Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-03-1999 Staff Reports SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. we AGENDA ITEM B() MEETING DATE March 3, 1999 CITY MANAGER: dit ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager DEPT. HEAD Larry Perlin SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Chapter Repealing Article 7 -10 of and Adding Article 7 -10 to the Code of the City of Saratoga Relating to Sewage Disposal RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Adopt the attached ordinance. REPORT SUMMARY: The City Council introduced the attached ordinance at their regular meeting of February 17, 1999 with an amendment adding subsection C to Section B11 -13.3 which provides for a time extension by the City Council upon a determination of financial hardship. The amended ordinance is before you for adoption. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Summary of the introduced ordinance was published in the Saratoga News as required by law. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The attached ordinance will not be adopted. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Subject ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 71- 1 90 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REPEALING ARTICLE 7 -10 OF AND ADDING ARTICLE 7 -10 TO THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, RELATING TO SEWAGE DISPOSAL The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Article 7 -10 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. Article 7 -10 is hereby added to the Code of the City of Saratoga to read as follows: "7- 10.010 Health Officer Defined. For the purposes of this Article, the term "Health Officer" shall mean the City Manager. Any of the powers or duties to be exercised or approvals to be granted by the Health Officer under this Article may be delegated by the City Manager, in whole or in part, to the County Health Department or to such other authorized agents as the City Manager may designate. The term "Health Officer" shall be synonymous with the term "director" as used in Division B11, Chapter II, Article 1 and 2, of the Code of the County of Santa Clara. 7- 10.020. Adoption of County of Santa Clara Code Regarding Sewage Disposal. Division B11, Chapter II, Article 1 and 2 only, of the Code of The County of Santa Clara, as it may be amended from time to time, one copy of which has been filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the City Clerk, is referred to and, except as to additions, deletions and amendments hereinafter noted, such regulations are adopted and made a part hereof, the same as if fully set forth in this Article, and shall be the sewage disposal regulations for the City. 7- 10.030. Additions. Deletions and Amendments. The additions, deletions and amendments set forth in this Article are made to Division B11, Chapter II, Article 1 and 2 only, of the Code of the County of 1 s Santa Clara, as adopted by reference in Section 7- 10.010. 7- 10.040. Section B11-6 is Amended Concerning Non Responsibility For Damage. Section B11 -6 of the Code of the County of Santa Clara is amended to read as follows: `Section B11-6. County and City Not Responsible for Damage. This Chapter shall not be construed as imposing upon the county or the city any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from the defective construction of any sewage disposal system as herein provided, nor shall the county or the city or any official or employee thereof be held as assuming any such liability or responsibility by reason of the inspection authorized hereunder.' 7- 10.050 Section B11-13.2 is Added Concerning Inspection of Private On -Site Sewage Disposal System Upon Sale of Property. Section B11-13.2 is added to the Code of the County of Santa Clara, to read as follows: `Section B11 -13.2. Inspection of Private On -Site Sewage Disposal System Upon Transfer of Ownership of Property. (a) No person shall sell, transfer, or convey more than fifty percent of the ownership interest in any real property, residence, place of business, or other building, upon which a private on -site sewage disposal system exists, without first obtaining an inspection of the sewage disposal system and written report summarizing the results of the inspection. (b) The inspection shall be made for the purpose of determining, and the report of the inspector shall state, whether the private on -site sewage disposal system is operating in compliance with this Code. (c) The inspection shall be conducted by a registered civil engineer or a registered environmental health specialist, or any other individual who is determined by the Health 2 Officer to be qualified to perform such inspection. (d) The report of the inspection shall be submitted to the Health Officer as a condition to close of escrow or transfer of ownership of the subject property.' 7- 10.060. Section B11-13.3 is Added Concerning Requirement of Connection to Public Sewer. Section B11 -13.3 is added to the Code of the County of Santa Clara, to read as follows: `Section B11 -13.3. When Connection to Public Sewer is Required. (a) The Health Officer may order by notice in writing any person owning or occupying property within the boundaries of the City from or upon which any sewage whatsoever is generated, which premises are not connected to an existing public sewer facility available within 200 feet of the boundary line of such property, to connect thereto or vacate or cause to be vacated such premises within a specified period of time. (b) The City Council, however, after receiving evidence from the Health Officer, may declare and determine that the continued use of an existing on -site sewage disposal system is and could reasonably be expected to remain adequate for treatment and disposal of sewage without constituting a public nuisance by reason of the soil condition, drainage conditions, the degree of urban development in the area and the type and condition of the particular sewage disposal system in question. As a condition to such determination, the owners of the property with reference to which such determination has been made, shall execute in writing in a form acceptable for recordation a covenant to: (1) Cause connection to be made to the existing public sewer facilities within a specified time not to 3 exceed five years from the date of such determination or upon demand of the Health Officer, whichever date comes first, based upon the determination of such officer that one or more of the conditions recited in sub section (b) above have changed so that such existing sewage treatment and disposal constitutes a public nuisance; (2) Notify any purchaser or transferee for consideration of any rights in and to such property of the existence of such a covenant and the performance or nonperformance thereof prior to such purchase or transfer. (c) The five year maximum time period set forth in subparagraph (b) (1) may be extended by the City Council upon a determination of financial hardship.' 7- 10.070. Section B11-29.1 is Amended Concerning Recordation of Notice of Violation. Section B11-29.1 of the Code of the County of Santa Clara is amended to read as follows: `Section B11 -29.1. Record Notice of Violation. The Health Officer shall record a notice of the existence of a substandard sewage disposal system violation in the office of the County Recorder, and shall notify the owner of the affected real property and any other known party responsible for the violation that such action has been taken. This notice is to inform all parties that no improvements, including building additions, can be approved while the substandard sewage disposal system continues in operation.' 7- 10.080. Section B11-30 is Amended Concerning Appeals. Section B11-30 of the Code of the County of Santa Clara is amended to read as follows: 4 Ord. 71 -190 `Section B11 -30. Appeal From Denial, Revocation or Suspension. Any appeal to the decision of the Health Officer pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of this Chapter shall be filed in accordance with the provisions in Section 2- 05.030 of the Code of the City of Saratoga." 7- 10.090. Sewage Disposal System constituting a Public Nuisance. `Private on -site sewage disposal systems which the Health Officer determines are not operating in compliance with the requirements of Division B -11, Chapter II, Articles 1 and 2 of the Code of the County of Santa Clara, are hereby deemed by the City Council to be a public nuisance and may be abated in the manner set forth in Articles 3 -15 and 3 -20 of the Code of the City of Saratoga." SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the 'Irri day of March 1999, by the following vote. AYES: Councilmembers Baker, Streit, Vice Mayor Bogosian, Mayor Shaw NOES: None ABSENT: Counci l member Mehaffey .w► J Mayor ATTEST: C2,2vu City Clerk February 22, 1999 MSR:dsp J: \WPD\MNRS W\2 73 \ORD99\SE W- DISP.CLN 5 1i SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM /5 ('I MEETING DATE: March 3, 1999 CITY MANAGER: r ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services DEPT. HEAD: I/ ,v i ,d ,L SUBJECT: Monthly Financial Report for January 1999 RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Accept the monthly financial reports for January 1999. REPORT SUMMARY: The accompanying financial reports represent the monthly revenues, expenditures and fund balances in all City funds for Fiscal Year 1998 -99, as of January 1999. The Finance Committee reviewed the format of the monthly financial report at their February meeting and recommended several changes. One of the percentage columns to the right of the page has been eliminated. The remaining percentage column has been modified to reflect the percentage variance of actual revenues and expenditures (column 5) to the year -to -date estimate (column 4). The funds have been arranged by fund group, rather than fund number order. Significant variances are footnoted on the revenue and expenditure detail pages. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Overall, revenues are slightly higher than expected at this point in the annual cycle, and expenditures are slightly lower than expected. In the General Fund, revenues are about $285,000 higher than expected as of January, primarily due to an unanticipated property tax equity allocation (TEA) payment, and slightly higher sales tax revenues, motor vehicle license fees, refunds and reimbursements, and interest income. All other General Fund revenues are approximately as budgeted at mid -year. General Fund expenditures are about $152,000 less than anticipated as of January, with savings in many of the program budgets. Vacancies in the Public Works department has resulted in salary savings in the General Fund. In other funds, vehicle fines are higher than the original conservative estimate, although not much higher than this time last year. Development Service revenues are about 40% higher than expected as of January due to an active development environment. Development expenditures, however, are on target. The Streets and Roads fund has experienced some savings from staffing vacancies. Recreation Services expenditures appear lower than anticipated as of January, but the spring and summer are the busy season, during which both revenues and expenditures are expected to pick up. Other funds are generally as anticipated. Please note that operating transfers are generally only done at year end, including the transfer for the indirect cost allocation for administrative overhead. Therefore, while the transfers are included in the annual budget figures, they are not in the monthly estimate nor the monthly actuals. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): None. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Accept and file the report. ATTACHMENTS: Monthly Financial Report for January 1999 Treasurer's Report for January 1999 cc: Finance Commission MJW:mjw January 21, 1999 Monthly_Jan99 2 CITY OF SARATOGA SEVEN MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31,1999 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED 58.3% FUND BALANCE BALANCE ADJUSTMENTS YEAR TO DATE BALANCE FUND FUND DESCRIPTION JULY 1 199 TRANSFERS REVENUES EXPENDITURES JANUARY 31, 1999 001 GENERAL FUND 5,847,373 (561,182) 3,596,848 2,954,480 5,928,559 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: 100 COPS SUP. LAW ENFORCEMENT 19,573 70,145 15,006 74,712 110 TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF 74,039 987 73,052 150 STREETS &ROADS SRF 462,029 307,812 769,841 170 HILLSIDE REPAIR SRF 7,551 7,551 180 LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SRF 85,792 78,002 60,662 103,132 250 DEVELOPMENT SRF 289,473 1,010,094 475,054 824,513 260 ENVIRNMNTAL PRG SRF 85,773 290,782 180,658 195,897 270 HOUSING &COMM DEV SRF 68,401 67,752 71,233 207,386 290 RECREATION SRF 17,085 315,310 332,395 292 FACILITY OPS SRF 70,069 26,995 43,074 710 HERITAGE PRSRVTN TRST FND 6,242 6,242 TOTAL SPECIAL REV. FUNDS 555,254 546,866 2,295,037 2,068,984 1,328,173 CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS: 160 TRANS DEV ACT SRF 4,800 4,800 293 THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF 11,294 15,366 6,964 19,696 310 PARK DEVELOPMENT 2,219,278 83,835 60,679 2,242,434 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJ. FUNDS 2,230,572 4,800 99,201 72,443 2,262,130 DEBT SERVICE FUND: 400 LIBRARY BONDS DEBT SVC 1,402 85,183 (83,781) TOTAL DEBT SVC. FUND 1,402 85,183 (83,781) AGENCY FUNDS: 420 LEONARD ROAD DEBT SVC 41,036 7,896 9,075 39,857 700 QUARRY CREEK PROJ ADM 24,697 9,516 247 34,460 720 C.A. TV TRUST FUND 77,450 77,450 730 PARKING DIST #2 DEBT SVC 12,181 8,800 501 20,480 740 PARKING DIST #3 DEBT SVC 1,782 96,028 135,829 (38,019) 800 DEPOSIT AGENCY FUND 409,477 409,477 990 SARATOGA PUBL FIN AGNCY 228,441 228,441 TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS 795,064 9,516 112,971 179,865 737,686 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 9,429,665 6,104,057 5,360,955 10,172,767 fs199\RECAP Page 1 2/26/99 CITY OF SARATOGA SEVEN MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31,1999 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED 58.3% REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 1998 -99 YEAR -TO -DATE PERCENT 1998 -99 1998 -99 (YTD) 1998 -99 REVISED ESTIMATED ACTUAL/ ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL 1/31/99 1/31/99 1/31/99 TITLE BUDGET (if different) (if different) ESTIMATE ACTUAL ESTIMATE REVENUE RECAP BY FUND 001 GENERAL FUND 6,155,625 6,503,691 3,311,435 3,596,848 8.6% SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: 100 COPS -SLESF FUND 71,000 71,000 70,145 -1.2% 110 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND 32,938 122,938 20,438 74,039 262.3% (1) 150 STREETS ROADS SRF 721,281 305,391 307,812 0.8% 170 HILLSIDE REPAIR FUND 5,160 10,000 3,010 7,551 150.9% 180 LANDSCAPE LIGHTING FUND 128,975 77,652 78,002 0.5% 250 DEVELOPMENT FUND 1,240,700 1,504,000 723,742 1,010,094 39.6% (2) 260 ENVIRNMNTAL PROGRAM FUND 709,291 275,312 290,782 5.6% 270 HOUSING COMMUNITY DEV FUND 372,013 442,013 71,517 71,233 -0.4% 290 RECREATION FUND 589,700 307,908 315,310 2.4% 292 FACILITY OPERATIONS FUND 134,000 75,167 70,069 -6.8% 710 HERITAGE PRSRVTION TRUST FUND TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 4,005,058 4,433,198 1,931,136 2,295,037 18.8% CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS: 160 TRANSPORT DEVELOP ACT SRF 99,676 293 THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF 21,500 12,542 15,366 22.5% 310 PARK DVLPMNT CAP PRJ FND 143,520 83,720 83,835 0.1% TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 264,696 96,262 99,201 3.1% DEBT SERVICE FUND: 400 LIBRARY BOND DEBT SRV FND 94,106 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 94,106 TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS 420 LEONARD RD DEBT SER FUND 12,263 7,153 7,896 10.4% 700 QUARRY CREEK TRUST FUND 350 204 247 21.0% 720 CA TV TRUST FUND 730 PRK DST #2 DBT SR/AGNCY FD 11,538 6,731 8,800 30.7% 740 PRK DST #3 DBT SR/AGNCY FD 168,225 98,131 96,028 -2.1% 800 DEPOSITS AGENCY FUND 990 SARATOGA PFA AGENCY FUND TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS 192,376. 112,219 112,971 0.7% TOTAL ALL FUNDS 10,711,861 11,488,067 5,451,052 6,104,057 12.0% I fs199\REVENUE Page 2 2/26/99 I CITY OF SARATOGA SEVEN MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31,1999 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED 58.3% REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 1998 -99 YEAR -TO -DATE PERCENT 1998 -99 1998 -99 (YTD) 1 1998 -99 REVISED ESTIMATED ACTUAL/ ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL 1/31/99 1/31/99 1/31/99 TITLE BUDGET (if different) (if different) ESTIMATE ACTUAL ESTIMATE I GENERAL FUND 001 PROP TAX SECURED 1,340,000 603,000 641,462 6.4% TEA ALLOCATION 109,030 109,030 100 (3) 1,340,000 1,449,030 603,000 750,492 24.5% SALES TAX 1% 962,964 1,000,000 561,729 594,247 5.8% SALES TAX PROP 172 72,036 36,018 39,677 10.2% 1,035,000 597,747 633,924 6.1% TRANSFER TAX 286,000 143,000 131,873 -7.8% CONSTRUCTION TAX 375,000 218,750 219,132 0.2% TRANS OCCUP TAX 257,250 128,625 121,601 -5.5% FRANCHISE FEES FRANCHISE PG &E 207,315 FRANCHISE TCI 160,680 80,340 72,378 -9.9% FRANCHISE SJ WATER 92,731 FRANCHISE GREEN VALLEY 283,000 141,500 143,083 1.1% 743,726 221,840 215,461 -2.9% BUSINESS LICENSES 274,050 159,863 154,882 -3.1% MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEE 1,173,000 1,250,000 684,250 732,904 7.1% OFF HIGHWAY MV FEE 170 170 498 192.9% HOPTR 16,000 9,333 7,755 -16.9% 1,189,170 693,753 741,157 6.8% DISASTER RECOVERY 321,190 187,361 108,951 -41.8% (4) OTHER REFUNDS REIMBURSES 171,559 100,076 164,168 64.0% (5) FINES -FALSE ALARM 25,000 14,583 20,850 43.0% FORFEITURES 40,000 23,333 17,590 -24.6% INTEREST 250,000 375,000 145,833 236,296 62.0% (6) RENTALS -CELL PHONE 44,000 25,667 33,745 31.5% CONTRIB/DONATIONS 10 100 SALE OF ASSETS 5,000 MISC. 10,000 5,833 9,362 60.5% UNSPEC REV REDUCT. (300,000) ADMIN. REIM. ANIMAL LICENSES 13,680 3,420 3,117 -8.9% FUEL SALES 15,000 3,750 3,045 -18.8% GROUND MAINT 5,000 2,917 2,250 -22.9% PERMIT ENCRMT. 55,000 32,083 28,942 -9.8% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 6,155,625 6,503,691 3,311,435 3,596,848 8.6% fs199 \REVENUE Page 3 2/26/99 CITY OF SARATOGA SEVEN MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED 58.3% 1 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 1998 -99 YEAR -TO -DATE PERCENT 1998 -99 1998 -99 (YTD) 1998 -99 REVISED ESTIMATED ACTUAL/ ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL 1/31/99 1/31/99 1/31/99 TITLE BUDGET (if different) (if different) ESTIMATE ACTUAL ESTIMATE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: COPS -SLESF SP REV FD 100 SUPPL LAW ENFORCE 71,000 71,000 70,145 -1.2% TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF 110 REFUNDS REIMB. CROSSING GUARD MATCH 2,938 2,938 3,000 2.1% FINES- VEHICLE CODE 30,000 120,000 17,500 71,039 305.9% (1) TOTAL TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF 32,938 122,938 20,438 74,039 262.3% STREETS ROADS SRF 150 REFUNDS REIMB. 31,500 1,000 843 -15.7% MISC. ST HIGHWAY USER 2107.5 6,000 6,000 6,000 0.0% ST HIGHWAY USER 2106 149,051 74,526 77,354 3.8% ST HIGHWAY USER 2107 260,188 130,094 125,862 -3.3% ST FHWA REIMB. 87,000 ST 2105 S &H CODE 187,542 93,771 97,753 4.2% TOTAL ST &RDS SRF 721,281 305,391 307,812 0.8% HILLSIDE REPAIR SRF 170 REFUNDS REIMB. HILLSIDE STREET REPAIR 5,160 10,000 3,010 7,551 150.9% TOTAL HILLSIDE REPAIR SRF 5,160 10,000 3,010 7,551 150.9% LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SRF 180 PROP. TAX 70,355 44,040 45,167 2.6% CAPITAL IMPR (PARK DIST) 57,620 33,612 32,835 -2.3% INTEREST 1,000 TOTAL LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SRF 128,975 77,652 78,002 0.5% DEVELOPMENT SRF 250 GEOLOGY REVIEW FEES 52,500 70,000 30,625 43,989 43.6% (2) ENGINEERING FEES 54,000 150,000 31,500 126,584 301.9% PLANNING FEES 320,000 359,000 186,667 262,022 40.4% ARBORIST FEE 50,000 60,000 29,167 37,136 27.3% MAP/PUB /OTHER SALES 200 0 117 0% DOCUMENT STRG FEES 7,000 10,000 4,083 9,050 121.6% PERMITS BUILDING 725,000 795,000 422,917 488,366 15.5% PERMITS GRADING 32,000 60,000 18,667 42,947 130.1% 1 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SRF 1,240,700 1,504,000 723,742 1,010,094 39.6% fs199 \REVENUE Page 4 2/26/99 CITY OF SARATOGA SEVEN MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED 58.3% REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 1998 -99 YEAR -TO -DATE PERCENT 1998 -99 1998 -99 (YTD) 1998 -99 REVISED ESTIMATED ACTUAL/ ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL 1/31/99 1/31/99 1/31/99 TITLE BUDGET (if different) (if different) ESTIMATE ACTUAL ESTIMATE ENVIRNMNTAL PRG SRF 260 CLEAN AIR GRANT 162,000 ST REFUSE SURCHG AB939 20,000 11,667 15,563 33.4% ENVIRONMENTAL FEES 527,291 263,646 275,219 4.4% TOTAL ENVIRON PRG SRF 709,291 275,312 290,782 5.6% HOUSING &COMM DEV SRF 270 HCD /CDBG /SHARP GRANTS 369,413 8 100 INTEREST 2,600 1,517 2,155 42.1% SHARP LOAN REPAYMENT 70,000 70,000 69,070 -1.3% TOTAL HOUSING /COMM DEV SRF 372,013 442,013 71,517 71,233 -0.4% RECREATION SRF 290 SPORTS LEAGUE FEES 44,000 25,667 26,757 4.2% CAMP FEES 96,000 21,000 19,587 -6.7% EXCURSION FEES 82,500 48,125 54,524 13.3% CLASS /SPECIAL EVENT 324,000 189,000 191,968 1.6% SNACK BAR SALES 1,200 700 723 3.3% REDWOOD SPORTS PRGM. 28,000 16,333 15,139 -7.3% TEEN SERVICES 13,000 6,500 4,429 -31.9% SNACK BAR SALES 1,000 583 332 -43.1% WARNER HUTTON CONTRIBUTIONS 1,851 100 TOTAL RECREATION SRF 589,700 307,908 315,310 2.4% FACILITY OPS SRF 292 BUILDING RENT 125,000 72,917 67,700 -7.2% PARKS RENT 9,000 2,250 2,369 5.3% TOTAL FACILITY OPS SRF 134,000 75,167 70,069 -6.8% HERITAGE PRSRVTN TRST FND 710 INTEREST TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 4,005,058 4,433,198 1,931,136 2,295,037 18.8% fs199\REVENUE Page 5 2/26/99 CITY OF SARATOGA SEVEN MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED 58.3% REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 1998 -99 YEAR -TO -DATE PERCENT 1998 -99 1998 -99 (YTD) 1998 -99 REVISED ESTIMATED ACTUAL/ ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL 1/31/99 1/31/99 1/31/99 TITLE BUDGET (if different) (if different) ESTIMATE ACTUAL ESTIMATE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS TRANSPORT DEVELOP ACT SRF 160 TOTAL TDA 99,676 THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF 293 THEATER TCK SRCHG 21,500 12,542 15,366 22.5% PARK DVLPMNT CAP PRJ FND 310 PARK DEVELOPMENT 143,520 83,720 83,835 0.1% TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 264,696 264,696 96,262 99,201 3.1% DEBT SERVICE FUND: LIBRARY BOND DEBT SRV FND 400 PRINCIPAL 75,000 INTEREST 18,906 OTHER 200 TOTAL LIBRARY BOND DEBT 94,106 fs199 \REVENUE Page 6 2/26/99 CITY OF SARATOGA SEVEN MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED 58.3% REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 1998 -99 YEAR -TO -DATE PERCENT 1998 -99 1998 -99 (YTD) 1998 -99 REVISED ESTIMATED ACTUAL/ ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL 1/31/99 1/31/99 1/31/99 TITLE BUDGET (if different) (if different) ESTIMATE ACTUAL ESTIMATE AGENCY FUNDS: LEONARD RD DEBT SER FUND 420 CAPITAL IMPR (PARK DIST) 12,263 7,153 7,896 10.4% QUARRY CREEK TRUST FUND 700 INTEREST 350 204 247 21.0% CA TV TRUST FUND 720 DEPOSITS PRK DST #2 DBT SR/AGNCY FD 730 SERVICES (LLA DISTRICTS) 11,538 6,731 8,800 30.7% PRK DST #3 DBT SR/AGNCY FD 740 SERVICES (LLA DISTRICTS) 168,225 98,131 96,028 -2.1% DEPOSITS AGENCY FUND 800 DEPOSITS SARATOGA PFA AGENCY FUND 990 BOND AMORTIZATION TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS 192,376 192,376 112,219 112,971 0.7% GRAND TOTAL 10,711,861 11,488,067 5,451,052 6,104,057 12.0% REVENUE NOTES: (1) Traffic Safety Vehicle Fines Budgeted very conservatively; actual fine revenues expected to be higher. (2) Development Fees Development activity remains higher than originally anticipated. (3) Tax Equity Allocation (TEA) Final payment from Santa Clara County not anticipated. (4) Disaster Recovery FEMA refund in process, but not received yet. (5) Other Refunds and Reimbursements Workers' compensation insurance premium refund not anticipated. (6) Interest Income Budgeted very conservatively; actual interest is expected to be higher than budgeted. fs199 \REVENUE Page 7 2/26/99 CITY OF SARATOGA SEVEN MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED 58.3% EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 1998 -99 YEAR -TO -DATE PERCENT F D 1998 -99 1998 -99 (YTD) U E 1998 -99 REVISED ESTIMATED ACTUAL/ N P ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL 1/31/99 1/31/99 1/31/99 D T TITLE BUDGET (if different) (if different) ESTIMATE ACTUAL ESTIMATE EXPENDITURE RECAP BY FUND 001 GENERAL FUND 4,283,616 3,106,608 2,954,480 -4.9% SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 100 COPS SUP. LAW ENFORCEMENT 72,944 22,633 15,006 -33.7% 110 TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF 15,413 1,000 987 -1.3% 150 STREETS &ROADS SRF 3,130,636 885,272 769,841 -13.0% 170 HILLSIDE REPAIR SRF 1,000 180 LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SRF 148,359 76,469 60,662 -20.7% 250 DEVELOPMENT SRF 1,312,499 487,480 475,054 -2.5% 260 ENVIRNMNTAL PRG SRF 480,980 180,467 180,658 0.1% 270 HOUSING &COMM DEV SRF 388,419 220,242 207,386 -5.8% 290 RECREATION SRF 916,794 365,206 332,395 -9.0% 292 FACILITY OPS SRF 236,614 33,102 26,995 -18.4% 710 HERITAGE PRSRVTN TRST FND TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUN 6,703,658 2,271,870 2,068,984 -8.9% CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS: 160 TRANS DEV ACT SRF 98,103 5,000 4,800 -4.0% 293 THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF 125,080 7,185 6,964 -3.1% 310 PARK DEVELOPMENT 567,000 66,491 60,679 -8.7% TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUN 790,183 78,676 72,443 -7.9% DEBT SERVICE FUND: 400 LIBRARY BONDS DEBT SVC 94,093 85,000 85,183 0.2% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 94,093 85,000 85,183 0.2% TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS 420 LEONARD ROAD DEBT SVC 12,263 8,781 9,075 3.3% 700 QUARRY CREEK PROJ ADM 2,500 35,000 34,460 -1.5% 720 C.A. TV TRUST FUND 730 PARKING DIST #2 DEBT SVC 11,538 500 501 0.2% 740 PARKING DIST #3 DEBT SVC 168,225 136,256 135,829 -0.3% 800 DEPOSIT AGENCY FUND 990 SARATOGA PUBL FIN AGNCY TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS 194,526 180,537 179,865 -0.4% TOTAL ALL FUNDS 12,066,076 5,722,691 5,360,955 -6.3% fs199 \EXPEND. Page 8 2/26/99 CITY OF SARATOGA SEVEN MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED 58.3% EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 1998 -99 YEAR -TO -DATE PERCENT F D 1998 -99 1998 -99 (YTD) U E 1998 -99 REVISED ESTIMATED ACTUAL N P ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL 1/31/99 1/31/99 1/31/99 D T TITLE BUDGET (if different) (if different) ESTIMATE ACTUAL ESTIMATE 001 GENERAL FUND 1005 CITY COUNCIL 28,277 28,053 -0.8% 1010 CONTINGENCY 200,000 1 1015 CITY COMMISSIONS 36,580 32,261 -11.8% 1020 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 133,116 131,077 -1.5% 1025 CITY ATTORNEY 54,000 162,500 161,923 -0.4% 1030 CITY CLERK 40,110 38,487 -4.0% 1035 EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS 192,887 182,721 -5.3% 1040 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 211,447 203,028 -4.0% 1045 HUMAN RESOURCES 68,939 60,000 -13.0% 1050 GENERAL SERVICES 63,667 64,704 1.6% 1060 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 167,634 157,160 -6.2% 1065 MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYS. 57,185 56,929 -0.4% 2005 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 28,901 17,375 18,120 4.3% 2010 CODE ENFORCEMENT 123,109 30,653 22,595 -26.3% 2015 POLICE SERVICES 2,594,707 1,469,757 1,431,550 -2.6% 2025 ANIMAL CONTROL 16,458 9,345 8,761 -6.2% 3030 PARKS /OPEN SPACE 800,843 290,569 247,795 -14.7% (7) 3035 GENERAL ENGINEERING 244,150 73,148 59,049 -19.3% (7) 4005 ADVANCED PLANNING 94,664 18,457 17,672 -4.3% 7005 SENIOR SERVICES 54,689 7010 COMMUNITY SUPPORT 72,095 34,962 32,595 -6.8% 9010 CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL GENERAL FUND 4,283,616 3,106,608 2,954,480 -4.9% SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: 100 COPS SUP. LAW ENFORCEMENT 72,944 22,633 15,006 -33.7% 110 TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF 15,413 1,000 987 -1.3% 150 STREETS &ROADS SRF 3005 STREET MAINTENANCE 2,091,156 689,489 609,768 -11.6% (7) 3010 SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS 77,988 21,012 14,848 -29.3% 3015 TRAFFIC CONTROL 222,275 87,379 67,027 -23.3% (7) 3020 FLOOD AND STORM DRAIN CONTRO 108,471 33,751 27,352 -19.0% 3025 MEDIANS AND PARKWAYS 123,754 44,006 43,220 -1.8% 5010 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 184,642 9,636 7,626 -20.9% 9015 QUITO ROAD BRIDGE CAP RPOJ 322,350 TOTAL STREETS &ROADS SRF 3,130,636 885,272 769,841 -13.0% fs199 \EXPEND. Page 9 2/26/99 CITY OF SARATOGA SEVEN MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED 58.3% EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 1998 -99 YEAR -TO -DATE PERCENT F D 1998 -99 1998 -99 (YTD) U E 1998 -99 REVISED ESTIMATED ACTUAL/ N P ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL 1/31/99 1/31/99 1/31/99 D T TITLE BUDGET (if different) (if different) ESTIMATE ACTUAL ESTIMATE 170 HILLSIDE REPAIR SRF 1,000 180 LANDSCAPE /LGTNG SRF 148,359 76,469 60,662 -20.7% 250 DEVELOPMENT SRF 4010 ZONING ADMINSTRATION 551,368 184,344 171,649 -6.9% 4015 INSPECTION SERVICES 544,957 204,989 183,409 -10.5% 4020 DEVELOPMENT REGULATION 216,174 98,148 119,996 22.3% (8) TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SRF 1,312,499 487,480 475,054 -2.5% 260 ENVIRNMNTAL PRG SRF 5005 INTEGRATED WASTE MGMT 151,526 80,781 81,067 0.4% 5015 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 329,454 99,685 99,591 -0.1% TOTAL ENVIRNMNTAL PRG SR 480,980 180,467 180,658 0.1% 270 HOUSING &COMM DEV SRF 7015 HCDA ADMINISTRATION 338,419 191,075 187,771 -1.7% 9010 ADA IMPROVEMENTS CAP PROJ 50,000 29,167 19,615 -32.7% 270 HOUSING &COMM DEV SRF 388,419 220,242 207,386 -5.8% 290 RECREATION SRF 6005 RECREATION 756,332 317,680 294,116 -7.4% (9) 6010 TEEN SERVICES 160,462 47,525 38,279 -19.5% (9) TOTAL RECREATION SERVICES 916,794 365,206 332,395 -9.0% 292 FACILITY OPS SRI' 236,614 33,102 26,995 -18.4% 710 1040 HERITAGE PRSRVTN TRST FND TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 6,703,658 2,271,870 2,068,984 -8.9% fs 199 \EXPEND. Page 10 2/26/99 CITY OF SARATOGA SEVEN MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED 58.3% EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 1998 -99 YEAR -TO -DATE PERCENT F D 1998 -99 1998 -99 (YTD) U E 1998 -99 REVISED ESTIMATED ACTUAL N P ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL 1/31/99 1/31/99 1/31/99 D T TITLE BUDGET (if different) (if different) ESTIMATE ACTUAL ESTIMATE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 160 TRANS DEV ACT SRF 98,103 5,000 4,800 -4.0% 293 THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF 125,080 7,185 6,964 -3.1% 310 9010 PARK DEVELOPMENT 567,000 66,491 60,679 -8.7% TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUN 790,183 78,676 72,443 -7.9% DEBT SERVICE FUND: 400 8015 LIBRARY BONDS DEBT SVC 94,093 85,000 85,183 0.2% AGENCY FUNDS: 420 8020 LEONARD ROAD DEBT SVC 12,263 8,781 9,075 3.3% 700 9010 QUARRY CREEKPROJADM 2,500 35,000 34,460 -1.5% 720 1040 C.A. TV TRUST FUND 730 8005 PARKING DIST #2 DEBT SVC 11,538 500 501 0.2% 740 8010 PARKING DIST #3 DEBT SVC 168,225 136,256 135,829 -0.3% 990 1040 SARATOGA PURL FIN AGNCY TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS 194,526 180,537 179,865 -0.4% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 12,066,076 a 5,722,691 5,360,955 -6.3% EXPENDITURE NOTES: (7) Various Public Works Programs Salary savings. (8) Development Regulation Contract costs higher due to staffing shortages. (9) Recreation Services Busiest season is in the spring and early summer, when revenues will surge somewhat. fs199 \EXPEND. Page 11 2/26/99 CITY OF SARATOGA Cash and Investment Report Balance as of January 31, 1999 Anticipated Acquisition FDR* Book Market Par Maturity Monthly Type Institution Date Rating Value Value Value Yeild Date Term Earnings Unrestricted Cash Investments: Cash: DD Comerica Bank Savings N/A AAA $78,996 $78,996 $78,996 1.400% Revolving 1 $92 CK Comerica Bank General Checking N/A AAA 418,868 418,868 418,868 0.000% Revolving 1 N/A CK Comerica Bank Payroll Checking N/A AAA 22,540 22,540 22,540 0.000% Revolving 1 N/A CK Comerica Bank Petty Cash N/A AAA 959 959 959 0.000% Revolving 1 N/A Subtotal Cash 521,363 a 521,363 521,363 0.212% 1 92 L.A.LF. Investments: MF L.A.I.F. N/A N/A 7,109,620 b 7,156,437 7,109,620 5.265% Revolving 90 31,193 CD Saratoga National Bank 07/03/98 AAA 500,000 500,000 500,000 5.900% 07/03/99 365 2,458 CD Heritage Bank of Commerce 10/14/98 AAA 531,358 531,358 531,358 5.650% 10/14/99 365 2,502 Subtotal CDs 1,031,358 1,031,358 1,031,358 5.771% 730 4,960 TN US Treasury Note State Street Custody 03/12/98 AGY 995,557 995,627 995,000 5.570% 03/09/99 362 4,621 MF Govt Cash Reserve Fund State Street N/A AAA 2,650 2,650 2,650 4.460% Revolving 1 10 Subtotal L.A.LF. Investments 9,136,535 9,183,422 9,135,978 5.328% 591 40,775 Subtotal Unrestricted Cash Investments 9,657,898 9,704,785 9,657,341 5.053% 296 40,867 Restricted Cash Investments: SV Saratoga National Bank CDBG N/A AAA 161,523 161,523 161,523 2.530% Revolving 1 341 CK Wells Fargo Bank CDBG N/A AAA 23,854 23,854 23,854 0.000% Revolving 1 N/A CK Wells Fargo Bank CDBG N/A AAA 8,181 8,181 8,181 0.000% Revolving 1 N/A Subtotal Restricted Cash Investments 193,558 193,558 193,558 0.176% 1 341 Total Cash and Investments $9,85A 456......x: S9 $95. 4,996% Avg Yield #49 i i i i $4'iiiot I Benchmark Yield Comparison 3 Month Treasury 4.490 %I 6 Month Treasury 4.500 %1 Schedule of Maturities: Reserve Analysis: General Fund Reserve requirement adopted 6/25/97: $2,000,000 Immediate $7,824,541 General Fund Balance as of 1/31/99 $5,928,559 FY 1998 -1999 $995,557 FY 1999 -2000 1,031,358 Available Funds: Unrestricted Pooled Cash Investments available for current year expenses in all fun $8,626,540 Total $9,851,456 (Includes unrestricted funds maturing within the current fiscal year) Maturity General Fund Loans Receivable: Principal Rate Date Term Hakone Foundation $222,986 6.500% 03/01/2004 3,650 NOTES: FDR The Financial Directory rating is based on computer analysis of prime financials reported quarterly by the institutions to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Ratings based on information released July 1998. *Market values for U.S. Treasury Notes provided by State Street Bank and Trust Company. This loan is noted for memorandum purposes only. The loan is amortized per the agreement with the Hakone Foundation. No payments are received. This report reflects Pooled Cash, Investments and Restricted Cash which are available resources to fund operations, debt service and capital improvements. Other interest bearing assets (notes receivable) are listed above. Debt service reserve funds held by trustees are restricted pursuant to indenture covenants and have been excluded from this report. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53646, the City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the adopted investment po and there are adequate resources to meet anticipated pool expenditure requirements for the next six months. 1 11 f AA ■t" 1 AII/ i i. Submitted by: Appr. ed by: t ili 2/26/99 o:4oport \(mmyr)repo (Unaudited Results) V SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3 /le AGENDA ITEM Z MEETING DATE: MARCH 3, 1999 CITY MGR: i•rn' ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Vessing Road Assessment District Protest Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): At the conclusion of the public hearing determine whether to proceed with the formation of the Assessment District and direct staff accordingly. REPORT SUMMARY: During the latter part of 1996, a neighborhood group of Vessing Road property owners approached the City to explore the possibility of forming an assessment district (see attached district boundary map). These property owners desired to improve Vessing Road to minimum public street standards so that the road could be offered to and accepted by the City into the system of publicly maintained streets. City Staff held a series of neighborhood meetings with the property owners and on May 21, 1997, the City Council approved a series of five Resolutions which initiated process to form the assessment district. An Engineer Report was prepared and a Notice of Improvement was sent to the property owners setting a public hearing on January 21, 1998. At this meeting, the public hearing was opened and a petition signed by a majority of the property owners was submitted to the Council requesting continuation of the hearing to April 15, 1998, to discuss lower cost alternatives for improving the roadway. Subsequently, the property owners requested additional continuations of the public hearing until March 3, 1999. At this time, the property owners have determined they wish to suspend with the formation of the Vessing Road Assessment District and to explore improvements to their roadway through other means. A letter from the property owners will be distributed at your meeting. To either advance or abandon the assessment district process, the City Council must conclude the public hearing and act accordingly. Therefore, given the lack of support for continuing with the formation of the District it is recommended that the Council, 1) Conclude the public hearing at your meeting, and 2) direct staff to prepare a Resolution to abandon the proceedings which would be placed on your March 17 agenda for adoption. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. The work of both the attorney and the engineer involved in the formation of the assessment district were either paid for by the property owners or performed on a contingency basis. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: For your March 17 meeting, staff will prepare a Resolution to abandon the proceedings. CONSEQUNCES OF NOT ACTING ON THE RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Depends on the Council's action. ATTACHMENTS: 1. District Boundary Map. 2. Letter from property owners requesting not to proceed with the formation of the assessment district (to be distributed to the Council prior to meeting). 1 1 L I 0 .0 p 'o air v 461 AMBLES! OE dt L N Z a -----1 L iii4Vilfilirill7- t r i i 1,,, Proposed Boundary ZEN),, EXHIBIT "A" PROPOSED BOUNDARIES Vessing Road Assessment District City of Saratoga California. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL of EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: March 3, 1999 CITY MANAGER: lg ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development9DEPT HEAD: /0 SUBJECT: V -98 -011; Loh, 20651 Leonard Road Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Variance application for a 260 square foot storage shed (constructed without permits), which does not meet the front and side yard setbacks and for a gazebo and deck which do not meet height and setback requirements for the zoning district. The subject property is 1.42 acres (net area) and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. REPORT SUMMARY: Background: During its January 13` regular public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the application of Ying -Tsong and Fu -Mei Loh for Variance approval for a 260 square foot storage shed constructed without permits. The shed is located within both the 30 foot front yard and the 20 foot side yard setbacks. The shed is 15 feet in height, which exceeds the height standard of 12 feet for accessory buildings.' The applicant has also constructed a gazebo and a deck, both of which exceed height and setback requirements. After staff contacted the owner to have building permits applied for, it was found that permits could not be issued without Variances for height and setbacks for all three I Upon making specific findings, the Planning Commission has the authority to approve accessory buildings exceeding 12 feet, but not higher than 15 feet. structures. Staff does not support the approval of Variances for the structures because there are no special circumstances that apply to the property and the granting of a Variance would clearly be a grant of special privilege (see Variance findings on page four of the attached staff report). The Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicant and three neighbors. As the attached action minutes from the hearing indicate, the Commission did not feel that a Variance could be granted and directed the property to either remove the structures or bring them into compliance with zoning regulations promptly. In the original Resolution, staff recommended that the applicant be required to correct the zoning and building violations within 180 days of the effective date of the resolution. The Planning Commission changed the deadline to 60 days before adopting the Resolution. This change was due to a consideration of the length of time the City has already spent working with the applicant since the Building Division first contacted the owner about a year ago. It was the intent of the Planning Commission to resolve the situation as soon as possible. Ms. Loh appealed the denial of the Variance request on January 28, 1999. The applicant /appellant requests that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the Variance. The appeal application is attached along with a letter and a petition from neighbors and a letter from the appellant. In the appeal application the applicant /appellant requests an appeal of the decision based on the fact that the height and setback measurements made by staff are in conflict with those made by the applicant. The applicant has measured the height of the gazebo from the floor when it should be measured from grade and the front setback for the shed was measured from the edge of the paved road when it should be measured from the edge of the right -of -way. FISCAL IMPACTS: Negligible. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and same notice was published in the Saratoga News on February 17, 1999. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's decision and approves the Variance, the application will be approved as presented. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The City Attorney shall prepare Resolutions for the next available meeting memorializing the decisions of the City Council on this matter. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Minutes dated January 13, 1999 2. Staff Report dated January 13, 1999 3. Planning Commission Resolution V -98 -011 4. Appeal Correspondence 5. Exhibit "A Plans ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Chairman Pierce called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Kaplan, Martlage, Murakami, Page, Patrick and Chairman Pierce Absent: Commissioner Bernald Staff: Director Walgren, Assistant Planner Pearson Pledge of Allegiance Minutes December 9, 1998 On a motion by Commissioners Kaplan /Martlage, the Commission approved the December 9, 1998 minutes as submitted. The motion carried 6 -0 with Commissioner Bernald absent. Oral Communication No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 8, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren indicated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. UP -98 -016 (503 -24 -067) ROSENFELD, 14471 Big Basin Way; Request for Use Permit approval for the placement of a wireless telecommunications facilities (antennas) within the perimeter of the roof of the two -story building located at 14471 Big Basin Way. The rooftop already has antennas from two other telecommunications companies. The site is 9,116 square feet and is located within CH -1 (Historic Commercial) zoning district. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -98 -042 (397 -28 -035 COOK, 20405 Williams Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,880 sq. ft. two -story residence at a height of 24 feet from natural grade on a 7,680 sq. ft. lot located in an R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. The application includes an exemption request from the floor area reduction requirement for heights over 18 feet. 8. V -98 -011 (503 -19 -157) LOH, 20651 Leonard Road; Request for Variance approval to allow a recently constructed detached accessory structure to encroach into a required 30 ft. front yard setback. The structure was built without City building permits. The Variance application includes a gazebo structure and a detached rear yard deck that also encroach into required setbacks and were also built without permits. The subject property is 1.48 gross acres in size and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Pearson presented the staff report. Staff felt that in this case, the variance would be a grant of a special privilege as it appears that there is room to construct the structures outside the setback areas. It is recommended that all structures be removed or modified to comply with the setback and height requirements within 180 days. He recommended that a condition be added to require that all debris and construction material also be removed from the property within a 180 days. He recommended that the Commission deny the variance by adoption of the resolution attached to the staff report. Commissioner Kaplan asked how staff came to the recommendation of 180 days on a matter that has been going on for some time? Planner Pearson responded that the 180 days would allow the applicant time to arrange for the work to be done. However, this time can be modified by the Commission. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the staff report states that there are several code related problems associated with the accessory structures as the problem meets exactly the allowable floor area for the zoning district (5,771 square feet). She said that the accessory structure located by the gate /driveway could not be approved per the zoning district. Planner Pearson said that the letter referenced was written prior to a code change. Director Walgren said that there was some confusion early on as to what the allowable square footage was and that the square footage listed in the letter is not correct. He said that the square footage is not a part of the variance and that the accessory structure is within the allowable square footage for the property. He said that the variance was a setback issue. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 10:03 p.m. Fu -Meia Loh, applicant, submitted correspondence from the city and letters from adjacent neighbors regarding the accessory structure. She apologized for the situation. She said that she contacted various architects to assist her with the design with estimates given at $750 $1,000. She said that she removed the old storage building and replaced it with a portable storage shed. She said that the only location that she could place the storage was in the front and side yard setbacks due to the constraints of the lot. She said that the shed is not visible to the neighbors. She asked all of her neighbors if they opposed the structure and none opposed the structure. She requested Commission approval of the variance. If required to relocate, she has been advised that it would be difficult. Commissioner Murakami asked Ms. Loh who made the decision to locate the storage shed in the front yard? Ms. Loh responded that it was her decision to place the storage shed in the front yard. She indicated that she is a realtor. Kay Duffy, 20637 Leonard Road, neighbor across the swale, stated that she did not support the shed. If another shed is allowed on the property, the current location of the shed would have less of an impact versus having the shed in the rear. She said that the shed is an attempt to clean up the property as construction material has been going on for four years. If shed is required to be torn down, she requested that the construction material be cleaned up. Mildred Perry, 20615 Leonard Road, said that when you see the shed, it looks like a guard house. She said that construction has been ongoing for four or five years. She did not believe that the variance should be allowed, noting that the shed is not attractive. If the variance is allowed, that there be a limited amount of time be giving to tear down the accessory structures and removed. Starr Davis, 20681 Leonard Road, adjoining property owner, reiterated the concerns contained in the letter. She expressed concern that she received a call from Ms. Loh who informed her that the gazebo's height was lowered and that the variance was no longer required. She also expressed concern with the safety of the tree. Mrs. Perry said that her husband delivered a letter to the city before the last meeting and asked if it was on file. Director Walgren indicated that the letter referenced by Mrs. Perry was not attached to the staff report but that it was in the application file. Mr. Loh responded to the comments made about the gazebo. She said that a staff official did not inform her that the gazebo was not allowed in its current location. She was advised that if the height of the gazebo was reduced, it met city regulations. She said that she reduced the height of the gazebo and that she was surprised about this issue. She said that she has been given two different opinions about the storage shed relating to the setback requirements. Director Walgren said that staff has been working to help Ms. Loh resolve the problem for over a year. He said that accurate as built drawings were never submitted to staff and that field assumptions were made. He said that the gazebo is still more than 10 feet in height from grade and that it must meet setback requirements. If reduced, it can encroach various degrees into the setbacks, depending on the height of the structure. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MARTLAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:24 p.m. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the structures are considered non- conforming, the variance is not approved and the Commission directs that the buildings be removed and if an appeal to the City Council fails, what authority or avenue does the city have to remove the structures and bring the property into conformity and get the property cleaned up. Director Walgren stated that this evening's variance hearing allows the city to conclude the city's administrative remedies and then file a notice of nuisance abatement against the property to ensure that the property confirms. Commissioner Kaplan said that given what she has read, heard, and seen this property is a poster child for cleaning up suburban blight. She said that this makes it clear to her why the city has zoning requirements. It is to prevent helter skelter, indiscriminate structures being plopped down on properties and creating substandard conditions. She felt that the structures decrease property values for everyone in the area and felt that the area was a mess. She felt that 180 days was much too long and recommended 60 days for removal of the structures and clean up of the site. She did not believe that there was a basis to grant the variance. Commissioner Murakami felt that this was a very unfortunate mistake in judgment on the part of the owner. He said that he could see that the gazebo and deck be modified to confirm to the zoning code. However, as far as the shed structure, the site is at the maximum allowable square footage for the site. Director Walgren said that the shed is no longer a non conforming structure nor an issue in terms in the maximum allowable square footage. He said that the shed could be picked up and relocated to a less obtrusive location. He said that the excess height can be considered by the Commission should it deny the variance as a means to allow the shed to be relocated. Commissioner Murakami said that as the owner is a realtor she should know that there are certain things that individuals cannot do to properties without first investigating what can be done legally. He said that he would not support the variance. However, there are some things that the applicant can do to correct some of the problems. He felt that the 180 days recommended by staff was a fair amount of time as it will take some time to correct the violations and clean up the site. Commissioner Patrick stated that she could not see any reason to grant the variance and that there are many reasons to deny the variance. She said that she would not grant a variance to the height of the accessory structure(s) based on the neighbors' concerns. She would recommend that Ms. Loh remove the accessory structures and start all over. She agreed that six months was too long given the situation and that she did not feel that there was a need to exacerbate the problem. Therefore, she recommended that 60 days be applied to rectify the situation. Commissioner Mart lage had two major concerns beyond the setback situation: 1) a tree was damaged to build the gazebo. If the plan had been brought to the Planning Commission, it would have been happy in helping Ms. Loh in helping preserve the health of the tree. She did not believe that the Commission would have approved the location for the gazebo, especially as it encroaches the privacy of the neighbors. 2) The aesthetics bother her as there is a lot of dead space in the deck design. Therefore, this was clearly not designed by someone trying to coordinate the accessory structures with the home. She said that the home is a soft color where the gazebo and deck are white. She said that there are some aesthetic concerns in addition to encroachment into the setbacks. Commissioner Page agreed with everything that has been stated. He did not believe that ignorance of city codes was an excuse. He felt that Mrs. Loh had an opportunity to rectify the situation and has not done so. Therefore, he could not support the variance request. Chairman Pierce agreed with the comments expressed by the Commission and that he too would not support a variance and that he would not allow a 15 structure to be built under any circumstances. He felt that 90 days was a reasonable amount of time to rectify the situation. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the applicant be given 60 days with a discretion at a staff level. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. V -98 -011, DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: 1) AMENDED SECTION 1.4., AMEND THE 180 DAYS TO 60 DAYS OR AS DETERMINED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME AS DETERMINED BY STAFF; AND 2) AMENDING THE RESOLUTION TO STATE THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IS TO BE REMOVED. ATTACHMENT 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: V -98 -011 20651 Leonard Road Applicant /Owner: LOH Staff Planner: Erik J. Pearson, Assistant Planner f".p Date: January 13, 1999 APN: 503 -19 -157 Department Head: 5 l i•: di::al.. S ITE 0 T i IL, ma North OMEN 101 IN, k: :1;:11;:0 @::111111:11: I it a 11111: il 1 in niniiiii in TFELIAA AVE o lifflia s FRANKL r wr A LK SA alibi r till ::,,411. •7 1 11111 2 INIS!11":" 61 V iP V J __1._. i T 1 1 1 c 000001 File No. V -98 -011; 20651 onard Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 09/18/98 Application complete: 09/18/98 Notice published: 11/24/98 Mailing completed: 11/25/98 Posting completed: 11/19/98 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Variance approval for a 260 square foot storage shed (constructed without permits), which does not meet the front and side yard setbacks and for a gazebo and deck which do not meet height and setback requirements for the zoning district. The subject property is 1.42 acres (net area) and is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deny the Variance application by adopting Resolution V -98 -011. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution V -98 -011 3. Letters from applicant 4. Letters from neighbors 5. Plaiis, Enlubit "A" Page 1 000002 File No. V -98 -011; 20651 Leonard Road ATTACHMENT 1 STAFF ANALYSIS Zoning: R -1- 40,000 General Plan Designation: Residential: Very Low Density Measure G: Not applicable Parcel Size: 1.42 acres (net area) Average Site Slope: 13% Grading Required: None Materials and Colors Proposed: The shed is a light pink color with white trim and mission style tile roofing. Height /Coverage /Setback Requirements: Proposal Code Requirement/ Allowance Lot Coverage: 20% 35% Height: 15 ft. 12 ft.' Size of Structure: 260 sq. ft.; Total allowable for site: Proposed total for site: 6,240 sq. ft. 6,031 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: approx. 8 ft. Front: 30 (for accessory structures) Rear: not applicable Rear: not applicable Left Side: >40 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. Right Side: 6 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Section 15- 12.100 allows the Planning Commission to approve accessory structures extending up to 15 feet in height. Page 2 000003 File No. V -98 -011; 20651 onard Road PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant has requested Variance approval for a 260 square foot storage shed constructed without permits. The shed is located within both the 30 foot front yard and the 20 foot side yard setbacks. The property has a net size of 1.48 acres, is currently developed with a residence and several accessory structures, and is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. SITE CHARACTERISTICS The average site slope is 13 A Design Review application was approved by the Planning Commission in December 1993 (DR -93 -024) for an addition to the main residence. Since the construction of the approved addition, the applicant has constructed the subject storage shed, a deck that may extend into the side yard setback and a gazebo that may exceed the maximum height allowed and may extend into the side yard setback. Due to the difficulty staff has experienced in obtaining an accurate site plan and elevations for the accessory structures, some of the dimensions and distances in this report are estimates by staff. The height and setbacks for the storage shed were measured by staff during a site visit on December 8, 1998. The Leonard Road right -of -way is 60 feet wide. The road in front of the storage shed is paved to only 20 feet wide. The shed is 28 feet from the edge of the pavement. Assuming the road was paved at the center of the right -of -way, the right -of -way extends another 20 feet beyond the edge of the pavement. Therefore, it was determined that the shed is actually eight (8) feet from the edge of the right -of -way, and hence the front property line. Staff measured the height of the shed to be 15 feet from grade. Section 15- 12.100(b) allows the Planning Commission to approve an accessory structure extending up to 15 feet if the Commission finds and determines that: 1) The additional height is necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure on the site; and 2) The accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. VARIANCE ANALYSIS Section 15- 70.060 of the City Code outlines the findings the Planning Commission must make in order to grant a Variance. These findings are: 1) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. 2) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. 3) That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Page 3 000004 File No. V -98 -011; 206511onard Road Variance approval is the appropriate regulatory mechanism for this application as the storage shed constructed on the subject parcel does not meet the setbacks per Section 15- 12.090 of the City Code. Staff does not feel it can make all of the necessary findings to support this request. The topography of the subject parcel may limit where accessory buildings can be located, however, allowing structures inside setback areas is not a privilege enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. Staff feels that the granting of a Variance would constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the area. All parcels in residential districts in the City are subject to the same setback requirements per Section 15- 12.090 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. The noncompliance of the deck and gazebo with setback standards and the height of the gazebo could be rectified with the approval of a Variance, however, the same findings cannot be made by staff. There are no special circumstances about the property that would deprive the applicant of having a deck with the proper setbacks or a gazebo meeting the setback and height requirements. Staff believes that allowing these structures to remain would constitute a grant of special privilege to the applicant. The neighbor adjacent to the gazebo at 20681 Leonard Road has asked for landscaping to be planted between her pool and the gazebo (see letter of 12/16/98 from Starr Davis). If the Planning Commission decides to approve the Variance for the gazebo, staff will draft a Resolution with a condition requiring landscaping. GRADING No grading is has been done in relation the accessory structures. TREES No ordinance protected trees have been impacted. Arborist review was not required. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW Not required. CONCLUSION Staff feels it cannot make the necessary findings to support the Variance application. RECOMMENDATION Deny the application by adopting Resolution V -98 -011. Page 4 II I 000005 1 Y!2 y �4 n 5 a1 ve 3 9 n om' to 4 d �f-L 1j C CoYar CW_ bec4,,s, Pue-e tAi rtr /e ;sq. 9.•• d co old w'Pz k o i n,. .5 c d.- n (d sLe r 1et.e.4. t r ub° f WAV‘ 81/4 CL &1/44al 1S rfyn-i\ aY hvs f t et sS 71-Le- 51 )0± in°s f ra -uk-Q-4 s o�,, /q. Jd y-A.sify 1)0 f e 5:X t 4 G etf Uv "e `f/lr,�:� S c c. .�c Gtr lam- cc' c_Ye S O Id v; y4T �'r a �d IN iest'Q( y back)/ tivet s-ecryle f 7C �ril� sA X35,% s are- 5 ectr otr Q 0-,15 jj .5 i S p (e L I f 7-11. i/ l rc� q-e 4 CI (tea sf cZ .,�c/ t� r 4 Ail_ sC�v� �4 Y m �•.fc 9+ cn- t4' fro S C. r..ed ,Cv -0e Q j- l 0 w,' 4,2 via,. 41 f vId t/� 4;4., yt.erice,a.Gret_ `7 -r ir.e-t4 000009 f r/Vlk cu'J1 s. u Pi`4y i J CS, .471 ►tiR^.cA. S "Ire 5S 1-r c.4— l e ,„7 fr &63 Gjj2jj2 4 "54 1 7 teb4r,&cedr., t (gyp- r,,L,„t '1 6 r f ty ;oi x �J ✓,Z; i+wS y aocr $9 1 5�_� b-e. s 96 j ..-01 1-W- )(.4e_ Ks; de 5 (ry S o c,t/te_. e) ,&_„(2_ 0 c& O SQ Yi o #-t 55 f ct 7_ yY7 z y r YE- -crb�1 J U el-7 n p S `e S J wt:c.62 >-va ah Z- r 0,, fie- d tC/ ,d-care-7 w1 I 9 Gav, Y A.. au s s V S vl a )2o rh2 J 1 izQ Qin/ in e r.R-- b r d A b y -e. -e 000010 s A R 0 D r g D A Ilege3 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 COUNCIL CIL MEMBERS. Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Donald L. W'oiie 8 May 1998 Fu -Mei Loh 20651 Leonard Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mrs. Loh, I have reviewed your letter of May 3r and discussed the matter with the City Manager, the Code Enforcement Officer, Building Inspectors, and Planning Department staff who have been involved in your case. First let me say that I personally have sympathy for your health concerns and for your financial situation. More particularly, I am also sorry to hear of the offensive treatment you report receiving from city staff members. I will return to that issue later in this letter, but I'd like to respond to your other points first. I am sorry that you feel somehow "singled out" by the city for code enforcement. It is indeed true that different parts of the city were built up earlier when zoning codes were more permissive. Any improvements built today are subject to current code requirements. Two such improvements on your property —the gate and the storage shed —are very clearly seen by anyone passing by. Because the work was still in progress on your property, you were issued stop work orders by a building inspector. Please be assured that when we discover similar potential violations of code on other properties, we act in exactly the same way. Your letter brings up several specific points in response to John Cook's letter to you. I'd like to address them individually. 000011 Printed on recycled paper. Mrs. F. Loh May 8, 1998 Page 2 As for the gazebo, Mr. Cook's letter states that you could bring that structure into compliance either by reducing its height and leaving it exactly where it is OR by applying for a Variance to keep it at its present location and height. This interpretation of the zoning code is correct. I see that you have submitted plans showing the gazebo at 10 feet in height, but our field measurements indicate that it is taller than that. In your letter, you did not mention if you have reduced the gazebo's height. Please clarify. If it has been reduced to 10 feet or less, then the issue will be resolved. Regarding your allowable floor area, your plans indicate that you reach the allowable 5,771 square feet when your residence and the small accessory building near your pool are added together. We found that this building is still on your property. The metal storage sheds you state were on your property were NOT indicated on your plans and were thus not included in the computation of allowable floor area. As the City Code states, allowable floor area is the sum of the main and all accessory structures. It is regrettable that when you built the addition on your house, there was no allowance for future additions of floor area. Unfortunately, only the Planning Commission may grant additional allowable floor area through the Variance process. I see that you have submitted a Variance application. If you wish to have the Planning Commission review this, you must also submit total fees of $1,750. (A check for $1,650 payable to the City of Saratoga plus $100 payable to the Saratoga Fire District. Both fees are non refundable). Otherwise, I regret to say that the structure will have to be removed immediately. As for the deck, the plans you submitted do not illustrate the full height of the deck. Mr. Cook's letter states correctly that the limit on the height of this structure is 12 feet. Field inspection of your property showed that portions of the deck appear to be as tall as 15 feet in height. Please clarify. Again, if the height is reduced to 12 feet or less, then the issue will be resolved. Your letter did not mention any action you might have taken to bring the entry gates into compliance. A city representative will be visiting your property within the next 7 days to review the status of the projects described 000012 tl Mrs. F. Loh May 8, 1998 Page 3 above. If you wish to go ahead with the Variance request, please submit the fees described above. I regret that there has been so much difficulty regarding these issues. I am truly sorry that you took offense of some comments by city staff. I have reviewed this letter with them. I must state, however, that many of these problems could have been avoided if you had come to the Planning and Building Departments prior to constructing any improvements. While I acknowledge your statement that you felt you didn't have enough time to speak to city staff, I am nevertheless obliged to administer the city ordinances as described in this and previous correspondence. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 868 -1232. Sincerely, itcto mes Walgren Community Development Director Enclosure: April 7t letter to you from Planning Department c: Larry Perlin, City Manager 000013 A 47 ©2.0A e O( e Il�g� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 et, sQ4Z. 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: 7 April 1998 Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Fu -mei Loh Donald L. Wolfe 20651 Leonard Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mrs. Loh, This letter will serve to inform you of the zoning violations I was able to see on your property during my visits last week. I have already furnished you with the appropriate sections of the City Code, but am enclosing another set to which I will refer throughout this letter. Entrance gates: Section 15- 29.010(b)(2) requires that wrought iron entrance gates may extend to height not exceeding 5 feet, height being measured from the ground per Section 15- 06.340. It appeared that this gate was at least 6 feet tall, perhaps as tall as 7 feet. The pilasters on either side of the entrance gate may extend to 7 feet, per Section 15- 29.010(e). All other fencing in the front yard setback may not exceed 3 feet in height, per Section 15- 29.010(b). Furthermore, you did not obtain the required building and electrical permits required to install these entrance gates. Accessory structure: With regard to the shed you built near your driveway, there are several code related problems. First, your property meets exactly its allowable floor area -5,771 square feet for your zoning district and lot size. Therefore, any additional floor area would have to be approved by the Planning Commission granting a Variance. Further, Variance approval would also be required to allow the building to remain at its current height —at least 13' 6 —as well as in its current location, where it encroaches approximately8 feet into your front yard setback. The findings which the Planning Commission must make in order to grant variance approval are spelled out in Section 15- 70.060. As I discussed with you, staff does not feel that there is a site specific hardship "special circumstances that would justify Variance approval. Printed on recycled paper. 000014 Mrs. Fu -mei Loh April 6, 1998 Page 2 You have the right to apply for a Variance, but I caution you that staff would almost certainly not recommend its approval to the Commission based on this lack of a hardship. The fee for a Variance application for an accessory structure is $1,500 plus associated Planning Department fees of about $250 in addition to fees and fines levied by the Building Department. These fees are non refundable regardless of outcome. I have enclosed an application should you wish to apply for Variance approval. If you do not apply for Variance approval, you will be required to remove the structure from the property. If your application for Variance approval is denied by the Planning Commission, again you will be required to remove the structure from the property. Gazebo: Per Section 15 -80.30 of the City Code, an unenclosed garden structure such as the gazebo erected on your property may not exceed 10 feet in height if it is located within a side yard setback, as yours is (your side yard setback is 20 feet). The gazebo appears to be at least 12 feet in height. Per Section 15- 12.100, an accessory structure may be 12 feet in height as long as it is located outside any required yard. This would mean the gazebo would have to be at least 20 feet from any side property line and at least 50 feet from the rear property line (and 30 feet from the front property line). You have two options that will allow you to retain the gazebo: 1. You may reduce the height such that it is only 10 feet high, leaving it in its present location. Planning Commission approval would not be required. 2. If you do not reduce the gazebo's height nor move its location, you may apply for Variance approval, for which the fee is $1,650 and is non- refundable regardless of outcome. Again, the Planning Commission would have to make the findings that there are site specific hardship circumstances that justify Variance approval; staff does not feel this property has hardship circumstances. 000015 Mrs. Fu -mei Loh April 6, 1998 Page 3 Deck: Again, this structure may not exceed 12 feet in height if it is outside of your required side yard (20 feet). It appears to exceed 12 feet in height and looks to be outside of your required side yard. If the height is reduced to 12 feet, you will not need further Planning Commission or Planning Staff approval, but as with the other structures on the property, you are subject to the appropriate Building Department fines and/or fees. As we discussed, you must decide within 30 days to apply for the planning approvals necessary to keep the structures as they are or substantially begin work on abating the violations discussed in this letter. Thirty days from today will be May 7, 1998, after which you will be subject to daily citations and fines from the Code Enforcement division unless these violations are being removed. During our conversations, you said that you did understand the violations you have incurred as a result of building all of these structures without benefit of permit or planning review. Should you have any further questions as a result of this letter, please contact me at 868 -1231. Sincerely, John Cook Assistant Planner cc: James Walgren, Community Development Director Michael Riback, City Attorney Brad Lind, Senior Building Inspector Rebecca Spoulos, Code Enforcement Officer 000016 .x/5/1 7 7 0 6 S Z ,4 e C, k_o ,p 0 /J 0 T S -rte 7 Syu -e C Arft,--, bie ce/i 4L.� .C: er`ve/ 4-.m )r mow k-5 5 5 rGrw`� 051a.rin.e. c ra_ cc P 2e ci/., 6 1 We'L y 5GY W r(jam g O'� ✓.P/, cG (�r 4 4 -*I. t 5-a..4 ,)-(,,,,t- e at,..-,41 ,fetek..-- i x A- r s--21, („ree,...„. o yfit (mac (GL,„ ..4,9- rj `lam S ,►'tc Y+A-( .<t e, 0 V 4 cJ e .e€ m-e- 7i r i 6,„.6e .z n2..Q.- -Jr) tre, n K 1.6,,, ti en- -1 7/ 5 `en -ate c/ C i H spe6(_. 5..._ 4 i 7 4 -8--- r va. k r 7_ ePart-t 17/71)1:7_ 5 -I .Q aL d i-,..,4-- 4 k 5 s- e ,04 m -t, 5 0 0 py, ct ,y-,--- .-ki 0 4 .,2_to I, i ,ize 72 4 6"; cAv-ytc-: ft ,g. 6 i eY/ A t-5 92-7 es: o tfp 6 ,„ke;.ex, vv,.. 41, i ,„.(e„. 1 1-5 r sic 4 clir,a4--e. 6. j -,l &w o t ,y 'o-yor r �,---M r,. -,ice ke 7 SIR— 9 A-4 tys�,,. w If '71 4 a i S b&se -4 av)/ t :,v n .e. SS °J ac, net- q cc2 1 J 000017 o adk d 5a,„.te s t err; 071-e 5 cdte-ce a-eefaol,ad carl. -Frwl Ave, 04-,.. ^r- f1/Levi' ve 1 -e va- r ;4f?,a,.t..0 S W Dom/ Sco s1 6r_ .v¢ n%v� (P� pt' (4, f r e e e n2` ;_c w iecr e G "41-- ,n a r ci„ve,- a- n I s car cgink ci‘-fr (itr- 3 %m-; a 7 40-4 si p Pee-4, oL -&•revx C f 6- m 63 �y ''/f +r° Of" t J7 p IN rKa a C/ v% die? Dek Go 06- "--o rt. 1 61- DWI c-R-+ Q 2 7ret 217 9 vo.,,J` ay, ,JA,re-g-..6' i t c?., 44_ pri,:vi,"-.6e( 1-A-8-- 5-617-e- 0 irt-7 r l-vca l A Yl v Ges^rAG.Gr/'L-• 040-vd 61'11 t- e 044 0 c€;447 i -1 aL- r a-CCa'rd- Mee-c 6 V; A p 000018 3 cam►° Y��'" ,f A t off: d -r ��r-o u� kh p ie' 40 7.1"yg.,et.z,e_bo, 9 ni .€0 Firs 42z fi c� S7 d.ep�d da- rizt-; Y Ste. g 3 0 9 _4/,/ m -f�• e czer o-v b..2 /.5-- -co---o/ 0 3 7o 20 A:e. )4.e se? o eS- --,3 6Ta��o t 771.g- GL,� o G Q r n G m w vt/ (b C Z p ta- n ng- d o_P-v_ not )-La K C -b ock 4, p Yet 2- ��p 3vG� 9 J FL Y►� 1 S c' R t�.� wT i !%GZ. QiD f�°7� -�a l� h il�. of_ s 1 4 4- 06.4 V o (7 a Gr!-j? yeice-L- (rife— cf ci (51- a r-es lN''Gt,o ;I s •(.e64o c %sw n (14'9 7144 'r°11 Cd7L4 9 QG f" fi 9 all he 7 scck O o eh —t 3 000019 I I gert-IA ,(-5--c (I- 0 r d AL-rs--7 "F"-s YX. S er p r1; frt ker, et i Crony ,74,„ y '2 ,(o+^'t-(-e,D7 e c yew„ -S O y,o r i 5 a 4 la e Y ke B-w2- t. -P-.� �2 7.wy g yn a� EJ may sic 41' rCe;m 9 9 e" 5'(■ d. s C lt c a, r /.Q c vi e o s fi frr o SS r R.. era` o( ate-St L AI ,.,t_oe- de Ccy 9/ tt of c (AA par c,„,,,L4 e-- vV ae, o, h 7 rQ Ci� irY. 77 u-tiL ct `)'LP s J OL y' ✓Z ir/ i 4--eJD d j $i e sl 97 5e. d ra4 Si o a -e— -e- a.Osa PL-6 Pj. 0/A.La (2 a o d. O�.e c� n o s w c. �5 i g� U O j1/11 42st a A J S a al-le/EA' o i 1- 49 !j /0-e -6( Y2ssc1Y� r wY7 ,e 6- c'•" v 000020 T2 OOOO P `1 7 '--tr-A?"cp 1- 0 1 `^"o CJ frPv"?' 44) v- r "IC e!f"' r14 9 Or' 7)-14- tA;"/-F 4 1- cv i e Lt-; D V- A cD o 7/-"--"_1 -.c /s c`^ °S ra-vicp 5 4e-our �Q �2P!S YCh H_ P /Sul a'.c�j ar 14, �o ,-$A0 r g 4-(vv—r-v7i,N A 5 >l:- -D -rJ 1 a ¢tee ,.t ^/7)- S Y l W 4 U 1 -x'47( P LA- 94 -'4A& 61/1 T47V-C IL"-` -x- 1,6 Lis 14-2-4e-c-cp P r.„. e a,A4,5. 0p ,A,ov 1,y vp 5 t�i,�( 4_, en-21 45 ff-d-k .3-2-A-2.1e 6 -47 iv) P :144 )4j i1 p.4 A4z 41}- 2 klak& TJ �.0 z- va7/00).7 S LAPR,e_ r 1-1 ait,L st ht cod n-u.ta clit art_ feerrif circ-Lua -L -YZEJ2._ ry■-t--`e4 6-y. (A_ 9 vvct-e 0 41 c)i-- en-Te q/r ctit 4,ecc, d 5Ncy s -f-t +474.44— uoet dtt-e- wet-e a i-e))7. atadc_ cc_ ivive Cct_A ore diA_A-it- claw), a-vul_ .247 I 5- yt.-0 tvLe._ -81,0-vLs-e oto cAJGD,1 -A—LJz c-en-att aGce 1 6 -r- d 0 6,, .d-Lf Ylv ferm- v le otz-ant P27-7 r _H, 4 4r 6 W1 S ./geAl4k odr* Ax_ f iy2 rizz 1),(1 3 s 9 Loed 4 fr ot-e d vv-e 9 Se-e- tr 4 1 2..iii t A 214-a 000022 ln,. b it„4 Ycv`d A-44 7- 3 Vi U,, _kit feU d-Y 5144vt-e- vv-ca, o 4-0 /ci. 4(4, p fr.„,„--t- syr, rl Y4 4-"" /221`71'ci"-c"-(:<.LF'D-rki- Y w /4 D6 -?/2 "-urA 2� 1Le -ems 50 (0■3 "'13-1,0 w-P, “td Q o o 5 G t- ))41 -10 GP.gym n-et r oc die v„,„;;,„ oict_ cio-vv_cf.-1-Y1 1 v‘-j ai6-r-tt 6n) (1)-e-c-444-e 4k-e- ha-erk d.ra2wca ct is 4.h iSS t_ Sc� ott` tsr ICY G� Y lowy 7 (I) oaeA.4 ..5.; giDo_7(4„,i— Ly= cLit ),Atuyittxt(vv._pertryr,yre_.t...„ 5 Cal--kce-t- eq.)4 Art' 44' 6GC Anti d St 6 7 e (pro bit,.1,) N.e_ /c/ Ate_ cr efr7i7 s---ed)--aye_ 944_4 p n �V.e {r l tin C/7`98 So( U.� v ����l� wU -Z., 66 j 10 pY�2 H 000023 it City of Saratoga Mr Mrs Donald S Perry Community Dev. Dept. 20615 Leonard Rd. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: James Walgren, Manager Re: V -98 -011 (503 -19 -157) Loh, 20651 Leonard Road Dear Mr Walgren, We picked up our mail on Saturday, 12 -5 -98 after being out of town for a week and found the reference variance request. We are totally against the violation of setbacks, as defined by the City_ of_Saratoga._ The licensed ?_,builder -should be required to move the structures -and rebuild them to code! If Saratoga accepts their approach to building (no permits and illegal setback) then we can expect it to be cited as a precedent for the next set of violations! Sin yurs onald S Perry Mildred M Perry A(,,(,,,,e( y,_,e-,A t. DEC U 7 1998 PLANNIN LPA RTmENT 000025 Saratoga Planning Commission, Regarding the Dec. 9th hearing case V- 98-011 (503 -19 -157) LOH, 20651 Leonard Road: We strongly oppose the approval of a variance to allow the building in the front yard and the gazebo structure. The building in front is much too close to the street and disrupts the rural look of Leonard Road. It also seems to be a resting spot for all manner of scrap material and garbage. The gazebo is a monstrosity and ruins the view of all the houses downhill from it. These additions have been the talk of the neighborhood for some time now. Nobody is happy about them. Sincerely, II r Criag Rachel r lia 9 Oreglia Leonard Road 000026 LOS ALTOS SCA DISTRICT GEORGINA P. BLACH SCHOOL 1120 COVINGTON ROAD LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA 94022 915M48 <027 EXT. 37 C(-- )1 1 qq ‘4*°'.°I) (9(?.1611).'c)LtT\ jk)S44& Qt LO) CT I J971 1JC Rkat Comminincr 04/1-w kirk- 714-/c ti=c I/JR-cat. or A t9 t 1 Ar1 Q, 1 60VEDo JQ7t9k b. )410% k,WED LO/01 1 krAk E;69._. ADO laid 1 c' 14 i� 64-10-1/4e/-1-42-, o� its 0 p tot/1S etibi jr 2eXI ke Sfirzeroa .767 �S y 0000z7 I S iike cal Davis Starr L ai7 20681 Leonard mad, Saratoga, CAL 95070 (408) 867 -4421 December 16,1998 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear James Walgren, Community Development Manager, Regarding V -98 -011 (503 -19 -157) the Loh's request for Variance approval, I feel the area would be enhanced by following the setback allowance, which gives a country spacious feeling to the neighborhood. However, I wish to be a co- operative neighbor and do not strongly object to the storage shed. It is low in elevation on the property, which helps, as does the natural terra cotta roof, though the peach color does draw attention to it. Because only my property adjoins the Loh's, I have unique concerns for the gazebo in the back. I did not realize the structure encroached on the setback requirement until I received your notice and realized it is about 4 feet from the fence around our pool. It is very close to the steps into our swimming pool and takes away from our privacy (as does the new configuration of the house). There is a large Monterey Pine at the fence between our two properties. Previously it had a low branch which acted as a shield to our view of the upper addition to their house. In order to make room for the the gazebo, the Loh's cut the lower huge branch off and left an 7 foot 10" diameter limb stump (which is not healthy for the tree since it can't grow bark over this dead large limb). Also, there is a stack of old wood, windows and screens against the fence which are visible to us. The gazebo is white, increasing its conspicuousness. If the Loh's could landscape and maintain a shielding hedge between our pool and their gazebo, I would not object to the gazebo setback. I do not want a fence, but a 4' dense shrubbery to block the gazebo view. I also request that for the health of the large Monterey Pine, that it be trimmed to the trunk and professionally sealed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, g l atoft tAC4 000028 RFf'; 0 DEC 2 1 1998 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTI H M ENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. V -98 -011 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Loh; 20651 Leonard Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance approval for the construction of a 260 square foot storage shed, a deck and a gazebo on a 1.42 acre parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: That there are no special circumstances about the property that would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of the other properties in the vicinity. That the granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, letters from the applicant and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Mr. and Mrs. Loh for Variance approval be and the same is hereby denied. In addition, the Loh property shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The storage shed shall be removed within 60 days of the effective date of this Resolution. 2. The gazebo shall either be removed or comply with the setback and height requirements of Section 15- 80.030(e) of the Saratoga Municipal Code within 60 days of the effective date of this Resolution. 3. The deck shall either be removed or comply with the setback and height requirements of Section 15- 12.090 of the Saratoga Municipal Code within 60 days of the effective date of this Resolution. 4. All structures remaining on the property 60 days after the effective date of this Resolution shall have building permits on file with the City of Saratoga. ti File No. V -98 -011; 20651 Leonard Road 5. The deadline for completing the work described in the above conditions 1 through 4 may be extended once for no more than 30 days, only upon the finding of exceptional circumstances by the Community Development Director. 6. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 7. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this Resolution 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. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of January, 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Kaplan, Martlage, Murakani, Page, Patrick and Chair Pierce I I NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bernald M if Chair, Planning Commissi a ATTEST: Oi S; ry, Plan .iii: Commission ATTACHMENT 4 ri 1 4110N gA D A 0g 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Incorporated October 22, 1956 Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehaffey Jim Shaw February 1, 1999 Nick Streit Ms. Fu Mei Loh 20651 Leonard Road Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DENIAL FOR PROJECT V -98 -011 Dear Ms. Fu: This letter will confirm receipt of your appeal of denial of a project at 20651 Leonard Road, along with your check in the amount of $250.00 covering the appeal fee, on January 28, 1999. We also received extra copies of your plans, a site plan, your letter to the Councilmembers, your letter requesting postponement until March, and correspondence from your neighbors. According to Section 15 -90 -070 of the Municipal Code, the City Clerk shall schedule the matter for hearing at the next available regular meeting of the City Council to be held within thirty days after the date on which the notice of appeal is filed, which would be the regular meeting of February 17, 1999. However, because you are requesting the City to schedule this matter in March due to a scheduling conflict, this public hearing has been set for the City Council meeting of March 3, 1999. If you wish to request a continuance, you may do so without charge. Any subsequent requests for continuance must be accompanied by a fee of $340.00. The deadline for submitting any additional materials for the Council agenda packet on your appeal is Thursday, February 25, 1999. If you wish to submit written documents after that day, please provide ten copies of each document to the City Clerk no later than noon the following day. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten (10) minutes for your presentation on this appeal. The hearing is "de novo which means that any relevant issue for or against your appeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission and regardless of whether the Planning Commission approved the application. If you have technical questions about your project, please contact Erik Pearson in the Planning Department at 868 -1231. If you have questions about the process, you may contact me at 868 -1269. Sincerely, G an A. R City Clerk cc: Erik Pearson, Planning Department Larry Perlin, City Manager Printed on recycled paper. Date Received: 9 4 9 Hearing :___373199 Fee: ipcb 0 Receipt No.: /4 t 13 APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: C;r ,1L/ Address: 2--0 6 5 1 i rd Roo a 571 Telephone: c, (6 /Z7 Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant): Project File Number and Address: V Q g o f (C 4;e, Decision Being Appealed: 14A, (A y a c fm ;'4,P de �1 rAlChe+. D ■PA I `l9 �h q9 C, fd c op c Y �n cc X,rn'i t lh Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached) The Stft&)eKtm1 Phh I:,- -'61 iS Wr let L t p J ?-t o 1 rT7'L� et- at vt u'� /l .p p lA v,' -eAAS 2 Ia Ja 0 a vti r n 5-('o r�1 S b a k 4 t cwt Co,-t (i c1� K r ek e Olt YYI elgA----- 3) f C y m s *App lant's Signature *Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. 1 Fu -Mei Loh 20651 Leonard Road Saratoga, Ca 95070 (408) 741 -1629 January 27, 1999 Dear council Members: I will be in Taiwan to join my husband for Chinese Lunar New Year between Feb. 13 to 23, 1999. He has been working there since 1995 and I only visited him once due to remodel and variance Please schedule for the month of March except 3- 23-99. Your cooperation is much appreciated. Sincerely, fF -1 u -Mei Loh February 19, 1999 The Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Appeal Ref: (V -98 -011) (APN: 503 -19 -157) (Applicant/Appellant, LOH, 20651 Leonard Road) I am writing with regard to the subject appeal scheduled for a public hearing the evening of Wednesday, March 3, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. My wife and I have been residents of Saratoga for over 25 years during which time all work performed on our current home was completed after, and only after, preparation of all the necessary drawings, permits were obtained, fees were paid and the approvals required by the City were obtained. We are currently constructing a new home in Saratoga. The project was initiated after we spent significant money on architectural and landscape drawings, all of which were submitted to the City for review, revision and ultimately, approval. We paid all the fees, obtained all the permits and appeared before the Planning Commission in a public hearing in order to obtain project approval. The process took time and money but, it is the process that is required if one wants to build and/or complete lessor construction projects in Saratoga. The process also prevents the flagrant violation of zoning regulations, setback intrusions and building code violations which is clearly in the best long -term interest of the residents of Saratoga. The property under appeal adjourns our property and the structures in violation of existing code(s) are clearly visible from our home. To permit these people to ignore the rules with regard to building in Saratoga encourages others to do the same. It is offensive to those of us who live by the rules that others think they can ignore the rules. I strongly suggest that the subject appeal not be approved as a clear signal to all, that building in Saratoga without the necessary permits and approvals will not be tolerated. Res ctfully submitted, Hal J Krauter ikoo\hal \99\misc\planning commission.doc Dear Leonard Neighbors: I need your support regarding my storage shed construction. I had old storage shed next to my house and it was rusted. It was also at wrong place. People always be able to see the ugly structure when they came up to my property because it is directly facing my entrance. So I decided to relocated to the front side yard where is the lowest spot of my property and most problem spot for me. It was always covered by the poison ivy and rasbery bushes. We tried to clean the place every year and it came back again. Since it is most closed to my driveway and I think it also enhance my front gate. So I had the contractor built it without permit. After the structure was almost all done then some one reported to City planning Department to question about the bulding. It is about 10 sq. ft. or so over the maximum allowable size for storage. City also said that because my lot is hilly, although I have 1.5 acre lot, I can not build out any more than what I have. I had recently appraised my property, the square footagtage is Iess than origianl proposal for remodel. City asked me to file an variance for the storage shed. But they told me that they would not recommend to keep it when it come to Planning. They have been pursued me to remove the structure in the past few months and gave me tremendous pressure for it. Now I have filed the variance as they demanded. Although I talked to City Manager Larry and he commended that City really did not have time to deal with this kind of issue, he suggested me to talk to Planning Director and asked James to help me to get permit. But I had very unpleasant experience with Planning Department so far. I really need your opinion regarding my structure which is right next to my gate. I need a storage for my equipment and vineyard which I intend to put it back. Although my house is big, but I only have two -car garage. I really need st.orage.City allowed me to keep the old one. But not to remove it and build it at other location. That is my mistake. Can you help. me. Name Address Phone number Opion AYU XV J- tIffer/ 1 gG.�`f1:o G &rrr�rz (p (4 7 se/79 Al y i to V. r )(�a.t17;K tN� 16S'44 ?MAY0 RdI t o )&67_ 6u) Approv.& Ito 2 1 60 fcM/l+U 3 S j�6�+ ei t iU t) oetrpib t.&. b y C 5- 1-6 oire 24 "rctadt 9S 4/ isfirm. 'j rOry4 C.:07 15 og Todd O' Vanessa Rothbard 20654 Xeon.ard Poad Saratoga, California 95070 I (408) 867 -7302 January 11, 1999 City of Saratoga Community Development Dept. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ATTN: James Walgren, Manager Re: V -98 -011 (503 -19 -157) Dear Mr. Walgren, I am a neighbor of the Lohs. I live across the street at 20654 Leonard. I believe that the storage shed which they have constructed is quite attractive. It matches the look of the house and adds to the charm of the property and of the street. it is true that the debris in front of the house has been somewhat unsightly, but this has been a function of the construction they have been doing and Mrs. Loh has assured me it will be removed shortly. Once the project has been completed, I believe that it will enhance the property and the neighborhood. 1 hope that the Lohs are successful in obtaining their variance and, if I can do anything to assist or if you require further information from me, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration. pre Todd Rothbard A e Dear Council Members, The Planning Commissioner denied my variance application for decks, gazebo and storage building. I am appealing based on the following reasons: 1) I was told that I needed to pay $1775 for each structure. I only paid one fee; I was supprised to see that all three are on the agenda. Also there are no finding regarding the code requirements for decks and gazebo, only one finding for the storage. My decks and gazebo both were over height limit according to City's letter to me, there were no encroachment mentioned in any previous letters. Suddenly it appears on the public hearing notice. Also the setback measurement for the storage may be wrong, and the height for the storage also may not be true. The reasons are that my front property line is in the middle of the street and it is from the telephone pole to my mailbox. It is no at my fence or my front gate. Over ten years ago Bill my neighbor build a new white fence. Then a big oak tree fell into my vineyard. I looked at the root is over the fence, so I called him to take care it. He told me that our property line is beyond the fenced at where the telephone pole is. Three years ago, City paved the road for the street, the pavement ended at the middle of road about 15 feet from my gate. II then knew where is my front property line. Bill also built a green post deer fences attached to my side of fence. I lost 4 -inch of land in front. So the measure from City if it is from the fence according to my contract 's statement, it can be wrong. Also the height, the storage is on the pillars which is necessary due to the nearby storm drainage and on the lowest spot of the land. The building from roof to floor is 12 feet high, because we did not want to grade the area, so it is rested on the pillars between feet to 3 feet. John Cook, assistant planner first measures it as 13.5 feet and Eric measured as 15 feet. (See letters from John). My architect told me that the height should be the average of the pillars plus the building height. So it may only be 13.5 feet high, not 15 feet high. 2) According to letters from Mr. John Cook and James Walgreen, my gazebo and decks can stay at its current location if I reduce the height to 10 feet and 12 feet. At the last meeting with James when I found that Planning Commission would not recommend the variance, and the variance is very costly and hand to predict the outcome, I told James that I would reduce it to the necessary height and not go for the variance. But the storage is very hard to remove or corned, I also built with neighbor's silent and verbal approval, I would not do anything unless there is no other ways. I also checked with a few movers, because the storage is built with tile roof, I need to take one by one down and also it is so low on the ground, it will be hard to pull it out and not to damage the front landscaping. 3) I am so confused by the City politics and policy as well as my neighbor attitudes. In March of 1998, Inspector Jim Sutherland came to my property and saw the gazebo, deck and storage. He told me that he was not concerned about my gazebo or decks, he is concerned about the storage. He asked me to go to the City and take care the issue. I could not go the next day, I immediately got a phone call from Rubbeca, Code enforcement officer, telling me that I would subject to daily fines if I don't comply with the ordinance. At that time, I did not even know what is the code requirement. Then I got a registered mail from Brad Lind suggesting the possibility of removing the storage at big costs if City has to do it. John Cook and James visited the site while the contractor was working on replacing my 13 feet high old wood gate to a new wright iron gate which is about 5.5 feet and curved to 7.t feet. James stopped the gate installation and said it is over 5 feet high and I need electrical permit. I told me that I had an old gate before, I replaced it because that my neighbor commented it was no longer matching to my newly remodeled house. So I did it for being a cooperative neighbor. But James still insisted that I need to Gut the gate or to pay another $1775 for the variance application and it may not pass Planning Committee. Later John came to my property bringing my neighbor Larry Chang's blue print instead of mine. I told him it was a wrong one, so he came with file and told me that City might lose my blueprint. At that time, he found out that I have gazebo and decks. Because the gazebo and decks are totally invisible from street. Even my next door neighbor, Starr Davis did not know that I built a gazebo to replace an old metal storage shed which was directly facing my front entrance. At that time he said: "Mrs. Loh, you are a Realtor, how can you build these without permits I told him as a Realtor, I could not immune myself from any human problems as well as human mistakes. He copies the ordinances which states the gazebo and decks as well as storage which is classified as accessory buildings, the code requirement is minimum of 6 feet up to 10 feet setback depends on the height of the structure. The setback from the gazebo is 11 feet from my property line and the decks are over 12 feet. The decks are build on the post without grading, although the first step is touching the ground, the uneven ground makes the deck in different height. With arbor on top of one section, it makes it over the maximum height. So we took the arbor down. It is less than 12 feet now. ft shall be conforming to the code. The gazebo also built on nature grade because it next to a big pine trees. I did not want to hurt the roots of the tree. Where my storage before. I think it is better to have a gazebo there. The gazebo is built with eight posts and Simpson ties. The first step touching grand too but the uneven grand makes the gazebo over the 12 feet high limit, due to the posts. If council members thinks allowing me extra feet of height for gazebo is granting me a privilege, I will cut it to the height if City will mark the posts for me so the I don't need to cut it over and over again. The solutions are either giving me a variance for the extra feet height of my gazebo or ask me to cut it. Regarding the storage, I was requested by Bill, my neighbor to take away the mobil storage on my driveway because he did not like to see it anymore after my final inspection. I looked around the destroyed landscaping and storage, with two car garage and all kinds of things over my office next to the house, I asked the contractor quickly put a metal storage back for me at where I can easily access. The back yard is so steep over 35% slop without any pavement, the side yard is so narrow, the only solution is in the front yard. But who would like to have a storage in the front yard? So my contractor told me that he could build a storage which would comparable to the rest of the house and looking good for the front. I found this lowest spot on my property, which is most close to the pavement and next to the fire hydrant, it is safe and accessible. The place also was covered by raspberry bushes and poison ivies, which cause the front totally ugly and unmanageable. We also found that occasionally there are teenagers hiding there to meet with friends. I thought it is a perfect solution for all if I put storage there. In order to make it look in line with rest of the setting, we need to build the storage higher than 12 feet because the land is so low. While we were breaking the grand, Bill, asked me whether lt is built with permit. I told him that as he knew that my husband had been working oversees since 1995 and I am living along, I need to finish the construction quickly so I can join my husband. Since he did not want me to have mobil storage, I have no other place to put the stuffs and make a speed end to it, I also asked him that if I went through planning process, the Storage might be at the place which he would see it all the time, is it what he wants. He told me that he quested it is all right. Many neighbors saw us building it and giving comment to it. It turns out to be very nice, most of them said. And ft almost invisibly when you drive down street. You will see it only when you drive up the street. It shows less than 10 feet from street level. If I put double gate and put more shrubs at where my property line is, maybe nobody can see it. That is why I got over 7 signatures from the neighbors to approve my structures. Ms. Starr Davis, she is a wellknown artist, her letter states that she has no objection to its height and location. Mike, who graduated from Stanford and also an artist teaching at Los Altos School, said it is the most beautiful things he ever saw for 20 years he has been here. Todd, a lawyer, also said it is enhanced the setting of the rest environment. Only three families who expressed objections to City. I later had communication with Greg, he is a contractor, he told me that he is not much to the permit issues. His concern is that it is too close to the front yard. When I told him that my front yard is in the middle of the street, he said he needed to discuss it over with his wife. He also said that he no longer could get along with Mr. Mrs., Perry because they complained everything. I had a dog to protect me when I had no lock during the construction. The Perry would complain to authority when he barked and I ended lost him. But Bill has a new poppy that barked and got yelled many times; there is no problem. As to Kay, Bill's wife, she said that she opposed to my storage. But if I can build my storage somewhere else, she rather sees it to be where I am now. With all these difficulties regarding neighbor's needs and my need as well as how to commode Fire department as well as the nature topographic of the land, I have no choice but to build the storage over 12 feet high and at it present location. It is not granting me any privilege, which I never asked anyone to give in my whole life. I t is rather a very unique case and extreme difficulties considering all factors and there are no better solutions than leave it as is. Planning Department and Planning Commissioners could not see it, I hope Council members will look into it and agree with me. 4) Planning Commissioners was so mad at the debris surrounding my gazebo and storage. They made very strong criticism to it. One commissioner said that those debris will decrease the neighbor property value despite the rest of my property is all-clean and I have put over hundred thousands of dollars and three year of effort to improve it. I also got a lot of concern regarding my role as a Realtor who is building structures without permits. I had spent most of time to talk with City and at the public hearing about my personal problems at the time with the pressure from financial, physical, mental as well as marital problems, I decide to protect my self to end the ordeal in a quick way by building it without permits. I told City that I did not intend to build it that ways, but after calling dozen of landscaping contractors, only two expressed interests, and wanted me to commit $75K or more to do it, I just did not know whether I could do it. With my own house came through six architects and went through six years planning, at my age, I just don't have that many six year anymore. With my family members in New York Taiwan. I was worry about if anything ever happened to me, the house would be sold at big discount because it never finished the way it should be. As a Realtor, I will ask Council members to conduct a survey, to find out how other Realtors thinking about the permits for accessory buildings, and the height, setback as well as what happens if an accessory building already there, than let me know whether I am the one shall be harshly penalized or criticized at the public hearing or not. Also asking the top Realtor or the local real estate firm how much the property value will be decreased if there is a truckload of debris there and rest of the property is fine. Then tell me whether the Commissioner's comment is proper or not. I also got open comment about my decks, which is supposed to be up to code and no need for planning review. The commissioner criticized the color and style of the decks, actually it may not be her business. I just felt that I got one two three punches at the public hearing, more because of my debris and two neighbor presentations for objections, Commissioners did not look all aspects of situations. Is giving me Yz feet more height for the gazebo is a big problem? If so, why? Granting me a privilege? Does my deck meet the code, then what? Do I have right for a storage, if yes, where and what criteria? Mr. Murarakami did say that there might be a way to move the storage since I am allowed to have additional square footage. But James immediately said that the storage is over 15 feet high and not commenting it as 12 feet high with 3 feet pillars so that with proper grading and design, it can be relocated. He also failed to say that Kay just commended she rather let me keep the storage at where it is since they can't see it from their house now. Any other place in the front will distract their view. He also suggested that there should be a resolution to it if it is allowed to move. Commissioners just did not want to do it rather denied it. Commissioner also asked why it takes so long, James said it take s that long to resolve problems with me. Actually I went to see City Manager, Larry, who suggested me to ask James or Brad to help me because they really did not time to deal with this kind of things. City only gave me three letters so far and four visits, one should not count, during March and May of 1998. I went to City to apply for variance after I got a letter from Rubecca. Why it take that long I had no control over it since I do not run the govemment. City moved the agenda from December to January. The letter to me stamped 1/8/99; I got it on 1/11/99. two days before hearing and I did not have time to prepare for it. Now the blame all on me again so that even through James suggesting for 180 days to correct the problems, it got changed to 90 days with $250 daily fine if I did not comply with it and the Commissioner shouted to make sure cleaning the debris and charged it to me if I don 't. 5) I have been a resident of Saratoga since 1983. My son graduated from Saratoga High and MIT and now working for Merrill Lunch in New York as VP, my daughter graduated from UCLA and working in the sale department for Brio Technology. We knew many people in town and I had one transaction with ex-major, Karen Anderson and my daughter has good relationship with Mrs. Karen Tucker, another ex- major. This town is really a hometown for me that am why we decided to remodel our house and retire here. But his variance situation let me feel that I am nobody in here, not because I asking for a special treatment, because nobody will listen or concern about what I said. Our constitutional spirit is to protect individual and each of us has the right and shall know how to protect us. The construction industry is the most unregulated and most difficulties one to deal with it. After two year remodeling, I also faced a classical tragedy to lose the house for losing important files which is very important to my tax return and over spending to correct many faulty and unfinished jobs. With my husband oversee, I am hunting by IRS and FTB, complaints with neighbor for storage and prolong construction and falling health. Many friends told me that if they wanted to remodel the house, they would think about me and forget about it. With the warning from friends and my judgment told me that if I did not end the construction and put a gate there in front to protect myself since I am alone and many contractors knew the place and my situation, I would be a greater trouble than facing permits problems. Since contractors told me many people did not apply permits for accessory structures and my experience also proved that, I made such hard decision which I never made in my life although I have owned 10 properties in U.S. and in different areas. But City could not concern about me and would not agree with me. Even at the public hearing, Kay asked me whether my husband is back, but she still spoke the way conflicting with their agreement to it before. I am sad to see that we are in such an ignorance society. The issue of my variance hunted me for whole year. Originally I planned to put a gate and put everything else in the storage, so that I can join or see my husband more since I only visited him one in 3 year. When I visited City of Sunnyvale, there was a man asking Planner how high should his fence be. Brace( said that the code indicates 3 feet high, but City is reluctant to do anything for fences between 3 to 4 feet high. All gates in the City of Saratoga have different height, and many are over 5 feet height and with different shape. Especially when you visit Farewell, Sobey, Montalvo, even Harriman and Saratoga Ave., you can see what is on the existing gate. A code is only good if people follow it. Because of no gate, so I have no controlled over what is going to be on my property since I am not at home most of the time. I can not see any consideration either from City for me being along and can be helpless. Instead I got one by one criticize in public hearing, shorten the days for compliance and denial it at all. I don't know whether this is our community spirit at all, no concern to others just want to mind his/her own business. I urge Commission to find out actually how many storage permits ever applied or issued, and how many variances for storage ever applied and got denied and removed. Brad Lind said that two wrongs do not make one right. But dealing with only one wrong when you know three is two or three others out there, it is discrimination to me. To be treated equally is the believe of my life. Even through I was born poor and with no money and poor English coming to this country 30 year ago, I refused to be on any welfare and want to be a proud citizen and I ask my children the same. I am so supprised to hear that to give me the variance exceed height limit and under setback requirement will be granting special privilege which I never had and never was treated as I would have according to the expression from the Commissioners. I probably under privileged that why even through I showed them city's letters and neighbor supports I still got denial and unnecessary criticism and improper comment such as the color and style of my deck and how the one load trash will decrease the neighbor property value which is nothing to do with the fact what is my right and how to resolve the conflict or violation for a fellow resident if they considered me as a member of the community and deserved the equal respect and consideration. I felt a tree got more respect and attention than I did since it is so much concern about it for every Issue of the agenda. I was nobody at that meeting. To serve a Community is an honor not a privilege or prestige. With City facing many changes in this county, we need to open our mind to adopt all new changes. I plead City Council members to make this City not only wellknown for it good school and environment, but also for its humanism and commitment to the harmony of many races. There is no need to be known as a hard -nose town as many people who I asked about the planning regulations here, .1 rather heard it as it is a friendly town and very resourceful. As Chinese says: "If there is a will, there is a way." I can't see that there is no ways to resolve these three structures for me. A simple denial is a way of easy out of the problems. How hard it is to let me know whether my decks is over 12 feet high and how big effect will be if the gazebo is over 1 /2 feet high since nobody can see it except me. If I have right for storage, please ask neighbor whether they want me to move it to 30 feet in the front and 20 feet in right and left which will be in the middle II I of vineyard and grade it to be 12 feet just to meet the code requirement. Do they want me to start another construction or rather leave and stop it now. 6) I also want to say that I am very sorry for the debris surrounding the gazebo and storage and it will be solved when I have the clear fate of the structures and be allowed to put the gate back. Nobody will be so easy to come to my house as it is now and I may live oversee or move to other places. I have 80- year -old parent and two brothers born with disease and one has HIV positive due to blood transfusion. I really need spend more time with them before too late. My son asked me how many four hears do I have in my life? I may never have any since nobody can have a lease on your life. Three year construction and one year restless waiting for this variance is too much for me and to my family as well as my neighbors. I need your help to end this ordeal. Since I will be away, the gate will be locked, the debris will be cleaned, and it is a peace and best solution. Everyone will appreciate your effort if you make it happen! And please try your best to understand me and let me know if there is any problem with our communication. W SA R o0 OA e 0g3A 3 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Incorporated October 22, 1956 Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehaffey Jim Shaw February 1, 1999 Nick Streit Ms. Fu Mei Loh 20651 Leonard Road Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DENIAL FOR PROJECT V -98 -011 Dear Ms. Fu: This letter will confirm receipt of your appeal of denial of a project at 20651 Leonard Road, along with your check in the amount of $250.00 covering the appeal fee, on January 28, 1999. We also received extra copies of your plans, a site plan, your letter to the Councilmembers, your letter requesting postponement until March, and correspondence from your neighbors. According to Section 15 -90 -070 of the Municipal Code, the City Clerk shall schedule the matter for hearing at the next available regular meeting of the City Council to be held within thirty days after the date on which the notice of appeal is filed, which would be the regular meeting of February 17, 1999. However, because you are requesting the City to schedule this matter in March due to a scheduling conflict, this public hearing has been set for the City Council meeting of March 3, 1999. If you wish to request a continuance, you may do so without charge. Any subsequent requests for continuance must be accompanied by a fee of $340.00. The deadline for submitting any additional materials for the Council agenda packet on your appeal is Thursday, February 25, 1999. If you wish to submit written documents after that day, please provide ten copies of each document to the City Clerk no later than noon the following day. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten (10) minutes for your presentation on this appeal. The hearing is "de novo which means that any relevant issue for or against your appeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission and regardless of whether the Planning Commission approved the application. If you have technical questions about your project, please contact Erik Pearson in the Planning Department at 868 -1231. If you have questions about the process, you may contact me at 868 -1269. Sincerely, a� i G lla/n4 --A 1 Ramos City Clerk cc: Erik Pearson, Planning Department Larry Perlin, City Manager Printed on recycled paper ./,?g799 1 Date Received: A 7 9 I Hearing Date: Fee: c-0'00 Receipt No.: 1 13 APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: FrA L c i'"4/ Address: Z�-O J a r d Pia 5; Ya7°, a- Telephone: (Y=00 74e i —/1>-, Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant): Project File Number and Address: Qr g 0 /r s i Decision Being Appealed: VA,-( O 497 :4341 c J i y d cle. �a...el n S re riyp 1)44 ct, (A,e ,'ch2 'Aft h,-1,1,11- /cm7 99X Cr fa (ArQ A fi CD .�fn.cC a (d ,.C.0 il't t tca 't S sh 0 7 ..1 b «ciG, a D Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached) The S'',r�ehlev 1vt Phh )yc_ Y�t� 'I ItS W i J d o S' a a u2 f ..e..$ S /fit Ate ?A-6f sn, yy v A. -i oi-A td a� 4'11; 0 -1-1 A <n 0 vt .-ems" p)arn i Ytv: Z /I .o d I--/ a ,ru C Y. 4ALQ 71, 6T ff It T rti 5e,r-e.s+C �4" ,vt' Q' G 1 1 1 J o YA e- b a-, 1p 9 2 .e tf r .1 rem. 1 "lQy/ e V C K YZ»1 e of 3l, J VIv D AX T 1 r-m vl *App lant's Signature I *Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. 1 9foil File No. V AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING I F1A_— Kt/10U L as appellant on the above file, hereby authorize Engineering Data Services to perform the legal noticing on the above file. Date: 1 Z o l g C 1 Signature: o 1 Fu -Mei Loh 20651 Leonard Road Saratoga, Ca 95070 (408) 741 -1629 January 7 1999 rY Dear council Members: I will be in Taiwan to join my husband for Chinese Lunar New Year between Feb. 13 to 23, 1999. He has been working there since 1995 and I only visited him once due to remodel and variance Please schedule for the month of March except 3- 23 -99. Your cooperation is much appreciated. Sincerely, Fu -Mei Loh Dear Leonard Neighbors: I need your support regarding my storage shed construction. I had old storage shed next to my house and it was rusted. It was also at wrong place, People always be able to see the ugly structure when they came up to my property because it is directly facing my entrance. So I decided to relocated to the front side yard where is the lowest spot of my property and most problem spot for me. It was always covered by the poison ivy and rasbery bushes. We tried to clean the place every year and it came back again. Since it is most closed to my driveway and I think it also enhance my front gate. So I had the contractor built it without permit. After the structure was almost all done then some one reported to City planning Department to question about the bulding. It is about 10 sq. ft. or so over the maximum allowable size for storage. City also said that because my lot is hilly, although I have 1.5 acre lot, I can not build out any more than what I have. I had recently appraised my property, the square footagtate is less than origiani proposal for remodel. City asked me to file an variance for the storage shed. But they told me that they would not recommend to keep it when it come to Planning. They have been pursued me to remove the structure in the past few months and gave me tremendous pressure for it. Now I have filed the variance as they demanded. Although I talked to City Manager Larry and he commended that City really did not have time to deal with this kind of issue, he suggested me to talk to Planning Director and asked James to help me to get permit. But I had very unpleasant experience with Planning Department so far. I really need your opinion regarding my structure which is right next to my gate. I need a storage for my equipment and vineyard which I intend to put it back. Although my house is big, but I only have two -car garage. I really need storage.City allowed me to keep the old one. But not to remove it and build it at other location. That is my mistake. Can you help. me,' Name Address Phone number Opion AYWµf gG5` 4 0 2.61 !'P ("yds) g67. f pfz,o ye. let 7.4444 0/7 Z0; 44 M✓ot 'rc Ro j 404/e6 App .2 G%, 4,41 cA. qrz: rILQ'? I .tII*) L 6 ol (t o s) -this/ itol 1 1 4 4 ..M 4 0 i 9C 0 73 A c'' v I o4d q -366,.0y5-0 1500 Wraavi.oeig..405 es Todd 4' Vanessa. tothbard 20654 Aottard koaci Saratoga, California 95070 'el.: (408) 867 -7302 January 11, 1999 City of Saratoga Community Development Dept. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ATTN: James Walgren, Manager Re: V 98 011 (503 19 157} Dear Mr. Walgren, I am a neighbor of the Lohs. I live across the street at 20654 Leonard. I believe that the storage shed which they have constructed is quite attractive. It matches i the look of the house and adds to the charm of the property and of the street. it is true that the debris in front of the house has been somewhat unsightly, but this has been a function of the construction they have been doing and Mrs. Loh has assured me it will be removed shortly. Once the project has been completed, I believe that it will enhance the property and the neighborhood. I hope that the Lohs are successful in obtaining their variance and, if I can do anything to assist or if you require further information from me, please do not hesitate to contact me, Thank you for your consideration. rue" t Ai Todd Rothbard Dear Council Members, The Planning Commissioner denied my variance application for decks, gazebo and storage building. I am appealing based on the following masons: 1) I was told that I needed to pay $1775 for each structure. I only paid one fee; I was suppnsed to see that all three are on the agenda. Also there are no finding regarding the code requirements for decks and gazebo, only one finding for the storage. My decks and gazebo both were over height limit according to City's letter to me, there were no encroachment mentioned in any previous letters. Suddenly it appears on the public hearing notice. Also the setback measurement for the storage may be wrong, and the height for the storage also may not be true. The reasons are that my front property line is in the middle of the street and it is from the telephone pole to my mailbox. it is no at my fence or my front gate. Over ten years ago Bill my neighbor build a new white fence. Then a big oak tree fell into my vineyard. I looked at the root is over the fence, so I called him to take care it. He told me that our property line is beyond the fenced at where the telephone pole is. Three years ago, City paved the road for the street, the pavement ended at the middle of road about 15 feet from my gate. II then knew where is my front property line. Bill also built a green post deer fences attached to my side of fence. I lost 4-inch of land in front. So the measure from City if it is from the fence according to my contract 's statement, it can be wrong. Also the height, the storage is on the pillars which is necessary due to the nearby storm drainage and on the lowest spot of the land. The building from roof to floor is 12 feet high, because we did not want to grade the area, so it is rested on the pillars between feet to 3 feet. John Cook, assistant planner first measures it as 13.5 feet and Eric measured as 15 feet. (See letters from John). My architect told me that the height should be the average of the pillars plus the building height. So it may only be 13.5 feet high, not 15 feet high. 2) According to letters from Mr. John Cook and James Walgreen, my gazebo and decks can stay at its current location if I reduce the height to 10 feet and 12 feet. At the last meeting with James when I found that Planning Commission would not recommend the variance, and the variance is very costly and hard to predict the outcome, I told James that I would reduce it to the necessary height and not go for the variance. But the storage is very hard to remove or correct, I also built with neighbor's silent and verbal approval, I would not do anything unless them is no other ways. I also checked with a few movers, because the storage is built with tile roof, I need to take one by one down and also it is so low on the ground, it will be hard to pull it out and not to damage the front landscaping. 3) I am so confused by the City politics and policy as well as y rty po po y a m y neighbor hbor attitudes. In March of 1998, Inspector Jim Sutherland came to my property and saw the gazebo, deck and storage. He told me that he was not concerned about my gazebo or decks, he is concerned about the storage. He asked me to go to the City and take care the issue. I could not go the next day, I immediately got a phone call from Rubbeca, Code enforcement officer, telling me that I would subject to daily fines if I don't comply with the ordinance. At that time, I did not even know what is the code requirement. Then I got a registered mail from Brad Lind suggesting the possibility of removing the storage at big costs if City has to do it. John Cook and James visited the site while the contractor was working on replacing my 13 feet high old wood gate to a new wright iron gate which is about 5.5 feet and curved to 7.t feet. James stopped the gate installation and said it is over 5 feet high and I need electrical permit. I told me that I had an old gate before, I replaced it because that my neighbor commented it was no longer matching to my newly remodeled house. So I did it for being a cooperative neighbor. But James still insisted that I need to cut the gate or to pay another $1775 for the variance application and it may not pass Planning Committee. Later John came to my property bringing my neighbor Larry Chang's blue print instead of mine. I told him it was a wrong one, so he came with file and told me that City might lose my blueprint on file. At that time, he found out that I have gazebo and decks. Because the gazebo and decks are totally invisible from street. Even my next door neighbor, Starr Davis did not know that I built a gazebo to replace an old metal storage shed which was directly facing my front entrance. At that time he said: "Mrs. Loh, you are a Realtor, how can you build these without permits I told him as a Realtor, I could not immune myself from any human problems as well as human mistakes. He copies the ordinances which states the gazebo and decks as well as storage which is classified as accessory buildings, the code requirement is minimum of 6 feet up to 10 feet setback depends on the height of the structure. The setback from the gazebo is 11 feet from my property line and the decks are over 12 feet. The decks are build on the post without grading, although the first step is touching the ground, the uneven ground makes the deck in different height. With arbor on top of one section, it makes it over the maximum height. So we took the arbor down. It is less than 12 feet now. It shall be conforming to the code. The gazebo also built on nature grade because it next to a big pine trees. I did not want to hurt the roots of the tree. Where my storage before. I think it is better to have a gazebo there. The gazebo is built with eight posts and Simpson ties. The first step touching grand too but the uneven grand makes the gazebo over the 12 feet high limit, due to the posts. If council members thinks allowing me extra 1 /2 feet of height for gazebo is granting me a privilege, I will cut it to the height if City will mark the posts for me so the I don't need to cut it over and over again. The solutions are either giving me a variance for the extra 1 /2 feet height of my gazebo or ask me to cut it. Regarding the storage, I was requested by Bill, my neighbor to take away the mobil storage on my driveway because he did not like to see it anymore after my final inspection. I looked around the destroyed landscaping and storage, with two car garage and all kinds of things over my office next to the house, I asked the contractor quickly put a metal storage back for me at where I can easily access. The back yard is so steep over 35% slop without any pavement, the side yard is so narrow, the only solution is in the front yard. But who would like to have a storage in the front yard? So my contractor told me that he could build a storage which would comparable to the rest of the house and looking good for the front. I found this lowest spot on my property, which is most dose to the pavement and next to the fire hydrant, it is safe and accessible. The place also was covered by raspbeny bushes and poison ivies, which cause the front totally ugly and unmanageable. We also found that occasionally there are teenagers hiding there to meet with friends. I thought it is a perfect solution for all if I put storage there. In order to make it look in line with rest of the setting, we need to build the storage higher than 12 feet because the land is so low. While we were breaking the grand, Bill, asked me whether it is built with permit. I told him that as he knew that my husband had been working oversees since 1995 and I am living along, I need to finish the construction quickly so I can join my husband. Since he did not want me to have mobil storage, I have no other place to put the stuffs and make a speed end to it, I also asked him that if I went through planning process, the storage might be at the place which he would see it all the time, is it what he wants. He told me that he quested it is all right. Many neighbors saw us building it and giving comment to it. It tums out to be very nice, most of them said. And it almost invisibly when you drive down street. You will see it only when you drive up the street. It shows less than 10 feet from street level. If I put double gate and put more shrubs at where my property line is, maybe nobody can see it. That is why I got over 7 signatures from the neighbors to approve my structures. Ms. Starr Davis, she is a wellknown artist, her letter states that she has no objection to its height and location. Mike, who graduated from Stanford and also an artist teaching at Los Altos School, said it is the most beautiful things he ever saw for 20 years he has been here. Todd, a lawyer, also said it is enhanced the setting of the rest environment. Only three families who expressed objections to City. I later had communication with Greg, he is a contractor, he told me that he is not much to the permit issues. His concem is that it is too close to the front yard. When I told him that my front yard is in the middle of the street, he said he needed to discuss it over with his wife. He also said that he no longer could get along with Mr. Mrs., Perry because they complained everything. I had a dog to protect me when I had no lock during the construction. The Perry would complain to authority when he barked and I ended lost him. But Bill has a new poppy that barked and got yelled many times; there is no problem. As to Kay, Bill's wife, she said that she opposed to my storage. But if I can build my storage somewhere else, she rather sees it to be where I am now. With all these difficulties regarding neighbor's needs and my need as well as how to commode Fire department as well as the nature topographic of the land, I have no choice but to build the storage over 12 feet high and at it present location. It is not granting me any privilege, which I never asked anyone to give in my whole life. I t is rather a very unique case and extreme difficulties considering all factors and there are no better solutions than leave it as is. Planning Department and Planning Commissioners could not see it, I hope Council members will look into it and agree with me. 4) Planning Commissioners was so mad at the debris surrounding my gazebo and storage. They made very strong criticism to it. One commissioner said that those debris will decrease the neighbor property value despite the rest of my property is all -dean and I have put over hundred thousands of dollars and three year of effort to improve it. I also got a lot of concern regarding my role as a Realtor who is building structures without permits. I had spent most of time to talk with City and at the public hearing about my personal problems at the time with the pressure from financial, physical, mental as well as marital problems, I decide to protect my self to end the ordeal in a quick way by building it without permits. I told City that I did not intend to build it that ways, but after calling dozen of landscaping contractors, only two expressed interests, and wanted me to commit $75K or more to do it, I just did not know whether I could do it. With my own house came through six architects and went through six years planning, at my age, I just don't have that many six year anymore. With my family members in New York Taiwan. I was worry about if anything ever happened to me, the house would be sold at big discount because it never finished the way it should be. As a Realtor, I will ask Council members to conduct a survey, to find out how other Reactors thinking about the permits for accessory buildings, and the height, setback as well as what happens if an accessory building already there, than let me know whether I am the one shall be harshly penalized or criticized at the public hearing or not. Also asking the top Realtor or the local real estate firm how much the property value will be decreased if there is a truckload of debris there and rest of the property is fine. Then tell me whether the Commissioner's comment is proper or not. I also got open comment about my decks, which is supposed to be up to code and no need for planning review. The commissioner criticized the color and style of the decks, actually it may not be her business. I just felt that I got one two three punches at the public hearing, more because of my debris and two neighbor presentations for objections, Commissioners did not look all aspects of situations. Is giving me feet more height for the gazebo is a big problem? If so, why? Granting me a privilege? Does my deck meet the code, then what? Do I have right for a storage, if yes, where and what criteria? Mr. Murarakami did say that there might be a way to move the storage since I am allowed to have additional square footage. But James immediately said that the storage is over 15 feet high and not commenting it as 12 feet high with 3 feet pillars so that with proper grading and design, ft can be relocated. He also failed to say that Kay just commended she rather let me keep the storage at where it is since they can't see it from their house now. Any other place in the front will distract their view. He also suggested that there should be a resolution to it if it is allowed to move. Commissioners just did not want to do it rather denied it. Commissioner also asked why it takes so long, James said it take s that long to resolve problems with me. Actually I went to see City Manager, Larry, who suggested me to ask James or Brad to help me because they really did not time to deal with this kind of things. City only gave me three letters so far and four visits, one should not count, during March and May of 1998. I went to City to apply for variance after I got a letter from Rubecca. Why it take that long I had no control over it since I do not run the government. City moved the agenda from December to January. The letter to me stamped 1/8/99; I got it on 1/11/99. two days before hearing and I did not have time to prepare for it. Now the blame all on me again so that even through James suggesting for 180 days to correct the problems, it got changed to 90 days with $250 daily fine if I did not comply with it and the Commissioner shouted to make sure cleaning the debris and charged it to me if I don't. 5) I have been a resident of Saratoga since 1983. My son graduated from Saratoga High and MIT and now working for Merrill Lunch in New York as VP, my daughter graduated from UCLA and working in the sale department for Brio Technology. We knew many people in town and I had one transaction with ex- major, Karen Anderson and my daughter has good relationship with Mrs. Karen Tucker, another ex- major. This town is really a hometown for me that am why we decided to remodel our house and retire here. But his variance situation let me feel that I am nobody in here, not because I asking for a special treatment, because nobody will listen or concern about what I said. Our constitutional spirit is to protect individual and each of us has the right and shall know how to protect us. The construction industry is the most unregulated and most difficulties one to deal with it. After two year remodeling, I also faced a classical tragedy to lose the house for losing important files which is very important to my tax return and over spending to correct many faulty and unfinished jobs. With my husband oversee, I am hunting by IRS and FTB, complaints with neighbor for storage and prolong construction and falling health. Many friends told me that if they wanted to remodel the house, they would think about me and forget about it. With the warning from friends and my judgment told me that if I did not end the construction and put a gate there in front to protect myself since I am alone and many contractors knew the place and my situation, I would be a greater trouble than facing permits problems. Since contractors told me many people did not apply permits for accessory structures and my experience also proved that, I made such hard decision which I never made in my life although I have owned 10 properties in U.S. and in different areas. But City could not concern about me and would not agree with me. Even at the public hearing, Kay asked me whether my husband is back, but she still spoke the way conflicting with their agreement to it before. I am sad to see that we are in such an ignorance society. The issue of my variance hunted me for whole year. Originally I planned to put a gate and put everything else in the storage, so that I can join or see my husband more since I only visited him one in 3 year. When I visited City of Sunnyvale, there was a man asking Planner how high should his fence be. Brace( said that the code indicates 3 feet high, but City is reluctant to do anything for fences between 3 to 4 feet high. All gates in the City of Saratoga have different height, and many are over 5 feet height and with different shape. Especially when you visit Farewell, Sobey, Montalvo, even Harriman and Saratoga Ave., you can see what is on the existing gate. A code is only good if people follow it. Because of no gate, so I have no controlled over what is going to be on my property since I am not at home most of the time. I can not see any consideration either from City for me being along and can be helpless. Instead I got one by one criticize in public hearing, shorten the days for compliance and denial it at all. I don't know whether this is our community spirit at all, no concern to others just want to mind his/her own business. I urge Commission to find out actually how many storage permits ever applied or issued, and how many variances for storage ever applied and got denied and removed. Brad Lind said that two wrongs do not make one right. But dealing with only one wrong when you know three is two or three others out there, it is discrimination to me. To be treated equally is the believe of my life. Even through I was born poor and with no money and poor English coming to this country 30 year ago, I refused to be on any welfare and want to be a proud citizen and I ask my children the same. I am so supprised to hear that to give me the variance exceed height limit and under setback requirement will be granting special privilege which I never had and never was treated as I would have according to the expression from the Commissioners. I probably under privileged that why even through I showed them city's letters and neighbor supports I still got denial and unnecessary criticism and improper comment such as the color and style of my deck and how the one load trash will decrease the neighbor property value which is nothing to do with the fact what is my right and how to resolve the conflict or violation for a fellow resident if they considered me as a member of the community and deserved the equal respect and consideration. I felt a tree got more respect and attention than I did since it is so much concern about it for every Issue of the agenda. I was nobody at that meeting. To serve a community is an honor not a privilege or prestige. With City facing many changes in this county, we need to open our mind to adopt all new changes. I plead City Council members to make this City not only wellknown for it good school and environment, but also for its humanism and commitment to the harmony of many races. There is no need to be known as a hard -nose town as many people who I asked about the planning regulations here, .1 rather heard it as it is a friendly town and very resourceful. As Chinese says:" ff there is a will, there is a way." I can't see that there is no ways to resolve these three structures for me. A simple denial is a way of easy out of the problems. How hard it is to let me know whether my decks is over 12 feet high and how big effect will be if the gazebo is over 1 /2 feet high since nobody can see it except me. If I have right for storage, please ask neighbor whether they t r. want me to move it to 30 feet in the front and 20 feet in right and left which will be in the middle of vineyani and grade it to be 12 feet just to meet the code requirement. Do they want me to start another construction or rather leave and stop it now. 6) I also want to say that I am very sorry for the debris surrounding the gazebo and storage and it will be solved when I have the clear fate of the structures and be allowed to put the gate back. Nobody will be so easy to come to my house as it is now and I may live oversee or move to other places. I have 80- year -old parent and two brothers born with disease and one has HIV positive due to blood transfusion. I really need spend more time with them before too late. My son asked me how many four hears do I have in my life? I may never have any since nobody can have a lease on your life. Three year construction and one year restless waiting for this variance is too much for me and to my family as well as my neighbors. I need your help to end this ordeal. Since I will be away, the gate will be locked, the debris will be cleaned, and it is a peace and best solution. Everyone will appreciate your effort if you make it happen! And please try your best to understand me and let me know if there is any problem with our communication. 2,5)71 ki '(kJ I Fu -Mei Loh i 20651 Leonard Road, P Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Member: I am presenting to you the documents related to the last meeting with my comments on each page. The package for the hearing was stamped on 1/8/99, which is Friday. I was out of town until 1/12/99. The meeting was on 1/13/99. I did not know what would be presented in the meeting until I received the letter. My architect, Thomas Liu, also confirmed that the date for the package is 1/8/99. According to City Clerk, I should be notified 15 days before the meeting. I want City to clarify the legality of the last hearing. On page one of the document, you can see that my property line is in line with Larry Chang's or Todd Rothbard's for the front portion where my storage shed is now. My gate is almost 30 feet from the edge of the Leonard Road. I am not sure what 60 feet wide right -of -way means on p. 004. I measured the road width; it is from 25 feet to 30 feet. In front of the storage, depending on where is my property line, I measured 30 feet instead of 20 feet wide as City claims. I know that my front property line is from the telephone pole or the direction of the chain link fences on other side to the mailbox. Moreover, the fence is not my property line. If Council members come to visit my storage, you can see there were old white fence at the end of my right side of vineyard and a line of trees away from my the white fence and the deer or green fences attached to the white fence which put on by Bill without my consent. City admitted "some of the dimensions and distances in this report are estimates by staff." It is not the true finding. So the finding on p.003 is not correct.regarding the setback which can be the only issue or violation for this storage. City also said Sec. 15- 12.100(b) allows the Planning Commission to approve the structure up to 15 feet if the two criteria applied. Starr David, (p.28) Mike Durkett (p.27) and Todd Rothbard's letter, which I submitted to you and to Commissioners, all stated such support. I could not understand why Council refused to their opinions. If you can allow the structure to be 15 feet high, then the only violation according to p. 003 is the setback. Actually, I had measured the storage over again. The highest post is less than 3 feet, it is 2 feet. The first step is touch ground that is 4 inches high only. Therefore, Mr. John Cook's letter on 4/6/98 states it is 13 feet 6 inches high is the maximum height for it. The building is only 12 feet high from roof to floor. And it is only 8 feet or so from the street level. Since it is so close to the drainage, I must put posts to support the building in order to let water free flowing underneath it. Commissioners could not see the reasons either. I want council to know that the 15 feet or 13 feet high structure is necessary to establish architectural compatibility and it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It is not a privilege; it is allowable according to the code. As to the setback requirement, 1) City's finding is only an estimate. Nobody can judge or make a decision according to estimate only. 2) I think that 30 feet in the front and 20 feet in the right and left is for the main structure only. John Cook showed me that the accessory structure for my zoning area is only 6 feet up to 10 feet on Sec. 15- 80.030 (d). Mr. Walgren said in the hearing that if a building is exceeding the maximum height, then the main setback applies. If my building is not exceed the maximum height, then the setback requirement can be much less. I may not have any setback problem at all if it is the case. In case that the setback is still an issue to you, please consider other factors: 1) where is the better location for me other than where it is now? If I am using 30 -20 -20 guideline,the storage will be in the middle of the vineyard which will directly facing Bill's house. His wife Kay came to the meeting to say that she did not want me to have any storage. However, if I do have the right for the storage, which I do have according to the finding on p. 003, then she is prefer to be at the present location. I also had understanding from Bill when I was breaking the ground My neighbors saw the construction and asked the questions. Nobody objected it until it was all finished. 2) Safety and accessibility. The shed is close to fire hydrant, and more close to the pavement. City also states that "The topography of the subject parcel may limit where accessory buildings can be located." With the lot narrows on the center where my house and pool is, there is no room for any other structures except in the front or back. The rear yard is over 30% slop and far away from pavement or fire safety; I have no other choice except to put in the front. 3) Visibility and privacy. The shed is almost invisible from the street when you drive down the street. You only see a portion of the shed when you drive up the street. When the landscape all matured, you may not see it at all. I am sure that Kay and Bill can not see the shed from his house. They only see it when they come to the garden. I have put a lot of consideration to them.and to the neighbor. I could put a portable storage there then there will be no need for planning review or permit according to Jim Sutherland. Is it good for the neighbor? I put extra effort to make it look nice and the least disturbance to others, I still get problem. Can Council tell me what can be a wiser or better solution? 4) Stability and peace. I remembered speaking to Paul Jacob last year when he was on Council. He told me that he came to Council because he had a neighbor complained about his storage. He had to spend great effort to clear his problem. Finally, he was able to save it because it was existing so they can not do anything about it. Because he was so sympathy about my situation, so he went to talk with James Walgren. James told him at that time my main problem was the maximum square footage. Now the code changes, so it becomes not an issue anymore. I do not think that my neighbor wants me to do anymore construction. According to code, I can move the structure to the front within the setback requirement with bigger building up to 469 square foot without public hearing. If I build it exactly according to the code requirement. Is it what my neighbors wanting to see? It may up to code. However, my neighbor may hate me more. What is good about it? The commissioners mixed the issues of my storage that is the coverage, height, setback and size of the structure, with other issues. I found that the debris was their only concern. Another concern is my profession as a Realtor, which makes it no excuse at all. I also shall be used as deterrence to others as Mr. Mrs. Perry said. We shall ask President Clinton and other more noble person for this kind of answer. I have repeatedly plea for the understanding and the need to end this turmoil for me. Now I even got very hash threat from my neighbor bore din this building if I y 1� do not clean as he wants. S up, ants. There is also an open criticism in front of me for Larry not doing the landscape as what he expects him to do. Larry Chang told me it is not his business. Just because I am on the mercy of this variance application, I have subjected to enough disturbances and disrespect from my neighbor because I could not offend anyone in order to avoid more objections in the public hearing. Even my architect, Mr. Thomas Liu, told me that the Planning Commissioner is racial bias according to his experience. This kind of policy to suppress any resident once there is a problem with permit issue is opening a forum for a fight. This may be the only chance for some people. All implied problems will be surfaced. That is why Larry Perlin said that I should ask James to help because nobody has time to deal with it. I think that the Council may need to set a guideline with 1/3 of the neighbor signed partition, then the City shall investigate the permit issue for any existing accessory building which is built without permit. Since City is very easy to issue a stop order for any violation, if someone complained. There is not much chance that it can be built without neighbor consent. Once it is finished, it shall be classified as existing. If a building can be built overnight, it also can be removed overnight. But my storage was under construction over two months. Also in the front of my lot. I never received any stop order from City. The only letter I got from City is first from Brad Lind, which stated the concern about permit and drainage easement (see enclosure). Jim Sutherland visited my property first; he told me that he had no concern about my gazebo, deck, or the height for these structures. After there is no issue for easement, then other problems surfaced. According to my observation, City did not have enough experience to deal with this issue. I guess there are not enough cases like this before. My decks are less than 12 feet, which is up to code. I told James Walgren and Robbeca, the code enforcement officer, about the reduction, but nobody would listen and there would be no finding either before the hearing However, Mr. John Cook did say, "If the height is reduced to 12 feet, you will not need further Planning Commission or Planning Staff approval." (p. 16). Commissioners did visit my property without noticing me first. The document is including in the package. Moreover, the Commissioner shall know the code more than anyone else shall. How can I still get an open criticism and very hash comment about the deck? Is this a mistake or the Commissioner does not know the rule? If the Commissioner allows to have mistake just as the staff can send a letter for hearing 5 days prior to hearing who is getting more privilege? What kind of privilege do I get? I think that I am rather underprivileged! The gazebo can be an issue for me. It is 10 feet from the top to the floor. Because I did not do the grading in order to preserve the root of the big pine tree. Now the posts standing at one feet to 2 feet under the floor. If I cut the post to 1.5 feet lower, the landing to the gazebo will be 6.5 feet. It will have clearance problem. This place is the location for the original storage. The root is so tight that I cannot plant anything. A gazebo is the perfect solution for me. Nobody can see the gazebo at all except my family and Starr Davis i=_ 1;" who did not object to the setback (p.28) also said nothing about the height. I originally thought that if City marked the place to be cut, I will have contractor to cut it. Now I understand why he did not want to cut it anymore. Nobody except Criag mentions about the gazebo. He never came up or invited by me to the house, I do not know how can he see the gazebo. It is invisible from the street. I really need help to grant this variance. There is a picture of my gate, which is replacing my 13 feet high old ranch wood gate. I asked the Professional IronWork who I saw them doing many work in the area to design one for me. I never thought the height could be a problem again. It stands about 5.5 feet and curved to 6 feet 10 inches. I asked the owner to cut it down; he hesitated to do so because it will look funny since my slop is 13% and more. Put a gate at lower spot again a 13 feet high elevation, it looks much shorter than five or 6 feet. He also told me that many cities do not count the ornament, which is on the top and button of the gate. The deck shall never be on the variance. The issue for the deck and gazebo is height, not encroachment as on the public hearing notice. Since the deck can go for permit, the questionable items in the package is the gate, gazebo which is exceeding the height and the storage with height and setback problem. I rather see these three items on the hearing, so it will not complicate the issue. I do not know the practice, whether you shall deny it all or grant it all. My hope is that you can grant it all. The gazebo and storage have been existing more than one year and before Inspector found it out. The gate was on for about two weeks and many neighbors really liked it. I did not hear any objection at all except Mr. Walgren due to its height. I need storage because I only have two -car garage. I am allowed to have additional 469 sq. feet structure within the 30 -20 -20 setback with right height without Commissioner review. It may not be a better solution than what it is now although it is up to code. I also can have gazebo and deck. The deck is not an issue now, but the gazebo needs the current height to have enough clearance for the landing. The limitation is caused by the uneven grade, which is needed to protect the health of the old pine tree. It has no disturbance to anybody and not visible from the street. The gate is exceeding the height due to the ornament and the consideration of the topography. It is replacing a 13 feet high gate to enhance the appearance of the neighbor and my main structure. It is not a privilege, it is extreme difficult, and unique situation. Nobody has the same kind of lot as I have although they may be in the same zoning. I have over nine persons on the street supporting my structures, I hope Council will respect the majority opinions. If you cannot grand me the variance, please do give me the resolution to move the structure to other location inside the lot. I have plenty of room for it. I also need 180 days to resolve the issue, which was suggested by the staff, instead of 90 days from the Commissioner. Because it is very difficult to do so due to the grade and tile roof. I also need to raise enough funds to be able to do it. Why gave me more burden and cause me more loss if there is a minority objection? If you say rule is rule and everyone in Saratoga is law abiding, then I have no word to say. As to the debris issue that becomes the main concern for the storage, I can assure you that once the gate is on, nobody can dump anything in my property without my approval. The current situation is that I am not home most time, I have no control for what is coming in the property although I shall not be run over by the contractor. Unfortunately, construction problem happens everywhere. I knew it, so I wanted a gate right after I finished the house. But City stopped me. I have been in the area since 1983. Nobody can say that I am sloppy. The staff and commissioner shall see that all other area in my lot is neat except storage and gazebo because it is not certain what will happen. So I do not bother to conclude the project and the area is left as it was stopped before. If I am the factor or problem for the variance, I am planning to move out the house. With the prolong hearing and appeal or continue, how can I move or settle to other place? The approval of variance can be a best solution to these divided neighbors. tfully yours, u -Mei Loh L� 1/23/1999 See Enclosures (16) i Aat 4 1 /yy 13 ,A 611 a viz.. d 7s t S i .-rt4 e.-ti r.D -�Z.' ,4 re S&e 7L..F�c c 9 OZ="._ 7-,. ,,..,C _,L Y-e y c n v.e..-t_ -41- 7 ca beca.,.t.i =.z. t-14- d r,. -3de6 9 e.--" r 'zc -Kir- Zia/ Y rrr c.e+rs�,. Y�z a-Gt.t sr�4u s ze U, d ..44,;. )-k.4-- D u ,6a a. S l U-H (i ,-J2 eT(/{ e,aL D iL L.J Q i..'J.-" L E n.t 5 a (t p r..?tc6 2 vry --►o -7 c;e,ae l_l2 r t ..a-;; Xi 3 '39 t;;;" 1 ..24 'a 7 1 ..41111111 CITY OF SARATOGA 19777 Fnritvale Avenue a r SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 To Ying -Tsong and Fu -Mei Loh 20651 Leonard Road Saratoga, CA 95070 z 1.. 1 0 YKa,.. I r s etc ,.i. Y a- 7 Yt' ,...0-y-.4 env -11„,,,, 4 r t S TvIcvlfr C-11 I e 1 9 f li.;'eri CA- /1/1... brod7 o u,,,,e ac,,,,,,,,,...,z- -1k..2 -vr- L-1 3/ 7 7 7 7 e„- --ex- ts L7 e,i -tli -t.. de L. L. A J-D •G-r..„, d 1= CITY OF SARATOGA `r 13777 FrultvaIe Avenue 4 "J SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 "'k Thomas Liu 20710 Carmel Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 l .pe 'i :N Si, n v 1 5 i 1 Pk V-- C-e- a4 7/ r---7-e-.4 4 od? az, _hri., 1 X ('-k.d e �-v .D.--: S e'.^ t 4-- f G r.�z i rryt .-1� .4...:-e-- ''r peA-1 "L�rrl a YG�✓� V a,. ,..A.„...- yi_ert f ro- 1 1 0,...-- 1 o s A R� c'� 04 t{ r W O 0 A A 0 A a��® 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SAARR TOGA, CALIFORNIA O1 95070 (408) 868 -1200 pp COUNCIL MEMBERS: Gt ++'l 7 o 3 7 c-a Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs 6: a, SO Z /f> Gillian Moran March 27, 1998 j 0 i/ c (t) N L. -Jim Shaw �j ,,,q, 7 Donald L. Wolfe M Ying -Tsong and Fu Loh "C r I (i e Oi A.- 20651 Leonard Road Saratoga, CA 95070 '3 75- cg 2 E5,10)' 1 RE: New Storage Building 2z er Mr. and Mrs. Loh: On Wednesday March 25, 1998, you were notified by Building Inspector Jim Sutherland that the recently constructed storage building on your property may be in violation of Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance. You should also be informed that this structure requires a building permit. We worked together over the past several years during your 2' story addition, so I'm surprised you would build this type of structure near property lines and possibly within a drainage easement without first speaking with the Building Department. You are instructed to contact Saratoga's Planning Department for approval of the present location of this storage building, submit a plan showing construction details and obtain a building permit. Please be informed this structure may have to be removed or relocated. Please contact me upon receipt of this letter so that I may assist you with the permit process. Thank you for your prompt actions on this matter. I can be contacted (408) 868 -1224. Sincerely, Brad D. Lind Senior Building Inspector 7 -c L X S ^:eo on r cvc:ec oaoer. o r 7 o a c:. e S �oPP� .x r. o f n g/ i s f ve r raw, et.. •r. e A T^ tn L o X l.Q 1611-6 .u. 3 54 r� U b Gt ..14..t s fri y I rot ..,t: 5 �e,,r t s a .(1�fz �.c �d d�a. c S�,re. c, r Av r +1 Ewl -4"r14 Q e a:;,44,,..5. Se S g I y, o F r 'r� 2 c t` /aT.e/ 1 4-hd -?-47 cLQ..Ze. o r� �l y,+,� G f' n-�f 1 P 'A`v -ThwC.� ,\,,,r-12_ G o r 7"/ a 4' tt 7 344 Jam` l at. 'i S b.4 evv'e-e-44-- 13 +.C.C. r .e lR- c�iS� (1+, Fr m �I �i,.�- i71 g"4 51 t /f1 m U d l o s c� a''e._ C'&" 411 s p� 5�u»,�c d e .ear dl 7 'ry' ai 7 i' +Y+k$`r s r t CFA a A 3 t x r ,?Ca C..- 4-41 ti .n 1 F i'S`' :tf S r 4 .d,.. a 4 ?F +'r S 4 a, F s s te r, s k z F O a ti a' 0 J a.r a. n y t' y r r'i a s- t+ G': S fFF J ',p F 'i' �t .j F ,7 t l, i T l' l M A f .'�Sr' 4t a Y 4 t'c F a t x r �,'4.-.-;'.'..:'.. f r k s s Y,.. �,3 .P j.. 1 Y "c t yc "i.s 5+ 1 ,V...:.,,-.44 a�Y"Y q r Y` o' .1". �S '-'''..-'4 a r .r .,ti 4. sr K POR T o :i E P, s i 5 Q 1 y x. r 1 7`' x: n k .nr,} a rp ei :r. .,2, 4 'i rY'l .�,a, OCabUn r.t al iti e: 4: Q 4r a i t t r :L r. P b t Y 4- 7 1 r I I j i 'R r .7 fir' r;4 Lu t,. '3'- 4 j 1 1 �C;4. t t 1,F..F `h >/�1 a r 3 L ii i' i 11 B 11 ilk' r' ...:'4 Zj+ f i .c' f` bra a '!1 s P. +a 1 t r f Z 2, 1 4; iti v r i� s l r t *'1 tea.. 4 '7 .5 t t c, r''''' 1 i2` .+^'te a J E C F t 2 L t i a .1' 4-. 1 Sr t i F r w J K E:;, l. L'd t r r I 3 -y t r S v ?p ly ]�l�e rf .r g n d e R a ty T J, 1 1 i C'' #E 1... i P r i .4,: s• r j F ty '1 F A a t. t-± ..u 1r jw i i 1 7 P.t.,. S 'v-T F r +,n k 1 r.. r""4+i E- I 4 z t 5 F t q a, S 1 y; Y L j 4 rf`� r ,i., ...,-c rj F- s r j 2 k L i r a r E 1 t rG t t t r r K 4 1' r Lf:P r i L o,.11� a rs .e;+' 's,�"°.'n""r ka .rr, °�•g"� ~•^r t 4 1 c�-' s 2 n e::e� ►'gyp..::.+, ""1"---4 l.a. 4�d 41 p t! .y z r. C ,"iu L_...+ :i� l ,r-7.1r777,1- c>.r -j.- y ti y 1 t 1,i qp 2 r L w.. C......3 t-. 7 i',. J� 'r 3y i a�' ,,.sL•„�.:., L ,r *1� t A" ti f Lt Y t fi .+aw �le�•+PJ, f t..sy C e' C 1 y F 4 fr3t T a 1"t L�-..1 SA F E E f t'." t"' �T�. .1 A.... r �F F a F v e �I :s±. -ti +F 5, t ^''yp1 F r X7 r F J. 6 3 4 :r g 1 t �'J J� i ms` t• H 1 *Px. r t .,t,� .4 S r 4` 4 /1 R"�"-'� .:'...',1',- 4 a A �.t� o- t iJt1 -II A gm. r A" c .1.4,:;'.1! w I n i C a!4 rte 0, ,S' C ,�+w� r y e F t A t ra7k --t,';50-(174,, FT }_e� 1 �s 1 ?.r h ,1 f 2 r a Y a "'''''41-- k t l r n t e y 'ew r +f +t 7 K.`, Al d '�.�;4� ,y� aa X+ P, e ..r... p l 'S r .'M1 L 4- k:,:„..„, 'Z'''3:-.44,4 A imt 4. i 4 %=1-4"7 4-.0. 1, '1 rG a c"4�A� 41 p r .:t+'. t. �Q `e} ?M Li t b E F i i r- r 1:' t y T C' cv 1 1 ,1. r y'' F'7 ,!:....;;:t.,,,„' 4 j 1 r4 A rgl fi +d° s z -i a l N L' q< 4k z 1 i o r Mc ir F x S k4� n> k r 4:4.z� t'F'f I p s i JO.,! L 1 2 1 i t :i t i u; .1, A -,fig 1 ("'t” tr, F' r ti 1 R.� a ?I 4 a" ":ice a �,"'i''Suj. 3 �.t F '.4t h r T i Y 7 7 -i 1 r 0ir 4Z �tty..: lrts[r3+a[ J I Cl�. 'i 1 Fa fk' I f -1+�1 r"t t: ,T X x -,.,y- F fi 9 i .,f 7 e t y a r' ST� 9�Ri °0 �.��M�p t t .sue L! Vr i• b t. '1'...;::-.:--. r.. q,F at ,.e$et� Il. v. rd, 5+. y N_ ^?^F .1 s-' s.- 1`•a t`.es -to 7 g #''s yy1r1 �4t7k a �^e•1'o s t '1';,! �,�L r, r t T° ti- d5 l .2 "mow '4;4 r ,r i.4.:. *54,21#4,„' r' d +`r �''s d „k t f Y ti r g .Y- yx r y j.' e r s;. ff.' 4 t7;Y -f�#„ .2i +�i r -s~ Ky-� r"r z 1 `"c8 iCE --2 -t xy ag �.k se 1 ,7,; E' ti Si,''.,:;:: :1.4;44 I r 1 4 F t .y ;G t ..',i;!'1. 1&" ",f ,s7s 3 F 1'. S t l _l a' :,4'hlx� a 4;1" 1 «s a p: <I Y4 v P Y f� 'Y d 7-P' 1�- 4 77 17; "y v 4 s i C r 1 P s c Yu s. c F _.y m. r x 'E$ 3 In -x<. A C f ra', y J N, 7 d1 Q y. ,^if q 4,1: Y 1 7= 3 X... "z 3 v 5d F. 3 �'n i at s� F r E i 11 F es—( s OY Ss 6� 1 u c ✓i oast 4-4 fYI .11■.2 77+ v'. „L2 yiv -4,C 5 kJ- )r. .f p r, 1~ z i 1 on 3- P'UW r 51'o r -t Gv a .j a C ✓r 1 File No. V -98 -011; 20651 Leonard Road S I ATTACHMENT 1 STAFF ANALYSIS Zoning: R -1- 40,000 General Plan Designation: Residential: Very Low Density Measure G: Not applicable Parcel Size: 1.42 acres (net area) Average Site Slope: 13% Grading Required: None Materials and Colors Proposed: p d. The shed is a light ink color with white P htte tnm and mission style tile roofing. Height /Coverage /Setback Requirements: Proposal Code Requirement/ Allowance 20% Lot Coverage: 20% 35% Height: T/1_2 5. 6'42 (',6- v41,4' 15 ft. k) 3' •K rests. 12 ft.] Noes Size of Structure: 260 s ft.; q Total allowable for site: Proposed total for site: 6,240 sq. ft. 6,031 sq. ft. Setbacks: rout: approx. 8 ft. Front: 30 j (for accessory structures) Rear: not applicable Rear: not applicable ,v Left Side: >40 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. 1 Right Side: 6 ft. Side: 20 Right ft. J �Y. ✓d by V ;'c /t�, wv( C Y ,r. t I 6- tit` .n car z r/ 4are ".Jw G�ES1� -7Gt l i Lr S Cr -z,..t Section 15- 12.100 allows the Planning Commission to approve accessory structures extending up to 15 feet in height. Page 2 000003 File No. V -98 -011; 20651 Leonard Road PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant has requested Variance approval for a 260 square foot storage shed constructed without permits. The shed is located within both the 30 foot front yard and the 20 foot side yard setbacks. The property has a net size of 1.48 acres, is currently developed with a residence and several accessory structures, and is located in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district. SITE CHARACTERISTICS The average site slope is 13 A Design Review application was approved by the Planning Commission in December 1993 (DR -93 -024) for an addition to the main residence. Since the construction of the approved addition, the applicant has constructed the subject storage shed, a deck that may extend into the side yard setback and a azebo that may exceed g y d the maximum height allowed and may extend into the side yard setback. Due to the difficulty staff has experienced t3' p ced m obtaining an accurate site plan and elevations for the accessory structures, some of the dimensions and distances in this report are estimates by staff. The height and setbacks for the storage shed were measured by staff during a site visit Y g i on December �ti 8, 1998. The Leonard Road right -of -way is 60 feet wide. The road in front of the storage shed is paved to onl ri eet wide. The shed is 28 feet from the edge of the pavement. Assuming the road was paved at the center of the right -of -way, the right -of -way extends another 20 feet beyond the edge of the pavement. Therefore, it was determined that the shed is actually eight (8) feet from the edge of the right -of -way, and hence the front property line. Staff measured the height of the shed to be 15 feet from grade. Section 15- 12.100(b) allows the Planning Commission to approve an accessory structure extending up to 15 feet if the Commission finds and de determines that: 1) Th V e additional height is necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure on the site; and 2) The accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. n fe ,-75 VARIANCE ANALYSIS Section 15- 70.060 of the City Code outlines the findings the Planning Commission must make in order to grant a Variance. These findings are: 1) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. 2) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zonin g district. 3) That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Page 3 000004 L ry c"'l- l.�-L �.v d r.g G11! U I licrJ2 Y �je ve y YL e 41- 4 1. c n c? :t Gt v,. File No. V -98 -011; 20651 Leonard Road Variance approval is the appropriate regulatory mechanism for this application as the storage shed constructed on the subject parcel does not meet the setbacks per Section 15- 12.090 of the City Code. Staff does not feel it can make all of the necessary findings to support this request. The topography,, of the subject parcel may limit where accessory buildings can be located, however, allowing structures inside setback areas is not a privilege enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. Staff feels that the granting of a Variance would constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the area. All parcels in residential districts in the City are subject to the same setback requirements per Section 15- 12.090 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. The noncompliance of the deck and gazebo with setback standards and the height of the gazebo could be rectified with the approval of a Variance, however, the same findings cannot be made by staff. There are no special circumstances about the property that would deprive the applicant of having a deck with the proper setbacks or a gazebo meeting the setback and height requirements. Staff believes that allowing these structures to remain would constitute a grant of special privilege to the applicant. The neighbor adjacent to the gazebo at 20681 Leonard Road has asked for landscaping to be planted between her pool and the gazebo (see letter of 12/16/98 from Starr Davis). If the Planning Commission decides to approve the Variance for the gazebo, staff will draft a Resolution with a condition requiring landscaping. GRADING No grading is has been done in relation the accessory structures. TREES No ordinance-protected trees have been P Arborist review was not required. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW Not required. CONCLUSION Staff feels it cannot make the necessary findings to support the Variance application. RECOMMENDATION Deny the application by adopting Resolution V -98 -011. Page 4 000005 t yvvr R ,-a.ee 2: d lite s f, ,tC-e,., ,e„ ✓4.c.P., e.:—e. (Q r:z� tt A /1 A I 1.n0 Ri(u-pf mac¢. 7" Gw, .r, ae„,,ca and o ff- ZZ.wt.,t. 0.--4.2:..... 0 0 :5--„A, 6 y a/ 11,2, 2 —j'l/�Pit.i ,-.4-, l li i. a 4 1,- c ,...1-- K .G 4-1 't'/.e Lrrt jet 7 Y 5 t (d GLM+ le_ /14t-At art a Id GJ q q,. t(o c%z-4 cz b.-2 .e yam. u 5 a u1 c, JJ f_. of SA l �..1_ 4 1 t't- (/i "4- Cr. cf '7t.^. .4.4t t s R,9 T m cr a r ,-ez.. 3 c' 041.-t .�,r.t 6� Sr 9 i...-se 41111111N 7 f tii 0 g7f 02 S A 0 A U0g 3 A r �.1r nee Q' 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 4U8) 868 ti FOO Tg ('OI'N('IL 1IEIIBEI:S. Sra^ 6c;:cs =a E. cc: Slat% 8 May 1998 Fu -Mei Loh 20651 Leonard Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mrs. Loh, I have reviewed your letter of May 3" and discussed the matter with the City Manager, the Code Enforcement Officer, Building Inspectors, and Planning Department staff who have been involved in your case. First let me say that I personally have sympathy for your health concerns and for your financial situation. More particularly, I am also sorry to hear of theffensive treatment vnnu report receivi from city staff members. I will return to that issue later in this letter, but I'd like to respond to your` other points first. lam sorry that you feel somehow "singled out" by the city for code rry Y g Y tY enforcement. It is indeed true that different parts of the city were built up earlier when zoning codes were more permissive. Any improvements built today are subject to current code requirements. Two such improvements on your property—the gate and the storage shed —are very clearly seen by anyone passing by. Because the work was still in progress on your q property, you were issuecistop work orders by a building inspector. Please be assured that when we discover similar potential violations of code on other properties, we act in exactly the same way. Your letter brings up several specific points in response to John Cook's letter to you. I'd like to address them individually. 000011 I .02 ro Z r .�'7',7"►^ b flam I _-6--r,,:r fL .r. ra..d 7ka. das 1; v cZ‘, s,, tr ove- .;2,. S -f,�c.- -e--rte i d'" 2 o r S o L f c3 c.,..,'..e ra..,ai c.. t cry var;'w.. r /Jte.“—e- .ee1 rte- .44.1.41" ,.1 n c ;„1-. —c -✓d J 5 tt .e.- d V11 Kn[_ 5 a'Gtn j; e,60 g. 4 42 S -ILL ;t /d� _fe .e. w ,,o-t C, -r ct-e n c d.e S r ....c -4., {.R S 05 <41..•_ G in 42 A) G racer..., i1.• ate- S 54A-°C b e c ,cc_. v� I'L, 5e 0, d ra.: *a°4A20,-w4f...4-.12- 71141:)Z- -Y A .41".‘- q �.r J r� S r d rc 'fit rye.. SsK t.• r.eC /vBA ducLr/ O-� -S i A„ -4 w., dr�-s O r WA Mrs. F. Loh May 8, 1998 Page 2 As for the gazebo,.Mr. Cook's letter states that,.you could bring that structure intocompliance either by-reducing its height and leaving it exactly where it is OR by applying for a Variance to keep it at its present location 6",,, a and height. This interpretation of the zoning code is correct. I see that you have submitted plans showing the gazebo at 10 feet in height, but our field measurements indicate that it is taller than th In your letter, you did not q o'. mention if you have reduced the gazebo's height. Please clarify. Ifni a been reduced to 10 feet or less, then the issue .will be resolved. Regarding your allowable floor area, your plans indicate that you reach the allowable 5,771 square feet when your residence and the small accessory building near your pool are added together. We found that this building is still on your property. The metal storage sheds you state were on your property were NOT indicated on your plans and were thus not included in the computation of allowable floor area. As the City Code states, allowable floor area is the sum of the main and all accessory structures. It is regrettable that when you built the addition on your house, there was no allowance for future additions of floor area. Unfortunately, only the Planning Commission may grant additional allowable floor area through the Variance process. I see that you have submitted a Variance application. If you wish to have the Planning Commission review this, you must also submit total fees of $1,750. (A check for $1,650 payable to the City of Saratoga plus $100 payable to the Saratoga Fire District. Both fees are non refundable). Otherwise, I regret to say that the structure will have to be removed immediately. As for the deck, the plans you submitted do not illustrate the full height of the deck. Mr. Cook': letter states correctly that the limit on the height of z. this structure. is 12 feet. Field inspection of your property showed that portions of the deck appear to be as tall as 15 feet in height. Please clarify. Again, if the height is reduced to 12 feet or less, then the issue will be resolved. Your letter did not mention any action you might have taken to bring the entry gates into compliance. A city representative will be visiting your property within the next 7 days to review the status of the projects described nnnnz 2 i Mrs. F. Loh May 8, 1998 Page 3 above. If you wish to go ahead with the Variance request, please submit the fees described above. I regret that there has been so much difficulty regarding these issues. I am truly sorry that you took offense of some comments by city staff. I have reviewed this letter with them. I must state, however, that many of these problems could have been avoided if you had come to the Planning and Building Departments prior to constructing any improvements. While I acknowledge your statement that you felt you didn't have enough time to speak to city staff, I am nevertheless obliged to administer the city ordinances as described in this and previous correspondence. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 868 -1232. Sincerely, altraA es Walgren Community Development Director Enclosure: April 7 letter to you from Planning Department c: Larry Perlin, City Manager 000013 J w f 1M Coy ri-4-k do cawy B etio 0-rd� s� .C"). CAC- CZA Ctja,..4_ fa...„1,3 tch.12_ c- awtw1; ss; O 2- d /J r may►.,, 04 y/ y9 x, �cee. .rcZvt 'g'� h 0 h .plCrn v ctl �-I h'► c t CIO p G h h et- G *vr.� .4o- r"..1. S`i°sKce rA c Mrs. Fu -mei Loh April 6, 1998 Page 3 V Deck: Again, this structure may not exceed 12 feet in height if it is outside of your required side yard (20 feet). It appears to exceed 12 feet in height and looks to be outside of your required side yard. If the height is reduced to 12 feet, you will not t need further Plannin Y _Commission or Plannm a rut as with the other structures on the property, PPov. but you are subject to tie approp_ riate Building Department fines and/or fees. As we discussed, you must decide within 30 days to apply for the planning approvals necessary to keep the structures as they are or substantially begin work on abating the violations discussed in this letter. Thirty days from today will be May 7, 1998, after which you will be subject to daily citations and fines from the Code Enforcement division unless these violations are being removed. During our conversations, you said that you did understand the violations you have incurred as a result of building all of these structures without benefit of permit or planning review. Should you have any further questions as q a result of this letter, please contact me at 868 -1231. Sincerely, John Cook Assistant Planner cc: James Walgren, Community Development Director Michael Riback, City Attorney Brad Lind, Senior Building Inspector Rebecca Spoulos, Code Enforcement Officer 000016 City of Saratoga Mr Mrs Donald S Perry Community Dev. Dept. 20615 Leonard Rd. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: James Walgren, Manager Re: V-98-011 (503 19-15 Loh, 20651 Leonard Road Dear Mr Walgren, We picked up our mail on Saturday, 12 -5-98 after being out of town for a week and found the reference variance request. We are totally against the violation of setbacks, as defined by the City of Saratoga. The licensed??? builder should be required to move the structures and rebuild them to code! If Saratoga accepts their approach to budding (no permits and illegal setba 9 then we can expect it to be cited as a precedent for the next set of violations! Sincerely yours, i;7 a ld SP Perry Mildred M Perry z it crl 7 t&/ old- s &AA 7; 01-(4.,_., a et br So --frti .1, ct ti) its cea 1, .p /4 r s o l S ti cr, ,gyp..' c1 •v, d e L+ .-/Z� s„r �C� __-/At S an-7 A4. k G n� nd DEC 0 7 19 9 8 r n pL4 NNli�G UEP �rNT 000025 t Saratoga Planning Commission, Regarding g g the Dec. 9th hearing case V- 98-011 (503 -19 -157) LOH, 20651 Leonard Road: We strongly oppose the approval of a variance to allow the building in the front yard and the gazebo structure. The building in front is much too dose to the street and disrupts the rural look of Leonard Road. It also seems to be a resting spot for all manner of scrap material and garbage. The gazebo is a monstrosity and ruins the view of all the houses downhill from it. These additions have been the talk of the neighborhood for some time now. Nobody is happy about them. Sincerely, ci� e lgil igg Criag Rachel g e Oreglia 20583 Leonard Road 5 K C-z -1' !:m wrn iawt d- (,,,e. t pec wrr�.e c:.ccessP, -y 1t LAY, ce n were -c-e- s 6 4 feT c. e a .-r�c �E 60n-t, •sew ro j d 4.,, -i `t-A- Y1 Po Ccs✓.. sc —e-A f JZCr,v J YQY,,. 00002G cc.(.ectf 1 7rO t -I Q. ;Az. c.l a�isf Y �m Q mt eo s rl V' LOS ALTOS SCHOOL DISTRICT GEORGINA P. BLACH SCHOOL 1120 COVINGTON ROAD LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA 94022 415/948.4427 EXT. 37 )1 I s qq r ‘14Y 1) 93; 1 151 Ltf# 14 Q4744 1/t.)° 1 1 1 97f 1 0 1 11L ID A %plc cot/Imo r 14/N1/1-13LE 17- Fic fkr I Ail did Rrco.t,c or A itcytorAk 611wSo CoAligkicribid- W-P0 LWoM 1.0 1 r E76790____IDFL -ridW citerrii+tritIcE3 "RV o ett p.0144e, ��s 1 4 a, i 2o7ai kowitilw Swevi, Ca- 767-cis" 000027 r Le a 61:K24( e 1 /0 6� 1--de to s ���y8 6, r, f. a c, a.44 f fS Gt m j kt 14 die .ti¢, r° y fri-fr, et-v./ v s fs• z the .As ce e t S x r v-rGw S o; c� �r.�..c )-Lea is her.e. z'i oCe CP r 1 10k •11La StlaaG�.� f2 ,Z=W_ 4-ste. (,2 ..GL2..t, La e t v b� y-f....- 17 4-4 A a-v G ,tiC.t 4 s tefi r a,► -,c L 1-4 Q 6 a c,F rn e IS eco"4 e c c et t;7u t r Sa �G.t ,i ib•C i o lt.Qtal Q- CGaYd� .vr.�1� C4 4i o f' i J c�' -t .ti, G„A,f .msrTfL uv, I2.44.1 e .4.e rit. GE r P 5tair ans. 44 20681 Leonard XQad, Saratoga, Chi 95070 408) 86T -44 December 16,1998 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear James Walgren, Community Development Manager, Regarding V -98 -011 (503 -19 -157) the Loh's request for Variance approval, I feel the area would be enhanced by following the setback allowance, which gives a country spacious feeling to the neighborhood. However, I wish to be a co- operative neighbor and do not strongly objectfathe storage shed. It is low in elevation on the property, which helps, as does the natural terra cotta roof, though the peach color does draw attention to it. Because only my property adjoins the Loh's, I have unique concerns for the gazebo in the back. I did not realize the structure encroached on the setback requirement until I received your notice and realized it is about®feet from the fence around our pool. It is very close to the steps into our swimming pool and takes away from our privacy (as does the new configuration of the house). There is a large Monterey Pine at the fence between our two properties. Previously it had a low branch which acted as a shield to our view of the upper addition to their house. In order to make room for the the gazebo, the Loh's cut the lower huge branch off and left an 7 foot 10" diameter limb stump (which is not healthy for the tree since it can't grow bark over this dead large limb). Also, there is a stack of old wood, windows and screens against the fence which are visible to us. The gazebo is white, increasing its conspicuousness. If the Loh's could andscape an_d maintain a shielding led Lto the gazebo setback. I do _ge, between ou pooh and t heir gazebo, I would not ob' not want a fence, but a 4' dense shrubbery to block the gazebo view. I also request that for the health of the large Monterey Pine, that it be trimmed to the trunk and professionally sealed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, 5f44t Zetve4' 000028 r i 5 I I r 4 I, tv I 4, ?p F p /ac; f /4 yok4- 1.� pct iL. 4 1 -4- Profossionallro Automata Iron Works Gates Stai N Bailin `c Do Guards ��IIIIIIII IIIIIIII�� i i 1 i C� Window Guards Fences Low Rates Quality Works Brick Pillars gee Estimates en Op 6 Days Efrain Garcia 153 W. San Carlos St. Owner 4 I.,N., 1 San Joss. CA 95126 Shop (408) 286 -5 ti:N .8 i .-.-...„,:,..z..."331,1°,,,•4401iiii :A illiPliP-------Al liej '4111.111111111.111141.1 raPJNAIIMN•-"l'___....„,„,o N 1 p C 5 w v p t f o t t. s i I t ic, (4 It i4 i i. N, I 4 1, 1 1.1 1 4 4t; it i I 4 j 11 I I I II I 11 1111 II I I I HH II lI' X 12' X 20' HEADER IH IHI IIH II H IHH IHHHHHHHHH H II 1111 II 1111 II 1111 II 1111 II 1111 II 1111 II 11111/7 CLG LN 11 Y_ I( I�� I l- -i-I 1 I �X FASCIA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11 11 1 1 11 11 11 11 1 1 _1 Q H Q I, x cy 12' -0' 1 -4' I In QT D Q Li CY Q 1 8' -0' Q U L7 Z 0 6 -9 z 0 Q El W 0 J 0 I L7 1n z o .Q l'= 1/4' NORTH ELEVATI ❑N N C I I 15' -0' 3 0 4' -0' I o N Cu— 22&s1 1 I 1 -°d I BIB IM I 14' -0' POTTING SHED I i I 10' -0' 3 3 PQTTDIG SHED O O N N c3 0 lbed MO (2)3O68SC 1 1 1 -4' -0' 5' -4' I 10' -8' 4040 SW I X1 I J Q r-., Q W Q Q U Z Z J Q O W WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION Z 1-i Q ■aamr.. NMI rM 11 PUTTING SNMD SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE AS SHOW -2 X 10 RIDGE -12 X 12 FTG TYP 6 F. J. 216' O. C. e zxbRJ o•a c.rYP 2 TYP MI 4' X 12' X 20' HEADER 1 lc 0 I Q o I 11.1 El itp Et--: gi CP CZ Q Q U 0 Z J 0 0 FI ---1 0 in Q o Q >-�(4 f i __Li II II I I AL ibilieshma Die I r�ras.. 1 FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN (14.1 DIAGRAM SCHEDULE II� DIED i ROOF= USE 1/2 PLYWOOD BLK CDX GROUP I W/. 8d L 6' O. C. e N FLOOR= USE 2 X6 X 14 W/ 16d a. SCALE AS SHOW i •;r F r.ni ■r A DOUBLE 2 -2 X 6 7 _DOUBLE STUD 2 -2X4 HEADER II i i► a lL DOUBLE TRIMMER a OPNG OVER 4' -0' DOUBLE TRIMMER DOUBLE 2X SILL 8 WINDOW 7 I DOUBLE STUD p J A o LA p o cr D 1=1 L 0 Q U 0 Z r---- Z p Q El W LD (n J p TYPICAL OPENING IN WOOD WALL F- I ..-4 I. o I-4 O Q ROOF EDGE NAILING ROOF SHEAT NG 2 X 6 BLOCKING OVERHANG FACIAL BD 2 X 6 MUD SILL (treaded) -v 1/2' SUBFLOOR SIMSON A35 BOLT 1/2 X 6' 4 X 10 MUD SILL (treaded) GIRDER SIMSON TIE 4X6 DBL 2 X 4 TOP 1 II EDGE NAILING c/ 2 X STUD a 16 O.C. s," ft0a• ant ll 12'X 12 PIER 1/2' BIDDING 0 t I 1 yrrrrr 11 =11 V II =11 X 11 =11 PQTTDGG SHED !NW �11 �1 it 11-11 11=11=11=11=11=11=11=11 "11Z-11.::11:-11.:11.:11-11-11 II 11 II 11 11 11 11 w IN. FOUNDATI ❑N SECTION X -X SCALE AS SHOW i i r *nod aft r LAP 1 X 6 RWD O h II V X 4 O PREFABRICATED tk 4•�ri•-.i��•• WI LETTICCE PANEL J •0 4 X 4 POST I....1 1 rk X 6 Ck 11.11.-4 A Si .t 1 czi LI ELEVATI ❑N SECTION 1 10•_0• 8 ►••••••••••••••••••4•••• 3 0 •••••••••••i••••• ii.A.• IN 0�' MI GAZEBO z it kg: 10 4.1 IMO N ELEVATION SECTION I CONCRETE FOOTING t• Ps~ Phis 1 49 X 6 JOIST r X 10 JOIST El n ZS O V in ON 4 X 4 POST e r L J ti Li tz; c 4' -2' N A 7-- '1..."."---,......r 0 i LI v v i ce El CI J L_J 4 7/ 12' -0' A h gyp. FOUNDATI ❑N FRAMING 0 4, 40 ile ti ilim -4 ♦P` a•rM•• ala A10,41 iiii 4 t 111 111 IIIII 't. q .rrrr.. X 4 POST GAZEBO s..._ 2 X 6 ROOF EDGE e"' 1 2 X 4 RAFTER ROOF FRAMING 9 ri 9 r •P 2 X 4 RAFTER TAIL 2 X 6 DECKING 1/8' APART WITH CURVE CUT X 6 JOIST 4 X 4 POST •NGER 2 X 6 JOIST NGLE SIMPS ❑N TIE O^ ..IIM.��IMMO MIME OMNI= I■1•1•1■11 O MIME MIMI In X 4 POST 1/2' BOLT WITH WASHER NL COUNTER SINK V 0' -8' POST ANCHOR 0 0 a. Z k. NC 6 .510' I O 2' -O' I J J LI ca RAFTER DETAIL a 12� t c ELEVATION SECTION 0 OF FOOTING 0 J K LI in PREFABRICATED 2 k0 LETTICCE PANEL a GAZEBO 4 2" j w r I i I, mm I.' r 1 :11 1 NI a Z cl Z ri rl I' NM= moo a a a a ti p ti ti MIm �m d ..ao 1 t 1.11 m 1 e` i r il j YI NG- TSONG /FU ME L OH 1 I 20651 LEONARD ROAD SARA TOGA, CA 95070 f r 0 12' -0' �..r lido /1 0 '_0• r 7 r '1 r 4' -0. 4'-0 p I �--L 1 1_ I I 1 IN -��J L_J L_ O in CA 10 I I III I I El I I a I L_J L;1 L_J L J Q V r -1 r r 1 o Q o 1 1. J I I I I o. 1 N I CI L J L_J L -J I 1 cL 'Tv -_-_.7 O ce i J ti A ZD L I •J J L Q ck "J L -J I L o e FOUNDATION FRAMING O W (1 J -2 X 6 JOIST, 2' O. C. 4 X 4 POST ON POURED 2 X 6 JOIST Nc CONCRETE F❑❑TING ti O r- 1 /1.1 -i r_ I l I I I N. J L_J L_ r r --1 r --1 r --1 I0I 1�1 I 0 I I Q I M. Illrrym or L J L_J L J L_J 1 I E r r� 1 DECK L_J L_J L__J MN rrIN= r -i r r -t r-1 101 1 a 1 101 I I L J L_J r I T r L J L_J l 1 I 1 ©1 I I L�J L_J L I0... r .—N,< 2 X 6 JOIST HEADER FOUNDATION FRAMING JOISTS �T❑ OTHER V JOISTS I a i 1%. 2 X 4 HAND RAILS r imel Mos ill. 4 X 4 POST BOLT TROUGH -THE JOIST HEADER BLOCKING BETWEEN JOIST AS NEEDED, TO SECURELY 2 X 6 FLOOR JOIST FASTEN 4 X 4 p X 6 DECKING POST CAPS 4 4 2 -2 X 6 BEAM O ONIIIMMIr I I I IIM I 1/i�;1 I o o u�iI1' X 4 BRACE V RAD 4 BY 4 POST PRESSURE WOOD tin TEEL POST ANCHORS O 11= llctl- II- II-= 11 =II =u- Cr 1 I11 =11 =41 1 G II 11 =11 =E- =11 11 =11 i- 11- POURED CONCRETE �l Q =u• n �u u n— it n -n I �11 11 =11=0 I PIER FOOTING u lu nui iii� i ni1 J -II_r :nu= a -n n- TWO 3 REINFORCING A i1= 11= 111 =11=n E il. :j1= 11= 11= II- II= II -II- W 11 Q 11= 11 =11 =11 =11 ;x/ BARS n 11 1 11- 11=11 =11� Ir n =1i =u =nom a =n a =u =11 a —u n= n= a =n =n =u a =nom t 11=11=I1=11=11=11= 1 1- 11 11 11 i1 11 1 ck 2 X 4 FOUNDATION FRAMING SECTION X -X 1 —11/111. -4. 2 X 2 O W 2' J r T X 4 POST Or X 6 FASCIA p o RI 1 /Mil �,l o' Will IIIIIIMIAII, II G II II I II II I V I 2' -0' -t. RAIL ING DETAILS k "rtI._H -o.n i�' FI I _rr- -0 DECK o -u =n- a =n =n= u ii Ir RADE n= 11= II =11 =1 1 F=11=11=1,=„ -11=11=11=11=1 .I_II= 11 =11- 11= 11 -11 =1 I 4, u= u= i_ n =11 =11 =1 u= 1 p n u= 1i =11 r nII; .1=11 p Mrr�r� em u° 74=.11.=.1411.71 n �y il-u= a n 11- /1 -oi i i.. n= u= �1 =1� =n :11=11=11=11=11=11=h- 11=11 =I1 =11= 11 II 1I =1I Nall 11 =11 =11 =11 =111 =11- 11 =11� :II= II'- 11 =1, Si, it -11 11 1111 =11 11- =11 1 0 n:11= 11= 11= 11= 11= 11 -711=11=11=11=11=11=11- 11- 1 1= 11- If =11 =11 II- .r N. f I' /Ira -O. or I A 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3 V I` AGENDA ITEM 6 MEETING DATE: MARCH 3, 1999 CITY MGR:. J/ ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: k u� I.. SUBJECT: Horseshoe Drive annexation to Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1; Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report and Adoption of Resolution of Intention Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to adopt the Resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report. 2. Move to adopt the Resolution of Intention. Report Summary: Attached are the next two Resolutions the Council must adopt to continue the process initiated on January 20 for annexing the Horseshoe Drive neighborhood to the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1. Briefly, the two Resolutions are: 1. A Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 1999 -2000 This is the Resolution required under Streets Highways Code Section 22623 which grants preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report for the annexation of the Horseshoe Drive neighborhood to the existing Assessment District. 2. A Resolution of Intention to order the levy and collection of assessments Fiscal Year 1999- 2000 This is the Resolution required under S &H Code Sec. 22624 which, among other things, fixes the date and time for the Public (Protest) Hearing on the annexation proposal. This is proposed for your April 21 meeting. Fiscal Impacts: These are noted in the Engineer's Report. For FY 99 -00, the preliminary proposed assessment for each property in the Horseshoe Drive neighborhood is $1,160 which will cover the full cost of constructing the neighborhood entryway landscape improvements along Highway 9, monthly landscape maintenance services thereafter through June of 2000, and incidental administrative and overhead expenses in connection with this project. In FY 00 -01, it is believed that the maximum assessment will drop to no more than $70 per parcel per year to cover ongoing maintenance and incidental costs. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: The property owners within the Horseshoe Drive neighborhood have been notified of the meeting via internal communications from the project working group. After your meeting, the Resolution of Intention will be published and mailed, along with a separate notice to each property owner informing them of the April 21 Public Hearing, and which will also include, 1) the ballot required under Proposition 218, 2) ballot instructions, and 3) another letter from the project working group (see attached). Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Resolutions would not be adopted and the annexation process would not continue. Follow Up Actions: The Resolution of Intention will be published and mailed along with the other required information and materials noted above. Attachments: 1. Resolutions (2). 2. Sample package to be mailed to property owners. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3 0) AGENDA ITEM I A. MEETING DATE March 3, 1999 CITY MANAGER: e/ f i, ORIGINATING DEPT. Comm. Dev. DEPT. HEAD: James Walgren, Dir. SUBJECT: Discussion regarding City Council position on future development at the Mt. Winery RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Direct staff regarding any additional actions the City Council feels the City should take towards monitoring the Mountain Winery property. REPORT SUMMARY: Please see attached memo. 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: Memo dated March 3, 1999 with attachments Community Development Department Memo To: City Council From: Community Development Directo Date: March 3, 1999 Re: Mountain Winery BACKGROUND The Mountain Winery, formerly the Paul Masson Mountain Winery, was developed as a winery and vineyards in approximately 1910. The entire property is 582 acres; the easternmost 75 acres of undeveloped land is in the City of Saratoga and the remaining land is in the County of Santa Clara. Use of the facility expanded in the 1950's to include new buildings and outdoor concerts and other visitor serving activities. The original, and now historic, Winery Building and other activity- related buildings are located in the County. These later activities have never been officially reviewed or approved by the County, whose staff has attempted for many years to "legalize" these activities through the Conditional Use Permit process. In 1991 a previous Mountain Winery owner did apply for the necessary CUP and a Draft EIR was prepared as required by CEQA. The owner, however, abandoned that effort and ultimately sold the property. In 1998 a new owner again initiated both legalizing the property and renovating and expanding the facility. Last summer City staff received a Notice of Preparation indicating that an EIR would again be prepared for the project and released by late 1999. The Draft EIR has not been released as expected as a result of the current owner not providing necessary project details and again the project has been put on hold. The attached letter from Mr. Hugh Graham, Principal Planner for the County of Santa Clara, to Mr. Ravi Kumra, current owner, notes that a status report on the project will be presented to the County Planning Commission on March 4, 1999. My telephone conversations with Mr. Graham have confirmed that the status of the project is "no- progress Also attached for reference are: The 1998 EIR NOP Project Description. This description provides a very useful overview of the property and its current and then proposed uses. Copies of City staff correspondence sent to the County in response to the 1998 EIR NOP. At this point, staff can only relay that nothing has progressed with the project since the attached correspondence was sent. If the project is pursued, the City will have an opportunity to review and comment on the specific project description and improvement plans and Draft EIR. CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORITY The 1991 project included a proposal to develop the 75 acres within the City with seven single family lots. As a result, the City was in position to work with the applicant at the time to have the entire 582 acres annexed to Saratoga. The Master Plan then was to build the seven homes, substantially redevelop the Mountain Winery facility with visitor serving uses, and dedicate the remaining approximately 350 acres of steep and wooded terrain as open space. This proposal was abandoned before the City ever had a chance to review it. The new project does not propose any development within the City boundary and only upgrade and renovation work to the existing Mountain Winery facility area. As a result, the City is not in a position to require the property to be annexed to the City. However, Santa Clara County planning staff is keenly aware of the City's interest in the property; while the active portion of the Mountain Winery is in the County, all of the noise, glare and traffic impacts generated by the concert series (in particular) are on Saratoga residents and streets. City staff will continue to monitor the application and if it is formally abandoned staff would encourage the City Council to recommend to the County that the Mountain Winery summer concert series be suspended until the property is at least brought into compliance with current County zoning standards through the CUP and CEQA review processes. RECOMMENDATION Direct staff regarding any additional actions the City Council feels the City should take towards monitoring the Mountain Winery property. County of Santa Clara t Environmental Resources ,Agency I'I�uu�in�; Office County Government center. Gast Wing. 7th Floor 70 West Hedding Street S San .l lose. Calilornia 951 1(} 1 705 1'�. L'. 1-3081 1-3081 299-2454 299-2454 FAN 279-85:37 :37 January 22, 1999 Ravi Kumra Mt. Winery 14831 Pierce Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: File# 3179, Status of Mt. Winery Use Permit Dear Mr. Kumra: This letter is written to address the status of your use permit application. At this time you have not yet submitted an application for a use permit or architecture and site approval. In a letter to you dated July 15, 1997 from Jaunell Waldo of this office, you were reminded of the need to submit a use permit application. That letter followed numerous other requests to move forward on your application. Without a valid use permit you may not continue the concert series at the Mountain Winery. As you know, the use permit application is necessary to confirm the project description in the EIR. Although work has occurred on the EIR using funds you provided on March 17, 1998, the consultant requires the project description and plans included in a use permit application to complete an administrative draft of the DEIR. Either myself or Michael Lopez of this office have met with or talked with Bart Kumra or other of your representatives a number of times in the fall of 1998. On at least two occasions, the representatives have been informed that the information they brought to the Planning office was inadequate. They were informed of the need to return with plans illustrating the entire project; including existing and proposed development, parking, water supply, septic areas and other pertinent information. Bart Kumra committed a number of times to submit a use permit application with the necessary plans in the early fall. Nothing has been received as of today. This office will be submitting a status report on your application at the March 4, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. A report to the Board of Supervisors Land Use committee will be made later that month. A complete use permit application is a prerequisite to the scheduling of the 1999 concert season. Permission to actually stage the concerts will depend on your cooperation in completing the DEIR, funding the Final EIR and bringing the use permit before the Planning Commission for action. If you have any questions about the fees or processing of this application, please feel free to contact Michael Lopez at (408) 299 -2454, extension 228. Brtdr(t of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage•. Blanca :\Ivitr:ulo. I'r'tc NIc T. Benll Jr.. S. Joseph Sintiti<in County Executive: Richard wittenberg Sincerely, Gh.S. Hugh raham Principal Planner cc. Leode Franklin Supervisor Joe Simitian ,Planning Commissioner Terry Trumbull /James Walgren, Community Development Director, City of Saratoga Valerie Young, CH2MHi11 Bart Kumra, Mountain Winery Daven Loomba, Mountain Winery James Lewis, County Counsel's Office Michael Lopez, Planning Manager Notice of Preparation Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: Agency Name County of Santa Clara Firm Name CH2M HILL Street Address 70 W. Heckling Street Street Address 2107 N. First St., Suite 210 City /State /Zip San Tose, CA 95110 City /State /Zip San Tose, CA 95131 Contact Taunell Waldo Contact Valerie Young, AICP Santa Clara County will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know your views and /or the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Public agencies may need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering permits or other approvals for the project. The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. An Initial Study was not prepared for this project; Santa Clara County determined that an EIR would be required. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Jaunell Waldo at the address show above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. You may call the County Planning Office at (408) 299 -2521 for more information. Project Title: Mountain Winery EIR Project Location: 14831 Pierce Road, Saratoga, CA 95070 Santa Clara Project Description: The project to be evaluated in the EIR is a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval for the concert series and other activities located at the Mountain Winery at 14831 Pierce Road in Saratoga, California. The concert series and other activities have been operating for about 40 years without benefit of a conditional use permit. The purpose of the project is to bring the Mountain Winery activities into compliance with Santa Clara County legal Conditional Use Permit. Scoping Meeting: A community scoping meeting will be held for the project on Wednesday, February 18, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Mountain Winery, 14831 Pierce Road, Saratoga, CA. The general public and agency representatives are invited to attend this meeting, at which information about the project and the CEQA process will be discussed. MOUNTAIN WINERY EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Description and Location l P The project to be evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Architectural and Site Approval (ASA) for the concert series and other activities at the Mountain Winery, located at 14831 Pierce Road in Saratoga, California. The Mountain Winery property is located in the western hillside area of Santa Clara County, above the City of Saratoga. Figure 1 shows the site's regional location, and Figure 2 shows the local vicinity. The entire Mountain Winery property consists of approximately 580 acres; approximately 75 acres are located within the city limits of the City of Saratoga, and the remaining acreage is under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. The facilities where the concert series and other activities occur are located on the portion of the property that is in Santa Clara County. The access road to the property initiates off of Pierce Road in the City of Saratoga, then enters property under the jurisdiction of the County. Figure 3 shows the approximate boundaries of the entire Mountain Winery property, with the jurisdictions of Santa Clara County and Saratoga highlighted, along with the general location of the building facilities and access road. The Winery building complex, parking lots, picnic areas, and access road /entry area comprise the approximate portion of the Winery property to be covered by the CUP and EIR. Background The original Mountain Winery (formerly known as the Paul Masson Mountain Winery) building was constructed in the 1910s; from that time to the present, numerous other structures have been built near the original Winery building, resulting in a centrally- located complex of buildings on the property that originally served Paul Masson's wine making operations. The Mountain Winery property was historically used for vineyards and wine making. Most of the vineyards were eventually removed, and the Winery building and surrounding complex became the site of a concert series in 1958. In addition to the concert series, the Mountain Winery has been used over the years as a center for cultural events, and for various types of receptions (including weddings), business meetings, and theatrical productions. From the late 1950s until the present, the concert series has grown such that at its peak in 1994 approximately 110 concerts were held, with seating for an average of 1,500 to 1,750 people per event. The concert series generally runs each year from late May through mid October, with concerts typically offered on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday evenings, and some Saturday /Sunday matinees. The evening performances typically begin between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m., and the matinees generally begin at 2:00 p.m. Music offerings include jazz, blues, country western, pop, folk, classical, and other theatrical and comedy performances. upgrade the seats and provide more permanent comfortable seating. The proposed increase in seats is anticipate to occur in phases starting with the 1999 concert series; the 1998 series would remain at approximately 1,750 seats. Improvements to the Winery building and other buildings are also proposed to meet current fire code requirements, and to better use the facility for business meetings, training sessions, seminars, wine tastings, social events, and benefit or charitable events. Retail sales ancillary to the concert series currently occur at the site, and will be expanded to include retail sales related to wine. The number of events per year, exdusive of the concert series, will be approximately 200, and the number of employees per event are estimated to range between 5 and 50. Attendance at non concert events is expected to vary based on the type of event, but may average 150 people at events such as weddings, and 250 -1,500 for special events. Physical Modifications or Improvements Several physical modifications and /or improvements are proposed as part of the CUP and ASA applications. These modifications /improvements include the following: Increase in parking spaces and improvements to parking lots; Modifications to the concert bowl to accommodate up to 2,500 seats; Improvements to the existing sanitary septic system and possible addition of restrooms; Additional pedestrian exit path from concert bowl; Emergency helicopter landing pad for fire fighting and emergency purposes only. Environmental Review Requirements The Santa Clara County Environmental Resources Agency has determined that, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an EIR shall be prepared for the project described above. Pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, following is a discussion of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project that will be evaluated in the EIR. Land Use Consistency of the project with current zoning and General Plan designations of the property will be described. Consistency of the project with other applicable local, regional, and state planning documents will also be discussed. Traffic and Circulation A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be prepared in accordance with County and Congestion Management Agency (CMA) requirements, and will be coordinated with input from the City of Saratoga. The potential impacts of the project on the following 10 intersections will be evaluated: Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Big Basin Way /Saratoga Avenue Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Pierce Road Pierce Road and Saratoga Heights Drive 3 139162.MWZZ RegMap.FH7 12/15/97(W) i' �i f w iy_ 1- �}d7�. ��i: 101 V III a irpr,A t 1 ,.....i.::... i r s� ��li \!J `i d i �Sl frr!Yi i Not To Scale w `a Lit !7 mod I iti. ,I1 t As miff 0 AL<A i ,v4,-V lri'^' LL ..,,,,,,„,,,,,,..4Z-,4 ,N 1 _i� Iii#, x 7 -:;-,7,,,,,,,,4 w .:0%.,-- ,....ffiit, .s n.. er ,„01.7 --(0 ,414-4 t, h N it s-.--,,,,e, 4 l' 7 1 ,F, ieAK t- 1 .e„,--;- r r 1'',4,..04 ,',,k. .4 r w s°. w 1 bl 1 i 4.;q° a -..sue 1 0 w w Z Project Site z, 8 a 1 —1 vAckii. t if", jo 1 7, 1 ilk 1 Mountain Winery ,i e -0.'' FIGURE 1 REGIONAL MAP MOUNTAIN WINERY CH2MHILL 139162.MW.ZZ PROPERTY.FH7 12/15/97(VY) foilil 'III N 1 Not To Scale Winery Building Complex F ,y9 WAY 1 tiF %9� 8 1 z cF N I 4- kt "7"""""."7 I 1/ /NTAGE LN L... I ASS NP- Gl I cONGR CONGRESS SPRINGS RD 9 To S FIGURE 3 WINERY PROPERTY MOUNTAIN WINERY CH2MHILL 04 S ARI X 0 T 1-1 A D A 0 g, et, 22160 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 11DJ O COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosran Paul E. Jacobs May 15, 1998 Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Donald L Wolfe Santa Clara County Environmental Resources Agency/Planning Office 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, California 95110 Attn: Jaunell Waldo RE: Mountain Winery Project Revisions Dear Ms. Waldo: On February 20, 1998, the City of Saratoga sent the attached response to the County's Notice of Preparation (NOP) on the Mountain Winery project. It has since come to the City's attention that the parameters of the project may exceed those identified in the NOP. At a recent luncheon with the property owner and his representatives, City officials were presented with much broader plans to comprehensively expand current Mountain Winery facilities and operations. For example, improvements to the Winery building are described in the NOP as being necessary to "better use the facility Discussions with the property owner seem to indicate that their objective is to substantially increase the number and size of group events the building can accommodate. We are concerned that the NOP, and the City's previous response, may no longer adequately describe the project and its impacts. Without seeing a revised project description identifying the total net intensification of Mountain Winery operations, it is difficult to speculate on additional impacts. At the least, the three issues identified in the City's previous response, i.e., light and glare, amplified sound, and traffic, would be intensified. A revised project description that compares the number and intensity of current Mountain Winery events, and visitors to the property, to what the property owner is anticipating is needed. If you have a revised project description, the City would appreciate the opportunity to review it. We will also review the Draft EIR when it is circulated for public comment, but thought that these issues are better addressed as early in the process as possible. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (408) 868 -1232. Sincerely, AI' CM es Walt. AICP Community Development Director P -,mced on recycled paper. -4 SAR„ A A 0 A Il11)603 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 February 20, 1998 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Santa Clara County Gillian Moran Environmental Resources Agency/Planning Office Jim Shaw 70 W. Hedding Street Donald L Wolfe San Jose, California 95110 Attention: Jaunell Waldo Subject: Mountain Winery Draft EIR Dear Ms. Waldo: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation for the EIR being prepared for the Mountain Winery above Saratoga. I have reviewed the scope of work outlined for the EIR and agree that it addresses the main issues of concern to Saratoga residents. For the record, I would request that the following specific issues be emphasized in the EIR: Light and Glare Nighttime illumination, and daytime glare from windows and bright wall surfaces, have a direct impact on residents. Amplified Sound In an area with a low ambient noise level, the amplified sound generated during the concert series can carry quite far. Traffic The proposed TIA evaluation of the traffic impacts on the 10 identified intersections in Saratoga is reasonable and adequate though the Hwy. 9/Fruitvale Ave. intersection should probably be included. Of greatest concern to most Saratoga residents will be the increased traffic along Saratoga Ave. and through the Village as a result of expanded seating. The 750 new seats could result in approximately 300 to 400 additional vehicles traveling through the Village during already peak Friday and Saturday evening hours. Again, thank you for the chance to comment on the Notice of Preparation. If you have any questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please feel free to call me at (408) 868 -1232. Sincerely, 1 o es Walgr AICP Community Development Manager I Printed on recycled paper.