geotechnical or geological report is prepared, it is resubmitted to the City Geologist for review and response to the City. Mr. Kwong was probably referring to the latest response memo which was available prior to the October 13 public hearing. At that time the geologist had granted the project a preliminary geotechnical clearance. He reiterated that the project was delayed to have further investigations done, specifically because of the landslide. If it had not been for the landslide on the property, the October 13 meeting would have been the point where the geologic work for this process would have concluded. Commissioner Barry asked whether the Geologist had considered and addressed that if the repair work was done, there could be natural forces moving the ground. Director Walgren replied in the affirmative, noting that the process was designed to uncover such issues and that the City Geologist and consulting firm was like a checks and balance system. Mabel Sze, 14780 Masson Court, stated that she did not realize how tall and close to the street the house will be, and it does not blend in with the neighborhood. She said that her view is almost completely obstructed and asked that something be done so that it is not such an imPosing structure. Commissioner Page asked Ms. Sze if her view which would be impacted was from the second story, and she replied that sI~e could not see from the second story. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 11 In response to Commissioner Roupe's inquiry, Director Walgren referred to the staff report of October 13, and noted that the site map indicated a larger subdivision that was approved as a single subdivision comprised of cul-de-sacs that access off Pierce Road or Saratoga Heights Road, and almost all of them are five, six, or eight clusters of development within themselves. He said this particular cul-de-sac is the only private cul-de-sac Which accesses four lots - three on the west side which have been developed, and this project would be the fourth. He said the large parcel which runs down the center is the dedicated open space. He said as is required on all hillside subdivisions, a site development plan is required at the Tentative Subdivision Map stage which indicates where the homes are going to be placed for the purposes of evaluating grading, tree removal, geology, etc. Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Sze if she reviewed the plans before purchasing her home. Ms. Sze responded that a different oWner existed at the time she purchased her home; that the land had a different house proposal; and because the building pad was larger, it was her understanding that the house would be more spread out. Ms. Sze responded to questions from Commissioners regarding the year she purchased her home and the square footage of the house. Mr. Wang indicated he had a lengthy discussion with Mr. Kwong a few weeks ago and a communication impasse exists in that Mr. Kwong maintains that the issue will be addressed later. He said the landslide issue is the foundation of the project and if the issue cannot be resolved in a satisfactory manner, the applicant will not put the house at risk on the lot. Mr. Wang said that Mr. Liu purchased the lot three years ago and the landslide happened five years ago. The longer the property sits there the more damage it will sustain to the neighbors. He said once the landslide is repaired, Mr. Kwong's property will benefit from the repair, and that is how the applicant intends to work with the neighbors. Mr. Wang said the intent is to excavate 30-40 feet down in the landslide area to remove the dirt and put in appropriate materials to stabilize the soil. He said the concern is if the landslide goes beyond the Liu .property, what would be the Commission's position in asking the neighbors to work with the applicant in sharing the costs for the repair. Director Walgren responded that this would not be a question for the Commission and would be an issu~ between the two property owners. Mr. Wang indicated he would work with Mr. Kwong as the issue will not go away and needs to be addressed. Mr. Wang responded to the issue of the design proximity to the neighbors, noting this is a very narrow lot and every effort has been made to be friendly to the surrounding buildings PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 12 and not intimidating to the neighbors. Chairwoman Bernald asked whether Mr. Wang's geological engineer had suggested putting in piers or steel supports either in the house or tO backup the swimming pool or under the driveway. Mr. Wang responded that two methods to repair the landslide were considered - one is not to excavate all the way to 40 feet, and install piers to stabilize the soil, and ignore slide planes. He said he chose to excavate the entire slide to give better stability rather than just installing something to hold it. Chairwoman Bernald asked what kind of support would go in the back wall of the swimming pool. Mr. Wang responded that the area had not been designed yet; however, he said once the soil is compacted and has been certified, it should support any kind of structure put on it. However, if necessary, materials would be installed to support the swimming pool. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:14 P.M.). PASSED 7-0. Chairwoman Bernald asked Commissioner Barry if she would like to read into the record the report regarding copper roofing. Commissioner Barry responded that if the Commission as a whole agrees that they will not accept a copper roof tonight, she would be pleased to make the report available to Director Walgren for further study. Commissioner Bernald stated that as long as the Commission is not voting for a copper roof tonight, she would prefer that the information be provided to Director Walgren. Commissioner ROupe commented that the Commission has visited the site twice, and while he finds that the house is contemporary and unique in its design, he also sees the neighborhood does not have a prevailing style. He said the design is acceptable and as a condition of his support, he would want the copper roof issue be held in abeyance until further informa~on is available, with the option of other materials being considered. Commissioner Kurasch commented on the architectural style and the compatibility due to .the materials and style of the house. She said she agreed with the neighbors that the house is quite imposing. Her main objections are aesthetic. She stated that asphalt may be a more acceptable option for the roof instead of copper or an aluminum look. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 13 Commissioner Page stated this is a lovely design with a contemporary look. He said he revisited the site today and saw an area filled with unique styles, noting that a lot of stone and wood is used. He noted that aside from its unique style, the design uses. primarily dark wood and would keep it in the blending of the area. He expressed concern with the metal sculpture piece in the front which does not help to blend in. He would prefer to see an asphalt roof and do away with the copper roof altogether. He would support the project without a copper roof, not for what it would do to the soil and environment, but what it would do to the view. Commissioner Jackman noted this was a very well designed house; however, her concern is the neighborhood compatibility. She said it is such a different house and the site is on a knoll. She said she could not support the project because of the appearance of bulk. She would be interested in seeing the same style of house in a one-story design that goes down along Masson Court. She said that the project violates many of the recommendations of the Hillside Residential Design Handbook of having projects blend into the communi~ such as the views. She said because of its prominence on this location, she cannot support the project. Commissioner Patrick stated she will support the project. She remarked that it is a wonderful design and cannot say she would want it to be compatible with what the neighbors say they want. Her view of the neighborhood is that they are homes which reflect the light, very visible homes that do not fit into the hillside, and do not fit into the environment. However, she feels this house does fit in. She would prefer the copper roof, but cannot support it because it is not environmentally safe. She commented on the landslide area and landslides that slide into the neighbors' homes. She said the only way to stop the slide is to build on the property and work with the geotechnical firm to get the necessary support to the hillside. She said that because of the site size, she did not see any other place on the property where anything else could be built as suggested by others. She said she would prefer to have another type of roofing, other than asphalt, submitted for review. She reiterated she would support the project without copper roofing. Commissioner Barry expressed concern with design handbook issues. She said the Commission has on every other occasion that she has been present, whether as a Commissioner or in the audience, taken to heart concerns of the neighbors, and the neighborhood appears to be unhappy with this design. She cited from the design handbook, policy 1, technique #5, the difference between relatively similar homes and one that is significantly different. She said this home is significantly different and stated this is a violation of the design handbook. She also cited from policy 2, technique #2, which specifically says to avoid large geometric shapes that appear as foreign objects in the setting, and said that the design is a foreign object in this setting. Additionally, she referred to the hillside plan book, she said she could not support the project as it is now. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 14 Director Walgren responded to a question from Commissioner Jackman regarding parts of the house stepping down into the hillside. Chairwoman Bemald noted that when she first saw the plans for the house, she visited the 'hillside and realized that this was an eclectic neighborhood. She noted that the house is significantly different from the other homes; however, the design mimics the beautiful hillsides in which it would be placed. She stated that she repeatedly got an impression of the gently rolling hillsides that surround the home; strongly feels that the house fits into the setting; and is probably better designed to fit its location than any of the surrounding homes. By placing the home as a two-story structure, it provides more open space to the surrounding area. She said she understood the neighbors' concerns regarding their view; however, the homes were purchased with the idea that cluster homes would be built. The fact that the property has a landslide is of no fault to the owner and what the owner is proposing to repair would also benefit his neighbors. She said this is an exciting design well-situated in its location. She expressed concerns with the copper roof and leaching. She would like to have more information and alternate materials, other than asphalt, considered. COMMISSIONER ROUPE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR-97-061 AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE COPPER ROOF ISSUE BE DEFERRED TO FURTHER STUDY, BROUGHT BACK FOR STAFF REVIEW AND BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR FINAL APPROVAL. PASSED 4-3 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, JACKMAN, AND KURASCH OPPOSED). Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess at 9:40 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:50 p.m., the same Commissioners and staff were present. ge DR-99-049 (397-28-047, Lot #5) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14088 Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,067 square foot two- story residence with a 792 square foot basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 feet. The site is located on a 15,200 square foot (net) vacant parcel in an R-1-12,500 zoning district. Director Walgren reported that this is lot #5 of a five-lot subdivision approved last year. He said the design is very compatible with the other homes in the subdivision. He said staff recommends approval with conditions outlined in the resolution. At the request of Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren explained there had been an issue which arose upon review of lots #1 and #2 regarding which zoning ordinances apply to the development of those lots. He said that a vesting tentatiVe map is specifically designed to allow a builder to use the ordinances in effect when the map was approved if they provide certain details to the City. The details can be as minimal as a building ATTATCHMENT 8 a m p hibi a n A r c 1918 N. Main Street Suite 201 Los Angeles CA 90031 tel: 323-223-8887 ,fax: 323-223-8883 nonchi@arc.la.ca.u$ http://www.arc.la.ca.u$ November 11, 1999 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fmitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Commissioners, I am writing this letter in response to your comment on the use of copper roof for the Liu Residence at 14805 Masson Court. After the October 13' meeting, which was extremely constructive to the project and educational to me personally, we have been working on the areas of concern based on your recommendations. Among these areas, I have spent extra effort researching the effect of copper roof on the environment. I went back to the organization, Copper Development Association, which has published their research (Exhibit C) On the internet that I referred to in the Planing meeting, and found out more about this internet publication. This internet publication is actually a summary of a paper published in a academic conference "The Thirty-First Mid-Atlantic Industrial and Hazardous Waste Conference." The editor and principal researcher of the academic paper is Professor Nikolaos Nikolaidis of University of Connecticut. This paper was the result of a research program sponsored by Copper Development Association and conducted jointly by four organizations(Exhibit A). They are Copper Development Association (CDA) Department of Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut (CT-DEP) University of Connecticut Civil &Environmental Engineering Dept. '- U-Conn Environmental Research Institute (U-Conn ERI) I have obtained the information of contact person of these organizations for the purpose of verification. They are Mr. Thomas Morrissey Director of CT-DEP tel: 860-424-3704 Mr. Robert Carley Director of U-Conn ERI tel: 860-486-4015 Professor Nikolaos Nikolaidis Univ. of Connecticut tel: 860486-5648 Daniel Sternthal Architect, CDA tel: 212-251-7219 Although this pj:ogram is sponsored by a private organization which may benefit from a biased research, the participation of the Department of Environmental ProtectiOn, State of Connecticut, assured the impartiality of the research. I have contacted Mr. Morrissey and since confirmed that this program was executed under the supervision of CT-DEP. I have also talked to Mr. Carley and Professor Nikolaidis and discussed with them the findings stated in the research paper. Both of them stand behind the paper in terms of it methodology, data analyses, and conclusion. The discussion with Professor Nikolaidis is particularly enlightening. According to Professor Nikolaidis, the industrial copper pollution from industrial waste water has been established, and. consequently, regulated by law. The State of Connecticut was contemplating on imposing similar regulation on the use of copper in the domestic sector. This research program was created to find out the copper's environmental effect in the domestic setting in order to provide a ground for legislation that will regulate the use of copper. The research mapped the behavior of copper in the domestic setting and found out a very different picture from that in the industrial setting. The findings indicates copper from domestic waste water non-bioavailable and nontoxic to aquatic animals. The State of Connecticut, therefore, decided not to impose regulation on domestic use of copper. I have enclosed a copy of this research paper for your review( Exhibit B). In this paper, you may find the most critical evidence shown in TABLE-I. AVERAGE FLOW WEIGHTED CHEMISTRY OF 2.2.99 STORM. In the second line from the bottom is, according to Professor Nikolaidis, the survival rate of "Daphnia Pulex," an aquatic organism which is most sensitive to copper poisoning, in the sample water from different collection stations. The survival rate is extremely low at the immediate area of copper source, whereas the survival rate is 100% at locations which are away from copper sources. Along the path between the copper source and the collection stations, copper ions are combined with other metal ions and organic matter and rendered non-bioavailable and nontoxic. I described to Professor Nikolaidis the environmental setting, which is domestic in nature, of our project, and he believes that, in general, the result of his research should apply to it. He urges you to contact him for any concern you may have on this issue. He will be very willing to answer questions and provide information. I consider protecting the environment from human abuse and stupidity is a moral as well as a pragmatic imperative. It is moral because it is an altruistic act for the wellbeing of fellow animal species. It is pragmatic because it is a selfish act for the survival of our own species on this delicate planet. At times, we base our action of protecting the environment on speculative opinion when actual knowledge is lacking. Such an action is justified because it is better cautious than sorry. At other times, however, we should base our action on scientific evidence whenever such evidence is available. In the case of copper pollution in domestic setting, I feel there is enough knowledge accumulated to allow us make an educated judgement. I feel comfortable now using copper roof and not worried about poisoning aquatic animals after I acquired the knowledge of how copper behaves in the environment. I am presenting this evidence to you and hoping that you will draw the same conclusion. I am willing, however, to continue to work with you if you are still unconvinced. Professor Nikolaidis has also made himself available in proving the applicability of his research to the City of Saratoga. I look forward to having further discussion with you on this and other issues in the coming public hearing. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any assistance to you. With best regards. Sincerely yours, Nonchi Wang, Arclfitect EXHIBIT A 250 Mad/son A venue New York. New Yor^' 10~, Tel.- (212) 251-7200 Fax: (212) 251-7234 http.?/www coppe£ I CDA Copper Development Association inc. To: .. NonChi Wang From: Daniel Stemthal- National Program Manager Subject: Copper Runoff Program Date: Nov 1, 1999 Dear Mr. Wang; As per your request I am attaching the Storm water runoff from copper roofs program description and team makeup. I hope this helps in your project presentation. 260 Mad/son A venue New York. New York TeL' f212) £$1-7£00 Fax: (£72] 251-7£34 i?tf£.~/www, copDe~ org 2401 CD,6 Copper Development Association Inc. Copper Concentration and' Toxicity in Storm Water Runoff from Copper Roofing This research program is to elucidate the origins of copper in storm waters and to quantify and apportion the contribution of copper-based architecture to copper concentrations and toxicity in storm water runoff. This research program is part of CDA's response to the Connecticut DEP - Pollution Prevention Plan whose purpose is to identify and reduce point source pollution generators at their source. Architectural materials along with copper have been identified as a possible pollution contributors. This Program would provide knowledge on copper contributions to storm water coming from a number of sources. This proposal is made with no knowledge of the magnitude of the contribution from any of these sources or even if they are of any significance at all. A multi-level team is proposed as a committee to oversee this research effort. The team proposal is as follows: CDA Technical staff. -. Architects, Metallurgists, Chemists. CT-DEP staff.. Planning & Standards Division. University of Connecticut staff. - Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept. U:Conn Environmental ReSearch institute. _ -I ~horatory staff. EXHIBIT B EVALUATION OF THE HYDROLOGIC AND CHEMICAL MASS BALANCES OF COPPER WITHIN AN URBAN WATERSHED. B. BOULANGER, N.P. NIKOLAIDIS, R. CARLEY, C. PERKINS Environmental Engineering Program University of Connecticut Storrs CT 06279 INTRODUCTION Copper is a naturally occurring metallic element extracted from a number of ores for use in architecture (roof, flashings, gutters), plumbing, electrical apparatus and wire, utensil and houseware production, refrigerator and air- conditioner coils, coin production, insecticides and fungicides, paint pigments, electroPlating, and metal finishing [1]. Due to the abundant use of copper-based products by our modem society, rising copper concentrations have been observed in freshwater systems. Most major rivers in Connecticut (a densely populated, highly industrial State) exhibit exceedances of the Copper Water Quality Criteria that have been associated with aquatic life toxicity [2,3]. The primary objective of this work is to apportion the contribution of copper- based architectural materials (CB/MM) to copper concentrations by understanding the mass balance of copper in the system. Other sub-objectives which will be examined during the course of the study are to track copper sources in storm water runoff to the receiving stream, determine the speciation of copper in storm water from copper'roofing, establish the role' of copper's fate in storm water runoff, develop a mathematical model to simulate fate, speeiation, and transport of copper from the time rain falls on a copper roof to the time it reaches the receiving stremn, and determine the toxicity of storm water runoff and the contribution of the various sources of copper to the observed toxicity. Site Description The University of Connecticut Campus is located on 1255 ha in rural Storrs, CT. The study area is the University's largest watershed, which covers an area of .approximately 46.5 ha of developed urban watershed (Figure 1.). The watershed ~s comprised of nine subcatchments ranging in size from 0.33 to 14.9 ha. Land use in the watershed includes grass areas (53.2%), roads and parking lots (25.4%), roof coverage (17.8%), woodland (1.4%) and track/artifical turf 539 coverage (2.2%). Ninety five percent of the soil in the watershed is characterized as urban land complex by the National Resource Conservation Service [4]. A total of eight stations are being monitored on the watershed to determine thc influence of thc different landuscs and subcatchmcnts on copper concentrations in thc watershed. Five fully automated monitoring stations arc currently being used to. characterize the flow and chemistry at different points along the watcrshcd's storm water system. To assess the contribution of copper based architectural materials to concentrations in thc watershed, two stations *have been set up to measure direct runoff before it reaches the ma'in lines of the storm water system. The structures lab station is used to monhor direct runoff from a 4 year old copper roof and gutters system located on tile Castleman Engineering Building. The Castleman road drain station monitors the runoff at Ibc point where it enters the storm water system's nlain line. Two stations also have been set up to address the issue of other possible copper sot,tees within the watershed. Thc police station monitors runoff from a parking lot located behind the University's Police Station. This station determines the contribution of copper break pads and atmospheric deposition from a parking lot before the runoff enters the main lines of the system. The second station, the North Campus Station, monitors the runoff from a pervious drained.~irea at the North Campus dormitory complex. Drainage from the grassy pervious areas in the watershed contributes the bulk of the baseflow in the system, and the chemistry values observed at North Campus are consistent with chemistry values observed at the systems outlet during non- storm event baseflow. The outlet of the entire storm water system to a freshwater receptor is monitored at the weir station. Three stations to measure atmospheric contributioa are also contained in the watershed. A deposition station for the monitoring of wet deposition located on the roof of the Castleman Building, a dry deposition filterpack and meteorological station for the estimation of the depositional velocity of dry deposition located at the Tower (existing station approximately 3 miles from campus), and a rain gage on the roof of Engineering Il all provide information about atmospheric copper concentratiOns [5]. METHODS Site Monitoring Fifteen rainfall events over the course of a period of a year are being collected. This number of events represents approximately 25% of the rainfall events occurring in a year. For each storm event, fifteen or[e-liter samples for each of the5 automated stations established in .the site are c611ected. Presently data from 5 storms have been recorded, one of which is analyzed here. To gain a complete understanding of the watersheds' chemistry each sample is analyzed for total and dissolved metals (copper and zinc) and cations (calcium, magnesium, and iron), pH, alkalinity, DOC, suspended solids, temperature, 541 )3. ,~r to d magnesium, and zinc are, respectively, 1, 5, 10, 5, and 5 gg/l. Analysis of CI, NO., and SOa is conducted Ion Chromatography and analysis of NH4 is conducted using a Flow Injection Autoanalyzer. Strict quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) guidelines are followed to ensure the quality of all the laboratory analyzed data. Testing for toxicity is completed by a local private laboratory and speciation is completed using a Cupric ion selective electrode [7]. RESULTS Hydrologic Mass Balance Examination of rainfall and flow data measured at each station allows for the creation of a mass balance to check the flows throughout the system..Figure 2 shows the hydrologic mass balance for the Februar3, 2'~, 1999 storm. Durin~ the course of the storm, the watershed received 1.12 inches of rainfall. With an ~rea of 46.5 hectares, this amount of rainfall COXTesponds to 13228 m3 of walcr entering the watershed from atmospheric input. Because the contribution of buildings and along roadways is well understood, il was assumed that only minor hydraulic losses would occur from these areas. With this assumption. Ih~ storm water system received,3632 m'~ of water from roads and parking lots and 3 2355 m of water from the roofs of buildings. Grass>, areas contributed the 1.12 inche~ of rainfall Area of Waicn'sllcd = 46.5 ha Volume of water into watershed from atmospheric ~npu! = 13228 m3 I Building Roofs Area in wamtshed = 8.3 ha Losses -- minor losses Vom = 2355 m3 I Grass (Pervious Area) At~a in watershed = 25.4 ha Losses = 1285 m'~ Vou! = 5954 rn3 T Weir (System OuUlow) VOu! = 11943 n? Sysxem efficiency = 90 ~,~ I Area in watershed = 12.7 ha Lo,,sea = minor Ios.~ Vout = 363-!. m3 FIGURE 2. HYDROLOGIC MASS BALAN'C~ OF 2.2.99 STORM. 543 Loss of copper within the confines of the building is observed and has been attributed to the interaction of the building's cast iron pipe storm water delivery system. Comparison of dissolved concentrations (Table I) for the structures la~ (direct runoff from rOb0 and the road drain station (direct runoff from roof after passing through the cast iron piping system), shows that copper loss is observed as the runoff passes through the iron .piping. A higher than one unit pH change is also observed in the iron piping net.work, which occurs due to the corrosion of thc iron pipe during copper removal. At the outlet of the sy.~tem, the measured flow weighted average t0t'al copper concentration for the sampling period (seven hours) is found to be 32 ue/l. However, il' we extend the sampling period to be over the full course of thc hydrogn~ph (twenty two hours), this flow weighted average total coo-per value approaches the background concentration of 15 to 18 ppb, which is consistent with what is ob~rved at the North Campus Station. Chemistry Mass Balance Figure 3 shows the mass balance for the storm which occurred February 2nd, 1999. It is found that thc rain contributed a total of 26 g of copper t'o thc watershed over thc course of the storm. Of this 26 grams, 0.1 g fell on the copper root', 14 g on pervious areas, 5 g on non-copper roofs, and 7 g on roadways and parking lots Over the course of thc storm 67g of copper leached from the 1115 m2 roof. Of this amount, 62 g were in'thc dissolved phase and 5 g were in the particulate phase. Together with the rainfall contribution, 67 g of total copper was observed in the gutter prior to its entrance into the storm water system's main line. The total amount of copper actually entering the storm water system's main line from the copper roof was found to be 32 g, of which 30 g were dissolved phase and 2 g were particulate phase. This loss of copper within the confines of thc building is attributed to thc interaction of the cast iron pipe storm water delivery system. Cementation to the surface of the' cast iron pipe has been proposed as thc mechanism for dissolved copper removal [8,9] and accounts for the removal of 52 % of copper, 30 g, from the copper roof before it ever enters the storm water system. The largest direct landuse contributor of copper to the stormwater system were pervious areas. Due to their extensive coverage, these areas received 14 g of copper from the rainfall alone. Through the hydrologic mass balance it is calculated that only 82.5 % of grassy area contributes to system. Therefore, 12 g of total copper from rainfall was estimated to enter the system, and the remaining 2 g were lost due to infiltration, pouding on the surface, or slog' drainage. Total copper input from overland fl6[v and seepage into the system from the contributing area was found to be 107 g, of which the dissolved phase accounts for 30 g and the particulate 77 g. Excess copper entering the storm water system from this landuse is hypothesized to originate from copper leaching off soil and use of fertilizers and other lawn control applications. A ,i 545 copper's ability to leach from soil are planned for the future to gain a more thorough understanding. Parking lots and roadways contributed a total of 36 g of copper to the system, consisting of 12 g in the dissolved phase and 24 g in the particulate phase. Sources for excess copper concentrations over atmospheric contribution in this ianduse are attributed to the use of copper breakpads in automobiles and overland flow from grassy areas onto the pervious areas. Examination of the contributioh of non-copper roof buildings shows ,he contribution of 5 g dissolved copper from the rain. I, is assumed ti)a, no o,hcr significant sources exist from Ibis landuse, however, such rool-s were m)I sampled during the cou/:se of this work, and may indeed provide more copper ~o the system. Copper removal due to the interior piping ne,work is still considered and the mass balance shows a total of 2.6 g (all of which is m thc dissolved phase) entering the storm water system. The overall mass balance for all the inputs into the system, shows that over the course of the storm 75 g of dissolved copper and 103 g particulate copper entered the system, lbr a grand total of 178 g of copper imroduced, t'Iowevcr. this is not what we observed at the outflow. The outlet samples had a total mass outflux of 135 g copper during the course of tl~e storm. Of this 135 g. 31 grams were dissolved phase and 104 grams were particulate phase. Il w;ts found tha: 58% of the dissolved copper was removed while in the system, and never reached the freshwater receptor. Removal of copper from the system is hypothesized to be through surface precipitation reactions with the concrete piping, diffusion into the concrete walls, and sedimentation removal within the system from cleaniqg. This mass balance is non-unique to our system and has been displayed for each of our analyzed storms. CONCLUSION Hydrologic and chemical mass balances of a complex urban watershed system allow for the tracking of the copper's fate in the watershed. Analysis of the mass balance show that the majority of copper introduced into the wa,ershed during the course of the storm originates from the g,'assy, pervious areas (107g/178g). The second largest contributor to copper llux to the ~vatershed are tile paved areas (36g/178g), while the third largest contributor is the copper roof (32~178g). These findings indicate.that other sources, such as copper break pads and copper's leachability from soil, greatly contribute to the copper flux introduced into the watershed. Once the storm waler enters the main lines of tile storm water system, copper is further removed by surface precipitation reactions with the concrete piping, diffusion into tile concrete walls, and sedimentation removal within the system from cleaning. A total copper concentration of 135 g was observed leaving the system during tile course of the storm, which indica,es that only 76% of the copper introduced into the mainlines of the storm water system will exit. 547 EXHIBIT C Copper in Architecture: Introduction, Environmental Issues ,~. ...... ;.. .~ ~ ;.. - -~ -.'~.~ .,;- .:"~- ' .'. ~_~ -.~,h~ ~. :. } :. ~ ~" ' ' · .... Home * ~~~'* Introduction--E'nvi~ Coppers use ~n almost eve~ as~f~l[~f~:ne~ss~tateSa c~ear unaerstana~ng o~ ~ts e~.e~s on ~a~oq~enwronmentm: ~ ~ ' ~ · ' · .... '~*~ ~" =~,es~-~ *- - . effects of copper on the environment:~t~le ~ter;~= ' ;;;: ' systoms, to roof run-off cond~on~p~~e~on;~[some of~ the studies, repo~s will be issU~d~and.p'O'~{~'*aS.~e~ b~k'6~e',y ? - available. The first summa~ mPO~u~htl~'~gailable is'Coppe( Roof~ and Water Runoff - An Og~'~i~iAdditi~nal updat~ to mpo~ will ~ i~uod ....... ' ':'": ~''~'~''~ ..... "~' ' ' thi~ Copper Roofs and Water` R~'~o~n '-' N : :~- F ~-~.~" ew ~esearch on Runoff. from. Co Green ~ools lot a om,n~r ~Vi?onm~nt ~.. ."~T:': . ~'~--: ,;(' ' : _, ...': :....:::.~,~ · '. '. ;..' .... :.'**':2~:' ~;'. ..- ..~..*.. ~-~.~ : . .~ . ,., . .'. ~ '~?,,.:~ :~'* ~'.~.,~.~ ~ ,- .: ';~'.':.~- .*.~ . . : .. 'r ...f.f...?..;?~, ~.(~ " ' . ' Wi~':=':. '~:'~. :~-~ ~ ~ -- ;.. '~ .7; - ~ ' -' .' ' .... ',.;':~:;~*~;'~.~%,:.~;~,'~'f*~::F' ::' * · ' http://architecture.copper.org/environment, html 1 of 1 c, opper in ~rcn,ecture; c;opper ~oo%s aha water t~unoll - ~ ~vervlew ;:~ ntlp:llarcnltecture.copper.orgJenwronmenl-rools-runor[$.nt~ Copper Roo and Run° - An Ove iew This report is based on research and progress addressing concern that copper released'from copper roofs enters the groundwater, dvers, lakes and causes harm to fish and other aquatic organisms. Most metals am of natural origin and a fundamental component of the earth's crust. Copper is no exception, and in addition, is essential to the health of all living organisms. All life forms have a requirement for copper. The essential question is not whether copper is toxic but whether the copper runoff from roofs can increase concentration of copper in lakes, streams and groundwater to such high levels as to become a hazard. Newly installed copper roofs immediately begin to weather and oxidize. This weathering process actually produces a self protective coating on the copper called a patina. This is the blue/green color associated with copper roofs. It is complex, very durable and extremely stable. It is the chemistry of the atmosphere and particularly of dew, especially its degree of acidity, that determines if any of the patina surface is dissolved. Rain simply provides the vehicle for transporting the dew and its contained copper products from the roof. This is the potential mechanism by which copper can be released from the surface of the patina and transported. Because the copper salts that form the surface layer are very insoluble, only very Iow levels of copper occur in the dew. The concentration of copper salts is highest in the first few liters of runoff, the 'lirst flush". Thereafter the concentration is dramatically reduced. R~ ~r~,h has show that 95% of the co~pper that is washed off a r~x)f is ins0lub~-andis ~ot~'~ilable to exert toxic effects. The remair~i~g soluble ~::or~pon~-nt Yea-'~'~ with organic ma{6d~aland is additionally m~ non-available for .~_.,~trahs~rt: T~o-pos$ible runoff flow ~aths are a~fa~16: · Runoff to s°il. · Runoff to treatment plant. In its runoff to s,oil, the copper particles will be retained in the surface layer of the soil and will become unavailable to exert any toxic effects on soil organisms or plants._Most_coPper_entedn(~ the soil surface adds to the existing ba_ .ckgroUn__d_ le~/els a~-~ does. ~~orted to groundwate.r._ -'-'*---~' In its runoff to treatment plants, the copper salts will normally I of 2 10/8/99 11:26 ~opper m Architecture: Copper Roots anti Water Runoff - An Overview r~ttp:llarcnltecture.copper.org/enwronment-roo~$-runons.m settle out and be retained in the plant. This pathway does not allow much copper to reach the open environment in a form or quantity that can be toxic. It has b, ccn estimated that only 1.5 to 1.8% of copper in municipal waste water originates from roofs. As dilution increase, a greater percentage of the copper is transformed into non-bioavailable forms. When the flow paths and transformation mechanisms are taken into account, it is clear that of the very small amount of copper poteptially released from a copper roof, the majority is not toxic. due to its insolubility while the remaining insignificant amount is transformed and simply becomes part of the background environment. In summary, copper runoff from roof entering the environment is at an extremely Iow level. The majority of the copper is insoluble and therefore non-toxic and removed from the environment. The concentration of remaining soluble components is further diluted and rendered unavailable to the environment. 2 of 2 10/8/99 11:26 A i~ew ~esearcn on ~unon %rom ~opper ~ools nttp:t/arcr.[uctuf =.copl~=~ .o~ 9/,;~. ,.~ ~., New Research on Runoff from Copper Roofs "The origins of copper...in storm waters are still poorly understood...we need to develop this information.' Sydney J. Holbrook Former Commissioner Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, from a letter to Dale Peters, CDA's Vice President--Environmental Programs. Introdu~ion There is a lack of solid scientific research detailing how copper comes to be found in lakes, streams, and other bodies of water. The University of Connecticut, in collaboration with the International Copper Association Ltd, Copper Development Association Inc., and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (Connecticut DEP) has undertaken, a project that aims to fill in some of these gaps. In particular, the project hopes to increase the understanding of the extent to which copper runoff from architectural copper ends up in water sources. Recently, the University of Connecticut issued the project's first annual report detailing some of the project's tentative results. Most importantly, data indicate that as the rain runoff travels through the storm system's /eyance structures, the copper is chemically bound to organic matter and vadous anions. This, along with dilution, causes the copper to become largely inactive - or not bioavailable. nave aCcesstoa..'cedain.':am~ copper, however,: is .toxiC:tO TOOQ or: waterlis: actually · Copper:often b°nds:iwi~hi~~~h~!i!~d?~6i'~pper: in :resulting: cornpounds.:~rn~~ unavailable..;.When :thiS~haP~~C~...~i~i~;~idi'to i 'not: bioavailable.~vvher~? the.copper it..flndS bioavailable. Background Many major rivers in Connecticut (a densely populated, highly industrial have copper levels that exceed Connecticut's Copper Water Criteria. The Connecticut DEP is very interested understanding t of 4 10/8199 11:28 Ak ~cw ~c~earcn on r~unon from ~opper r~oom fi[[p.ll~li L~i lil.~Lul ~.L~J~J~, .~Jl ~, ,..~ ,, ~.l ~ ~, the sources and effects of the copper on aquatic life. Studies completed by the Connecticut DEP have shown that elevated copper concentrations from waste water treatment plants (WWTP), due to the corrosion of household plumbing materials, do NOT pose a significant threat to aquatic life. Copper in WWTP effluent is strongly bound to organics and inorganics present in the wastewater, which minimizes copper's role in aquatic toxicity. Given the above, the Connecticut DEP has turned its attention to other possible sources of copper, in particular runoff from copper roofing and gutters. In order to assist the DEP the copper industp/- through ICA and CDA - has provided funding and technical assistance to the project. Some Objectives of the Project · Track copper in storm water runoff from its sources to the receiving stream and determine the contribution from copper use in architectural applications. · Develop a mathematical model to simulate the movement and final fate of copper from the time rain falls on a copper roof to the time it reaches the receiving stream. · Determine the contribution of vadous sources of copper to any observed toxicity. Project Site The project is located at the University of Connecticut campus. Only one building on campus contains a large amount of copper architectural material. This building has 11,921 square feet of copper roofing, as well as copper gutters, and decorative flashing. Currently, 2583 square feet of the roof is being closely monitored and sampled to determine the copper flux directly off the roof. The campus watershed also contains parking lots, atmospheric deposition collectors, a weir (a small dam which controls water flow), and an air particle filtering station. It also has a well-understood storm water system. :of4 10/8/99 11:28 ,ew ~<esearcn on R, unoff trom Copper Roots nap://arcn~tecture.copper.org/conn.ntm Project methodology and results rainfall events are sampled each year of the study. Dudng these 15 events, water samples are taken automatically at each of a number of sampling points. This study is designed to show what happens to dissolved copper concentrations and storm water toxicity at each at each point along the storm water system, from the beginning at the copper roof to the eqd at the system's outlet. Water samples from a sampling station on a grassy ama in a dormitory quadrangle known as "North Campus", show very little copper - apparently the tiny amount detected comes from wet and dry atmospheric deposition. Toxicity testing at this station shows no toxicity. On the other hand, storm water collected from the campus police station parking area shows a higher copper level that displays toxicity. The extensive copper roof of a large laboratory building sampled at the bottom of a leader in a ground floor laboratory, sheds higher copper levels. As expected, water samples taken from this station display toxicity. 3 of 4 10/8/99 11:28 AM The important finding is that a few hundred yards away, at the outlet of the storm water system, there is absolutely no copper toxicity. In the short distance from the roof through the piping to the outlet, the copper is chemically bound to organic matter and various anions. This mechanism combined with dilution, renders the copper totally inactive~or not bioavailable. Please tell us your opinions 'about This Article Click Here After making your choices I Your level of expertise in Usefulness this area Why are you using this site? ~lm_o(feuS;,~jnsael;h,s area i,! IP-xpert ii I EvaluatinganewrOle for copper Student , ! Not Useful ! , ,, Knowledgeable ~ i; Troub eshooting a prob em [ Introductory i! Project -In Design Other Academ c ! ! I I ! No expertise i I i Project - In Construction j-~ r;ll r~i General Information Other ~ Other Comments If you require a response to your comments please click here. While we read every evaluation and comment, we do not do so'on a daily basis and emailing us will help us respond to your request in a timely manner. 10/8/g9 11:28 AM ~reen roots lot a greener environment htlP:flarcnltecture.copper OFg/reCyCle_rOOT r. Green Roofs for a Greener Environment By Dr. Konrad Kundig Something old. is new again... Copper roofs are certainly not a new idea; they've been around for years; In fact, a lot of copper roofs are very old, and some are very, very, very old. In Europe, it's easy to find cathedrals and other buildings whose copper roofs were originally installed hundreds of years ago. Copper has long been used for temples and shrines in Japan, as well. Among other benefits, copper doesn't crack when a Japanese building is rattled by one of the country's frequent earthquakes. Copper roofs have also b6en used for many years in North America. Canada's stately Houses of Parliament are just one well-known example. The U.S. has historically been a steady but modest market for copper roofing. Until fairly recently, we've used copper mainly for churches, synagogues and other public buildings. But that's changing rapidly. In the past few years, copper roofing has been undergoing a spectacular boom in popularity. Consumption of copper for roofing has risen an average of 8% per year since 1992---more than twice the rate of new housing starts. From 1996 to 1997, it jumped more than 14%, and it looks like the accelerating trend will continue, at least for awhile. In addition to traditional uses in public buildings, copper is now gaining wide acceptance in small office structures, shopping malls, sports arenas and even private homes. Why is this centuries-old product--copper roofing--suddenly becoming so popular? Two important reasons are the public's increasing demand for quality and American architects' growing awareness of copper's unique characteristics. Another factor is the easier installation, made possible by new on-site construction methods. And, of course, there's the fact that people like copper roofs because they simply look good. I of 5 10/8/99 11:32 A Green roots for a greener environment I~ttP:llarcnitecture.copper.org/recycle_rcot.r Copper Stdp But with consumption dsing by the millions of pounds each year, should we be concemed that there won't be enough copper available to satisfy the market? VVill growing demand lead to scarcity and send the pdce through the roof, as it were? The answer to both 'questions is a very definite no, and the explanation is simple: copper roofing sheet is predominantly made from copper scrap. Copper is one of the most thoroughly recycled among what we might call structural metals. Most people don't realize it, but neady one-half of the copper used in the U.S. today has been used before. Worldwide numbers are about the same. Copper Scrap One reason for copper's high recyclability is that it's so durable. Unlike other metals, copper corrodes exceedingly slowly in natural environments. That's why those European cathedrals and Japanese temples still have their original roofs. The copper roofs react a bit with the atmosphere during the first few years after installation to produce the familiar gray-green patina, like that on the Statue of Liberty. After the 2 of 5 10/8/99 11:32 ,~ ~1 ~e~ roo[s lot a gr~.ener environment 13ttp:llarcnltecture.copper.org/r~cyclc_l ou~. nth, protective patina forms, corrosion drops to little more than a few millionths of an inch per year. point is that copper lasts a long time, and most of what has been used before is still around, being used again in another form. ' Recycling copper: a win-win situation Hera's how the process works: Copper that is no longer useable, such as old wiring and plumbing tube from demolished or renovated bUildings, is collected by companies that make up the very efficient recycling industry. We used to call them scrap dealers, but they're really a key part of the nation's recycling system. They sort the old copper, bundle it and otherwise prepare it for market. Refineries buy the recycled metal and convert it back to pure copper. Such so-called "re-refined" copper represents a tremendous energy saving since the huge amount of work ordinarily needed to mine, crush and smelt ora doesn't have to be done again. As an important added. benef'~, re-refined copper's lower energy needs mean less fuel consumption and fewer emissions of unwanted gases to the atmosphere. No question, recycling copper is a win-win situation. A lot of recycled copper scrap is bought directly by mills that produce roofing sheet. Thera ara three pdmary producers of roofing sheet in the U.S.: Hussey Copper Ltd. Leetsdale, PA; Outokumpu Amedcan Brass Company, Buffalo, NY, and Revere Copper Products, Inc., Rome, NY. All heavily on scrap copper as one of their raw materials. Some of these companies have the capability to re-refine scrap copper to the extent needed to make new roofing sheet. Others simply remelt scrap of sufficiently high quality and blend it with new copper, thereby diluting the concentration of impurities to the point where the copper will be ductile enough to be rolled into sheet. All mills also recycle the so-called "runaround" scrap generated in their own plants. Nothing as valuable as copper ever goes to waste. Whether re-refined or simply remelted, the mills cast the copper in huge 22,000-pound ingots called "cake", which are then conditioned and rolled into thin sheets. The sheet copper is sold through metal distribution centers or directly to large users. The metal may be pre-pafinated by the mill so that it can be sold with the pleasing (and protective) gray-green color already in place. Pre-pafination is becoming increasingly popular since it allows the architect and builder to produce a building in its '~inal" form without having to wait for nature to take its course. Some roofing sheet is s01d to companies that fabricate roofing shingles, which ara installed and used just like ordinary shingles, except that they look much better and last far longer. Roofing shingles, which are already popular in Japan and other countries, have a bright future in the U.S. homeowner market. Scrap recycling is important ~ of 5 1018/99 11:32 AM ~reen tOOlS mr a greener environment nttp:l/arcn~tecture.copper.org/recyc~e_root.m How much scrap is used to make roofing sheet? It varies, depending on market conditions (including the availability and price of both scrap and new copper) and the melting and refining processes used by the various producers. Because of these factors, scraP use can range between 50% and 100% of consumption for any of the producers at any given time, but an industry-wide average over time is probably close to 60%. That's a lot of copper, and it represents enormous energy savings. More important, it's metal that will never be discarded or end up in a landfill. Maybe it is r~ng that the color of a copper roof's patina is pleasantly green. In a way, the color reflects the environmentally friendly recycled metal that went into making it. Companies mentioned in this article: 0 HusseY Copper Ltd. Outokumpu American Brass Company Revere Copper Products, Inc. Please tell us your opinion of this article After making your choices [ c]ic~ Here_ Who are you? Usefulness Product User :, ~; Moderately useful Student ! ~ Not Useful Other Academic Other Your level of expertise in this area Expert Knowledgeable Introductory No expertise Other Comments Evaluating a new role for copper Troubleshooting a problem Project - In Design Project - In Construction School project General Information Other ~ of 5 1018199 11:32 AI~ ATTACH M ENT 9 Joseph C. H. Park 14800 Masson Courl Saratoga. CA 95070 January 25. 2000 Director James Walgren CiD' of Saratoga Saratoga, CA JAN 2 6 2000 r£CBIV£D JAN .6 000 PLANNING D£PL Dear Director Walgren: As of today, January- 25, 2000, I have not received a copy of the site survey to be made available by Mr. Liu concermng the proposed construction at 14805 Masson Court. As discussed in our meeting on January 11. 2000. the site survey, showing, in particular, property lines, easemem and existing physical improvemems wis to be made available by January 24, 2000 in order for us to meet the January 27 deadline for submission of additional materials in connection with the appeal hearing scheduled on February 2, 2000. This morning there was a phone message from Planner Heather Bradley informing me that the site map was not ready and the application may have to be continued. Subsequently there was another of my propem., with their proposed drive way" and they would consider relocating so that there is no conflict with my property. Also, they intend to make available, by the end of this week, "exhibits" and site survey results. As you know, we need this site su~ey in time for the appeal hearing. Without accurate site survey as an input data, we do not see how the appeal process can arrive at a sound decision. Sincerely, Joseph Park ATTATCHMENT 1 0 RESOLUTION NO. DR-97'~061 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Liu: 14805 Masson Couet 'WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval-to construct a new 6,500 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot: and WHEREAS, the Planmng Commission held a duly noticed Pubhc Hearing at which ttrnc all interested parries were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present exqdence: and WHEREAS, the applicant 'has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: · -The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within thb neighborhoods; and (ii) community mew sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed residence meets or exceeds minimum setback requirements and is located along a similar topographic line or lower than other residences in the neighborhood. -The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soft removal; grade changes will be rmnimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas, in that no ordinance protected trees will be removed, the site is xq. rtuallv void of natural landscape and the amount of grading is 1Lrmted to the amount necessary to accommodate the structure and landslide repair. -The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will mimmize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates dements that mimmize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the natural environment. -The residence 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 (i) unreasonably impair the hght and air of adjacen, t properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy, in that the height, mass and bulk of the residence is comparable to surrounding residences in the neighborhood. -The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court -The proposed residence will conform to each of the apphcable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resoh'e as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural draWings, plans and other exhibits submitted m connection with this matter, the application of Liu for Design Rex~iew approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: The devdopment shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A', incorporated by reference. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zomng Clearance: ~Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. 'Four (4) set of engineered grading and drainage plans reflecting the Cit3,' Arbotist's recommendations, also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. The plans shall indicate that there will be no more than one wood burning fireplace in the mare residence and the wood burning fireplace shall be equipped with a gas starter. The roof material shall be asphalt shingle, shown as an alternative to the copper roof on the color and material board. The applicant may choose another roof material ff approved by the Planning Commission. Any alternative material must not cause mn-off of minerals, metals or other ham~l substances into the storm water, or pose any threat to water quality. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds five feet. In addition, no fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. No ordmar~ce size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. All requirements of the City Arbonst's Report dated December 17, 1997, shall be met. This includes', but is not limited to: a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and grading plans shall be revised to File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court indicate the following:' The Arbonst Report shall be attached, as a separate plan page, to the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and gradmgplan. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shown at as recommended bx' the Arbonst with a note 'to remain in place throughout construction." A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vel'fides shall park or be stored within the dnphne of any ordinance protected trees on the site. All fill soft on the east side must be removed to the original ~ade bx' hand in any area within 15 feet of the trunk. No trenches or excavations even for utiliUes (gas, cable, phone, etc.) shall be installed within 25 feet of the trunk of the tree. The drainage system for the house shall be directed a nUmrnum of 40 feet fa'om the other trees on this site. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the applicant shall subrmt to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in an amount of $4,943 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits: Tree protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by staff. The City Arborist shall schedule unannounced visits to the property to verify that all tree mitigation measures are being complied with. c. Prior to Final Occupancy approval: All recommended tree cabling and endweight removal shall be completed by an ISA certified arbonst. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and approval by the Community Development Director the bond shall be released. File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court ?my future landscaping or irngation installed beneath the canopy of an ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with the 'Planting Under Old Oaks' guidelines prepared bx' the Caw Arbonsr. No irrigation or associated trenching shall encroach into the dnphnes of any existing oak trees unless approved by the City Arborist. The Project Geotechnical Engineer, with input from the ~oject Engineering Geolo~st, shall prepare a Landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections (1"= 20') to depict the extent of proposed grading, landslide to be removed, subdrams, property lines and proposed improvements. The plan should include repair specifications, notes and details pertaining to earthwork, drainage and geogrid placement. The cross section should depict e<sting and proposed surface topography and excavation depths. One section should extend from the building pad downslope along the axis of the active landslide, including and showing the lower landshde repair area (per Terratech drawings). A second section should bc oriented roughly east-west across the landslide and portray. Masson Court, proposed driveway, active landslide to be removed, and landslide on the adjacent ProperD, to the east. The mitigation plan should specify the appropriate geogrid slope gradient. Typica]Jy, geognd should be designed to stand at its angle of installation (i.e., 1.5:lV), if not x~'rapped. The landslide Mitigation Plan and Sections shall be submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechmcal Consultant prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Project Engmeenng Geologist and Project Geotechmcal Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., landslide mitigation, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that the consultants' recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Project Geotechnical Engineer should consider recommending crushed rock, which has more void space than Class 2 aggregate base, for the capillary, break material. 10. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized in letters by the geologic and geotechnical consultants and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading penmt. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechrdcal Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechmcal aspects of the project construction. These inspection should include, but not necessarily be lirmted to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for keyways, foundations (including pier holes for structures'and shear pm wall) and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall prepare a geologic map of the landslide excavation and conf/rm that landslide material has been removed. Information from the excavation and pier holes shall be used to revise and update the engineering geologic map and cross sections. An engineering geologic map and cross sections of final, as-built conditions shall be prepared to depict the depth and extent of gractmg activities, and File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court geologic conditions (including removed landshde mass). 11. The results of these inspections and the as-built condiUons of the project shall be described in letters, and as-butt geologic map and cross sections, and submitted to the Cit~' £ngmeer for review prior to finalization of the grading permit. ' The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with Geotecknical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. thc Ci~' 12. The owner (applicant shall enter into an agreement holding the Ci~, of Saratoga harmless form any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil of slope instabiliu,, slides, slope failure or other soft related and/or erosion related conditions. 13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance xxqth the provisions of Article 16-60 City of Saratoga. 14. Early Warning Fire Mann System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be subrrd~ed to the Fire District for approval. 15. 16. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed throughout the residence and garage. All driveways shall have a minimum 14 foot width plus 1 foot shoulders. 17. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 18. 19. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the hability of the City in connection with the 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. 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 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. File No. DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court PASSD AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of CaLifornia, this 8th day of December 1999 by the following roll cab vote: AYES: Conm~issioners Page, Patrick, Roupe and Chair Bernald NOES: Conz~issioners Barry, Jackman and Kurasch ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair, pkimin~ Commission ATI'EST: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: February_ 2, 2000 AGENDA ITEM~~_~ . 'CITY MANAGER:~~.~__~ ORIGINATING DEPT: City_ Manager PREPARED BY: Paula Reeve' SUBJECT: Amendment to Humane Society Animal Services Agreement to provide Animal Control and Sheltering services from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. RECOMMEND ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to execute the Services Agreement between the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley and the Cities of Saratoga, Cupertino, Campbell, Monte Sereno and the Town of Los Gatos. REPORT SUMMARY: On November 4, 1999, the City Council approved a Compliance Plan to meet the sheltering and funding source requirements of AB 1482 and Resolution No.99-51. By accepting the plan, Council granted staff permission to negotiate a one-year extension to the existing Animal Services contract with the Humane Society that expires on June 30, 2000. Recognizing the limited time to establish a new animal control provider and facilities, the West Valley cities of Saratoga, Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Campbell and the Town of Los Gatos have subsequently negotiated a one-year extension from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. The additional time will provide the West Valley cities the opportunity to enter into a joint powers agreement with other South Bay cities for the provision of animal control, sheltering and licensing services. The provisions of the attached Agreement are similar to the prior four-year agreement, with the following modifications: 1. Section 11, Indemnification: Effective July 1, 1999, state law increased the period of time that stray animals must be housed before being euthanized from 2 to 5 days, which dramatically increases the expense of sheltering animals and the required kennel space. SB 1482 provides a one-year exemption from this provision. The Humane Society's originally intended to discontinue services'as of July 1, 2000. In the interest of assisting the cities with the transition of assuming animal control services, it has agreed to the extension provided the Agreement includes an indemnification clause to cover actions of non-compliance due to lack of shelter space. 2. Section 2(a), Field Services: The Humane Society will no longer perform Code Enforcement tasks including barking dog complaints and the investigation and resolution of dangerous dog cases. However, the Humane Society will continue impounding, sheltering and evaluating these animals. The City of Saratoga's Community Service Officers will once again assume responsibility for animal control related code enforcement matters, until a long-term solution for services can be formalized. 3. Section 2(c), Operating Schedules: The only other significant change is the hours of operation which have changed from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with emergency calls between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. FISCAL IMPACTS: The Animal Services Agreement for the West Valley cities totals $344,541 for the 2000- 2001 fiscal year. Saratoga's portion of this amount will be $41,556 for Field Services, and $23,561 for Shelter services, for a total of $65,117. These amounts have been included in the FY 00/01 Budget under Activity 2025 (Animal Control) and Activity 5005 (Integrated Waste Management). ADVERTSING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING: The City of Saratoga will not be included in the Animal Services Agreement with the West Valley cities and will be required to seek these services on an individual basis which has historically resulted in the loss of the economies of scale gained by contracting jointly. ATTACHMENTS: Animal Services Agreement between the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley and the City Unit of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Cratos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga. The terms and conditions of the Agreement have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the Senior Administrative Analyst. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETINGDATE: February 2, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: SUBJECT: Resolution to Amend Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Wages, Employee Benefits and Conditions of Employment between the City of Saratoga and the Saratoga Employees Association dated July 1, 1999. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Adopt proposed resolution and authorize the City Manager to amend Memorandum of Understanding accordingly. REPORT SUMMARY: The City's current dental insurance provider is Prudential Healthcare. Prudential increased the City's dental premiums 25% on January 1, 1999, and another 30% January 1, 2000. Upon receiving word of this latest rate increase, the Human Resource Analyst directed the City's insurance and benefits administrator to perform a dental benefit and cost comparison with other providers. After analyzing the.results and conferring with the designated representatives of both the Saratoga Employees Association and the Saratoga Management Organization, staff recommends switching dental plans from Prudential Healthcare to Delta Dental effective immediately. Both employee bargaining units are supportive of this change. · Also, Section XIII. F. of the MOU currently specifies Prudential as the dental insurance provider. The MOU would require an amendment specifying Delta Dental as the dental insurance provider. FISCAL IMPACTS: Using current employee enrollment statistics, changing the current dental insurance provider from Prudential to Delta, will actually reduce benefit costs to the City by of $15,129.24 per year while at the same time enhancing dental benefits for employees. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Potential savings on dental premiums would not be realized. Employees would not have enhanced dental insurance coverage. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): Continue with Prudential for employee dental insurance. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Conduct employee enrollment meetings. Enter into a contract with Delta Dental. Amend the MOU. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed City Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA AMENDING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. $5-9 AS AMENDED, ADJUSTING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR NON-MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga, through its designated representatives and pursuant to state law, has met and conferred with the organized employee representative association, the Saratoga Employees Association (SEA), through its designated representatives, concerning proposals for modifications and changes to salaries, benefits and other matters; and WHEREAS, the representatives of the City and SEA have reached an understanding regarding changes in salaries, benefits and other matters for the period July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2001, for employees represented by the SEA, all of which are specified in a Memorandum of Understanding dated July 1, 1999, to which reference is made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, the City and SEA have agreed to certain amendments to said MOU as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and SEA, dated July 1, 1999, are hereby amended by incorporating therein Exhibit "A", attached hereto. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the 2ND DAY OF February, 2000, by the following vote: AYE S: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Stan Bogosian, Mayor Susan A. Ramos, CMC, City Clerk EXHIBIT A Effective March 1, 2000, Section XIII F. Dental Insurance _of the MOU between the City and SEA dated July 1, 1999, shall read as follows: Effective March 1, 2000, the monthly Benefits Allowance provided for in Section XIII A. shall be adjusted by the amount of the City's contribution on behalf of each employee towards a dental insurance plan offered through Delta Dental. The amount of the City's contribution shall be based on each employee's enrollment status in the plan and shall be equivalent to the full plan premium for each employee. Coverage under the plan shall begin and end, as does coverage for health insurance. Employees who decline coverage in the plan shah receive an additional benefits allowance of $25 per month. The benefits allowance for dental insurance for permanent part-time employees will be prorated in proportion to the number of hours worked. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: February 2, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY MANAGER AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: Ci.ty Clerk SUBJECT: Approval of Council Minutes RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Approve the subject minutes. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are the draft minutes of January 14 and January 19, 2000. FISCAL IMPACTS: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Minutes will not be approved. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): None ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Subject minutes. MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DRAFT TIME: Friday, January 14, 2000 - 8:00 a.m. PLACE: Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga TYPE: Special Meeting Joint Meeting with KSAR (Closed Session) CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Bogosian called the special joint meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. in the Administrative Conference Room at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. ROLL CALL - Councilmembers Waltonsmith, Baker, Streit, Mayor Bogosian were present. Vice Mayor Mehaffey was absent. Staff present - City Manager Perlin, City Attorney Taylor and Special Counsel Joshua Masur. Saratoga Community Access Cable TV Foundation Board (KSAR): Boardmembers Moran, Lawrenson, Fishbaugh, Dolmatch were present. Boardmember Stokes was absent; KSAR Staff present: Access Director McGoldrick, Special Counsel Barry McCarthy.. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA - Pursuant to Government Code 54956, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 22, 1999. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3(a), the City Council will provide the public with an opportunity to address the Council on any item described in the notice before or during consideration of that item. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code · Section 54956.9(a): City of Saratoga v. TCI of Cleveland, Santa Clara County Superior Court. MAYOR'S REPORT AFTER CLOSED SESSION - Vice Mayor Bogosian declared there was no reportable action taken. ADJOURNMENT - The special meeting adjourned at 9:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan A. Ramos, CMC, City Clerk 1 ofl MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, January 19, 2000- 6:30 p.m. PLACE: Closed Session - Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; TYPE: Regular Meeting OPEN SESSION - 6:30 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION 1. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a) - Name of Cases: City of Saratoga v. TCI of Cleveland, Santa Clara County Superior. MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - Mayor Bogosian declared there was no reportable action taken. REGULAR MEETING/CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Bogosian called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Adult Care Center at 19655 Allendale Avenue. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Led by Vice Mayor Mehaffey ROLL CALL - Councilmembers Waltonsmith, Streit, Vice Mayor Mehaffey, Mayor Bogosian were present. Councilmember Baker was absent. Staff present: City Manager Perlin, City Attorney Taylor, City Clerk Ramos, Director of Administrative Services Walker, Director of Community Development Walgren, Acting Director of Public Works Cherbone, Recreation Director Pisani and Administrative Analyst Bloomquist. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Presentation of Distinguished Budget Presentation Award and Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting by Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). Tim Hanson, Finance Director of the City of San Leandro presented the awards tO Director of Administrative Services Walker and City Manager Perlin. Mayor Bogosian commended staff for their efforts. Page loflO City Council Minutes January 19, 2000 REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA - The City Clerk reported that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 14, 2000. 3. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items - None B. Communications from Boards and Commissions 1. Nomination of Ann Margo Mendeke and Phylis Davis to the Hakone Foundation Board of Trustees. Recommendation: Approve appointment of Nominees. City Manager Peflin presented the staff report. STREIT/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO NOMINEES. MOTION PASSED 4-0. APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE Recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission to support a new Aquatic Center at Saratoga High School. Recommendation: Approve a $150,000 contribution to support construction of a new Aquatic Center at Saratoga High School. City Manager Peflin presented the staff report and deferred additional comments to Kevin Skelly, Principal at Saratoga High School, and Judy Alberts, Chairperson of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Judy Alberts, Chairperson, Parks and Recreation Commission, reported that the Commission, at their last meeting, voted to recommend using $150,000 from the General Fund to the sinking fund. The Commission did not have any discussions to use the Park Development Fund; therefore the Commission cannot comment or make any recommendations to use the Park Development Fund at this time. However, because the fees from the Recreation Department that are used for rentals go into the General Fund, it is felt that this is the proper place for these fees to come out to support the pool. It is a sinking fund, and will be refurbished over the ten years of rentals. Because of the support and cooperation received from the High School for the use of their facilities over the years, the Commission felt very strongly that this amount should be appropriated to the High School from the General Fund into a sinking fund. Kevin Skelly, 20281 Saratoga Vista Court, Principal of Saratoga High School, commented that the school community is asking for a no-interest loan from the City to build a swimming pool by July 2000. The benefits of this investment to the City are a commitment frOm the school to continue to work with the City to meet the recreational needs of the City. The City's Recreation Depamnent, AYSO, Little League and other community activities use the school facility. The School District passed a budget to build the pool and believed that the District had the financial resources to build this pool at that time, however, after the bidding process, the total cost was higher than anticipated and even after a strong fund raising campaign in the last few months to compensate for this lack of Page 2 of 10 City Council Minutes January 19, 2000 funds, the school is still short of $150,000. Discussion ensued regarding the City agreements with Saratoga High School for use of their facilities. City Manager Perlin clarified that the agreement with the High SchOol for this pool funding will extend beyond the time that Congress Springs Park is being renovated and well into the future. Assuming that Congress Springs Park is renovated within the next two years, this pool funding agreement would extend well beyond that two-year period. Councilmember Streit asked the audience for a show of hands in support of this pool funding. A large majority of the audience expressed support. Following discussion, City Manager Perlin provided some alternatives on how this amount could be replenished or returned to the City, if that is the intent of the Council. Councilmember Streit felt that the bottom line should be that the City would get their money back over the next ten years. So in essence the City is merely prepaying the rental use of the school's facilities for its recreational programs. Mayor Bogosian commented he would like the City to complete the execution of the agreement with the High School before the budget is amended for this funding. Director Pisani concurred. City Manager Perlin explained that the item is on the agenda tonight to ascertain the Council's position. Mayor Bogosian asked the pleasure of the Council. Councilmembers Streit, Waltonsmith and Vice Mayor Mehaffey expressed support. Mayor Bogosian also expressed support of the funding to come from the General Funds, as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission. He added he would like to review the agreement before the budget amendment is brought back to the Council. STREIT/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE A $150,000 CONTRIBUTION, TO BE APPROPRIATED FROM THE GENERAL FUND, TO SUPPORT CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AQUATIC CENTER AT SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL PENDING DEVELOPMENT AND EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL. MOTION PASSED 4-0. Due to the late hour, Mayor Bogosian moved to the Public Heating section on the agenda: 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 p.m. A. Reconsideration of City Council's decision to overturn the Planning Commission approval of applications SD 99-005, UP 99-018, DR 99-037 (12312 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Applicant: Azule Crossing, Inc., considered by City Council on Page 3 of 10 City Council Minutes January 19, 2000 December 15, 1999. Reconsideration granted on January 5, 2000. Recommendation: Continue the hearing to February 2, 2000 as requested by the applicant. City Manager Perlin presented the staff report. Mayor Bogosian opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Jack Mallory, :12258 Kirkdale Drive, expressed his concern about excess housing and two-story setback away fi.om the road, which is uncharacteristic of the City, and expressed support for more space. Jeffi-ey Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, reiterated that he would like to see the process of having neighborhood involvement in any redesign, consideration of second story, redistribution of the retail/commercial versus residential for this project continue, and requested the Council consider returning it back to the Planning Commission for additional study and neighborhood participation. JoAnn Couche, commented on the tradeoffs of keeping the property commercially zoned and dealing with the increased traffic that comes with enhanced commercial districts, or allowing higher density or lower cost housing. She expressed concern that the Council denied the project without an alternative proposal that would meet the needs of the entire community. MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO FEBRUARY 2, 2000, AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANTS. MOTION PASSED 4-0. B. Appeal of Planning Commission approval of DR 9%061, a design review to construct a new 6,461 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75-acre lot. The property is located within a hillside residential zoning district at 14805 Masson Court. (Appellant: Kwong, Park and Sze; Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Liu, APN 503-72-014). Recommendation: Continue the public hearing to February 2, 2000, as requested by the appellants. City Manager Perlin presented the staff report. Councilmember Streit requested staff to stake out road, lot and set poles in correct locations before the Council's site visit. Director Walgren concurred. Mayor Bogosian opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. There were no public testimonies at this time. STREIT/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO FEBRUARY 2, 2000, AS REQUESTED BY THE APPELLANTS. MOTION PASSED 4-0. C. Use of Citizen's Option for Public Safety (COPS) funding in fiscal year 99-00. Recommendation: Approve the recommended allocation of funds. Page 4 of 10 City Council Minutes City Manager Perlin presented the staffreport. January l9,2000 In response to Councilmember Streit, City Manager Perlin replied that the funding for the seventh camera in the patrol vehicle was provided through a program with ABAG and the work has been completed. In response to Vice Mayor Mehaffey, City Manager Perlin explained how the program .funds are allocated for the Public Safety Officer. ~' Mayor Bogosian opened the public heating at 7:58 p.m. There being no public testimonieS, closed the public heating at 7:59 p.m. MEHAFFEY/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED ALLOCATION OF FUNDS. MOTION PASSED 4-0. Mayor Bogosian added that the addition of an evening motor patrol is worthwhile in Saratoga for the safety of the citizens. At this time, Mayor Bogosian returned to agenda item 3.C. 1. C. Written Communications Letter from Saratoga Lions requesting City co-sponsorship for July 4~, 2000 Hometown Celebration. Recommendation: Move to co-sponsor the event. City Manager Perlin presented the staff report and deferred additional comments to Marlene Duffin. Ms. Duffm, on behalf of the Lions Club, provided additional information about the upcoming event. She added comments about the George Washington Bicentennial community activities that took place last December and the application process to become a Millennium City, of which information was provided to her by the City Manager. In response to Vice Mayor Mehaffey, City Attorney Taylor replied that because the City is co- sponsoring the event, the City would be sharing the liability with the Lions Club. STREIT/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO CO-SPONSOR THE JULY 4TM HOMETOWN CELEBRATION. MOTION PASSED 4-0. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Previously Discussed Items - None B. New Items Councilmember Streit requested to pull item B.4 for discussion; City Manager Perlin requested to pull item 4B.3 for new information received. Page 5 of I0 City Council Minutes January l9,2000 1. Planning Commission actions of January 12, 2000. Recommendation: Note and file. 2. Approval of Check Register Recommendation: Note and file MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE CONSEIqT CALENDAR ITEMS 4B. 1 and 4B.2. MOTION PASSED 4-0. o Memo authorizing publicity for February 2, 2000 Public Hearing item: Huang appeal of Planning Commission denial of F-99-003, 13870 Pike Road, Applicant: Huang (Continued September 1, 1999). Recommendation: No additional noticing is required by law. City Manager Perlin announced that information was received fi.om the Planning Department that the Huang's would be submitting a letter requesting to withdraw their appeal. Councilmember Streit commented he received a phone message indicating their intent to withdraw. STREIT/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 4B.2. MOTION PASSED 4-0.. ¸4. Park Restroom Improvements and Disabled Accessibility Ramp - Award of Construction Contract. Recommendation: 1. Move to declare Jens Hansen Company, Inc. of San Carlos to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project; Move to award a Construction Contract to Jens Hansen Company, Inc. in the amount of $158, 661; Move to authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $16,000. Councilmember Streit expressed concem that the lowest bid was significantly lower that the Engineer's estimate and the other bids, and asked staff about the contractor's background. Acting Public :Works Director Cherbone replied that background checks were conducted and cleared. STREIT/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 4B.4. MOTION PASSED 4-0. C. Claims Against the City - None OLD BUSINESS - None e NEW BUSINESS Page 6 of 10 City Council Minutes January 19, 2000 A. Annual Review of the City Investment Policy. Recommendation: Approve the Investment Policy as recommended. Director Walker presented the staff report. In response to Councilmember Waltonsmith, Director Walker replied that the language removed under Section 6 was removed due to its redundancy. Discussion ensued regarding investment procedures. STREIT/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE INVESTMENT POLICY AS RECOMMENDED. MOTION PASSED 4-0. Response to Independent Auditor's Memorandum on Internal Control Structure for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1999. Recommendation: Accept and file the report, and direct staff to implement recommended procedures. Director Walker presented the staff report. In response to questions fi.om the Council, Director Walker replied that the auditor's comments outlined in the report are their recommendations and should not carry any legal ramifications. She added that this document is not forwarded to a rating agency. Councilmember Streit clarified the comments in this report reflect their opinion and recommendations on how staff and the City can improve their business operations. The budget and financial reporting awards presented earlier show that staff is doing an exemplary job in the financial operations of the City. STREIT/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ACCEPT AND FILE THE REPORT'AND DIRECT STAFF TO IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES. MOTION PASSED 4-0 ge ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications. None. e APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Note: City Attorney may be excused at this point if no longer needed.) A. Regular meeting of January 5, 2000 Recommendation: Approve minutes. Mayor Bogosian amended the minutes as follows: 1) Page 5, under comments made by Mr. Paboojan: Reflect additional language to about his request that the proposed trails map of Saratoga's Trails Master Plan be included in the Page 7 of 10 City Council Minutes January 19, 2000 2) City's response to.the County; Page 6, item 10B, Other, under Councilmember Baker's comments regarding the time it has taken to get notification to the property Owners... Reflect additional language that Councilmember Baker and he noted that this matter had been brought to the City Council on previous occasions. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 4-0. 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Agenda items for the next adjourned regular meeting (Note: The purpose of listing the items immediately following is not to discuss or take action on them, but simply to decide whether they are to be placed on the agenda for the adjourned · regular meeting of January 25, 2000. 1. Mid-year evaluation of City Attorney. 2. Mid-year evaluation of City Manager. : 3. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission: a. Presentation on Housing Element Update and ABAG's Housing Needs Determination Allocations. b. Extension of Measure G to commercial zoning districts. c. Status report on Circulation Element Update. d. Status report on Fencing Ordinance revisions.' 4. Proposed policy on appeal continuances. 5. Mid-Year Budget adjustments. · 6. Status report on Saratoga Creek litigation settlement activities. Regional No changes were made. There was consensus to begin the meeting at 5:00 pending closed session items. B. Other .1. Appointment of Council representative to serve on the Hakone Foundation Strategic Planning Task Force (Requested by Mayor Bogosian). Mayor Bogosian provided some background about this appointment, stating it is a non-voting role. In response, City Attomey Taylor replied that a non-voting ex-officio member to receive and disseminate information to fellow members should not create any conflict problems. MEHAFFEY/STREIT MOVED TO .APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR BOGOSIAN TO SERVE ON THE HAKONE FOUNDATION STRATEGIC PLANNING TASK FORCE AS A'NON VOTING EX-OFFICIO MEMBER. MOTION PASSED 4-0. Councilmember Waltonsmith commented on the following: · She received a complaint fi.om Mr. McLellan regarding speeding motorists on Vickery Page 8 of 10 City Council Minutes January 19, 2000 Road. City Manager Perlin suggested she put Ms. McLellan in contact with Chris Kom, Administrative Analyst and staff liaison for the Public Safety Commission. Mayor Bogosian commented that item was discussed at a Public Safety Commission meeting and the Commission decided to conduct traffic studies in that area. He requested for a status report fi.om staff regarding this matter. Informed the Council that at the VTA PAC's meeting, there 'was discussion regarding the City being number 4 of 17 to receive funding approval for six traffic signals on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. She also commented about a letter she received fi.om Michael Evanhoe regarding the deadline of January 31, 2000 to submit new projects for the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2020. Discussion ensued. City Manager Perlin felt there have not been enough discussions about proposed projects to warrant submitting an application to VTA for the VTP 2020. Mayor Bogosian suggested staff confirm the submittal deadline from VTA. City Manager Perlin explained that VTP 2020 is updated every two years, and it's a twenty-year plan, which should.give an idea on how long it would take to get these projects funded. Councilmember Waltonsmith said that the letter also stated that Mr. Evanhoe would be sending a letter out to all City Councils for a presentation in March or April on this matter. Mayor Bogosian said he is looking forward to that presentation for an opportunity to reiterate some of Saratoga's issues, particularly noise abatement on Highway 85. In response to Councilmember Waltonsmith, City Manager Perlin replied that in a recent conversation with Mr. Evanhoe, he was informed that VTA would begin discussions with Caltrans in the spring, to move that project along. If it appears that the VTA is still not making any progress with Caltrans, he felt it would be appropriate at that time to request for a letter of support from Sen. Sher and Assemblyman Cunneen. Councilmember Streit expressed concem about waiting too long to do this, especially since their terms are expiring. Discussion ensued. City Manager Perlin commented he would contact Assemblyman Cunneen's office and request that a letter of support fi.om Sen. Sher and Assemblyman Cunneen be prepared and forwarded to Caltrans at the earliest oppommity. Mayor Bogosian commented it is important to clearly indicate to our representatives that this abatement is focused along Highway 85 fi.om Highway 280 to 17 in Saratoga and Cupertino and requested that this be forwarded to our representatives immediately. Council concurred. Page 9 of 10 City Council Minutes January l9,2000 Vice Mayor Mehaffey commented on the following: · Status of the construction on Paul Avenue, which was discussed with Director Walgren a few months ago. City Manager Peflin replied he was not aware of it and suggested he should contact James Walgren. · Status about the paving at the end of Springer Avenue. City Manager Peflin replied John Cherbone has been in contact with the property owner and to cOntact him for an UPdate. Stares of the playground area at Wildwood Park. Councilmember Streit replied that part of the contract approved tonight for restroom improvements would include replacement of the wooden chips in the playground area and other work. Mayor · Bogosian commented on the following: Scoping session to review the California Water Plan - January 20~h in Fremont. Request for an appointment to Council on Aging. Mr. Perlin suggested forwarding the request to SASCC. Flood Control Blue Ribbon Forum on February 2. 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT State budget for the Vasona Rail project will allow the design and environmental work for the extension down to Winchester to be performed · Chamber installation dinner · SBDC meeting on January 25 at 8:00 a.m. · TEA bill · Mini JPA meeting to discuss animal services was not productive. Staff will be convening a meeting to talk to individuals in the animal control business to get another perspective on this whole issue and review any options available. · He will not be attending the Council meeting of February 2. He will be at a conference. ADJOURNMENT ' Mayor Bogosian adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. to the adjoumed regular meeting of January 25, 2000. Respectfully sUbmitted, Susan A. Ramos, CMC, City Clerk Page 10 ofl0